2018-05-23 45 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment Bill 2018 1

Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:32 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill reduces the regulatory burden on the pathology sector without increasing the overall taxation burden. It amends the Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Act 2000 (the pathology tax act) to require the tax payable on the grant of an approval of an approved specimen collection centre (ACC) to be paid every two years. The pathology tax act imposes a tax on the grant of an approval, or renewal, of a pathology specimen collection centre. Medicare benefits can be claimed for pathology services provided using specimens collected at an ACC. The pathology tax act currently imposes a tax of $1,000 for an approval of renewal of an ACC granted for a period of one year. Under the current existing arrangements, existing ACCs must renew their registration and pay this tax every 12 months. As an interim measure, in 2016, the government agreed that all new ACCs may only be initially registered for a period of six months, with a $500 tax imposed. These ACCs can then be renewed annually. This requires pathology providers to complete application forms and pay the associated tax twice within a six-month period. The interim arrangements were put in place with support from the pathology sector pending the development of the suite of measures to strengthen compliance arrangements. This bill will, therefore, allow approvals to be granted for a two-year period and will see no increase to the tax imposed. In essence, instead of a $1,000 one-year process, it will become a $2,000 two-year process. This bill will, therefore, amend the existing pathology tax act to require the tax payable on the grant of an approval of an ACC to be amended from $1,000 annually to $2,000, to be paid two-yearly. This will assist in addressing regulatory burden by streamlining administrative processes that the pathology sector encounter with the current arrangements. The rate of the tax has not been changed since the act was enacted in 1999. After careful consideration the government has determined that there should be no increase to the tax at this time to ensure that smaller pathology providers are not negatively impacted. The department has been, and will continue to engage with key stakeholders prior to 1 July 2018 to advise of the amendment to the tax and the extension of the timeframe for new and renewed ACC applications, including reaffirming the key elements of the measure announced in the 2017-18 budget. The Health Insurance (Eligible Collection Centres) Approval Principles 2010 (the approval principles) set out the terms for approvals of ACCs. Currently ACC approvals are required by the approval principles to be renewed every 12 months. It is intended that the approval principles will be amended to extend ACC approval periods to two years to reflect amendments to the Pathology Tax Act. These changes will be welcomed by the pathology sector as it decreases the effort currently involved in annual ACC renewal. These amendments contribute to the implementation of the 2017-18 budget measure 'Pathology Approved Collection Centres—strengthening compliance', which includes new compliance arrangements, strengthening compliance activities related to prohibited practices by increased data collection and analysis; automation of applications, cancellations and renewals through the Health Professional Online Services (HPOS) of the Department of Human Services. These amendments further complement these compliance activities by extending and streamlining ACC approval periods from one to two years, with the tax adjusted from $1,000 each year to $2,000 every two years. In summary, this bill will reduce the regulatory burden of pathology providers and will not negatively impact smaller pathology providers as there is no increase to the financial component. The tax will be paid two yearly instead of annually. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018 2

Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:37 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2018 amends the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Dental Benefits Act 2008, and the National Health Act 1953, to implement measures announced in the 2017 budget to support the integrity of Medicare through improvements to the recovery arrangements for debts owed to the Commonwealth. These changes save $103.8 million over four years for reinvestment in Medicare. This bill also makes amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973to clarify that the jurisdiction of the Professional Services Review extends to corporate medical practices which contract rather than employ individual practitioners. The amendments are supported by the government's compacts with the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. I thank them for their help and support in the development of these amendments. These compacts reflect shared principles that support a stronger, sustainable health system, including improved compliance processes to ensure Medicare overpayments are detected and recovered. Compulsory offsetting and garnishee While the majority of practitioners—indeed, the overwhelming majority of Australia's extraordinary medical workforce—claim Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and dental benefits absolutely appropriately, a small number of practitioners do not. Amongst this small number, some claim incorrectly. Some are found by the Professional Services Review to have engaged in inappropriate practice or are found to have engaged in fraudulent claiming, and are required to make a repayment to the Commonwealth for incorrect claims. I repeat and reaffirm that not only do we have an outstanding medical workforce; we have an outstanding degree of integrity amongst that workforce—one of the best, if not the very best, in the world—and this is to deal with the very, very small number of outliers. However, only some practitioners who have a Medicare debt agree to enter into arrangements to repay that debt. Over $50 million in compliance debt is currently outstanding and some of these debts are worth over $1 million. Those that refuse to agree to a repayment arrangement are currently still able to claim benefits through Medicare, including receiving significant payments directly from the Commonwealth for bulk-billed services. These amendments will allow for future bulk-billed claims to be reduced or offset by up to 20 per cent, to repay their debt to the Commonwealth—of course, where there has been a proven incorrect claim, whether it is by inadvertence or by intention. For those practitioners who do not bulk-bill, the amendments will allow garnisheeing of other funds owed to the practitioner who holds the debt, including funds held in bank accounts and income from employers. An offset or garnishee arrangement will only apply if all rights for review have expired and the practitioner does not agree to a repayment plan within 90 days. These new arrangements will start on 1 July 2018. Indeed, it is my hope that the very fact of these new arrangements will mean that they do not have to be brought into action. These changes will ensure that more practitioners repay their debts, allowing this money to be reinvested in new services under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and new listings on the PBS to ensure Medicare continues to provide more support to Australian patients than ever before. No patients will be affected by these changes. This was a fundamental principle both of the government and of the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Where practitioners engage in inappropriate practice, or claim incorrectly, they are responsible for the repayment of any excess Medicare payments, even if the rebate was paid directly to the patient or the person who incurred the expense on their behalf. Improving the consistency of administrative arrangements across the three acts These amendments will reduce inconsistencies in record-keeping requirements among different professional groups. For the first time, allied health practitioners will face the same rules as doctors and be required to keep copies of referral documents for two years, and all practitioners will be required to keep copies of documents that were created as a condition of claiming the item. The bill also addresses an anomaly where pharmacists are required to keep copies of prescriptions but not to produce them to substantiate claims. Amendments will also apply compulsory administrative penalties on unpaid debts to dentists and pharmacists so they are treated the same as other Medicare practitioners. These changes will ensure that instances of suspected incorrect billing can be investigated properly and any overpayments can be identified. Anything claimed back will be reinvested as part of the increase of Medicare funding from approximately $25 billion to $26 billion to $27 billion to almost $29 billion over the course of the forward estimates on a per annum basis. Professional Services Review The Professional Services Review currently is able to review officers of organisations based on their influence over their employees' billing practices. Practitioners are increasingly employed as contractors. These amendments clarify that the jurisdiction of the PSR extends to officers of organisations that engage Medicare practitioners as contractors. Organisational billing The current legislation places all of the liability for Medicare claiming against an individual practitioner, except in clear cases of fraud. This reflects the old business model of single-doctor practices. However, in contemporary practice there has been an increase in the role of practices, corporate entities and hospitals in the billing of MBS services on behalf of individual practitioners. The amendments will introduce a scheme where, if there is an employment or other contractual relationship, the practitioner and their employer (or other related party) will each be responsible for the repayment of part of the compliance debt. This change represents a significant shift, moving to a fairer distribution of the responsibility for getting billing right, and is supported by key stakeholders, including the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, and again I thank them for their cooperation not just on the principle but also on the fine detail of implementation. These new shared debt recovery arrangements will start on 1 July 2019. This will allow further time for consultation on the detail of the proportions to apply to the practitioner and employing or contracting organisation, which will be set out in regulations. Ultimately, this follows from the government's agreements with the sector. This change has been strongly supported by the medical sector because it ensures that the vast bulk, the overwhelming majority, of extraordinarily capable Australian doctors and the medical workforce will be supported and that the very, very small number who have done the wrong thing, either inadvertently or intentionally, will have the responsibility to make redress. At the end of the day, though, what we are doing is ensuring that there is a long-term absolute guarantee about the future of Medicare and the PBS. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 3

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Second Reading 3 09:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to speak in support of the honourable member for McMahon's amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, and I do so because he's done a lot of hard work. Labor's done the hard work—the member for McMahon in particular—and as a result we are going to be able to deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Ten million working Australians will be better off under Labor's plan for a bigger, better income tax to support lower- and middle-income people, including, of course, all those Australian families, like those in my electorate of Solomon, in Darwin and Palmerston. I was in the chamber yesterday evening to listen to the debate, and I listened to both sides. The last speaker last night, the member for Fowler, spoke incredibly well about the difference that we have with those opposite when it comes to priorities—and budgets are about priorities. He also spoke about how workers in his electorate are going to be much better off. I concur with everything he said—in particular, the fact that Labor's bigger and better income tax plan is going to be of enormous advantage for low- and middle-income people, and it's going to be really good for those families struggling with bills. I contrast that with what one of those opposite said in the debate last night. I don't mean to single him out, but the member for Dunkley mentioned Wayne, a hairdresser in the member's electorate. He spoke about how Wayne would be $530 better off because he's paid about 50 grand per annum. But that's under the Liberal plan, which we support the first tranche of. Wayne, a hairdresser in the member's electorate, will be $530 better off per annum, but under Labor Wayne would be $928 better off. That's almost double. We were here in the chamber last night listening to those opposite trying to tell us that an $80 billion tax cut to corporate Australia is better for hairdressers like Wayne. Our bigger, better income tax would mean that Wayne would have hundreds of extra dollars in his pocket, and that money would circulate back through the economy, because that's what happens when you invest in lower and middle-income working Australians. Seventy-six per cent of taxpayers in my electorate of Solomon are going to be better off under our bigger and better income tax plan—76 per cent. That's extremely helpful for those families struggling with the cost of living, who would be $928 better off. If you're a young person working in my electorate, in Darwin or Palmerston, you might even be able to afford a one-way airfare from Darwin down to Melbourne. We're trying to work on the airlines and get them to perhaps stop gouging us as much as they are, and we've started a Fair Fares campaign to that effect. But you can see how helpful $928 would be to someone who's living in a regional or rural area of Australia. I don't know how the National Party sleeps at night. I've got no idea. How can you stand by when $17 billion is going to be given to the banks who are ripping off your farmers, the farmers that you say that you represent? Seventeen billion dollars to the banks! Then they take us back through time and say the GFC never happened. Well, the taxpayers of Australia supported the banks and guaranteed the banks during the GFC, and what was the thanks that the Australian taxpayers got for that? Rip-offs and rorts until this Prime Minister was forced, because the banks asked him, to start a royal commission. This Prime Minister was forced to start a royal commission, so now we're starting to see, through that royal commission, what behaviours are happening. Those are the priorities of those opposite. They want to give $17 billion in corporate tax cuts to the banks. Where is that money better spent? We believe in educating Australians and putting it into our schools. That's what we believe. That's what our priorities are on this side. Seventy-six per cent of taxpayers in Solomon are going to be better off. A glassie on Mitchell Street—Mitchell Street is this great strip in Darwin, with pubs and restaurants—who is going around being friendly to patrons, having a great time and picking up glasses is going to be $770 better off under Labor than they are now. We don't have as many backpackers as we used to have, because unfortunately those opposite brought in a backpacker tax that scared a lot of them away, but because we have such an amazing tourism experience in Darwin I'm happy to say that the backpackers are coming back. The glassies will be better off. A grade 4 bus driver taking his mates from a work site back home safely will be $508 better off under our bigger and better income tax plan. A senior constable working in the soon-to-be-built Palmerston police station will be $928 better off under Labor. Those opposite talk a lot about law and order. We're supporting the people who serve us in the community and enforce the law. We're supporting them by giving them an income tax cut that is almost double the one from those opposite. As for first responders, a fully qualified paramedic will be $665 better off. People who are out there saving lives on the front line are the ones that we support, not the big banks. The big banks are making record profits. They'll be all right. They're shutting branches and making record profits. They don't need a $17 billion tax cut. Those opposite believe they do. The policeman on the beat, the paramedic and the senior firefighter fighting fires and putting his or her life at risk will be $928 better off under our plan. That's where our priorities are. An intern at the new hospital at Palmerston—a project supported by both sides of politics—will be $928 better off under Labor. A teacher on $65,000 a year will also be $928 better off. A principal will also get income tax assistance through our plan. A principal at one of our fantastic schools in Solomon will still be better off—$140 better off—under Labor. And a junior leader with the Australian Army, based in Darwin, who may have done a couple of tours overseas serving our country, will be better off. Those opposite want to give a $17 billion tax handout—some tax relief—to those corporate banks that are struggling! We want to give it to the junior army leader in my electorate, because they're a young guy or girl who is serving our country, may have kids and may be struggling with the costs of living. That's who we want to support. Budgets are all about priorities. On average, nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital will be $928 better off under Labor. The reason that I have gone through some examples of working Australians in my electorate and pointed out how they'll be better off under our bigger and better income tax plan is that it proves where our priorities are, and that is on lower and middle income Australians—those people who are serving us, those people who are working in retail. I listened to the government speakers in a completely objective way. I listened to what they said and tried to see if it fitted with the actions in the budget. The conclusion that any reasonable person would come to is that their priorities are aimed at the top end of town, not at lower and middle-income people. They're out of touch. The member for Barker said that our side of politics was talking down trickle-down economics. Yes, we were. Yes, we do. We do talk down trickle-down economics, because it was discredited in the eighties and it's never worked in one country, ever. If there is one, point it out to me. Yes, we are talking down trickle-down economics. The idea that those opposite want you to believe, that they're going to help out corporate Australia when corporate Australia is having record profits—it's a good thing it's having record profits, but does it need an $80 billion handout at the expense of working Australians like the people in my electorate? We say our priorities are with lower and middle income working Australians. We need real reform of the banking system, not a $17 billion handout to the banks. We have done the hard work to deliver these bigger, better and fairer tax cuts. I commend the shadow Treasurer, the shadow finance minister and all those who are supporting hardworking Australians. They're making the tough decisions because we want our priorities in government to support working Australians, and that means putting money back into our schools and into our hospitals. I hope that those listening can see, with a couple of clear examples, that this budget is a con job. It fails the fairness test at every level. Pensioners are also losing out. In the time remaining, I want those listening to put their own fairness test over this. Pensioners are losing out. They are losing $14 a fortnight. We should be caring for those who cared for us. We should be supporting those who grew us up, who built this country. And they're taking money off pensioners to give to banks? What does that say about the priorities of those opposite? I don't know whether many of those opposite did manual labour in their life. I'm a former soldier; I worked hard. My body has paid a bit of a price for it, but I tell you what, in my electorate there are people building our city. They're working hard, physically hard work, in the tropics. And they say: 'Why would a Prime Minister make us work until we're 70? Why would he increase the pension age so that I've got to work until I'm 70? I've been paying taxes my whole working life. I've been building this nation, building our community, raising a family. Why would he want me to work until I'm 70?' They don't see it as fair. Those opposite claim to be the superior financial managers. Net debt's doubled to more than $350 billion under the stewardship of those opposite. They like to pretend there wasn't a global financial crisis when this side of politics supported working Australians and kept us out of a recession. Those opposite like to believe that never happened, but I can tell you it did. The member for Lilley and those that were in this place at the time worked to support working Australians. That's what the member for Maribyrnong is doing right now. That is the reason our Leader of the Opposition has put forward with his team—the member for McMahon and others—these amendments that I support strongly. I support the shadow Treasurer because we have our priorities right on this side of the chamber—that is, a bigger and better income tax plan for working Australians, almost double that of those opposite. Those opposite need to have a hard look at themselves and bring fairness back to this country. 10:01 Mr GEE 261393 Calare It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, which ushers in tax relief for millions of hardworking Australians. I'll touch upon the opposition's position towards the end of my speech to the House. Suffice to say, if those opposite ever get control of the Treasury benches and the keys to the Treasury, it will be an economic shambles in this country, and I think most Australians know it. They have long memories. They remember the days of Rudd and the Rudd money and the shambolic economic management of the opposition. They have absolutely no economic credibility; it's all smoke and mirrors over there on the opposition benches. They are essentially economic charlatans. It is with pleasure that I rise to support this government bill, the measures of which have been very well received not only in central western New South Wales but right across Australia. They are all about helping Australians get their hard-earned money by giving it back to them and putting it back in their pockets, rather than penalising them, stifling their effort and stifling their enterprise, which is what those opposite benches specialise in. With personal income tax accounting for over half the Commonwealth government's tax revenue, it's important to get this issue right and make sure that our hardworking Australians are not overtaxed and not prevented from getting ahead through unduly high taxes or by seeing the gains that they are able to make eroded through issues like bracket creep, which is a constant issue facing Australians. As we've heard, the government's plan is a three-step plan, and I'll briefly touch upon those three steps. After that, we'll focus our attention on the opposition. Step 1 of the tax plan is to provide immediate relief to low- and middle-income earners. The government is providing relief to earners of up to $530 in 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 through these targeted tax offsets. Those earning up to $37,000 who face a 19 per cent tax rate will have their tax reduced by $200. This will increase incrementally for those earning between $37,000 and $48,000. The maximum offset of $530 will be available to taxpayers earning between $48,000 and $90,000. Then this benefit gradually reduces at a taxable income of just over $125,000. This is going to assist over 10 million Australians, including those on average full-time earnings receiving the $530 benefit. The benefit of the offset will be received as a lump sum on assessment after individuals lodge their tax returns. This offset is in addition to the low income tax offset. This targeted approach will ensure tax relief goes to middle- and low-income earners, where it's needed. In terms of protecting against bracket creep, from 1 July the government will provide a tax cut of up to $135 per year to around three million people by increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. This will prevent around 200,000 Australians from paying tax at the 37 per cent marginal tax rate. And then from 1 July 2022 the government will lock in the tax relief from the new offset by increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket from $37,000 to $41,000, providing tax relief of up to $540 per year, and increase the low income tax offset from $445 to $645. This change to the 19 per cent bracket will prevent around half a million Australians from paying tax at the 32.5 per cent marginal tax rate in 2022-23. In addition, the government will provide tax relief of up to $1,350 year by increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent bracket from $90,000 to $120,000 from 1 July 2022. This measure is projected to prevent around 1.8 million taxpayers from facing the 37 per cent tax rate in 2022-23 due to wages growth and bracket creep. How do those tax measures affect folks on the ground in electorates across Australia? Those measures will help over 61,000 taxpayers in the central west of New South Wales, in the Calare electorate, benefit from low- and-middle-income tax relief in 2018-19. For example, if you're a worker on $50,000, you'll get an extra $530 in your pocket from the budget year onwards and an extra $3,700-odd in your pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. If you're on, say, $88,000, you'll immediately get $575 and you'll get an extra $4,000 over the course of seven years. These are substantial savings which will make a real difference to the lives of everyday Australians. A person on $75,000 a year will get a $530 tax offset straightaway and then over $3,700 in their pocket over the first seven years of the plan—and so it goes on. These are real tax relief measures that are going to help put money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. The third phase of the plan is basically about making personal taxes simpler and flatter. In 2024-25 the government will simplify and flatten the personal tax system by abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket entirely—this is substantial reform—and Australians earning more than $41,000 will only pay 32.5 cents in the dollar all the way up to the top marginal tax threshold, which will be adjusted to $200,000. As a result of these measures, around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent, or less, in 2024-25 compared to 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 under the current settings. These are very substantial reforms and they will make a real difference on the ground. Australia already has relatively high rates of tax, cutting in at relatively low levels of income compared with other countries. So it is important that we undertake this tax reform. Australia's top marginal tax rate cuts in at around 2.2 times average full-time earnings compared with four times average full-time earnings in Canada and the UK and 8.8 times average full-time earnings in the US. Without change, Australia's ratio is projected to drop to around 1.7, reducing our international competitiveness and our ability to attract and retain talent. Under the government's plan, the ratio will fall more modestly to around 1.9. This is a very substantial tax relief package. It is aimed to help folks on the ground in Australia, including low- and middle-income earners. You've got to compare those tax relief measures to what is being proposed by the opposition. I mean, they come into this House and, honestly, on one level you have to admire the front—folks, it is all smoke and mirrors. They are aiming to grab $200 billion from some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Let's take a look at Labor's retiree tax. That's $10.7 billion over the four-year budget forward estimates but it's going to be a lot more over the decade. What they're aiming to do is snatch money back from retirees. That's what they're doing. These retirees are people who've worked their whole lives, who've given to Australia, who've made their plans and now, in their most vulnerable time, these older Australians are going to be hit very hard. It's starting to bite, I think. The opposition, they've got some by-elections coming up, and you can see in question time that their heads are a little bit down because they know that they've got some real problems in this area. The cat was belled recently in a very good article in The Australian on 13 March which reported on the Self Managed Super Fund Association chief, John Maroney's, comments. It makes for salutary reading for folks on the opposition benches. He says: It is our contention that this proposal will affect more than one million Australians saving for their retirement and other purposes. Our calculations show it will cut about $5000 of income from the median SMSF retiree earning about $50,000 a year in pension income. To be saying these people won’t be paying any more tax is just semantics. The article goes on to say: Mr Maroney said the hit on retirement incomes was clearly "not just affecting the very wealthy and can substantially damage the lifestyles of retirees who have prudently saved and are carefully drawing down on their retirement savings." He also stated: Viewing all SMSFs as belonging to the mega-rich is an over simplification. I think he's got it dead right. Those pensioners and retirees will be affected by this tax grab from their income. You know, the chickens are going to come home to roost and they may come home sooner than the opposition expect. On top of that, you have Labor's housing tax, a $20 billion tax on mum-and-dad investors through Labor's plan to abolish negative gearing for established homes. Again, this is not something that just affects wealthy people. One-in-five police officers negatively gear as do 50,000 teachers. Small businesses negatively gear. As the Treasurer said recently, more than 60 per cent of people on incomes less than the average wage negatively gear so a lot of these measures have not been thought out. You've got Labor's investment tax—that's $13 billion. That's the tax increase in capital gains tax for all assets by 50 per cent by halving the CGT amount. This is on all assets. It hits every investment and will hurt productivity and the living standards of all Australians. The taxes, they just keep on rolling in. Labor's tax return tax is a $1.5 billion tax, courtesy of Labor's proposal to slap a $3,000 cap on the amount individuals can deduct for managing their tax. Then you have Labor's higher income tax—a $22 billion tax on wages, courtesy of Labor's plan to re-impose the deficit levy The taxes keep coming thick and fast. Don't be fooled by the economic charlatans on the opposition benches. Taxes are coming if the opposition ever regain the Treasury benches in this country and they're going to hurt some of the most vulnerable Australians. You look at Labor's family business tax—a $22 billion tax on family businesses, with Labor planning to impose a 30 per cent tax rate on distributions from discretionary trusts. This will hurt family businesses, particularly those in regional areas, where the variables of the weather year to year can impact on cash flow and income—and it's not just on farms. These families use trusts legitimately to spread income between beneficiaries to assist in flexibly managing their affairs. Then, of course, you've got Labor's savings tax. This is $25 billion worth of new taxes on your superannuation savings, lowering the annual non-concessional contributions cap to $75,000, lowering the high-income super contribution threshold to $200,000, reversing the introduction of catch-up concessional contributions and reversing changes to tax deductibility for personal contributions. The taxes just keep on coming. Who can forget the Labor tradie tax? This is Labor's change to tax deductibility for the 800,000 people who are self-employed. Finally, you've got Labor's growth tax, imposing higher taxes on business earnings. This is a $59 billion tax on Australian businesses, courtesy of Labor's plan to reverse the Australian government's enterprise tax plan. They continue to deceive Australians about reversing the tax cuts that have already been legislated for 3.2 million businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million. The new taxes are coming, and I warn all Australians that those opposite can't be trusted. You look at their economic management—their management, full stop, has a long and sorry record, from the pink batts fiasco to the Building the Education Revolution fiasco, where overpriced school buildings were constructed by out-of-town builders. You look at the Rudd money fiasco, where money was literally shovelled out of the backs of trucks. They are an economic shambles over there, but I commend the fiscal responsibility of the government. (Time expired) 10:16 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I follow the member for Calare, and I remind him that it was under Prime Minister Rudd that we avoided the global financial crisis because of the very measures that he was running down. When it comes to vulnerable Australians, I'm glad the minister is still in the chamber. I spoke to the member for Bruce yesterday, and, if anyone's attacking vulnerable Australians, it is the government. There is a gentleman in his electorate who is eligible for the age pension, and it's taken 12 months for that pension to be approved. So let's not be fooled by the member for Calare's comments. I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for McMahon to the second reading motion of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, for the following reasons. What the Treasurer and the Prime Minister expect us to do in relation to this budget—of course, the hallmark of the budget being the company tax reduction and the Personal Income Tax Plan—is to take a leap of faith when it comes to these plans and to this budget. The expectation is unacceptable not only to the opposition but to the Australian public. Despite repeated questions to the Treasurer over the past few days in question time, the true costings are still unclear. The Treasurer refuses to provide those costings for 2018, 2022 and, particularly, 2024. The leap of faith I'm talking about is for the government to fully implement its proposed tax plan. We have to go through three election cycles before it can be fully implemented, and I think that is a mark of arrogance and a mark of, as I said, the leap of faith expected of the Australian people, who will be so affected by this. Labor have said repeatedly we will support the government's measures to begin on 1 July this year—the component of this bill that is geared towards relieving low- and middle-income earners. We know, as the government knows, if we provide tax cuts to these groups of people, that the money will be spent and it will benefit the economy enormously. That is one of the main reasons that Labor have said that we will support the first tranche of the tax cuts, for 2018. But the stubbornness of the government and, in particular, the Treasurer, in refusing to split the bill so that we can support the first tranche of tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners, is just mind-boggling. I suspect that if The Australian newspaper is correct in what it has on its front page this morning then the tax plan is pretty much in tatters, and I suspect there's a fair bit of scrambling going on at the moment within the government. The intransigence of the government in not splitting the bill is really a slap in the face to those people that would benefit from tax cuts in 2018. The measures that I am speaking about in the bill are to introduce low- and middle-income tax offsets—a non-refundable tax offset of up to $530 per year for taxpayers earning up to $125,000—and to increase the threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. However, as I said, the government is refusing to split the bill. The reality is that the government is holding low- and middle-income earners hostage by sticking these cuts to cuts for high-income earners. We find that completely unacceptable. I suspect that the logic and the thinking of government members would find it unacceptable as well, but that is what has been hung around the government's neck. According to the government, the total cost of those cuts would be $13 billion over the forward estimates and $140 billion over the medium term. We need more information on the rest of the proposal. As I've said, we've been asking the government to explain the numbers in parliament, and there is a ridiculous refusal to do so, and people are not going to find that acceptable. Last week the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its wages data, which completely threw into doubt the government's overly optimistic wage growth forecast and casts doubts over the government's budget forecast. The government is, as we know, married to its company tax cuts, and we know that that will benefit not the needy but the people and companies—some of them overseas companies and some of them banks—that need it the least. Honestly, it is clear that in this budget the government is not only getting the proposals wrong but getting the narrative wrong too. Once again, a leap of faith is expected through to 2024. The nonsense of that to everyone is: who knows what the economic conditions will be globally in 2024? We are being asked to take that leap of faith and to assume that the global economic conditions will be favourable from now through to 2024, and there is no guarantee of that, of course. The government is locking in policy commitments that don't come into force for seven years, and that is unacceptable when we talk about the tax plans in the government's budget. The reality is that low- and middle-income earners are not the priority of this government. We understand that. This government is more preoccupied, as I said, with the company tax cuts. Labor's plan will deliver larger and fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians, and we've made that very clear. With Labor, someone earning $80,000 a year will receive a tax cut of almost a thousand dollars a year. That's $398 better than the Liberals' policy. As has been articulated, a teacher on $65,000 will receive a tax cut of almost a thousand dollars a year. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively will receive a tax cut close to $2,000 a year. Labor will support the government's measures that begin on 1 July, as I've said, and a Shorten Labor government will deliver larger tax cuts from 1 July 2019. With Labor there are more substantial tax cuts than with the Liberals, and that means schools, hospitals and pensioners will be better off. Our plan—which is costed, I stress, by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office—will be $5.8 billion over the forward estimates. Labor can deliver larger tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners, and that is where, as we know, it will benefit the economy the most. It is clear from the government's budget that it's priority is not low- and middle-income earners. The plan's studies have said that up to 20 per cent of income earners will see the largest percentage increase in their income tax cut. The government's plan will create a less progressive and more inequitable tax system, and that is surely not what this country needs. The government says it can afford an $80 billion tax cut for big business and a $17 billion handout to the banks, which is part of the $80 billion. Our argument is that that is not appropriate and that where that funding should go is to funding the things that people rely on—things like health, education and supporting people on pensions. Of course, the government is also being seen to be cutting the energy supplement to pensioners by $14 a fortnight and forcing people to keep working until they're 70. I think the member for Solomon articulated that very well. That might sound fine for people who have jobs that aren't demanding on their bodies, but to expect a construction worker or a shearer to work to 70 is a nonsense. The government must surely realise that. The government has even placed a freeze on Medicare rebates for specialists. The truth is that this government simply does not get it and is out of touch, whether they argue the toss or not. Under this government, the cost of living will increase. Workers in retail, food and accommodation industries stand to lose up to $77 a week. Families and pensioners are paying $20 a week more, or $1,000 a year, for private health insurance. We know childcare costs have increased dramatically. Also, the record cost to see a GP, particularly one who doesn't bulk-bill, is increasing. There is unemployment, and that is trending upwards, despite the government's rhetoric in relation to how many jobs have supposedly been created. We know that wage increases are not keeping up with inflation, and we know that very clearly. People out there in the community know that. People know that they are struggling to pay their bills, which are increasing while their wages are not. We also know that public sector wages grew by 0.5 per cent in the quarter and 2.3 per cent over the year. This is lower growth than in the last quarter. I will finish in the next four or five minutes by summarising what I also wanted to put on the record. Despite the rhetoric from the government, real wages continue to stagnate and ordinary Australians—people out there whom we serve—continue to struggle to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of living. We only have to look at our power bills to understand that. Wages growth is barely above inflation, and we are hearing some horrific revelations from the royal commission into banking and financial services, yet the government persists with the nonsense of an $80 billion tax break to big business, and, as I have said, $17 billion of that will go to the banks. I will finish up by pointing out that in Human Services, the portfolio that I have responsibility for, we are seeing the burden of balancing the budget placed on schools and hospitals and also on Australians who require income support. While the government has been dragged kicking and screaming to the royal commission, we are seeing the pursuit of innocent Australians for false and inflated Centrelink debts. I have said on numerous occasions that if there is fraudulent behaviour then, of course, any government has the right to pursue and recoup that money. But, in many cases—and we know that in the robo-debt debacle it was 20,000 cases—Australians were accused of owing Centrelink money when they in fact did not owe any money or owed much less than the debt articulated. We've heard horror stories from vulnerable income support recipients who received harassing and threatening correspondence from debt collection agencies sent out by the government. We've heard shocking reports about the government's issuing of inaccurate and unlawful debt notices. We've also heard of Centrelink making errors, like overpaying people over a period of months and even years, despite the fact that those people were trying to point out to Centrelink that there was a problem. We've heard those stories over and over again. Meanwhile, the government has taken an axe to Centrelink jobs, slashing 1,200 in this year's budget and 1,180 in last year's budget. Centrelink is understaffed and under-resourced; we understand that. I finish up by saying to the government: split the bill. Split the bill, and we will support that first tranche of tax cuts. You will have to split the bill invariably, so stop being so intransigent about it. The issue out there in the community is that tax is complex. Many people find it difficult to understand the facts and the figures, but what the community understands very well indeed—and every member of this House also understands it, because the community is telling us this—is that the company tax cuts the government is proposing are unacceptable. It's unacceptable because of the flat wages growth and it's unacceptable because the government is refusing to split this bill and get tax relief to those that need it most urgently, low- and middle-income earners. I do not understand the government's tactics, and I suspect that the government's tactics are unravelling at a rate that is very, very fast. 10:31 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I'd like to start off where the previous speaker, the member for Barton, finished. She talked about intransigence, and there is intransigence, but it's by the Australian Labor Party and their opposition to the government's tax reform proposals. It's quite clear why that's the case. While they talk about the tax system being complex, as the previous member being did, it's because they don't actually understand what the point of a tax system is. More importantly, the tax system is complex—that's true—and that's part of its problem, and that is what the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 is seeking to address. This budget and much of the tax relief proposals before us are built on three pillars. The first pillar is one of responsibility. Responsibility, because it provides for the budget to finally be returned to surplus. The Labor legacy of debts and deficits accruing, which has been almost intractable for our government, is now coming to an end. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Instead of waiting and delaying, as our political opponents have done, we are not just finally bringing a point of surplus together, credibly, but actually bringing it forward so that we can start to pay down the debt of the Commonwealth. The second pillar is, of course, security to make sure that people who are in a vulnerable stage of life get the support and assistance that they need. That comes through our support for mental health packages and support for people who are vulnerable throughout different stages of life, and our increase in support for people in aged care to make sure that they have dignity and choice as they enter the latter stages of their lives. But you can only deliver that sense of security and support if you actually have (1) a strong economy and (2) the means to deliver it, and by delivering a responsible budget you can also deliver a secure one. Critically, and most importantly, the third pillar of this budget is one of opportunity—opportunity for all Australians to be able to realise their ambitions and their dreams. Critical at the heart of that is the tax relief proposal put forward by this government in this budget. It builds on the principle that I started with earlier: if you don't have a responsible budget that manages the finances of the nation in a measured and considerate way, if you don't have a responsible budget that recognises that government has to live within their means and if you don't have a responsible budget that recognises that we cannot imperil generations of the future to pay for our lifestyle today, you cannot deliver a budget that also delivers opportunity—opportunity for every Australian to be able to choose how they live their lives and to be able to make choices about how they want to secure their own futures. That's what the tax relief proposals in this budget are about. They're about removing the complexity that seems to be loved and enjoyed by those opposite, including the member who just spoke, the member for Barton. They love and indulge in the fact that people can find ways to minimise their taxation obligations and love the fact that people see a huge discrepancy between tax arrangements so that the well off and the privileged are able to organise their affairs in their own interests and against their obligations to society. That's what complexity delivers, a worse outcome for every Australian, a worse outcome for government revenue and a worse outcome for taxpayers except for the select and privileged few. The core of the tax relief proposal that is being put forward to this parliament is to remove one of those prongs of complexity, particularly to change the structure of the income tax base so that those people who are in the middle class and low- and middle-income earners pay less contribution towards the tax system, so that they don't have the dead hand of government and the tax system sneak up on them and touch them on the shoulder just as they seek to achieve more in their careers and achieve more in increasing their incomes and helping to secure the position of their families. We're doing that, particularly by changing the tax rate so that for the middle income tax rate of 32½ per cent the threshold goes from $87,000 to $90,000. That will reduce taxes by up to $135 a year for taxpayers earning above $87,000. From 2022-23, the top threshold, the 32.5 per cent bracket will be further increased from $90,000 to $120,000, making sure that more and more middle-income-earning Australians will never contribute more than a third of their income in income tax. The top threshold in the 19 per cent bracket will also be increased, from $37,000 to $41,000. Meaning low-income earners, those who put the effort into making sure that they can secure their income—sometimes part-time workers, many women—will have tax relief as well. The low- and middle-income tax offset will be replaced by increasing the low-income tax offset from $445 to $645. The increase in the low-income tax offset and increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket will guarantee the benefit of every part of the tax proposal that's been put forward and legislated for already. Critically, and more importantly, the next stage of the tax reform proposal will be to flatten the tax system to take the entirety of the Australian middle class into one tax bracket where they will not pay more than 32.5 per cent, or more than a third of their income in income tax. If you want to dismiss this proposal and the proposal being put forward by the government, you are turning around to every mum, every dad, every person and every professional who believes in their capacity and their ingenuity to support themselves and their families and saying, 'You are not contributing enough to the burden of the nation and you should be paying more than a third of your income to the tax system.' You are saying to all those mums and dads and professionals and small business people and those who are making a wicket and making a go so they do not have to be dependent on others that they must make a greater contribution to the affairs of the nation and that more than a third of their income, more than 33 cents in the dollar that they earn, should be going to support the people in this place, rather than going out there and making sure that they can earn their income, keep it and make their choices and decisions about how they are going to secure the future of their family and community. That's why, from the 2024-25 income year, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket, will be further increased from $120,000 to $200,000, completely removing the 37 per cent tax bracket and simplifying the personal income tax system. This will mean that people will stay in the same tax bracket over their entire working life. The top marginal rate of 45 per cent will remain but only after incomes reach more than $200,000. So under this progressive tax plan we will see the middle class paying the same tax rate. Lower income earners will be paying a lesser rate and high-income earners, after they earn more than $200,000, will be paying a higher rate. But, critically, we will be supporting those families and those individuals to get their support and assistance. These changes will mean that around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32½ per cent or less in 2024-25. This compares with the projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 under the current policy setting, which shows you that the plan the government has put forward is one focused on people, focused on families and focused on Australians who want to put their own position and their own security at the fore, who want to make sure they enjoy the dividends and rewards of earned work and effort so that they can provide for their families. It's about understanding that the tax system, by its complexity, is undermining the future opportunity of this great nation, because sitting at the heart of this great nation isn't the opportunity of unleashing the power of bureaucracies, as our opponents would like, and it's not sitting at the heart of Canberra and its capacity to be able to overgovern and overregulate our lives; it's where people come together and form families as the foundation of community and nationhood, and through their freedom and choice they are able to support themselves and the community around them. This is a plan to support Australia being governed from the citizen up and the family up rather than Canberra down. The more we move towards this trajectory the more we are going to profoundly empower the average Australians to be able to live their lives and their dreams without burdening them too heavily on the obligations they have towards the rest of the country. But, critically and more importantly, what this tax plan does is start to address the deep imbalance in our tax system. The government's tax plan reduces the dependence on income tax, which critically hits so many young and working and aspirational Australians. When more than 70 per cent of the revenue that comes into the federal government's coffers comes from income tax and hits critically within a short period of life—mostly between the ages of 35 and 55—what you're indulging, as we are presently, is a tax system that takes from the young and aspirational who have not yet had their go, principally to reward those who have. If you look at who pays tax, holds wealth and consumes the benefits of the tax system, there is no alignment. We must make sure that we provide a legal framework and a tax environment that supports the workers of the future, so that when they're going through the process of getting married—and thankfully we can now say that every family has that opportunity—we have a tax system where working people are not overburdened while they're trying to save to buy their own home. It's about the foundational principles of people being able to live large lives beyond themselves and that they will not be asked to carry the vast majority of the burden of the nation. Instead, we are going to recognise that they too have a right to be able to aspire to and achieve their own dreams and enjoy the benefits of the tax relief that is being put forward by this country. I'm not going to try to pretend that this is the end of the tax reform that I would like to see. I would like to see a concrete plan into the future to address the intergenerational theft that often exists at the heart of our tax system, where some people pay while other people enjoy the benefit without any recognition of the obligations of everybody who sits in this society. But that plan and that solution does not come from those who sit on the opposition benches, because those who sit on the opposition benches are only interested in fiddling at the margins. They're only interested in working around the system to try and reward their own friends, their own mates and the tax system and target the people who do not vote for them. Their position is not one anchored on a sense of justice in society but, instead, appealing to voting blocks and bases in the hope that they can make their way from the opposition benches into the government ones. It is a plan that is fundamentally unjust and does not respect reward for effort or understand the contribution and the effort that people have made to make themselves independent of the welfare system. We believe strongly in making sure that people who have earned income and saved for their future are able to have a degree of security without having grabs and focuses designed to achieve populist political objectives. Dr Leigh BU8 You're just repeating yourself. Mr TIM WILSON IMW It's pretty easy to keep repeating yourself when you guys don't listen. The opposition benches don't actually understand the serious consequences of their policy framework. They don't understand that the consequences of what they are putting forward will do nothing to address housing affordability moving forward. It will have no effect in trying to improve the opportunity for younger Australians when all their objective is to hit some people so they can redistribute wealth to other parts of the community to achieve their broader political objectives. They're not actually focused on the future of this country and what we need—to continue being a liberal democracy, to have an investment in society built on ownership and responsibility, to have a society that recognises that aspirational entrepreneurialism is something to be celebrated and to be recognised. Those who have worked hard and secured reward for their effort should have recognition and respect for that effort. That's what we need to achieve in this country, that's not what is being put forward by our opponents and that is precisely what is being achieved in the government's tax relief proposal before us today—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill. It is the beginning of a journey to build a better stronger liberal democracy for our great nation. 10:46 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. There are two tax plans that are before the Australian people today. There's the Turnbull government's plan to provide an $80 billion tax cut to big businesses and then there is Labor's plan to oppose this because we believe that this money could be better used to pay down debt, and to invest in apprentices, hospitals and Medicare. There is the government's plan to give $17 billion to the disgraced and ashamed big banks in this country—a $17 billion tax cut—and then there is Labor's plan which sees the obscenity in giving the same amount of money to the big banks as this government has cut from school funding in its first two budgets. We believe that this money can be better spent on schools and teachers than on paying bonuses to bank managers. We think the money, $17 billion, would be better spent on the education system than it would be on paying more bonuses to bank managers. The member for Goldstein, in a display of tedium and repetition, asked the question rhetorically to this chamber: 'What will Labor spend the money on?' Well, I can tell him, in my electorate today, there are schools where there are over 115 temporary classrooms, where kids are being crammed into spaces that are not fit for purpose. There are schools that cannot afford to pay for the additional resources to educate those students, particularly in struggling areas. So when the member for Goldstein and other members opposite say, 'What would Labor do with the money?' I would point to those schools. I would point to the TAFEs and the universities, where students are prohibited from joining up because they cannot afford to pay the prohibitive upfront costs. There are two plans for tax in this country. There is a plan to change our progressive income tax system so a person on $40,000 a year would pay the same rate of tax as a person on $190,000 a year. This would be achieved by this bill by lifting the 37 per cent threshold from $90,000 to $120,000 a year from 1 July 2020, and by removing the 30 per cent bracket and lifting the top threshold from $180,000 to $200,000 a year on 1 July 2024. We don't think it's fair to introduce a tax system which has a person earning $40,000 a year on exactly the same tax rate as somebody who is earning $190,000 a year. We also oppose it because the plan is unfunded. Its inner workings are so secret that the Treasurer has refused time and time and time again to provide any costings or any modellings to the people who are today being asked to vote upon this legislation. We estimate that the cost of this proposal could be as much as $80 billion over the six years from 2022-23 out to 2027-28. But the vast majority of workers will receive no benefit from these top-end tax cuts. Overall, the government's plan sees 62 per cent of the benefits flowing to the top 20 per cent of income earners over that seven-year period. It's worth repeating: 62 per cent of the benefits flow to the top 20 per cent of income earners over that seven-year period. I can understand why the member for Goldstein is so enthusiastic about this proposition, but I could not see why the member for New England, who is in the chamber today, or any of those other National Party members would stick their hand up and vote for such a proposition. When you look at the geographic distribution of taxpayers, it is true that there are many of those income earners on salaries of over $200,000 a year, and the majority of them are clustered in electorates such as those represented by the Prime Minister, the member for Goldstein, the foreign minister and the Treasurer, but they aren't represented so well in those regional electorates such that I represent or such that the National Party traditionally represents. So I can understand why some members of the government would be voting in favour of those propositions, because they will advantage some of the electors within their electorates. But in the place I come from and, indeed, the place you come from, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, these taxpayers will not see the benefit. If you care about inequality, and if you care about the growing inequality in this country, Deputy Speaker, then you'll have grave concerns about the propositions contained within this bill, and you will vote in favour of the member for McMahon's second reading amendment. Very high income earners are taking a larger share of the income earned. In fact, over the last 30 years, the top one per cent of income earners' share of income has more than doubled, from 4½ per cent to nine per cent, and the top 0.1 per cent has seen an almost fourfold increase in their share of total income. Wealth inequality—the gap is growing even further. The wealthiest 10 families in Australia own approximately as much as the poorest four million Australians. The wealthiest 10 families own as much as the poorest four million Australians. The top 20 per cent own 62.5 per cent of all net worth of all households. The top 20 per cent own 97.7 per cent of net financial assets. So if you care about the fact that inequality is growing in this country, one of the most effective levers that a government has to address growing inequality is to ensure that we have some capacity to redistribute and to reinvest in the things that are going to help us address growing inequality: investing in education, investing in health and investing in economic infrastructure. Labor has a plan to deliver lower taxes for the majority of working Australians. In fact, our plan will ensure that 10 million working Australians will receive a decent tax cut. Those who earn up to $125,000 a year will pay, on average, less tax under the Labor tax plan than under that proposed in this bill by the Turnbull government. More than four million people will get a tax cut of nearly $930 a year. A teacher, for example, earning $65,000 a year would receive a tax cut of nearly $930 a year. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 a year respectively would receive a tax cut combined of $1,855 a year. So there are two tax plans put before the Australian people: one which enables us to invest in the services that Australians expect and which enables us to give nearly 10 million ordinary working Australians a fair tax cut; and the other, which delivers the overwhelmingly majority of benefits to the big end of town. Of course, we're not just talking about income tax. There are two plans. There is the government's plan to continue subsidising property speculation and investment while turning its back on the growing number of people who are homeless and locked out of the rental market, let alone able to dream about owning their own home. Then, in contrast to that, there is Labor's plan, which says that we should not give preference to a person who is buying their second, third, fourth or fifth property over somebody who is struggling to rent a home or to buy their first property. Our plan to remove negative gearing from houses which don't add to the stock of available rental properties will save the budget $2 billion over the forward estimates and $37 billion over 10 years and will put downward pressure on property prices, enabling more Australian families to realise their dream of home ownership. Then there is a plan around the abuse of discretionary trusts. Discretionary trusts are used by individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liability, because income from a trust can be apportioned to beneficiaries on a discretionary basis. This practice of income splitting through discretionary trusts is used most frequently by wealthy Australians to minimise their tax. In fact, if you look at what has happened with the use of discretionary trusts since the early 1990s, there has been an increase to over 642,000 discretionary trusts in Australia today. Income splitting through the use of these discretionary trusts allows high-income Australians to avoid paying the marginal tax rate that applies to every other one of us. We believe that we can no longer afford this. Access to discretionary trusts and income splitting is generally only available to wealthier Australians that have been able to accumulate a passive investment such as shares and properties. In contrast, low- and middle-income earners who go to work and struggle to pay their weekly bills typically do not have large passive investments outside their superannuation accounts, nor do they have the resources to pay boutique tax advisers to enable them to set up such elaborate structures. Our plan to remove the abuse of discretionary trusts will save the budget over $4.1 billion over the forward estimates. That is more money, which will enable us to invest in schools, universities, apprentices, hospitals and education. There are also two plans when it comes to dividend imputation. There's the government's plan to continue the absurd practice of providing an income tax return through dividend imputation credits, even though a person pays no income tax. This would cost the budget approximately $8 billion a year over the next 10 years. In contrast to that, there's Labor's plan that says that we are the only country in the world that does this, that this is unaffordable and that money saved could be better used to provide better services for aged care and to improve schooling for the young. So, when you compare Labor's fair plan, which will provide a better tax cut for over 10 million working Australians, to the propositions put forward in this bill around income tax, when you compare Labor's plan to the unaffordable, uncosted, unfunded $80 billion worth of corporate tax cuts, including $17 billion to the disgraced and ashamed big banks, when you compare our plans around dividend imputation, capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing in the property market to those on offer, you have a contrast between a party which wants to govern for the majority and for the public interest and a party which is governing for the big end of town and making short-term decisions to get it from here to the next election but which has no plan to deal with the fiscal problems it has created and no plan to deal with the big challenges around aged care, health care, the future of our education system and how to invest in training the next generation of apprentices so that we don't have to import skilled trades people into this country year on year instead of training our own. So this bill is not just about tax. This bill is about how we address inequality, how we create the revenue stream which is going to enable us to provide the services and the infrastructure that Australians expect a reasonably performing federal government to deliver on. That is why we must support the amendment which has been moved by the member for McMahon to split the bill and enable us to give fair tax relief from 1 July to low- and middle-income earners while ensuring that we are not forced to vote on a bill or part of a bill which is unfunded and, on its face, provides unfair tax relief to wealthy Australians which we cannot afford. With those comments, I commend the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon and I call on all members opposite to do the same. 11:00 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 and I commend this legislation to the House. As I've previously said in my contributions to the debate on the appropriation bills before the House, and also in a matter of public importance debate, I strongly endorse this budget and the work of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on our plan for a strong economy. As we've heard in this debate, the Australian economy continues to strengthen and is shaking off the downturn in mining investment. Under our economic plan, jobs are being created, investment is rising and the budget is strengthening. This budget is about building on that plan to ensure the benefits of stronger economic growth can continue to be shared and secured so we can keep guaranteeing the essential services Australians and their families rely on like Medicare, schools and hospitals. But there's no doubt that, while the economy is continuing to strengthen and the budget position is improving, many people in my electorate on the Central Coast are experiencing cost-of-living pressures. I hear a lot from individuals across my electorate about the costs of living, and that's why I rise today to support this bill. Plain and simple, it will deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes for nearly 60,000 middle- and low-income earners in my electorate of Robertson. It is the first priority of the government's seven-year plan to make personal income tax in Australia lower, fairer and simpler. This fully funded tax relief, achieved while bringing the budget back into balance, will target low- and middle-income earners first, help ensure that income earned by Australians is protected from bracket creep and make personal taxes simpler and flatter over the next seven years. Low- and middle-income workers in my electorate of Robertson will under this plan receive tax relief of up to $530 per year. Under this plan, by 2024-25 around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent, or less, compared with 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged. When I'm out in places like Saratoga, Erina or Umina Beach, I hear responses to our budget measures from local residents. Elizabeth, from Gosford, welcomed the tax changes and said they give more flexibility to individuals and families. Jenny, from Narara, said she thought the budget was very good, especially our plan for financial support for families in the form of tax relief. Robyn and Richard, from Hardys Bay, tell me tax cuts are always welcome for any taxpayer. Bob, from Kincumber, said the move towards a flatter tax is great. This bill is going to benefit hardworking Australians in my electorate like Elizabeth, Jenny, Robyn, Richard and Bob. Like our plan for a stronger economy this bill is carefully laid out, with tax relief for Australians being delivered in three steps. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech our plan will mean that individuals will be able to take on additional work, seek advancement and put in the extra hours knowing that their extra income from their hard work will remain with them and that a higher proportion will not go to the government in higher taxes. Our plan will deliver a personal income tax system that is lower, fairer and simpler, consistent with our values as a government. The plan will be delivered in three steps. Firstly, it will provide tax relief to low- and middle-income earners first; secondly, it will protect what Australians earn from bracket creep; and, thirdly, it will ensure that Australians pay less tax by making personal taxes simpler and flatter. This is the money of hardworking Australians, including people on the Central Coast. It's not the government's money, although members opposite seem to think otherwise. Hardworking Australians like those in my electorate of Robertson have earnt this money, and they deserve more of it back in their pockets. Working Australians don't need the government of the day telling them how to spend their money. They need a government that is on their side, and that is exactly what this plan demonstrates. This government has outlined a clear plan for tax relief for hardworking Australians, and it's a plan that's affordable and simple. I'd like to speak briefly in some more detail about these measures. Step 1 of this bill will start permanent tax relief by introducing the low- and middle-income tax offset. This is a new, non-refundable tax offset for the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years. The offset will assist over 10 million Australians, with a maximum benefit of $530 being provided to around 4.4 million taxpayers. Nearly 60,000 people in my electorate of Robertson who are low- and middle-income earners will benefit from this plan. Importantly, this major tax relief will not be clawed back by other tax increases, nor increases to the Medicare levy, which I'm pleased to see will remain unchanged, nor will it be funded by putting a higher tax burden on others. For example, a high school teacher in Ettalong Beach 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 Kincumber 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. A hairdresser in Erina on $50,000 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, as the tax relief increases. These are funds that will help more local families pay their electricity bills, fill the car up with petrol on the long commute to Sydney or Newcastle, or pay for the school textbooks for their kids. The second step is about providing hardworking Australians with certainty about their future and combating bracket creep. It will provide certainty for the many working Australians that they will face the same tax rate over the span of their working lives. It's making sure that a nurse at Gosford Hospital or a barista at a cafe in Kariong can take extra shifts or earn more knowing that their wages won't get eaten up by higher tax rates. Hardworking Australians who have earnt a pay rise or have taken on extra hours at work should be able to keep more of their money, not pay more tax because of bracket creep. From 1 July 2018, the top threshold for the 32.5 per cent income tax bracket will be increased from $87,000 to $90,000, reducing taxes by up to $135 for taxpayers earning over $87,000. From 2022-23, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent bracket will be further increased from $90,000 to $120,000 and the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000. Step 3 of the plan will make the personal tax system simply and flatter. From the 2024-25 income year, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be further increased from $120,000 to $200,000, completely removing the 37 per cent tax bracket, simplifying the personal income tax system and reducing the number of tax brackets from five to four. This will mean that people may stay in the same tax bracket over their working lives. The top marginal rate of 45 per cent will remain, but only after their incomes reach more than $200,000. These changes will mean that around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024-25. This compares with a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 under current settings. There's been some speculation about the way this government has gone about this plan, but I believe that by legislating this as a package we are delivering the commitment and certainty that families want when they go to work. They don't want the Labor Party or any government in the future putting their hands deep in their pockets and ripping out their hard-earned money. Sadly, it's exactly this approach that Labor appear to be taking with their plan. Labor's retirement or retiree tax has the potential to hurt retirees and low-income earners by abolishing tax refunds for share dividends. Labor's tax grab means 875,000 individuals and self-managed super funds will pay tax twice on what they earn from their savings. This includes more than half a million Australians on taxable incomes of less than $18,200, which is simply not fair. I'd like to share just one example from Julie in Terrigal, who wrote to me about why our tax plan is stronger than the tax plan of those opposite. These are Julie's words. She said: My husband and I married in 1971, we both left school at 14 years old (1963 and 1965) and we both had jobs to go to immediately. My husband has worked exceptionally hard all his life, mostly in the construction industry (and mostly six days a week) and is still working 6 days a week now at almost 69 years of age paying all our taxes along the way and never once asking the Government for one single cent our entire lives. A few years ago we got serious about making a financial plan to set ourselves up for retirement, part of that plan was to buy shares that would pay us a Franked Dividend during our retirement, a retirement that hopefully will commence later this year. We could in no way be classed as wealthy, our share portfolio amounts to $450,000 and when we combine that with our superannuation of around $400,000, it means that we belong to that unfortunate group of people who will have saved just a little too much to qualify for any sort of pension. Labor's plan to abolish the Franking Credits Refunds, if they are elected, will mean we'll receive even less income, but still not qualify for any pension. We'd be punished for making ourselves Self Funded Retirees. That would be a very disappointing outcome for two people who have worked hard all their lives, took the initiative to make a financial plan to support their retirement only then to have the rules changed yet again. I know when speaking with my friends, (some of whom are also self-funded retirees) don't fully understand the huge impact this is going to have on their retirement incomes.) To Julie, I say: thank you for sharing your story with me. You are being hurt. I'd like to end by saying that this budget represents the sixth successive update where the underlying cash balance is projected to reach surplus in 2020-21. Through sustainable budget management, for the first time in a decade, the government is no longer borrowing to pay for everyday expenses, and it's thanks to this responsible economic management that I can confidently back the measures in this bill on behalf of the people of the Central coast. I commend this bill to the House. 11:13 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I'd like to be able to explain to the House and my constituents in the electorate of Bruce what impact the government's proposals have on my electorate, who will benefit from the changes proposed to taxation in this country in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, who wins, who loses, how my electorate and community may fare relative to other electorates, and how the various components of this very complex proposal, to be implemented over the next seven years, actually impact on people—and by 'impact' I don't mean inane anecdotes about alleged correspondence from people called Julie, Elizabeth, Bob and Sally; we never hear about any Mohammeds, Vikrams or people from non-English speaking backgrounds in these comparisons I hear from those opposite. I don't mean the inane anecdotes; I mean the grown-up distributional impacts in a longitudinal sense that you might expect if we're debating a bill to spend $140 billion. It seems like a reasonable kind of question, but I can't tell my electorate what this means. Indeed, no member of this parliament can honestly report back to their electorate what it means in terms of impacts for their community vis-a-vis other communities around the country, because it's actually impossible to do so from the information provided to the parliament. The government won't tell us. The cost to the budget of this bill over the forward estimates is $13 billion, and the cost in the medium term, we're told, is $140 billion, but that's all we know about the impact. They're big numbers—kind of important, I would have thought. Australians, I would think, would expect us to do our jobs as parliamentarians, scrutinising legislation and proposals thoughtfully and looking at the impacts. It's not as if—despite some of the nonsense we heard at the end of the previous member's speech—the mob opposite have done a great job with the budget. The context for this $140 billion is important. You used to hear about the 'debt and deficit disaster' and the 'debt trucks'. You don't hear much about that anymore. It's funny, because there was a debt and deficit disaster when Labor was in government, according to the now government, but they've made the budget worse, and you don't hear that. We now have the best global economic conditions for over a decade. Yet, despite that, net debt for this coming year is double what it was when the Liberals came to office. Gross debt has now crashed through half a trillion dollars on their watch, for the first time in Australia's history, and will remain well above half a trillion dollars every year for the next decade. Both types of debt, net debt and gross debt, are growing faster under the current government than under the previous Labor government, which had a global financial crisis to contend with. I have to hand it to those opposite: they do have luck. If you looked back from the time of Federation to now and picked one decade where you'd just go, 'Wow, I'd really want to be in government in that decade,' you would have picked the decade of the Howard government. Our terms of trade were the best they've ever been. Revenue was pouring in faster than you could spend it. They do have luck. We had a global financial crisis. We sorted that out. We responded to it. Now this government has the best economic conditions in a decade. Yet, despite that, the deficit is 6½ times bigger than it predicted in its first horror budget. We hear a lot about how you've got to live within your means, not much about the means to live, properly funding Medicare or schools, universities or infrastructure, preparing the nation for the future. But it's okay, despite all of this fiscal context, to run in here and try to rush through a bill that spends $140 billion, because the government's in political trouble and the vultures are circling for the Prime Minister. They've tried everything else. We heard there was going to be adult government. I would have thought that adult government was introducing a tax bill and being able to explain what the cost, year by year, of the different measures would be. That would be grown-up government, to my mind. But not when you're in political trouble. You press the panic button. You rush in and go: 'Tax cuts, everyone! Tax cuts! Trust us. Stick with us for seven years. In seven years, you might get a bigger tax cut.' You'd think that even the worst of the boneheads opposite would agree with that fiscal context and that parliamentarians should be able to consider the detail and the impacts of legislation that shells out $140 billion. But, no, the government are hiding the truth from people, trying to con Australians and blackmail this parliament by rushing through this bill without proper scrutiny. In my view, oppositions in a Westminster parliamentary system such as ours have two critical primary functions above all else. One is to properly scrutinise on behalf of the people we represent and on behalf of all Australians, doing our job as an opposition. Yes, we'd rather be over there. You change the country for the better through being in government—or at least we would. But your job as an opposition is to properly scrutinise what those people sitting over there, the government, put forward. You can't do that if you don't have the information. The other responsibility of an opposition, of course, is to propose alternatives so that, when we come to an election, there's a clear, costed, credible alternative for people to choose. I'm proud of the job we're doing on both fronts. But we do need the information to do our job. You have to provide the information to the parliament, if you have any respect for the institution, so both sides can do their jobs. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are unable, unwilling or deliberately hiding the facts and the figures. They simply will not admit the cost, year by year, of each of the measures. We asked them in question time—no answers. Senators have asked the Treasury this week for this information: a year-by-year breakdown of the tranches' individual components. We've also asked for a breakdown of the impact by gender and by electorate and for other important information so we can do our job. The government, when you look at it, is a complete farce—there's one silly stunt after another. This is not adult government. What have you got to hide? What possible reasons could there be for not providing this information which is entirely normal and reasonable. It could be that you don't have it. This could be a big call—I'm going to say something nice—but, even I don't believe you're so incompetent that you'd rush in here trying to spend $140 billion— A government member interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 No, no, I mean that, I do. But, actually, as a safety net: I do not believe the Treasury is so incompetent that they wouldn't have briefed you with the detail at least. So you've got it somewhere. We have to believe you have this somewhere. It might be in the dispatch box over there. Maybe it's in a filing cabinet, who knows? The Prime Minister might be hiding it under the mattress at home. The other possibility is you're just unwilling, obstinate and disrespectful and it's another one of your silly tactics and stunts: 'We'll get Labor to vote against the tax cut bill. That'll be good on TV. We won't tell them what's in it—we'll just get them to vote—and then we'll say, "They don't like tax cuts."' That's entirely possible, and it's part of the political tactic. But my belief is you're deliberately hiding the information, because if the detail comes out then the tax plan will be exposed for the con that it appears to be. This is the government's latest plan, and the word 'latest' is important. We can't forget that until a few weeks ago the government's personal tax plan was to increase taxes on everyone earning between about $21,000 and $180,000. Indeed, in the last budget the only people in the country to get a tax cut were those earning over $180,000. They've had quite a few tax plans. They were going to jack up the GST. That didn't last long. Then there was that brilliant moment of state based income taxes. That was good. They went in 1942; let's bring them back. There are company tax cuts of $80 billion. I know, I said the number '80'. It's a number the Prime Minister just cannot bring himself to say in here. What's the cost of the company tax cuts, legislated and unlegislated, over the 10 years? We think the answer is 80 when you glue it together, but the Prime Minister just can't bring himself to say it—80 seems to be the hardest word. This is the latest tax plan; we'll see how long it lasts. We'll have to count them in dog years for them to have any credibility in a temporal sense, really. So on 1 July, apparently, this bill will see the introduction of a low- and middle-income tax offset—a non-refundable tax offset—of up to $530 a year for taxpayers earning up to $125,000 and an increase in the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. We're good with that—a bipartisan moment, hurrah! Let's do it. We could split this bill and vote on it today. Lock it in, Eddie. Give us certainty. We've been upfront from the start, since budget night, when you announced this. We said, 'Yep, we'll back that. Bring the legislation in and we'll vote on it and move on. It's costed, it's clear, it's fair, it's affordable and it's in the forward estimates. We can understand what we're dealing with.' The government could do that today. As for the rest of the plan—a plan that costs $13 billion over four years and $140 billion over the medium term and that has a whole lot of complex measures—we want to examine it. As I said, that's our scrutiny role. The alternative, of course, is putting forward alternatives for people to choose from. We've said—Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said in the budget reply speech—that Labor will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts. If we're doing three-word slogans, that's our three-word slogan. You had 'lower, fairer, simpler'—we'll touch on 'fairer' in a moment. We will deliver bigger, better, fairer tax cuts for $10 million working Australians. In this instance, size does matter. The difference is clear, and Australians can decide what to do with it. Labor's tax refund for working Australians increases the tax cuts currently being offered under the government's tax offset proposal. As I said, we'll support the measures that begin on 1 July this year, and a Labor government will deliver bigger tax cuts from 1 July 2019, and they'll be permanent, so that anyone earning less than $125,000 a year will get a bigger tax cut under Labor than under the Liberals. Indeed, more than four million people will be better off by $398 a year compared to the Liberals. Our proposal has been costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office and our policy has a budget impact of $5.8 billion over the forward estimates. It's affordable. It's the latest in Labor's series of reforms to tax and proposals which we've outlined. You could never accuse us of being a small-target opposition or of not doing our job of putting forward policy. You might not agree with it—we hear a load of nonsense; indeed, we see deliberate mistruths in the newsletters sent to electors by those opposite—but you couldn't accuse us of not putting forward an alternative plan. There are a range of problems with the government's tax plans. We know that. We haven't been given the full picture by the government—they simply won't tell us—but it is possible now, from a lot of the advice we've commissioned and the independent external analysis that's been published in the days and weeks since the budget, to start to figure out a lot of stuff from it. Let's have a look at the word 'fairness'. We say ours is fairer; they say theirs is fairer. The government MPs keep saying: 'It's fair, it's fair. Trust us, we're Liberals. It's fair, it's fair.' What does fairness look like to a Liberal? It's a sit-down, shock-horror moment: early indications are, from the independent commentators and analysis that has been done, that once the government's three-stage package is in place it will deliver larger benefits to those on higher incomes. I know, right? Shocking! From the mob who brought a two per cent tax cut for people earning over $180,000, $80 billion for multinationals and big companies, and company tax cuts, who would have thought? When the government's plan is fully implemented, a worker on $42,000 in this country will be on exactly the same tax rate as an executive earning $200,000. This is in a country that has a proud tradition of egalitarianism, fairness and proper funding of public services—that those who can afford to pay the most contribute a bit more towards our society. The Grattan Institute has said that once the three-stage plan is complete $15 billion of the annual $25 billion cost to the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20 per cent of income earners. To be fair, the proposed tax offset for low- and middle-income earners in 2018-19 is progressive. More money goes to lower-income earners—we'd vote for that. But by 2024-25 the tax cuts mean that higher-income earners gain $7,225 a year, while those earning $50,000 to $90,000 gain $540 a year and those earning $30,000 gain $200 a year. It's not just income; it's also the gender impact. They won't tell us what the gender impact of this is, but the Australia Institute has done some analysis in the last week or so and concluded that two-thirds of the benefit of the government's proposed tax changes go to men, because men dominate the ranks of high-income earners. For every $1 in tax cuts for women, men get $2. Is that fair or unfair? Well, when you've only got about 20 per cent of your parliamentary representation being women, and last weekend you knocked off a woman in Queensland, the member for Ryan, treated shamefully—I think that means that, going into the next election, the LNP in Queensland will have two out of 21 held seats contested by women—I suppose that's a better outcome, isn't it? You would probably think that is fair. At a time when the government should be locking in strong surpluses, devoting more of this revenue towards structural budget repair to protect the nation from further shocks and repairing the balance sheet post GFC as we enter into uncertain economic times, they've chosen to chuck $140 billion at a tax plan that they won't release the details for. Overwhelmingly, we know from independent analysis that more of the benefit will go to high-income earners, and we're being asked to just wave this through. Well, to my mind, that's not what parliamentarians should be doing. It's not what an opposition's job of scrutiny should be. If the House is not able to deal with this—funnily enough, we don't have the numbers in the House—then I hope that the Senate will be able to pull this to pieces and figure out what the real impact is, because none of us are able to honestly report to our electorates. 11:28 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, which will deliver fairer, lower and simpler taxes. This bill starts from the premise that this is the money of everyday, ordinary Australians—those who've got up every morning, sometimes every night, and worked hard. It's about returning more of their money to them. We're helping people manage household pressures and expenses, providing certainty for most of those Australians who get out there and work—the certainty that they'll face the same tax rate over their working life. The government's seven-year personal income tax plan is affordable, is most certainly fiscally responsible and, as the budget outlines, will ensure a great benefit to working people across the country. Compare that to our colleagues on the other side of the benches, who've announced $200 billion of taxes in opposition. There's a housing tax, a savings tax and a family business tax, and, of course, we now have the retirees tax. There is no question that Labor is for higher taxes so they can spend it on all of their pet social projects. Labor is the leader of the high-tax club. We're here for returning more of your money to you. Firstly, this bill will provide tax relief to low- and middle-income earners to help erase the cost-of-living pressures. It'll start by giving permanent tax relief, with a low- and middle-income tax offset, a non-refundable tax offset for the years 2018-19 through to 2021-22. It'll assist over 10 million Australians, with the maximum benefit of $530 being provided to about 4.4 million taxpayers. Taxpayers earning between $48,000 and $90,000 will receive the maximum of $530. The offset will provide a benefit of up to $200 for taxpayers with taxable incomes of up to $37,000. Secondly, it will combat bracket keep. From the 2018-19 financial year, the top threshold of the 32½ per cent income tax bracket will increase from $87,000 to $90,000, reducing taxes by up to $135 for taxpayers earning above $87,000. From 2022-23, the threshold of the 32½c tax bracket will further increase from $90,000 to $120,000, and the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket will increase from $37,000 to $41,000. The low- and middle-income tax offset will be replaced by increasing the low-income tax offset from $445 to $645. Thirdly, step 3 is to simplify and flatten the whole system. From 2024-25 onwards the threshold of the 32½c bracket will be further increased from $120,000 to $200,000, completely removing the need for that 37c tax bracket. This will mean the vast number of Australians will simply stay on the same tax bracket for their entire lives. The 45 per cent tax bracket will kick in at $200,000. Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of only 32½ per cent or less in 2024-25. Compare this to a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers under current settings. These steps are quite landmark in setting a tax regime that is simple and provides certainty for Australians. So what does that mean for my electorate and for the Gold Coast? I hold the northern part of the Gold Coast. For my area and for my constituents—over 100,000 voting men and women and over 170,000 men, women and children—73 per cent of my constituents are receiving tax relief. Now that's an average, which means there are some areas which are receiving a much higher rate. Eighty per cent of constituents in Alberton, Stapylton, Steiglitz and Woongoolba will receive tax relief. In Gaven, Pacific Pines, Maudsland and Oxenford, 79 per cent of working men and women will receive tax relief. In the suburbs of Gilberton, Jacobs Well, Norwell, Ormeau, Coomera and Pimpama, 78 per cent of people will receive tax relief. In Arundel and Parkwood, 76 per cent will receive tax relief. In Labrador and Southport, 75 per cent will receive tax relief. This is an extraordinary set of numbers in terms of people in my electorate who will receive tax relief because of what this government's doing. Compare that to Labor's $200 billion increase already announced. No-one's arguing about Labor's tax increase. No-one is saying the numbers are wrong. These are taxes on houses, taxes on savings, taxes on businesses and, of course—the mother of them all, with over $10 billion coming in in the first few years alone—a tax on retirees. The northern Gold Coast has one of the highest numbers of senior Australians and retirees in the country. There is no way I will sit idly by while Labor seeks to rip $10 billion from these men and women who have worked hard all their lives, saved, put aside and planned for their retirement. This is Labor's response to that. The numbers speak for themselves. This is a great bill for Gold Coast working men and women. It is a great bill for 73 per cent of all Gold Coast working men and women because they receive tax relief, and for the others, of course, there is ostensibly no change. This is all upside and no downside. This is all benefit. For everyone looking forward, this provides certainty in terms of where we're going. This is a personal tax plan that will see a staggering 94 per cent of my constituents paying the 32½ per cent tax bracket come 2024-25. I commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House. 11:35 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin In speaking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, I say at the outset that I support the comments made by members on this side of the parliament. I think that at this stage of the debate Labor's position on this bill is clear. It's even more clear, after listening to the statistics that many of my colleagues have been able to present with regard to the unfairness of this legislation, how the government is so much out of touch with reality and with the community. This legislation goes to the heart of the government's proposed tax cuts, and those tax cuts are part of a long-term plan that takes us right out to the year 2024—indeed, perhaps to a time when those who are proposing the tax cuts in this legislation will not even be around to be held accountable for it. It's proposed that the government's plan has effectively three stages to it. Phase 1 begins on 1 July 2018. The government proposes to then introduce the low- and middle-income tax offset, a non-refundable tax offset, of up to $530 per year for taxpayers earning up to $125,333 and increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. Phase 2 begins on 1 July 2022—that is four years away; indeed, it's perhaps two elections away. Then, the government wants to increase the low-income tax offset from $445 to $645. The 19 per cent personal income tax bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000 and the government wants to increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $90,000 to $120,000. Then we come to phase 3. That is proposed to commence on 1 July 2024—that is in six years time, which is possibly three elections away. Then, the government proposes to abolish the 37 per cent tax bracket and increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000. As those dates quite clearly point out, this is a plan that takes us effectively into the never-never, because between now and then it is very likely that not only will governments change but also circumstances here in Australia and overseas will change. While we haven't been given the full picture from the government, the early indications of the government's plan are that, once the government's three-stage package is in place, it will deliver more large benefits to those on higher incomes. The Australian National University's Ben Phillips has estimated that, by 2027, around 60 per cent of the tax cuts will go to the top 20 per cent of households. As part of the new proposal, low- and middle-income earners get a tax offset in 2018-19, with higher income earners getting very little of that money. This part of the plan means that more money goes to lower income earners. However, by 2024-25, the tax cuts mean that higher income earners gain $7,225 per year, while those earning $50,000 to $90,000 gain just $540 per year, and those earning $30,000 gain the very little amount of $200 per year. The Grattan Institute has assessed that, once the three-stage plan is complete, $15 billion of the annual $25 billion cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax. I repeat that: collecting less tax from the top 20 per cent of income earners. The Australia Institute has also analysed the government's tax proposal, and the Australian Institute analysis shows that, overall, the government's plan sees 62 per cent of the benefits flowing to the top 20 per cent of income earners over a seven-year period. Labor's position with respect to this legislation has been made clear. Labor will support the government's proposed changes that are to take effect from 1 July 2018. Labor has been entirely up front about that. If the government was to split the bills, we could vote for the 1 July 2018 changes only. They would pass immediately. However, the total cost of the government's 3-stage plan, whilst $13 billion over the forward estimates, is expected to reach $140 billion over the medium term, and, as I said earlier, the government has been unwilling, deliberately hiding or simply unable to provide specific details of the plan, including the year-by-year costs beyond the forward estimates. I turn to the question of fairness and the inequity about this proposal. The government's proposed tax plan is regressive in that it will widen the inequality that already exists throughout Australia and that has been widening over recent decades. According to the Australia Institute, the top one per cent of income earners' share of income has more than doubled from 4.5 per cent to nine per cent. The top 0.1 per cent has seen an almost fourfold increase in their share of total income. The top 20 per cent own 62.5 per cent of the net worth of all households. And the top 20 per cent own 97.7 per cent of net financial assets. That is financial assets less financial liabilities. It's clear that the wealth of this nation is falling more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Budgets reflect government priorities and government ideology. This is a tax package that begins with some tax relief—around $10 a week for average households—but ends with substantial tax cuts of over $7,000 per year to high-income earners who really don't need that money right now. For most Australians, wages over the past two decades have almost flatlined. For many, hours have been cut and there is no longer any job security. Wage earners have seen very little increase whilst simultaneously company profits and living costs have risen substantially. Most of the high-income earners, who will indeed benefit from the government's proposed tax cuts, are not likely to be wage earners. They are most likely to be self-employed people or highly paid professionals who negotiate their own contracts and who very likely have not been restrained by low wage growth over recent years. The current median salary in Australia is approximately $55,000 a year and the median full-time wage is approximately $73,000 per year. On current estimates, some three-quarters of income tax payers earn less than $90,000 a year. So, again, the dominant beneficiaries of the government's tax proposals are those people who are already well off—or at least should be—because they are on high incomes They don't need a tax cut. The government knows that, and that is possibly why the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refuse to release their costings. The government also knows that the community would see through the unfairness and judge the government accordingly if those costings were to be released. This is on top of the $80 billion in corporate tax cuts that the government is also still pursuing and of which, again, the government still refuses to acknowledge the full costing. Of course, there are other very serious flaws with the government's policy, and I want to run through some of those. Firstly, the package is dependent on the Turnbull government winning the next two elections, or possibly the next three elections if governments don't run their full three-year terms. Secondly, the package makes wages growth assumptions that are out of step with reality. If that wage growth does not eventuate—and it is very likely that it will not—then government income tax revenue will also fall and the government's tax cuts will be unsustainable. Thirdly, the package makes assumptions about the economy that are very speculative. We don't know what the global economy or the Australian economy will look like in three years time, let alone in six years time. But neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer is very likely to be around in 2024 to be held to account or indeed to have to fix up the mess that they may well create as a result of this policy. It is about promising things into the future that they are not in a position to deliver on right here and now. It is one thing to deliver for the forward estimates; it is another to deliver beyond that. Of course, these tax cuts for high income earners are proposed when net debt is set to hit $341 billion at the end of this financial year, 2017-18, and rise to $350 billion by the end of 2018-19. So again one can ask the very legitimate question: why, at a time when net debt is around $350 billion, would the government provide tax cuts into the future to those who are not in need, when there is a much greater need to try to get the budget back into order? Even worse than all of that, these are tax cuts that the Turnbull government is proposing at a time when it wants to cut the $14-per-fortnight energy supplement to pensioners around Australia. That measure is still on the books. The government wants to cut $17 billion from schools. I hear members opposite saying that there are no cuts to schools. There are cuts to schools in comparison to what would have been allocated had the government stuck to its commitment when it was elected in 2013. The government wants to cut a further $270 million from the already decimated TAFE system around Australia, at a time when we know we need more skills training in this country, and it wants to cut hospitals funding. As the member for Ballarat quite properly pointed out yesterday with respect to one of the hospitals in Queensland, hospital funding has been cut. These cuts come at a time when the government wants to continue the Medicare freeze on specialists and at a time when out-of-pocket costs to see doctors and specialists have risen. This is also at a time when the government is saying to people, 'If you want a pension, you will have to work until the age of 70.' No other country in the world does that, but this government believes it's reasonable to say to the older people in this country, 'You will have to work to the age of 70 before you are entitled to a pension.' It comes at a time when up to 700,000 Australian workers will lose up to $77 a week in penalty rates cuts that this government supports. These are people who are already struggling to make ends meet and who are quite often only part-time workers and have to work two or three jobs just to try to make a living. It comes at a time when families are paying over $1,000 more for private health insurance. Again, the government wants to cut the taxes for the high-income earners at a time when costs of living for people around the country are probably the single most concerning issue for so many families. It's clear that this government, the Turnbull government, is completely out of touch with Australian sentiment. If the Turnbull government thinks that it is fair to offer over $7,000 a year of tax cuts to very high-income earners while people at the low end of income are absolutely struggling, it needs to get out into the community and talk to some real people. That is why Labor's alternative proposal is much fairer and, quite frankly, much more responsible. It is a proposal that will see a person on $65,000 be given a $924 tax cut per year. Ten million Australians will benefit from Labor's tax cuts because Labor understands that right now the families throughout Australia that are struggling the most are the middle-income and low-income families. It is those families that government policy should be seeking to support at this very time. Supporting those families and providing those tax cuts will, in turn, give the Australian economy the best boost possible. 11:50 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney Unlike the member for Makin, I'm delighted to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 because it will deliver fairer, simpler and lower taxes for ordinary Australians. This bill is an important part of the Turnbull government's plan for a strong economy which will provide more jobs and opportunities. It's a central part of the 2018 budget. I want to reflect on the fact that our responsible economic management has allowed us to deliver the trifecta of lower taxes, an earlier return to surplus, and an increased funding for essential services and infrastructure that I know are critical to the nation's future. We have been able to do this both because of increasing revenue and because of our discipline in containing the growth of government expenditure. Our tax reforms are part of our broader plan for a stronger economy which is already delivering for Australians. This is reflected in the fact that Australia is in its 27th year of economic growth, a record virtually unmatched in the international community. Business conditions are at the highest levels since the global financial crisis, and the Australian economy is generating a thousand jobs a day, on average. The Turnbull government have met the promise we made to the Australian people to create over a million jobs, and we have done it earlier than we predicted. Importantly, in the last year, the overwhelming majority of those jobs have been full-time. Momentum is building in the Australian economy but if there is one thing we know, it is that governments cannot rest on their laurels. We cannot take this strong economy for granted. That's why the government are sticking to the economic plan that we outlined to the Australian people, which has a number of key elements. These include our commitment to record infrastructure spending and the 10-year infrastructure pipeline we announced. For Sydney, this includes our investment in better public transport, which will benefit my own electorate. For example, in North Sydney, the $1.6 billion we are providing to the New South Wales government to assist in the construction of the Sydney metro will be a game changer for my area as it will for the entire rail network across our city. This new metro rail line from Chatswood to Bankstown via the CBD will include new stations in my electorate at Crows Nest and North Sydney, and will alleviate congestion on the North Shore line. We're supporting a rail link to the new Western Sydney Airport. That airport will be the centre of a new powerhouse in economic activity for tour state. Our plan includes our commitment to diversify the economy. This includes support for the innovation sector, which is thriving in North Sydney and has even greater potential. I see this from participants in the North Sydney innovation network I established following my election, which is bringing together some of the leaders in the sector working on the Lower North Shore. Similarly, our commitment to free trade is opening new opportunities for our service sectors and agriculture alike. I welcome today's announcement that the EU will commence negotiations on a free trade agreement with Australia, which comes on the back of our success in negotiating the TPP and other high-quality free trade agreements. We are better supporting small business, which plays a vital role across Australia and in our local communities. This year's budget extends the instant write-off provisions, allowing small businesses to invest more in their own capital needs. Well over a thousand local businesses in my electorate have benefited from this measure in recent years. Some 31,000 local businesses with turnovers of up to $350 million will benefit from the company tax reductions we have already legislated. A key part of our plan is tax reform. This has two components. The Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan is essential to improving the competitiveness of our economy in a global environment in which many of our direct competitors are or have already reduced their company tax rates. The case for the company tax reductions is as strong today as it was when the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer argued the case for lower company tax cuts just a few years ago. Their hypocrisy in now opposing those reduction has not gone unnoticed by the Australian community. In fact, the case is now even stronger in a world where we have moved from having among the lowest company tax rates to amongst the highest in the OECD. In this year's budget, we have outlined a plan to reform personal tax to lower taxes for hardworking Australians. Our plan will build a personal tax system that encourages aspirational Australians to get ahead, while also being fiscally responsible. It is a very direct way of reducing cost-of-living pressures for millions of Australians. The plan will provide immediate tax relief for low-income and middle-income earners, protect Australians against bracket creep and, in the medium term, make personal taxes simpler and flatter. The first step of our plan will provide up to an additional $530 through the tax offset to low- and middle-income earners in each of the next four years. Ten million Australians stand to benefit and 4.4 million people will receive the full $530 benefit in the next financial year. The second step is to expand tax relief to help protect middle-income earners from bracket creep. From 1 July this year, the government will increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. This will provide a tax cut to around three million Australians. In my own electorate, some 67,300 taxpayers stand to benefit in the next financial year from these changes. From 1 July 2022, these bracket creep measures will be expanded by increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket from $37,000 to $41,000 and increasing the low-tax offset from $445 to $645. From 2022, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $90,000 to $120,000. The third step of our plan will deliver the final stage of our personal income tax reforms. From 1 July 2024, the government will remove the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. This will be achieved by increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000. These reforms will fundamentally reshape our personal income tax system because it is vital that workers are rewarded rather than penalised for their efforts. I want to make a few general remarks about the broader context of the government's economic plan and the reforms outlined in this bill. First, one of the frequent criticisms of past government policies has been that they are not part of a long-term strategy. On occasions, budgets have been seen as being tailored for the three-year political cycle rather than the future interests of our nation. It's one of the reasons why in my first speech I argued that it was time to move to four-year parliamentary terms. This government is demonstrating that it is thinking beyond simply the electoral cycle. We see this in many areas, be it in our 10-year plan for school funding, in our 10-year pipeline for infrastructure, in our enterprise tax plan, which I've spoken about, or in the seven-year plan we have outlined for personal income tax reform in this bill. By planning for the future, we can ensure our economy continues to grow and that both individuals and businesses have greater certainty about the economic environment in which they will be operating. The challenges faced by our nation will not be solved by the short-termism and political fixes we so evidently saw in the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech. A political grab is not a plan for the future of our nation. Second, if you believe the politics of envy those in the Labor Party and their compatriots in the Australian Greens seek to stoke, you would think that our tax system penalises those on lower incomes and disproportionately benefits those in higher income tax brackets in an unfair way. The reality is, of course, something entirely different. I want to thank the Treasurer for so clearly debunking these myths in his address to the Australian business economists in late April. I want to reiterate some of the points the Treasurer made in that speech. For example, he pointed out that 17 per cent of personal income tax revenue in 2015-16 came from the top one per cent of taxpayers. The top 10 per cent of taxpayers pay 45 per cent of personal income tax. The 2.4 million Australians in the top two tax brackets—around one-quarter of taxpayers—actually pay 65 per cent of personal income tax in this country. As the Treasurer commented, the burden is carried by the few and not the many, as is often claimed by the high-tax club. Finally, I want to remark on a narrative that I've heard time and again from those sitting opposite in the Australian Labor Party. In relation to our tax reforms, be it those for companies or the personal income tax reductions in this bill, we've heard the cry from Labor that these are somehow tax giveaways, as if the incomes of Australians and Australian businesses belong to government. The claims reveal something fundamental about Labor's approach to tax. It's no surprise that their response to the budget and their own proposals rely so heavily on funding their increased spending by increasing taxes on those older Australians who've relied on dividend imputation. We in the coalition believe in something quite different. We see tax reductions as giving back to Australians what they have earned themselves through their own endeavours and hard work. Labor's approach is not one that I could ever support. It is not an approach that will encourage the aspirations of those who strive for themselves and their own families. It is not an approach that will strengthen our economy by encouraging those who want to achieve and get ahead. The strength of our nation lies in the endeavours of our people. This bill seeks to recognise that fact, and I commend the bill to the House. 12:00 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I think the word that comes to my mind when I look at the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, combined with the government's plans to give a $70 billion-plus tax cut to big business, is 'irresponsible'. I come from a small-business background. I spent quite a bit of my time running my own small business, and then I managed a national trade association for small businesses. One of the fundamental rules in small business is that you don't use a windfall gain to build into your base. If you get a windfall gain, if something happens that suddenly delivers unexpected money that is not actually due to you, you don't build that into your operational base. You use that to improve your capacity to grow your business. You might use it for infrastructure. You might use it to retrain your staff. You use it in a one-off way which builds a capacity for growth. What you don't do, if you get a one-off large contract without an expectation of more, is move into bigger premises and build higher rent into your base. We saw the Howard-Costello government make that fundamental mistake when they were in government, when, for reasons due to extraordinary global growth, particularly in China, we had unprecedented growth in Australia. Rather than taking that boom, which was not of our own making—in a sense, it was actually the massive growth in China—and investing in productive infrastructure, in education, in positioning Australia in a better place to drive our own growth, they built it into our base through massive tax cuts and increases in welfare and by the introduction of negative gearing, reducing capital gains tax, making superannuation tax free and a whole range of other things. When money flowed in, they did a whole range of things that built that money flow into the base, even though it was coming from another source and it couldn't be guaranteed to continue. Now we've got a government doing exactly the same thing. We hear the Treasurer talk about growth. They're projecting growth to continue at that level. They're projecting, for wages that have been flatlining, the growth to suddenly double. They're projecting heroic growth in a whole range of areas of the economy, and they're then building that projected growth into the base through these massive, massive tax cuts. And, next time the economy turns, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position we found ourselves in when the economy turned last time: with a base which cannot be sustained through the economic cycle. We've been protected in Australia from understanding what downturns are by what is now over 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Even during the global financial crisis, when the rest of the world used the word 'recession', we didn't go backwards. We continued to move forwards, largely because of the extraordinary stimulus packages that the Labor government introduced. We in Australia have forgotten what that looks like. But it is foolish to assume that the growth projections through 2027 and through 2028, even if they're accurate for that long, would continue through 2030 and 2035, yet they're building it into the base in such a way that it would be almost impossible for any future government to pull that back out when it's needed. Let's look at what they're actually promising here. It is still just a promise because they've got to get it through this House. The government are promising tax cuts through 2018, 2022 and 2024. The first tranche starts on 1 July. It's around $530 a year for taxpayers earning up to $125,333, so it's a modest tax cut for low- and middle-income earners. We on this side of the House support that, and we're ready to vote for it anytime the government put that up as a separate bill. Then in 2022—some four years away—they're going to increase the low-income tax offset from $445 to $645. Again, it's a modest increase for low-income earners, but they're also increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent from $90,000 to $120,000. So they're giving a more substantial cut to the higher end of the middle-income tax bracket in 2022. Then in 2024 they're abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket, which gives quite a substantial tax cut to the top threshold of $120,000 to $200,000. They're effectively abolishing the 37 per cent tax rate completely, which, again, is a substantial tax cut for people at the upper end of incomes. So we've got a modest tax cut now and a promise of tax cuts in 2022 and 2024. They're seeking to pass a bill now which locks future governments into that. Of course, you can't actually lock a future government into that, but by seeking to have it passed now they're increasing the difficulty of governments to be able to respond to global movements. They're effectively building what is a projected windfall gain from global growth into the base for future governments. We on this side are happy to support the first one tomorrow. Any time the government wants to bring in a bill that provides that first cut, we will be more than happy to vote for it. But we are not happy to vote for a bill that introduces the three right up to 2024, when the government cannot come into this House and tell us what the cost of each of those is because, apparently, the projections are unreliable. If the projections of the costs are unreliable, then the projections of the revenue are unreliable. You can't say, 'Sorry, we can't trust the projections' and then say, 'But we can afford it because the projections are right.' You can't have it both ways. The projections of wage growth suddenly recovering from the slump it's in now are heroic at best. This is the same mistake that the Howard-Costello government made. This is the same mistake of assuming that the world economy will not go through the normal economic cycles, and building into our cost base what they believe we can afford in the best of times. It's foolish. It's irresponsible. We on this side know better than that. We actually governed in the global financial crisis, which nobody saw coming, and we suddenly found ourselves in circumstances where the decisions on negative gearing, the decisions on capital gains tax and the decisions that the Howard and Costello government made in the last years of their term about imputation credits and the non-tax of super were all unsustainable. We see this government now trying to deal with the some of those impacts but not others. The impacts of building high expectations into the base by the Howard-Costello government are still being felt now by this government, and this government hasn't learned a thing. We on the Labor side have a different view of what should happen in the tax cut arena. We also are proposing personal tax cuts, just like the government, but for low- and middle-income earners they're about twice the size. A person earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor than the Liberals, and nearly four million people will be better off by about $398 a year compared to under the Liberals' plan. That means a teacher on $65,000 will receive a tax cut of $928 a year, and a couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively will receive a tax cut of $1,855 a year. We believe that the difference between the government's approach and Labor's approach demonstrates our attitude to fairness and our understanding of the word 'fairness'. The government's unfair budget gives big business and the banks an $80 billion tax handout and it makes Australians pay for it with savage cuts. That's the other side of a tax cut—our taxes actually pay for things. I shouldn't even have to say this, but they actually pay for things that we all value. The government says: 'We'll give the money back to you. It's in your pocket. Go and spend it as you see fit.' I dare anybody out there to find a way to spend their additional $10 tax cut on providing better schools for their children, making sure there is a hospital bed when they need one or making sure they can catch a train to the city. I dare anybody to take their individual $10 and make any of the things happen that we as a country need to happen in the next decade. We as a country need an education system that prepares our children for a future which is profoundly different to the future that I prepared for. We need an education system which is flexible, which has strong capacity and which builds capacity in our population, yet we see cuts to the education system, whether it's TAFE, universities or schools, from this government. We need a country that can build the infrastructure that we need. We see a lot of spin from this government on infrastructure, but when you actually look at the figures it's not there. The cuts that this government are already making across the board in order to afford their tax cuts—in spite of their heroic projections, which they say are going to pay for them—are quite shocking. This is not about fairness. Those of us on this side know that people on low and middle incomes are struggling and haven't received pay rises. Their work is becoming more casualised. The cost of living is outstripping wages, and they are desperately in need of relief. Anybody in this House that goes out to their communities will hear that. They will hear the people that provide meals for the homeless telling you that more and more people, particularly older women, are coming in for meals because they need the rest of their income to pay their rent and their utilities. Anybody who goes out into their community—apart from those that live in the extremely wealthy suburbs—will tell you that low- and middle-income earners are struggling, and they're the ones that need the support. We on the Labor side are focusing our tax cuts where they are most needed. That's what we believe our economy can afford over the long term, and that's what we are delivering—fairness and help where it is most needed now. Unlike the government, we're not trying to pay for those cuts out of projected growth. We're not saying: 'Oh, the economy is going to grow. Let's spend it!' We've actually looked through the tax system to see where we can introduce fairness. Most people listening to this will know that we've already announced, over a number of years now, a number of policies that close down some of the unfairness in our tax system. Our changes to negative gearing will allow people to negative gear new properties but not existing ones. We'll make changes to the capital gains tax, which will take some of the heat out of house prices, which are currently driving houses out of reach for most people and dramatically affecting rents as well. If people are looking at household stress and the impact of high rents on households, they don't have to look much further than Parramatta. The median price to buy a house in Parramatta went past $1 million last year, and our rents are some of the highest in Sydney—and that's Parramatta, 25km from the CBD. We have an incredibly flat bell curve. We have a lot of people in our community that are on low incomes and an equal number that are on high incomes. Housing prices, rent and the cost of living are putting a lot of people under incredible stress. We don't believe that it's fair that taxpayers continue to subsidise people to buy their second, third, fourth and fifth investment properties when there are so many people that can't even afford their rent—that, in order to pay their rent, are turning up to Meals Plus to get a free meal. Shockingly, an increasing number of those people are single women. I would urge anybody looking at the bill that we're looking at today to consider the fairness of it. Consider why it is that the government won't split the bill into two so that we on this side and in the House today, if they wish, can pass the tax cuts for 1 July. Consider why they are insisting that if the parliament doesn't pass the plan right up to 2024 then nobody will get a tax cut on 1 July. Consider why this government would decide that, when presumably they know, as I do, that there are people out there for whom even a $10 tax cut will make a difference—so difficult are their circumstances when it comes to the rising cost of living in our communities. Consider why a government would prevent people from getting a tax cut on 1 July in order to play the political point. It's hard to see a policy rationale for it, but there is a political point: trying to force us to pass all of it in order to give it on 1 July. We're not going to fall for it. We have our own policy. Come 2019, if Labor wins government, the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners will be twice the size of what this government is providing. Even under this government, no-one gets it till the end of the financial year anyway, because they get it as a refund, not week by week. So people won't actually be worse off from waiting, quite frankly. When people wake up to that, they will see absolutely through this cheap political attempt to force this side of the House to pass tax cuts on a projected revenue which is so unreliable that they can't even give us the actual costs. This is, I think, one of the most stupid debates I've ever been involved in, and it's irresponsible. 12:15 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I rise to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. I've yet to meet a fair-dinkum Aussie who isn't trying to make the life and opportunities of their family better than the life experiences that they had. Our plan for personal tax is all about helping that come true for working families and individuals. A lot of young working people may not be so concerned about making provision for a family, but they do want to own their own apartment, they want to travel and they want more money in their pocket. So our personal tax system encourages aspirational Australians to get ahead. So what does 'aspirational' mean? It means, 'I want to get better; I want to have a good time.' I speak to my young children—well, my youngest; the other two are pretty stable. She just wants to travel, get on and pay down her mortgage. She's not looking for family stuff, but she wants more money in her pocket, the sooner the better, and she'd like it for the next 10, 15 or 20 years, instead of the ATO taking a bigger grab as she increases her commissions. I will just go back a little bit; I was talking about family. Our personal tax system encourages all of these people to get on, get better and have more money. The first step will provide tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, the second step will help tackle bracket creep and the third step will simplify and flatten the system. There are lots of people in the general community, and they're really not too sure about that term 'bracket creep'. Put simply, as you earn more money, your taxable income jumps into a new level and the taxman takes more from your pay packet. Together, the reforms we're putting forward with the company tax changes, tax integrity measures and personal income tax changes will eventually build a much simpler system. It'll reward those hardworking Aussies who almost jump over into a new level, so they've got more money to spend, they've got more money to save, they've got more money to pay down their credit cards and they've got more money to pay down their mortgage. Ultimately, this drives a stronger economy. Step 1 gives immediate tax relief for low- and middle-income earners to help with the cost of living pressures. The income tax offset will provide tax relief of up to $530 to low- and middle-income earners for the next four years. I heard a comment from the previous speaker that $10 a week would be better put to them as a tax cut rather than waiting until the end of the year. I would argue with that. People don't tend to save the $10 a week, but getting a tax refund cheque of $530 gives them the ability to go and buy something that they hadn't thought of buying on the way through, or it gives them the chance to throw it onto an electricity bill or put it towards something special. But $10 a week is not so practical. Ultimately, having that offset for the next four years is going to help over 10 million Australians. Around 4.4 million people will receive the full benefit of $530 in the coming financial year, as from July. It's pretty cynical not to think that's a good idea. The benefit is in addition to the existing low-income tax offset, and it will be available on assessment after the taxpayer lodges their tax return. There are two parts to that. You get rewarded for putting your tax return in early, saving the tax office even more money because they don't have to chase you to put your tax return in. The second part is all about that bracket creep I mentioned. We're planning to expand tax relief to help protect those middle-income earners. From 1 July this year, the government will provide a tax cut of up to 135 bucks a year to around three million people. It mightn't sound like much, but it will make a difference. This means that people earning just under $87,000 can stop being concerned that if they get extra pay it'll suddenly push them to a higher level of tax payable. From July, it will only kick in after you earn over $90,000 per year. These earners will only pay 32.5 per cent tax. That's about the same as the company tax rate as it was in years past. When the low- and middle-income tax offset concludes in 2021-22, the benefits will be locked in by increasing the threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket from $37,000 to $41,000. Let me tell you: that's a lot of people living in Gilmore. That's a massive benefit to the people living in Gilmore. We don't have a lot of people earning those top levels, but that will certainly make a difference for the people living in my region. From 22 July, the top threshold will be the 32.5 per cent. That's a cut of over $1,300 bucks a year. I would encourage all of those—and there are some—to be very happy about that. There are some people in my region who will be very happy about that. The whole idea is about making personal taxes simpler, and I have tell you: we all want that. I can say that even as a past employer. I have here copies of this week's tax scales. We all want tax to be simpler, making it much easier. Luckily you have this on the computer now, but in the old days you had a little plastic book, and for each person whose tax you paid you'd go through their book, align how many dollars they'd earned, find out if they were on the tax-free threshold, write down on their payslip how much tax they paid and record it in your notebook—because it wasn't on the computer back then—and at the end of the year you added it all up and, each year or each fortnight, you slugged it off to the taxman. It was very cumbersome. That's the aim: if we end up with a flatter system, it is going to make it so much easier for everyone. So, yes, it's going to be good. From July this year the government will provide a tax cut of up to $135 for three million people, and that will be great. Making it much simpler would definitely be better and I know that people will appreciate it. That flattening of the tax system means that, ultimately, 94 per cent of all taxpayers in Australia will only have to pay 32½c in the dollar. Ninety-four per cent of working Australians will only have to pay 32½ per cent. For a lot of Australians, that will make one of hell of a difference. Currently, some of them are up on 48 cent. That means the tax man grabs almost half of what you earn, so half of what you earn is gone. As I was explaining to a radio journalist this morning, if you have a family who are split and one of those partners is paying child support, a third of their income, give or take a bit, goes off to the tax department, but their assessment for child support is on the whole lot, so roughly another third goes off to the child support agency. That leaves that person with a whole lot less money to spend either on a new family or on trying to be stable and have a home. So changing this whole tax regime has a domino effect of benefit not just for the taxable income but for living and surviving, and there are a lot of people who are going to be really appreciative of that. For that 94 per cent of Australians, the working Australians who are only going to be paying 32 per cent or less, it will be a great achievement. Compare that with 63 per cent if we don't make any changes at all. If we don't make any changes at all to this system, only 63 per cent will be in that 32½ per cent bracket. A lot of people are saying: 'Well, it's such a hard ask to change the tax schedules. It's such a hard ask to get anything like this through the House. Why would any government bother to change the tax system? We've had it for years.' Some would say, 'Ah, well, too bad; too late; too hard.' The answer is that right now that scale of personal income tax simply isn't fair. If people want to get ahead, earn more money and make changes in their life financially then the ATO is likely to take a bigger chunk of your pay packet than you'd really like. During my village visits around Gilmore, I have met both older and younger residents who have thought about economic issues. Initially I found it curious that people would come and talk to me in a coffee shop and say, 'I've been thinking about tax.' I'm thinking: 'Why? Why are you thinking about tax? There are so many other things to think about. But, anyway, go ahead.' Some of the more mature people come to me and they say, 'It'd be a whole lot easier if there was just a flat rate from go to whoa. I used to be an employer, I used to employee people and it was so difficult. It would be so much easier.' I thought, 'Okay. I love it. I'll write it down and send it off to the minister and see what happens.' Right now, trying to get a single rate across the board through is going to be pretty difficult, but the good thing is that we can at least start. Addressing that sort of a legislative change is pretty mammoth. Right now, we have the aim to have lower, fairer and simpler taxes—a system that is fair for all Australians, rewards all Australians and makes people think about earning more money instead of saying, 'No, I'm not going to take an extra shift, thanks very much. It will shove me into a different tax bracket. No, I don't want to do that because it's going to cause me more financial grief.' What! We want to encourage people to work more. It should be in our DNA: work more, enjoy more, save more. To build a stronger economy, it's vital that every worker is rewarded rather than penalised by the tax system for their efforts. I bet that most of my constituents—in fact, most Australians—are not aware that personal income tax contributes over half of the government's tax revenue. So it's really, really important to get these settings right and build a tax system that's fair and financially responsible. The tax burden borne by workers has continued to rise, and that's okay. You could talk to any working person and they would said, 'That's okay. I don't mind paying my fair share of tax'—well, most of them; thankfully we're chasing those who are saying, 'I don't want to pay tax. I'd rather go under the table.' Most of them say, 'I want to help build the local roads and I want to help support the local schools.' They're happy with that, but they want it to be fair. When more than half of our revenue comes from income tax, we've really got to get it right because there will come a point in time when people will say, 'It's too hard to work. I'm in too high a tax scale. I'll just go on income support from the government.' Bracket creep reduces that and now we have to change that. We have to make sure that there's incentive to work hard, take risks and succeed. There were 2.4 million Australians with taxable income above $87,000 in 2015-16, representing about 23 per cent of taxpayers, but they were paying 65 per cent of the personal income tax. The government's seven-year Personal Income Tax Plan will improve the incentive to strive for success by providing low tax to middle- and low-income earners to combat bracket creep and flatten the system, as was suggested by those strange people coming to my village visits. They'll be very, very happy. We need to protect the middle-income Australians for the rest of their working life. We need to encourage them to keep working. The plan delivers a tax system and encourages aspirational Australians to get ahead. Individuals will be able to take on more work and seek advancement knowing that their income will not be grabbed by the tax man. Nobody wants that secret hand coming over the back of the paymaster's shoulder, saying, 'Got ya! I'm taking more of your money. You might be able to get back some in your refund, but probably not.' The plan is affordable and it's funded. The coalition government is pretty good at this. Financial management is our major strength. We're good at it. We're good money managers—very good money managers. In the budget this year, we've turned a corner. As I've been explaining to a number of people, when you stop borrowing money to pay down debt—because that's like taking out a new credit card to pay down a credit card you've already got—you actually get more and more into debt. We've turned that corner. We've thrown that second credit card away and now we're paying down the first credit card. That's fiscally responsible—a big word. It just means we're taking care of taxpayer dollars, and that's incredibly important. Together, our reforms for company tax, tax integrity and personal income tax changes will make a much simpler system, will reward our hardworking Australians and will drive a stronger economy. There is no question that this must go hand-in-hand with changes to the whole scheme. I often find that the other side will pick half an argument and argue against it, when this is not a simple issue. Tax is never a simple issue. You have to combat it from both sides. You have to pull money from here and push money there. Part of this whole structure is about changing the whole plan for economic stability and tax fairness and ultimately making Australians really, really happy with the outcome of how we're spending their money from the tax we do collect but also allowing them to have more of their own money to spend on what they want to spend it on. 12:30 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before I get started on my speech, I will just make reference to the speech by the member for Gilmore. She said a few things which I'd like to address. She said that financial management is a major strength of the coalition. Now, I know they think they believe that, but the facts belie it. Since this government came to power, we've had debt and deficit go through the roof. Apparently we had a debt and deficit emergency when they came to power, but since they've been in power for five years I think debt has doubled to more than half a trillion dollars, and the deficit has tripled. I hardly see that as an example of prudent financial management. The member for Gilmore also mentioned the virtues, supposedly, of a flat tax. I must take issue with that. I think one of the great things about Australia is that we have a progressive taxation system. The more you earn, the more you pay. The problem with a flat tax is that it means a lot less money for government revenue, and that means a lot less money for hospitals, a lot less money for schools, a lot less money for roads, a lot less money for aged care and a lot less money for child care. All the services and infrastructure that make a cohesive, peaceful, stable society require taxation revenue. A flat tax system—I think the flat-taxers, the flat-earthers, usually like to talk about 20 to 25 per cent as their target—would mean such a massive drop in revenue for this country that we would see social services just drop off the edge. We would see the wealthy in this country get incredibly wealthier, and they'd be okay. They'd have their private schools, their private hospitals and their private cars to take them wherever they'd like to go. But public transport would fall away; public schools would have less money; and public hospitals would crumble, and we don't want to see that society. We've seen that society in countries overseas where the wealthy are incredibly wealthy and everybody else has to make do, and we don't want to see that here. Now I'll get to the substance of my speech. Two weeks ago, the Treasurer handed down yet another Liberal budget that looks after the top end of town. It's an economic agenda that includes $7,000-a-year tax cuts for high-income earners, such as everybody in this chamber, but it takes $14 a fortnight from pensioners. It's an economic agenda that gives $17 billion to banks but cuts $17 billion from schools. It's an economic agenda that takes $715 million from Australian hospitals but gives $80 billion—$80 billion!—to corporations and multinationals. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister are desperate to divert attention from the ugly truth of their ugly budget. They point excitedly to the $540 a year that workers will get back as tax relief: 'Look! We're helping the poor people. We care. We do!' But that tax relief will only come if this parliament approves the entire rotten package. Labor has been up-front. We support the government's first tranche of tax cuts for workers on low and middle incomes. If those tax cuts were separated from the other stages, they would sail through this parliament, and workers would enjoy the benefits immediately. But the government is refusing to separate the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are trying to blackmail this parliament: 'Pass the tax cuts for the rich too, or working families will get nothing. Give our friends in boardrooms and mansions a bigger slice of the pie, or we will deny the little people their tiny little sliver of relief. Give politicians and CEOs and lawyers and surgeons $7,000 tax cuts, or the workers won't get their $540.' That is their real agenda. The modest tax cuts for ordinary Australians are the sprat to catch the mackerel. They're just the bait, and it's despicable. Labor has been seeking answers from the government. What is the total year-on-year cost of its seven-year tax plan? The questions could not be more direct in question time. There is no preamble and no posturing. They are simple, direct questions this Treasurer should be able to answer. And we know that he does know the answers; he just won't give them. He won't tell this parliament and he won't tell the Australian people. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister are refusing to answer. They are refusing to tell this parliament the detail of budget measures that they expect this parliament to approve. They are blind to their own arrogance. It's a government that has broken more promises than it has kept, and it cannot expect to be taken at its word. A government that promised no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no cuts to the ABC and then broke every single one of those promises cannot be taken at its word. A Prime Minister who came to office as a champion of tackling climate change and of raising the tone of political debate but who now champions the expansion of fossil fuels and who peddles in petty sloganeering cannot be taken at his word. A Treasurer who railed against debt and deficit but who has tripled the deficit and more than doubled the debt to half a trillion dollars cannot be taken at his word. A government built on lies and broken promises cannot be taken at its word. This parliament must see the detail of the cost of those measures that it is expected to vote on. It is common sense. Labor's budget reply speech outlined a bigger, better and fairer tax system that benefits 10 million everyday Australians. Labor's plan nearly doubles the tax relief for the vast majority of wage earners. Labor can afford this because we are not backing the billions for banks and corporations. We think the top end of town is doing nicely already. They can look after themselves. They don't need our help. But we know that working Australians—the supermarket tellers and medical receptionists; the nurses, teachers and teachers aides; the mechanics, office workers, bus drivers and baristas; the people in this gallery; the parents of the schoolchildren who come to this parliament—are finding it tough to make ends meet. We are not talking about making it easier to afford a summer trip to France; we are talking about making it easier to afford the kids' school camp to Queensland. We are not making it easier to buy your second, third, fifth or 10th investment property; we are going to make it easier to buy a home to live in. Labor is supporting the government's tax measures that come into effect from 1 July this year, but we obviously believe they do not go far enough. A Labor government would permanently expand this element of the government's agenda so that anyone earning under $125,000 a year will receive an even bigger tax cut. Under Labor, more than four million Australians will be another $400 a year better off. It proves the lie of this government that says Labor is the bigger-taxing party in government. The vast majority of Australians will be better off—they will pay less tax—under Labor. In my electorate of Lyons, the median weekly income is $981 a week, well below the national and even the Tasmanian average. Less than 10 per cent of my constituents earn more than $90,000 a year. The vast majority of people in Lyons will have more money in their pockets under Labor. That is an absolute fact. Labor can deliver these bigger, better and fairer tax cuts to working Australians because we are not backing billions in giveaways for banks and corporations. That means we can also reinvest in vital community services like health and education, which the Liberals have cut. Labor will put back the $17 billion into schools that the Liberals cut. We know that $17 billion invested in our kids is a better investment than giving $17 billion to the banks. Labor will invest more in health and hospitals, including an extra $30 million in Tasmania's hospitals, which are suffering under the Hodgman Liberal state government. Labor will invest more in TAFE after this government, in this budget, ripped $270 million out of TAFE. We will fund 100,000 places to ensure that our kids have the skills to fill the jobs that this century requires. We will invest more in apprenticeships and even require that one in 10 jobs on Commonwealth projects be filled by an apprentice. We know that there are 130,000 fewer apprentices since this government came to power. It's a shameful record, at a time when we are importing so many skills from overseas, that so many young people have been denied a place in trades training. These are stark differences—and there will be stark differences at the next election. People have a real choice. The Liberals have their failed, trickle-down economics, 'look after the top end of town' and 'make the rich richer' philosophy. It's failed. They've tried it overseas. The US has had it in place since Reagan's time. You cut the taxes for the top end of town and somehow believe that the money will be invested and will make its way down to the workers one day. It hasn't happened. They've been trying it for 40 years—it has failed. There is living proof. The once great American middle class has been rent asunder. It's gone. The American dream that we all once aspired to—mum and dad, the suburban house and the car in the drive—is all gone. In America you are struggling or you're rich. There's no in-between. People are struggling to afford their health care or they're captive in their employment because that's where their private health insurance is. This is the sort of model these people want to bring to this country. I know there was irony there when Donald Horne called his book The Lucky Country, but we have taken that slogan on—'the lucky country'. It's a great country. It didn't just happen by accident. This country enjoys the stability and the prosperity that it does because of the sacrifice and the decisions made by previous members of this parliament. It was no accident. It didn't just happen by magic. Laws and policies made by this parliament, to protect trade unions and the right to protest and to bring in fair work provisions, the eight-hour day, the weekend and penalty rates, are what made this country great. By making life affordable for people at the bottom end, that is what generates economic activity. I'm no great fan of Henry Ford. He was a nasty fascist, but one thing he did understand was business. He knew that, if he was going to make a whole pile of cars, the best way for him to sell more cars was to make sure that his workers could afford to buy them. Ford made sure that workers in his factories could afford to buy the products he was making. It's basic business. You empower the people at the bottom—you give them enough economic power—and that's where you generate your economic activity from. The more you casualise, the more you contract out and the more you make people insecure at the bottom, the less they're going buy and the less economic activity they're going to generate. They're going to hold onto their money—'I'm not sure I've got a shift next week; I'll hold onto what little cash I've got. I'm not sure I'll be able to afford the rent, so I better squirrel it away.' When you have confidence, secure wages and secure work, that's when you go out and purchase and generate economic activity, and that's when you create jobs. At the next election, there's a choice between the failed trickle-down philosophy of this government and those opposite, and Labor, with bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for the vast majority of people in this country. The top end are going to miss out—hand on heart. If you're in the gallery and you're super-rich, sorry, you're getting no tax cuts under Labor. But if you're a working person on a wage under $125,000, you're going to be better off. Labor understands that economic activity is generated from the bottom up. We know that. There's been 25 or 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth in this country, thanks to those on this side of the House—and we look forward to making things even better when we get on the other side of the House. Thank you. 12:45 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to talk about the cornerstone of this government's great budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. This obviously comes on the back of the announcement we made about the million jobs that have been created since 2013, one of the promises that we've kept. Opposition members interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM I hear a bit of noise from the other side. They were very good at keeping promises, weren't they? There was Grocery Watch and all those sort of things, which they seem to have forgotten about. An old adage comes to mind when we talk about taxes: there is no certainty in life except death and taxes. Taxes are necessary in a civil society to fund essential government services. But we should never lose sight of where this money actually comes from. It's not the government's money; it is money from hardworking Australians. We have an obligation to those hardworking Australians to ensure that we spend within our means, take as little as we possibly can and avoid the wasteful spending that those on the opposite side thrive on. Our tax system needs reform; anyone who thinks it doesn't has blinkers on. This bill is just one part of our reform of the tax system. This bill will deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes. We have to remember that this money, as I said before, is the money of every Australian. It is not the government's money. Australians have earned it, they have worked hard for it, they know how to spend it and they should have the right to spend it. No-one knows better how to spend money than those who have earned it. We have heard that from some very famous people and we have heard it from many on this side as well. But those opposite, like every other left-leaning political party around the world, seem to believe they know what is best for you. This is quite a paternalistic view; but, then again, those opposite have never trusted the Australian people with personal responsibility. There are 71,736 taxpayers in my electorate of Swan and they stand to benefit from the upcoming low- and middle-income tax relief in 2018-19. There are 99,248 constituents on the electoral role in Swan. Of that number, 71,736 people are going to be better off under our personal income tax plan. That sounds pretty good to me. This bill contains a number of changes that strike the right balance between improving the system for all Australians and ensuring that the top earners pay their fair share. We are helping people manage household budget pressures. Those opposite, whenever they are on the government benches, completely disregard the budgetary pressures on Australian families. This government, through this bill, is providing certainty for most working Australians that they will face the same tax rate over their working life. The coalition government's seven-year plan is affordable and fiscally responsible, as outlined in the budget. It will provide certainty to workers and, unlike the plans of those opposite, it will ensure that, if you make more money, if you work overtime or happen to come into share dividends or spend more time working on a weekend, you won't be penalised by a higher tax rate. Labor has already announced more than $200 billion of taxes whilst in opposition. There is the housing tax, the savings tax, the family business tax and now we have the retirees tax. And we could probably see the introduction of a death tax under the opposition—obviously something the Australian people don't like. Those opposite, under the current Labor leader, are for higher taxes. Liberals are for lower taxes. Opposition members interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM Perhaps they want to follow the advice of Bernie Sanders and mention the paradise of Venezuela under Maduro—because that seems to be where they have lifted their tax plan from. I heard the member for Mackellar speaking here about Venezuela and letting the member for Fenner know what the actual problems are with a high-taxing government and why people cross the borders to spend their money and purchase products because they can't afford to buy them in their own country, where the taxes are so high. Those opposite don't like self-funded retirees—we know that—or anyone who has taken a bit of a risk in their lives. We know those opposite have sold out any credentials to say they care about business. This bill has three parts and is extended over seven years. Step 1 of this bill is providing tax relief to low- and middle-income earners to help ease the cost of living pressures. This bill will start permanent tax relief by introducing the low- and middle-income tax offset, a new non-refundable tax offset for the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years. This offset will assist over 10 million Australians, with a maximum benefit of $530 being provided to around 4.4 million taxpayers. Taxpayers earning between $48,000 and $90,000 will receive the maximum benefit of $530. For some reason, those opposite seem to think that $530 isn't much to anyone. For context, for a uni student that difference will mean whether or not they can cover two years of the compulsory student union fees those opposite rammed through the parliament when they last sat on these benches. This offset will provide a benefit of up to $200 for taxpayers with taxable incomes up to $37,000. From $37,000 it will increase at a rate of three cents per dollar to a maximum benefit of $530 for taxable incomes of $48,000. The offset will phase out at a rate of 1.5 cents per dollar between the taxable incomes of $90,000 and $125,333. Step 2 of this bill will be to combat bracket creep, something that people of our age and, I'm sure, the member for Moreton have lived under for many years. Many Australians have enormous disdain for it. This is something that the coalition want to get rid of, but those opposite seem to care about that as much as they care about small business. From 2018-19 the top threshold for 32.5 per cent income tax bracket will be increased from $87,000 to $90,000, reducing taxes by up to $135 for taxpayers earning above $87,000. This will help many in my electorate, considering that in the great state of Western Australia the average salary is already around $88,000. But, according to the member for McMahon, if they earn $3,000 or $4,000 more they are rich. From 2022-23 the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent bracket will be further increased from $90,000 to $120,000, and the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000. The low- and middle-income tax offset will be replaced by increasing the low income tax offset from $445 to $645. The increased LITO and the increase in the top threshold of the 19 per cent bracket guarantee the benefits of step 1. Here are a few examples to see what it means for people in my electorate. An accountant, say, on $87,000 in Swan will have an extra $530 in his or her pocket from the budget year onwards. That means an extra $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. A shop assistant on $45,000 in Swan will have an extra $440 in their pocket from the budget year onwards. That means an extra $3,380 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan as the tax relief increases. A hairdresser on $50,000 in Swan 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 as the tax relief increases. Mr Perrett HVP It's a tax refund. Mr IRONS HYM Why don't you like hairdressers in Swan? I hear the member for Moreton having a go at hairdressers in Swan. Why don't you like hairdressers in Swan? Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM Have a look at yours! A high school teacher on $75,000 in Swan— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM They always go to the man when they haven't got any substance to their argument. They always go to the man. A high school teacher on $75,000 in Swan 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. Step 3 of this bill will simplify and flatten the tax system to ensure aspiration and that Australians who strive for their dreams are not disincentivised from earning more money. From the 2024-25 income year the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be further increased from $120,000 to $200,000, completely removing the 37 per cent tax bracket and simplifying the personal income tax system. This means that people will stay in the same tax bracket over their working life. The top marginal rate of 45 per cent will remain, but only after their incomes reach more than $200,000. These changes will mean that around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024-25. This compares with a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 under the current settings. Under this bill bracket creep will be practically nonexistent. True to form, the Labor Party has twisted the words and started their usual scare campaign, claiming we're only helping the rich. I thought the Prime Minister explained it well when he said: Now under our long-term plan, when it’s fully set up, fully completed in seven years, someone earning $205,000 will make obviously five times as much as someone on $41,000 but they will pay 13 times as much tax. So they’ll earn five times as much but they’ll pay 13 times as much tax. So the idea that we are dismantling the progressive tax system is simply absurd. It's clear the Australian people are smarter than Labor and its petty scare campaigns give them credit for being. People will be better off under our tax system. Those opposite like to denigrate the idea of thinking past an election cycle or two because they've never looked further than an election cycle. Perhaps that might mean those opposite standing by their principles and not changing their policy when the wind blows in a different direction to yesterday. To give some context, the government's tax plan means that 73 per cent of my electorate of 98,000 people will benefit from these changes. This tax plan nurtures the Australian dream, supports aspiration and will ensure those who earn more pay a fair share and do not get bumped up to a higher rate for earning just a few dollars more. I heard the member for Melbourne yesterday calling this plan a flat tax, similar to what former Speaker of the US Congress Newt Gingrich attempted to bring in during the 1990s. While the member for Melbourne has a silk tie on his neck and continues to bash his drum, funnily enough, from 1 March under the new EBA of the members he represented in the ETU A-grade class 4 electricians on service maintenance installation will actually earn more than $90,000 over a year. Are these electricians the rich the member from Melbourne wants to stoke class warfare against? It seems crazy. This is bill is part of an approach the government is taking to ensure a stronger economy for all Australians. Those opposite seem to forget that this House doesn't create jobs or projects. It is hardworking Australians in small and medium businesses that employ people and keep this country going—and they are also the major employers of Australians. Our commitment to ensuring government gets out of the way and allows people the opportunity to forge their own path through life and to nurture individualism and aspiration will mean nothing but a greater Australia and innovation. Gone are the days of economic rationalisation from those opposite. Gone are the days of caring about the middle class and caring about Australia. We on this side of the chamber, unlike those opposite, have an incredible plan to surplus—not saying one thing to the people of Longman and another thing to the people of Fremantle. Labor say they'll tax more, spend more and come back to a surplus sooner, all while giving bigger tax cuts. It is a policy dilemma if ever I've heard one. The only thing the Australian public needs to remember is: watch what Labor do; don't listen to what they say. Those opposite said the mining tax wouldn't hurt WA, and they lied on that. They also said in 2007, when they got elected, that they'd give WA a $100 million infrastructure fund. It never happened. As I said before, watch what they do; don't listen to what they say. Those opposite, under the stewardship of the former member for Griffith and member for Lilley, would bring us to surplus and work to fix GST in Western Australia as well. They delivered nothing on the GST, not $1. Instead, they gave us the pink batts scandal and no plan for surplus. Australians cannot trust Labor. They'll say anything to get their hands on the keys to the Lodge. I reflect on the famous 'The Forgotten People' speech by the great Sir Robert Menzies, our longest serving Prime Minister, when he spoke on the impact of taxes: We have talked of income from savings as if it possessed a somewhat discreditable character. We have taxed it more and more heavily. We have spoken slightingly of the earning of interest at the very moment when we have advocated new pensions and social schemes. I have myself heard a minister of power and influence declare that no deprivation is suffered by a man if he still has the means to fill his stomach, clothe his body and keep a roof over his head. And yet the truth is, as I have endeavoured to show, that frugal people who strive for and obtain the margin above these materially necessary things are the whole foundation of a really active and developing national life. I encourage those opposite to reconsider their approach to this bill. It will effectively deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes for hardworking Australians, just as we have delivered a million jobs in the last five years. 13:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Just before this year's budget was delivered, people might remember the Treasurer junking the Liberal and National Party plans to increase taxes on every single Australian with their NDIS and Medicare levy hike. That plan was based on the completely untrue suggestion that Labor did anything other than fully fund the vital NDIS. I repeat: the member for Lilley, as Treasurer under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard, completely funded the NDIS, an initiative that flowed from the policy work of Bill Shorten and Jenny Macklin. So, the Medicare levy increase proposed by those opposite and opposed by Labor was thrown on the scrapheap, joining some distinguished company in the Abbott and Turnbull government's waste-policy bin. Right after this volte-face, the Treasurer held a press conference filled with his usual style of bluster and hot air. He said, 'You will pay more under Labor.' Well, how untrue that has turned out to be. In fact, I remind those opposite—and I see that the member for Swan is here—that, if you look back over the last 50 years in terms of taxing governments, nine out of the 10 highest-taxing governments in the last 50 years have been Liberal and National Party governments. That's a fact that those opposite don't like to remember. However, we know that under Labor we've got the balance right. Labor is proposing bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million Australians than the Turnbull government. The Morrison budget as it stands introduces a tax cut scheme which is in three tranches. On 1 July 2018, which is only 39 days away, the first tranche would introduces a low- and middle-income tax offset, a non-refundable tax offset of up to $530 per year for taxpayers earning up to $125,333. They'd also increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from 87 grand up to 90 grand. The second tranche, coming into place on 1 July 2022, which is 1,500 days away today, would increase the low-income tax offset from $445 up to $645, and the 19 per cent personal income tax bracket would be increased from 37 grand to 41 grand. It would increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from 90 grand up to $120,000. The third tranche, to come into place on 1 July 2024, which is 2,231 days away, would abolish the 37 per cent tax bracket and increase the top threshold from 120 grand to $200,000, which, as people have described, is all but a flat tax for that 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket. Labor have been up-front right from the start on budget night in responses from the member for McMahon and the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten. Labor have said that we'll support the government's proposed changes that are due to take effect on 1 July 2018—39 days away. If the government split the bill so that we could vote for the 1 July changes only, it would have Labor's full support and they could pass it instantly. I do note that it would provide relief only in tax returns a year later. It is an offset, not a refund—a different treatment to the dividend imputation, I note, but that's a story for another day. I have heard that the Greens political party does not support this tranche, but that's a matter for them. With Labor's support, the coalition government would have the numbers in both houses, and this could be done right now. To do this, however, Prime Minister Turnbull and the Treasurer would have to get off their high horse and split the bill. And—to mix equine metaphors—it looks like they're flogging a dead horse with their tax plan. But, if they split the bill in this House, it could then be split in the Senate, and that would allow the parliament to take a detailed and considered position on each of the tranches. A plan that costs over $13 billion over the forward estimates and—according to the government—$140 billion over the medium term deserves intense scrutiny. That is an incredible amount of money. As I said, there's no rush. We have 2,231 days, which is about 53,544 hours, to have a look at the legislation. In question time after question time we've seen that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been unable or unwilling to give or deliberately hiding specific details of this tax plan that they want us to sign off, including the year-by-year costs beyond the forward estimates. It's not good enough for the Treasurer to come into this House and demand that we support a plan for which the detailed costings are not available. Because of its design, tranches come into force outside the forward estimates periods but inside the medium-term projection. Surely it is entirely reasonable that the parliament should be provided with the details to enable an informed decision. There is no way that Labor would ever be a rubber stamp for this mob. We can't trust them. My constituents would be furious if we didn't do our job and scrutinise this budget. Our senators have asked Treasury for more detailed financial information, the year-by-year breakdown of the tranches and the individual components of those tranches, so that we—the parliament, the opposition and the Australian people as a whole—can have better information about what the government are proposing. We've also asked for a breakdown by gender as well as electorate based information to ensure that the Australian people get the best possible deal. As I said earlier, Labor is proposing a bigger, better and fairer tax cut in 2019. Should we win the election, everyone earning less than $125,000 will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plans. For so many of those people, the tax cuts are almost double those being proposed by the government. To help display the benefit of Labor's plan to working Australians, we've launched an online calculator tool at www.biggerbettertaxcut.com.au, and I encourage everybody to get online and have a look. You can actually do some calculations. The website showed earlier that a teacher on $70,000 a year would receive a tax cut of $982 a year under Labor. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively would receive a bigger tax cut than that which the government is proposing—nearly $2,000, in fact, which is $800 better than the coalition government's plan. That website again, so everyone can have a look, is www.biggerbettertaxcut.com.au. We don't believe the hype and the heavy breathing coming from those opposite. As I pointed out, when they're talking about taxing governments, nine out of 10 of the highest-taxing governments over the last 50 years have been coalition governments. I've spoken about why Labor will support the initial stage—the one that begins on 1 July this year—and how Labor will go further to deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million Australians. But what are some of the other problems with this Turnbull government plan? Obviously, we haven't seen the full picture, but early indications are that, once the government's three-stage plan is in place, it will deliver larger benefits to those on higher incomes. Who would have thought of a coalition government doing that, looking after the top end of town? But we know that this is an out-of-touch government. Obviously if you're putting your money in a bank in the Cayman Islands rather than investing in Australia, you've got some other things on your mind. It makes sense, for a government that have demonstrated time after time their commitment to support the top end of town, that that's where they're going to send the benefits. Teachers, nurses, labourers—no. Casuals, those who rely on penalty rates or are forced into labour hire—no. CEOs, company directors and their mates—of course, they get the biggest tax cuts. For example, ANU's Ben Phillips has estimated that, after the government's full plan is in place, someone in the highest quintile, the highest 20 per cent, will see a 2.2 per cent rise in their income—good luck for them—compared to those in the middle quintile, who will only get a 1.1 per cent rise. And the lowest quintile, those who need it most, will only get a 0.2 per cent rise. Of the tax cuts by 2027, over 60 per cent of the cuts will go to the top quintile, the top 20 per cent, of households. NATSEM modelling suggests that this new tax system from 2024-25 is less progressive than the current system. It means higher income inequality. The rich get more of the tax cuts than anyone else, effectively baking in a less egalitarian society. As part of the new proposal, low- and middle-income earners getting a tax offset in 2018-19, with high-income earners getting very little. This part of the plan is progressive: more money goes to lower-income earners. However, looking after the long-term, by 2024-25 the tax cuts mean high-income earners gain $7,225 per year while those earning $50,000 to $90,000 only gain $540 per year. The Grattan Institute has assessed that, while the government's plan doesn't make the tax system much less progressive, it does find that, once the three-stage plan is complete, $15 billion of the annual $25 billion cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20 per cent of income earners. And it doesn't just start at income. Analysis by the Australian Institute shows that roughly two-thirds of the benefit of the government's proposed income tax cuts will flow to men, with men dominating the ranks of the high-income earners. For every dollar in tax cuts for women, men will get two. I suspect that the government members contributing to this debate may use some statistics to claim there is a greater benefit to low- and middle-income earners. That doesn't surprise me. We've seen this sort of exaggeration before. But 2022 and 2024 are a long way away. The government is locking in policy commitments that don't come into force for seven years. We don't know what the world will look like by then. I'm not sure what the international economy will be doing by then, and also we should be focusing on strengthening the fiscal buffers and building Australia's resilience to any such stocks. As the IMF stated just last month: Decisive action is needed now to strengthen fiscal buffers, taking full advantage of the cyclical upswing in activity. When it comes to economic forecasts, it's not just Labor saying that the wage forecasts are questionable. Economist after economist has come out backing up this claim, saying: … uncertainty persists on whether wages growth will pick up significantly enough to support revenues. That's from Moody's. 'We're doing the tax cut before the revenue is realised', says Stephen Anthony, chief economist with Industry Super. 'One area that is questionable is the forecast for wages growth in the final two years of the forward estimates,' says Saul Eslake. What I hear from locals in my electorate is that the wages growth is anything but certain. Most of the people I meet find their wages flat, effectively going backwards when you factor in cost-of-living pressures. What we need now is more money in the pockets of working Australian families, and Australians know that Labor is the party to deliver on that promise. One thing is clear: the 2018 budget is not fair. It gives big business and the banks an $80 billion tax handout and makes Australians pay for it with a savage cut. It fails the fairness test on pensioners. Prime Minister Turnbull is cutting the energy supplement, costing pensioners $14 a fortnight and forcing people to keep working until they are 70. It fails the fairness test on education. Prime Minister Turnbull is still cutting $17 billion from schools and has $270 million in new cuts to TAFE. It fails the fairness test on hospitals and it fails the fairness test on Medicare because the freeze on specialists means that people pay more when they visit their doctor. So here's the choice. Under the Liberals and Nationals, the cost of living will increase for the workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries, who stand to lose up to $77 a week in penalty rates. Families are paying around $20 a week or $1,000 a year more for private health insurance. Parents are paying $40 a week or $2,000 a year more in fees for child care. There are record costs to see a GP: $9 more out of your pocket every time you visit the doctor. But let's look on the other side of the ledger. What does Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten want to deliver for Australia? For a start, Labor will restore penalty rates. Labor won't slash the energy supplement or make pensioners work until they're 70. We'll cap the out-of-control rises to private health insurance. We'll restore the $17 billion cut from schools and all the money cut from hospitals. Labor will abolish the unfair cap on university places, allowing 200,000 more Australians to fulfil their dream of a university education and, of course, all the productivity boost that comes from such investment. Labor will also—and I'm particularly proud of this one—scrap up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn the skills that Australia needs. To make it simple for people: we'll provide bigger, better and fairer tax cuts to 10 million working Australians. The choice is simple. You can either invest in the future of Australia or invest in the top end of town. The battle lines are clear in the lead-up to the next election. This budget has set out an agenda of unfairness. When you compare it against the last five budgets rolled out by those opposite, it is arguably not as cruel as some of them. But that is not a glowing reference. I remember when the then shadow Treasurer said at the Press Club that they would deliver a surplus in their first year of government. I remember when he made that statement. What have we seen under the coalition? We have seen no surplus. We've seen the deficit blow out, and debt skyrocket. 13:15 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin . It is a great honour to be able to speak during the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. Here is an example of a government with a plan for the future that gives tax relief to low- and middle-income earners immediately, ensuring that we address the ongoing issue of bracket creep into the medium term, and making personal income taxes simpler and flatter in step 3 of our plan. This is a plan that will ensure that we work towards a stronger economy. We know and every piece of evidence suggests that if we can assist and encourage aspiration, if we can assist Australians to keep more of their hard-earned money in their own pocket, it strengthens the economy. In contrast to the Labor Party, we don't think it assists the economy to strangle it with ever higher taxes. We also believe, in contrast to the Labor Party, individuals' hard-earned money is theirs; it's not government's. It's not ours to bestow upon them. The Labor Party would suggest that a government just benevolently allows you to keep a bit more of your own money—no, this is their money. It's been said that this plan will deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes. We know and we believe that this will strike a balance between improving the outcomes for low- and middle-income earners and ensure that those who are fortunate to be in higher tax brackets pay the appropriate amount of tax. We know that, with the very progressive tax system that Australia has, higher-income earners pay a much greater and disproportionate share of personal income tax. If you look at Australia, as compared to most of our competitors in the OECD, we have a disproportionate and quite a large reliance on personal income tax. This is a seven-year plan. It is a plan; it is not a cash splash prior to an election, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined in his budget-in-reply speech. This is a plan to ensure that we give people relief immediately, that we address bracket creep so people don't move into ever higher tax brackets and, in the end, that we make our tax system fairer and simpler by removing the 37 per cent marginal tax rate. Importantly, it will mean that 94 per cent of Australians will never pay more than 32½ per cent as a marginal tax rate. In essence, you get to keep two-thirds of your income and the government will take a third. I think most Australians believe that's pretty fair. This bill will put in place a new non-refundable tax offset for the 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 income years. The offset, importantly, will assist over 10 million Australians, with the maximum benefit of $530 being provided to at least 4.4 million taxpayers. Taxpayers earning in the range of $48,000 to $90,000—not high-income earners, millionaires or billionaires, as the Labor Party would outline—will receive that maximum benefit. The offset will similarly provide a benefit of up to $200 for taxpayers with taxable incomes of up to $37,000, and from $37,000 it will increase at a rate of 3c per dollar to that maximum benefit of $530 that I just referred to for taxable incomes of $48,000 or more. The offset will phase out at a rate of 1½c per dollar for taxable incomes between $90,000 and $125,000. This is calibrated tax policy to ensure that the benefits are being provided to people who are working hard, who are contributing to our society and who are paying their taxes. It is allowing them to keep a little bit more. For a double-income family, it will mean over a thousand dollars a year more in a tax offset that they will be able to put towards their electricity bills, the children's school fees, the children's books or the children's school uniforms. So many of these costs that often arrive in one go will be met by an offset that people will now receive at the end of the income year. As I've said, for a double-income family, that'll be over a thousand dollars. Step 2 of the tax plan—a well-thought-through plan—is to combat bracket creep. We know that, in a tax system such as ours, we on this side of the House are always trying to find ways that we can combat bracket creep, and this year's budget does so in extraordinarily wonderful ways. From 2018-19, the top threshold for the 32½ per cent tax bracket will be increased from $87,000 to $90,000. It's important to note that this builds on the hard work done in last year's budget to increase that threshold from $80,000 to $87,000. So in two income years that 32½ per cent tax bracket will have moved from $80,000 to $90,000. From 2022-23, the top threshold of the 32½ per cent bracket will be further increased from its soon-to-be $90,000 threshold to $120,000, and the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000. The low- and middle-income tax offset in that year will be replaced by increasing the low-income tax offset from its then-to-be rate of $445 to $645. This will be a permanent change to the LITO that ensures that the benefits provided to low- and middle-income earners commencing from 1 July this year will be a permanent feature of the system, and it ensures that the benefits that are locked in in step 1 of the tax plan become a permanent feature of our tax system for those low- and middle-income earners from step 2 of the tax plan. Step 3 of the tax plan is extraordinarily important, in simplifying and flattening our tax system. We know we have an extraordinarily progressive tax system, and we believe on this side of the House that it's an extraordinary piece of work that must be done to ensure that we have this ambitious proposal to flatten the tax system. So, from the 2024-25 income year, the top threshold of the 32½ per cent tax bracket will be further increased from $120,000, which it will have been increased to in step 2 of the plan, to $200,000, which will completely remove the 37 per cent tax bracket—of course, simplifying our personal income tax system and more importantly, in layman's terms, ensuring that those individuals who are not millionaires or billionaires by any stretch of the imagination are not paying more than 32½c in the dollar until they reach that $200,000 threshold. This will mean that the majority of people will stay in the same tax bracket their whole lives. They won't have to move onto oppressively higher tax rates on incomes that you wouldn't describe as being extraordinarily high. That is going to assist in participation in the economy and assist in people doing and seeking to do additional hours and not being punished for those pleasant but unexpected pay rises or pleasant but unexpected promotions, which, at the moment, under the current tax system, push people onto higher and higher tax rates. These changes will mean that 94 per cent of Australians won't pay more than 32½c in the dollar in their lives. We think that is an extraordinarily important step in this plan—because this is a plan. It's not a feature of one budget or two budgets; it's a plan, and it can be legislated by this parliament now. It can be locked in. We can say to Australians, with confidence as a parliament and a Senate, 'You can expect personal income tax relief each year for the next seven years.' I know many Australians, particularly during the Howard and Costello years, became pleasantly accustomed to personal income tax relief almost year on year. Until last year's budget, when the middle threshold was moved from $80,000 to $87,000, Australians had not seen that personal income tax relief for many years. As a parliament and as a government, we are very keen to ensure Australians can have the certainty over the next seven years that, as they work harder, as they try to provide for their families and as they work hard, day in, day out, we have said to them, 'We can guarantee a plan and a framework by which you are guaranteed additional personal income tax relief, year on year, for the next seven years.' We think, in the end, that this bill and the plan contained within it reward effort, foster aspiration and improve the opportunities to strive for success in your own life. That shows, in the end, the competing visions that we have in this parliament. Do we have a plan for aspiration, or is there a bitter, jealous— Mr Coleman 241067 Envious. Mr SUKKAR 242515 envious approach to politics? I don't think Australians are bitter and jealous and envious. I actually don't think that's in their nature. I think Australians are very confident about their future. I think they're very aspirational. In the end, they want to work hard to provide for themselves and their families. Above all, I think they know, instinctively, that each dollar that they can keep in their own pockets will be far better spent by them than by government. The litany of higher taxes that the Labor Party has quite shamelessly and unashamedly committed to—$220 billion of higher taxes—is really a message that says to Australians, 'We want more of your hard-earned money because we can spend it better than you.' Instinctively, I don't think Australians believe that. I don't think the history of the 'glory years' of the Wayne Swan treasurership has proven that the Labor Party can spend taxpayers' money better than taxpayers can spend their own money. I certainly don't think that's the evidence of those 'glory years', as they're described. Our view is that Australians are encouraging us, as a parliament, to lock in these seven years of tax cuts so they can have relief. They know that they will get additional and increasing tax relief over the next seven years, because this is going to be so important as a cornerstone of our strengthening and growing economy, our ambitions and—something we can be very proud of—a $2 trillion economy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 36 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Palmer, Mr Clive 36 13:30 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I cannot tell you how disgusted and appalled I was to get four copies of books from the previous member for Fairfax and the owner of Queensland Nickel. He blatantly let things go to the pack in Townsville, where over 800 people lost their jobs. There are still people in my community who do not have a job since Clive Palmer closed Queensland Nickel. There are people like Peter Koitka, who is owed $27,000, and there are other people who are collectively owed hundreds of thousands of dollars of their entitlement. There are people close to retirement who have not been paid. I demand that Clive Palmer pay their entitlements instead of swanning around the world having luxury holidays and not looking after his workers. It is disrespectful and completely unacceptable to the workers in Townsville that Clive invests in this litany of egotistical self-interest that he has sent out to every member of parliament whilst workers in my community have not had their entitlements paid. Right now I have a recycling bin in my office. I am inviting members and senators to come and put these books in the recycling bin for a demonstration to Clive Palmer that that is where he put the people of Townsville. Diabetes 36 13:31 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia A couple of weeks ago I met an intriguing and utterly inspiring young woman by the name of Chelsea. We met in a cafe in Moranbah, where she and her family live, and we enjoyed each other's company over breakfast—my, what a breakfast! Chelsea devoured what her mother labelled 'a very special treat': pancakes. You might think to yourself: 'What's so special about that? I eat pancakes for breakfast now and then.' That may be so, but chances are that you don't have type 1 diabetes. Chelsea and her mother, Rebecca, live a life somewhat devoted to this chronic disease. Regardless of how diligent they are or how comfortable they get with the daily regime of blood tests and needles, this chronic disorder is always there, always waiting for a slip-up or growth spurt to make life difficult. The medical world has certainly come a long way when it comes to delivering insulin, the missing chemical in diabetics, to a point where today many are able to get about with internal pumps that measure blood glucose and administer appropriate amounts of insulin, almost like a pancreas. Unfortunately, these pumps are both expensive and cumbersome for an active young woman whose favourite things in the world are cheerleading and gymnastics. Her active life means Chelsea has to endure a series of often painful needles throughout the day. I was really taken with the confidence and determination of Chelsea, and I wish to join her in trying to help raise awareness of diabetes and the toll it takes on sufferers and their families. Chelsea is certainly a hard person to forget, and I look forward to catching up with her again soon. (Time expired) Gavin, Mrs Joy 36 13:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Some people are irreplaceable, the mark they leave on a community indelible, their contribution unforgettable. I want to tell the parliament about Joy Gavin because she was one of those people. We lost her earlier this month when, after 16 years of surgeries, radiation, chemotherapy and repeatedly outliving prognoses, the cancer finally prevailed. Joy lived in Springwood in my electorate for 40-odd years and was such an instrumental part in the Special Olympics movement in our area and, before that, out west. She started the swimming program at Logan over a decade ago and was a coach and mentor since then. She volunteered as treasurer and registrar in the basketball for almost as long, and that's how I got to know her. Among the many reasons basketball raining at Special Olympics Logan was so welcoming was because, more often than not, one of the first faces you'd see was Joy's. She could smile even on the days you knew were difficult for her. Our Special Olympics family will miss her a great deal. We send our love to Cedric; Amanda; my friend and sometimes teammate, Paula; and her two grandkids. We make this commitment: we will surround Paula with the same dedication, support and affection that Joy surrounded so many others with. We will be warm and welcoming like her, and we won't ever forget Joy Gavin and what she did in our community. Fisher Electorate: Roads 37 13:34 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher For two years now the Queensland state Labor government has been crawling like the Bruce Highway at peak hour toward the publication of the desperately needed Caloundra to Pine Rivers upgrade planning study. During those two years and following a lot of hard work from members on this side of the House, the Commonwealth government has committed $2.3 billion to upgrading the Bruce between the coast and Brisbane. We're ready to go. The money is there. The only thing holding us back now is Minister Mark Bailey. Minister Bailey assured me last year that the study would be published before the end of 2017, yet after six months and no fewer than eight direct requests from my office we are still waiting. Every week Mark Bailey delays is another week that Sunshine Coast residents must needlessly put up with this dangerous and congested stretch of road. My community needs and demands the results of this study now and in full. It's no longer good enough to publish only part of the plan. We have all the money we need in place. We need to know what the full program will look like so we can get shovels in the ground on all of the necessary work now. On behalf of all my constituents, I say to Minister Bailey: enough is enough. Publish the planning study in full today and commit to the state's 20 per cent share of funding, and we will do the rest with our 80 per cent and get this job done. Schools 37 13:36 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Continuing my Youth Voices in Parliament campaign, I'd like to share the voice of Sahitha, a Year 7 student from my electorate who has dreams of becoming a politician. Today she would like to raise the issue of heavy schoolbags. These are her words: 'It's the time of year when our education gets tough, when we receive loads of homework and we have to carry a lot of books. I understand that we are opening the door to higher education, but the fact that we young children need to carry humongous loads is ridiculous. Physiotherapists say that children should be carrying 10 per cent of their weight. I weigh 49 kilograms and 10 per cent of the amount is 4.9. When my schoolbag was weighed it reached seven kilograms. That is 2.1 more kilograms than the weight I should be carrying. This can lead to back pain, shoulder injuries and a hunched back. It was definitely a big jump from primary school to high school. In primary, all we had to carry was a bag with lunch, homework and our hats and drink bottle. Then came high school—three to eight periods with three to eight different books. Some classes have additional books. Then there's food and water, hats and equipment if doing extra activities as well as our laptops. The difference is gigantic. If immediate action is not taken, the government will need to spend more money on health care in coming years. This could be fixed by allowing teachers to keep our books unless we have homework or to give students lockers to hold the books they don't need. I hope this issue is taken seriously and further actions are taken.' Well said, Sahitha. I'll pass your comments onto the relevant ministers and shadows, state and federal, and ask them to address your issues. Keep speaking up. Farrer Electorate: Griffith 37 13:37 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer 'With all the trappings of urban life, $320,000 homes and $80,000-a-year jobs going begging, why don't more people live here?' These are the opening lines from a recent Weekend Australian article about Griffith in my electorate of Farrer. According to demographer Bernard Salt, Griffith is one of the most desirable places to live in Australia, with low unemployment, good population growth and affordable housing. It's a regional city bucking many of the trends in rural areas, with a diverse economy overperforming in many industries, including poultry production, wine, cotton and rice farms, citrus, melon and vegetables. The size of some of our local businesses is staggering. Unemployment is remarkably low, at around 2.9 per cent, with some businesses struggling to find skilled workers. A recent council initiative resulted in the creation of the Griffith Now Hiring website, which launched on the Today show last September. International migrants make a huge contribution to local employment across the New South Wales Riverina, and Griffith is no exception. Still, one of the greatest challenges for Griffith is: where will we find our future domestic workforce? There could be up to 12,000 positions we need to fill in just the next five years. What I love about the city is its vibrancy, food and wine, laughter and lifestyle. So please visit or come and work here. Either way, Griffith will charm you enough for you to want to stay. Chifley Electorate: Mount Druitt Reconciliation Walk 38 13:39 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Last Saturday the Chifley community gathered for a special occasion, the 21st Mount Druitt Reconciliation Walk. The event united many locals for a terrific day out. There were stalls, activities for the kids, the famous sausage sizzle and, of course, the walk through Mt Druitt, which commenced at midday. I'm extremely proud of the fact Chifley is the home to the highest urban population of Aboriginal people in the country. The Reconciliation Walk is just one opportunity for us to join together as part of the national reconciliation effort. It commenced as a result of the strength of feeling in the community decades earlier that we hadn't done enough to heal the rift between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. So the community met at Holy Family Church at Emerton decades ago. I want to commend, thank and recognise Father Paul Hanna, the former parish priest; the late Coral McLean; and my predecessor, Roger Price. They worked furiously and continuously to ensure the walk would grow and continue. This year we raised $4,000 through the Chifley Coral McLean Award to support the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group in holding the walk. Congratulations to them for all their efforts—in particular, Lynne Learson. A massive thank you to everyone who assisted, including the Baabayn Aboriginal Corporation, Mount Druitt Police and Blacktown Council. As we all know, there's still a long way to go. But it's absolutely vital that we keep walking towards closing the gap and achieving reconciliation. Forrest Electorate: Bunbury Golf Club 38 13:41 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Congratulations to the dedicated committee, members and staff of the Bunbury Golf Club, which was awarded the 2017 Regional Club of the Year award by the WA Golf Industry Awards Council. The club was formed following a group of so-called golf tragics getting together to look at developing the course in 1945. The first shot teed off in 1948, and the rest is history. Today the club is home to over 700 members. They have held the top state event. They have twice held the National State Series—in 2001 and 2012. They host the annual South West Open, which celebrates its 68th birthday on the WA Day long weekend. World-renowned golfers Seve Ballesteros, Graham Marsh and Craig Parry have played on the green. I would also like to congratulate long-term club member Lesley Malcolm, who hit not one hole in one but two at the Bunbury Golf Club in March. Lesley is 81 years of age—81 years young—and a fantastic example of this great sport. The recent extensions and upgrades to the club rooms continue to offer great opportunities for their members. I commend Lesley's performance and the Bunbury Golf Club, and encourage people to go and have a look at the wonderful flora and fauna—the fabulous kangaroos—that are an attract at the Bunbury Golf Club in my electorate. Abortion 38 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This Friday, Ireland will vote in a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment of the Irish constitution and allow women access to safe and legal abortion. From the Parliament of Australia, I today send a message of solidarity to the women of Ireland. I affirm my unequivocal support for the right of all women to full control over their own bodies and safe legal abortion. The current restrictive laws in Ireland don't stop abortion, they just make it unsafe. Each year, 3,000 women and girls travel to the United Kingdom as their only option to access a termination. Women who do have pregnancies terminated in the UK or elsewhere are left without medical support upon their return to Ireland. Women who have faced barriers to accessing abortion and appropriate medical treatment have lost their lives. Members of the Irish community in Melbourne have shown their support for the repeal, including through supporter events at Handsome Her and within my electorate at The Drunken Poet. As we support the reproductive rights of women in Ireland, so we must continue to fight in Australia. In Queensland, abortion remains a criminal offence under many circumstances. It's only in recent years that laws have been passed to stop the harassment of women outside the East Melbourne Fertility Control Clinic in my electorate. And it saddens me that there are also many members of this parliament who would not support and legal abortion rights. I pledge that I and the Greens will always stand up for the right to safe and legal abortion. Tangney Electorate: Alfred Cove Art Society 38 13:43 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney The Alfred Cove Art Society's Annual Awards of Excellence art exhibition is on again in my electorate beginning this weekend. This will be the 19th year this fantastic local exhibition will be showcasing artists in my local area. More than 80 paintings by talented artists will be on display this year. Hundreds of people from Tangney and across Perth will be visiting Atwell House, on the Canning Highway, over the next week to view and buy these paintings from award winning artists. Prizes for particularly excellent works will be awarded by the judging panel. These prizes are being sponsored by local businesses in my community. For this year's event I'll be sponsoring the Tangney award, which will go to the best painting based on a feature or landscape in Tangney. The opening night next week will be a fantastic event, but I sadly will miss it because of parliament's sitting. I am looking forward, however, to visiting the exhibition when I get home and to meeting the winner of the inaugural Tangney award. Last year I managed to purchase a very special painting by Rosemary Seal that is now proudly hanging in my electorate office. Thank you to president Jenny Tunnacliffe, the committee and the Alfred Cove Art Society's talented members for putting on this special event once again for the 19th year. Tasmania: Volunteering 39 13:45 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise today to congratulate the Launceston RSL ADF Welfare Team for its success in the recent Volunteering Tasmania volunteering awards for 2018. The ADF Welfare Team was formed over a year ago in response to a gap in support services for veterans. Tasmania has a proud history of supplying members of our armed services and a higher proportion of ex-service personnel from the general population. The dedicated team provide a range of services to former and current ADF members who might be struggling to get by or to re-integrate with civilian life. The ADF Welfare Team is led by Nadia Titley, who only two weeks ago contacted me for help with housing excess furniture that had been donated, such is the level of community support for their good works. In Tasmania at the moment there is a housing crisis, and overnight temperatures in Tasmania drive the urgency for real action to address housing and homelessness. Some veterans are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. They are isolated, homeless and, as we heard in the parliamentary inquiry last year, suicidal. The ADF Welfare Team provides everything from a friendly ear that understands to support packs for people who find themselves homeless and to helping with practical help with housing and accommodation. In 2014 the socioeconomic and cultural value to Tasmania of volunteering was estimated at a conservative $4.9 billion. The work these volunteers are doing is priceless to our veterans, and I congratulate them. (Time expired) Longman Electorate: Parliamentary Representation 39 13:46 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I'm standing today as someone who's really excited. I'm excited because I bring some wonderful news to the House. There's a vacant seat in this chamber on which two words are written. Do you know what those two words are? Those two words are 'Trevor Ruthenberg'— A government member: Big Trev. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Big Trev, Trevor Ruthenberg, is the next member for the seat of Longman. It is a seat that is currently not represented in this chamber. It is a seat that does not have a voice. The people of Burpengary and Bribie Island do not have a voice in this chamber. The people of Kallangur and Caboolture do not have representation in this chamber. Why? Because the Leader of the Opposition gave the people of Longman a guarantee. He looked them in the eye and gave them a rolled gold guarantee, no less, but he was caught. He was found out. He was busted. The people of Longman know he is a man who cannot be trusted in the future. But they do have a man they can trust now, and that man is Trevor Ruthenberg. Let those two names reign and ring loud and clear across Longman, because at long last they will have a real voice in this chamber. (Time expired) Burt Youth Leadership Forum 39 13:48 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Earlier this year I convened the inaugural Burt Youth Leadership Forum, bringing together student leaders from high schools across Perth's south-east. The students presented on what they saw as the most important challenges affecting young people in our community and across Australia. The students raised the NBN, which seems a long way away from many people in Burt, and the effects of this government's growing debt. However, the priority issues that they identified were drug use, mental health, youth crime and violence and the need to better value education. I think today's leaders would be very curious to hear the suggestions put forward by these leaders of tomorrow. Western Australia continues to suffer the scourge of illicit drug use. We heard recommendations for improved and more-confrontational education campaigns that show realistic effects of drugs. The students talked about mental health and asked for a greater focus on mental health education for both teachers and students. Following recent incidents of local youth violence, students suggested creating safe spaces where young people can seek help and guidance, programs aimed at young people and where family violence can be properly addressed. Finally, the students recommended we place an increased value on education through increasing funding to facilitate smaller teaching loads, better funding for education degrees and encouraging high-achieving students to get into teaching. I've taken their suggestions to the top, including to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the WA Premier. (Time expired) PEARSON, Dr Richard 40 13:50 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I rise to pay tribute to Dr Richard Pearson. Richard was a loving husband to Lucy, a dedicated father to John and Jane, a respected doctor, an LNP member and an incredibly loyal friend. Richard was eminently pragmatic in his approach to his politics and fought hard for his principles. He didn't suffer fools or foolish policy. His involvement in the Galileo movement against the carbon tax demonstrated his conviction approach to his politics. Richard was active in the Noosa community both as a founding member of the Sunshine Beach Surf Life Saving Club and as a member of the Tewantin Noosa Golf Club. When a scan revealed stage 4 lung cancer, Richard was given four months to live. Never one to shy from a fight, he demanded the cancer be cut out. Two years later he took the same approach when cancerous growth was found in his pelvic bone. Despite fighting hard through a range of treatments, he passed away at home. Richard was in a frail state when I last saw him in his Tewantin garden. He was building a flagpole for an Australian flag I had given him. His determination to build that flagpole while so unwell will forever remain with me, reminding me of his patriotism and willingness to fight the good fight. SILCOCK, Ms Janeen 40 13:51 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to acknowledge an inspirational person in my electorate: Janeen Silcock, Principal of Ballina Coast High School. She was recently awarded a $45,000 fellowship as part of the Commonwealth Bank Teaching Awards. Held in partnership with Schools Plus, the awards recognise the many amazing teachers who are transforming learning outcomes at their schools. Janeen was chosen as one of only 12 remarkable teachers from across Australia. I believe she'll use the fellowship to further fund one of the excellent and innovative in-school programs which provide new learning methods for the school community. Janeen's been teaching for 36 years. One of the biggest challenges she faced was the amalgamation of two very different high schools: Ballina High and Southern Cross. Janeen successfully managed this transition with the involvement of teachers, students and community members and ended up designing a completely new high school that truly values innovation. I'm told that, as a result of the positive culture at the school, attendance, behaviour and engagement with learning have all improved. Janeen is quoted saying: I've worked to ensure the design of the new school is about students and learning and not about a building. I want a school where students can colour inside and outside the lines. Janeen understands what a pivotal role teachers play in the lives of our children, and Janeen herself has expressed a wish that we aim towards a recognition of teachers as honourable people. I truly agree. I certainly would like to commend and congratulate Janeen on her honourable and excellent leadership in the Ballina community and wish her and the new Ballina Coast High School every success in all of their endeavours. Health Care 40 13:53 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn When it comes to health, Labor puts politics before patients. Oh, yes; they're at it again, peddling lies that we're cutting back on health. They lied to the Australian people about Medicare and they are lying to the Australian people about health funding. These are the facts that are in our budget. We continued rock-solid support of our commitment to Medicare with an additional $4.8 billion in funding and record investment in public hospitals. We are investing more in public hospitals than ever before. The new agreement from 2021 to 2024-25 has a record $130 billion. The new agreement has been signed off by six out of the eight states and territories. Funding increases in every state and territory every year deliver more doctors, more nurses and more services. There is $29.5 billion in the new agreement for Queensland public hospitals. That is $29.5 billion for five years from 2021 to 24-25. It is a $7.49 billion—34 per cent—increase over five years. Doesn't that tell a story? Only the coalition government will continue to put patients first. La Mama Theatre 40 13:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Today I speak as a former shadow minister for the arts but also as a Melburnian to express my shock and sadness about the burning down of the much-loved La Mama Theatre on Faraday Street in Carlton. As the member for Wills and the member for Lalor have told the parliament, La Mama is an institution of Melbourne's arts scene, a place where many of Melbourne's famed actors and artists had their start. It's Melbourne's equivalent to New York's famed off-off-Broadway theatres, including Manhattan's La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club, after which the Melbourne theatre was named. I've seen many extraordinary performances at La Mama, including one by my dad, George Dreyfus, in 1996. La Mama is a place that has launched countless careers over its 50-year history. David Williamson, Cate Blanchett, Julia Zemiro and Damian Walshe-Howling are just four of La Mama's alumni. This is not an easy time for the arts in Australia, but one thing I know about Melbourne's artistic community is that it is resilient. It fights back and it rebuilds. Theatre lovers in Melbourne can breathe easier knowing that La Mama's artistic director, Liz Jones, has vowed to return La Mama to its former glory. I say to Liz and to the many supporters of La Mama: you have the full support of the arts community and the Australian Labor Party. La Mama has been there for 50 years for Melburnians, and now in these hard times Melbourne will be there as La Mama rebuilds. Barker Electorate: Penola Coonawarra Arts Festival 41 13:55 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak about a wonderful event in my electorate of Barker, the Penola Coonawarra Arts Festival, which has been held annually since 1991. The festival aims to promote the rich literary and cultural heritage of the Limestone Coast, an area that boasts a rich history and an enchanting mix of old and new. Penola is the Limestone Coast's oldest town and, although home to only 1,500 residents, it is a vibrant hub of art galleries and cafes and really comes alive during the festival every year in May. The Coonawarra is, of course, one of our nation's premier wine regions, known for its fertile terra rossa soils. It produces the renowned cabernet sauvignon and is home to over 19 stunning cellar doors. These venues come alive and host many different performances, exhibitions and workshops. Last Sunday, I attended the opening of a photographic exhibition, Portraits of Penola women—they came for love, which tells the story of eight women who came to Penola for love. These women came from places as far away as the USA, the Philippines and Italy and as close by as Mount Gambier, Roxby Downs, Adelaide and Melbourne. All of these women contribute to the diversity, depth and richness of Penola and the wider Limestone coast. Well done to the Terra Rossa CWA group in Penola for this captivating exhibition and to the very talented photographer Christy Radford. Central Coast Mariners 41 13:57 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell This week I wrote to Football Federation Australia in support of the Central Coast Mariners' goal to field a W-League team in the 2018-19 competition. The Central Coast is home to some of the best footballers in the country, and I strongly support a pathway for young women to realise their talent and to compete on the national stage. The Mariners have been working hard over the past three years to make sure they are ready to field a team and provide the best facilities, training and development possible on the coast. After playing in the first two seasons of the W-League and signing Matildas such as Michelle Heyman, Ellyse Perry and Caitlin Foord, it was very disappointing that the Mariners could no longer field a team. Since then, they have built up the women's academy, allowing 150 girls to progress from under-11s through to the national premier league. These athletes deserve a pathway to the national stage, and the Mariners are ready to make this happen. Central Coast Council has upgraded the Central Coast Stadium with extra change rooms so the ground can showcase the very best of women's football in a double-header with the men's A-League matches. As patron of the Central Coast Heart Premier League Netball, I know the value of local pathways to elite sporting opportunities for women athletes in our community. I urge the Football Federation to back the Mariners in opening up elite football to women on the Central Coast in an expanded 10-team competition. Congratulations to Mariners CEO Shaun Mielekamp for your leadership. Our community is behind you. Grey Electorate: General Practice 41 13:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Sadly, currently the electorate of Grey is 29 GPs short. They are an essential part of our rural communities, as are the hospitals that they support. Just 18 months ago we were only 19 short, and I am concerned about the direction in which we are heading. A town without a doctor and without a hospital is a very difficult place to attract new residents to, and even more so when it comes to establishing new businesses or growing existing businesses, which in turn supply the jobs that might otherwise attract new workers to become residents. That is why I applaud the budget commitment to growing the numbers of specialist rural GPs. It is a $550 million commitment to rural health to supply advanced training to improve the skill sets and confidence not only of doctors but of nurses. In many cases the doctors that have filled the gaps in electorates like Grey have come from overseas. They do not necessarily have the confidence and the skill sets which equip them properly to work in these places. We will work with those people and bring them up to standard. There'll be more places for undergraduates taking experience in rural practice. On 2 May, I met with the Port Augusta, Roxby Downs, Woomera Health Advisory Council and the Far North Health Advisory Council to discuss how it was that Port Augusta missed out on being listed as a region of doctor-workforce shortage. I'm seeking an explanation from the minister at the moment and looking for change in the system. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 42 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 42 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that media, including foreign media agencies, were given advance notice of the statement to the parliament last night by the member for Canning, who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be trusted with security and intelligence information? Did the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tell the Prime Minister that he'd be sharing information about an FBI investigation disclosed during a confidential briefing from our ally? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth No, he did not. The first I knew of the honourable member for Canning's remarks last night was after they'd been delivered. Economy 42 14:01 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how this government's plan for a strong economy is delivering more jobs and better services as well as tax relief for hardworking Australians, including in my electorate in Brisbane? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows very well, from his previous life, the importance of small business. He knows very well that the small businesses that he used to represent are the ones that are driving the record jobs growth in Australia: 415,000 new jobs last year, 1,100 jobs a day, more than one million new jobs in less than five years. That's what happens when businesses have the confidence to invest and to grow. Ms Chesters interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 That is what the nation needs to ensure that we can live within our means and bring the budget back into balance a year earlier and that we can deliver and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on—spending more on health, on education, on the NDIS and on infrastructure every year. Ms Chesters interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bendigo is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 Those commitments depend on a strong economy. Today I was with Senator Seselja and the trade minister visiting an innovative company in Canberra, iSimulate, which is a health technology business that has 80 per cent of its sales in exports. They are benefitting from the big trade deals that we've done in our region, including, of course, the Trans-Pacific Partnership to come. They're looking forward to a free trade agreement with the European Union. As honourable members know, the EU has approved its mandate, and the negotiations for that free trade agreement will begin later this year. We know that free trade—open markets—creates jobs, and yet it has been the Labor Party that has opposed free trade. It's Labor that's said, 'The Trans-Pacific Partnership should be abandoned.' It's Labor, with the CFMEU, that campaigned in a manner that was disgraceful and racist against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We all remember those advertisements. I can well understand honourable members opposite wanting to forget them, but they ran them. They ran against that free trade agreement, which has been so important. We have an economic plan that is encouraging businesses to invest with lower taxes, that is ensuring that hardworking Australian families keep more of what they earn and that is opening up more and bigger markets for Australian businesses, and that is why they are creating jobs. iSimulate is one of thousands of businesses today whose prospects would be threatened by a Labor government. National Security 42 14:04 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to last night's statement by the member for Canning, who was hand-picked by the Prime Minister to be trusted with security and intelligence information. Has the Prime Minister, his office or his department been informed at any time by representatives of our ally that the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee was authorised to disclose information about an FBI investigation which was obtained during a confidential briefing from our ally? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth My understanding about the briefing, which I believe a number of Labor members were present at—at least one was—was that it was not a classified briefing, and the honourable member for Canning referred to information that he'd learnt in that briefing in his remarks last night. But I have to say, as I said this morning, the allegations are not new. They have been made before. They are subject to legal proceedings and I do not propose to say anything more about them because they are subject to judicial proceedings. Budget 43 14:06 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is delivering lower, fairer and simpler taxes to reward effort, encourage aspiration and help lower and middle-income earners, including those in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. Sixty thousand constituents of his own, in the member for Dunkley's electorate, will be particularly benefitting from step 1 of our plan, but our budget is a plan for a stronger economy. That's what the budget is doing this year. Part of that plan is to deliver tax relief for working Australians. Under this government, there are a million more working Australians since we were first elected back in 2013—in fact, more than a million. As we know, last year there was record jobs growth—415,000 in jobs growth; 75 per cent of them full-time in our record year of jobs growth. We want to reward working Australians in this country with tax relief, and our three-step plan, a comprehensive plan for tax relief, does three things. First of all, it prioritises, responsibly, low- and middle-income earners—some 60,000 in the member for Dunkley's electorate. It protects against bracket creep. So, as average wage earners do better over the years or just with the simple movement in inflation, we do not take back from them what they've earned through bracket creep. Thirdly, it simplifies taxes by ensuring that 94 per cent of Australians will not pay more than 32½c in the dollar as a marginal rate of tax. Now, that's a plan. That's a comprehensive plan. It's a responsible plan. It's an affordable plan. It is a plan that is also in parallel with the budget coming back into balance a year earlier, in paying down $30 billion worth of debt over the next four years and more than $230 billion in debt being paid down over the next 10. It's a responsible plan. It's a plan that recognises that what Australians earn is their money. They earned it; they should keep it. The Labor Party thinks every dollar that every Australian earns and every business earns is somehow only bequeathed back to them under the great benevolence of a Labor government. That is a complete nonsense. We respect Australians who work, we respect Australians who pay tax and we do that with a plan that gives them tax relief. It's a plan that deals with real problems in the tax system, like bracket creep, which takes back from Australians what they have worked so hard to earn. It's a plan which does that over the medium term. It does it immediately from 1 July this year, in terms of moving the tax threshold, which we've already moved from $80,000 up to $87,000, and it would go to $90,000. It's a plan that doesn't punish other Australians to provide tax relief for low- and middle-income earning Australians. It's a plan that doesn't whack $10 billion in taxes on retirees. It doesn't do that; it doesn't do that at all. It rewards Australians for working harder without punishing others who are simply working harder. It's a plan based on the economics of opportunity, not the politics of envy like the Labor Party. National Security 43 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the government's chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee made his statement to the parliament last night, has the Prime Minister sought advice from our security agencies about the implications of publicly sharing a confidential briefing about an FBI investigation which has been provided by our ally? 14:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Yes, I have. National Disability Insurance Scheme 43 14:10 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Minister for Social Security. Minister, the NDIS is a really important initiative, and I'm delighted that it's being rolled out in my electorate of Indi. However, there have been some concerns about plans, timelines, meeting needs and review processes, as well as concerns about autistic children and those on the spectrum having limited access. Could you please take some immediate action to address the delays that people have been referring to and clarify the position on what's happening with autism? 14:10 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for her question. As the member knows, the NDIS is a world-first reform, the size and scale of which means the scheme will not be without its challenges. Around 150,000 Australians with disability now receive life-changing support through the NDIS. When it's fully rolled out, it will support 460,000 Australians. Currently, there are more than 40,000 people on the NDIS who have not received any support before from either Commonwealth or state and territory governments. As former Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes said today: Any social reform rolled out nationally will have challenges … but for a project as big as this the scheme is doing quite well. Work has already commenced on a number of initiatives to improve the administration of reviews, and outstanding reviews are being prioritised. One major project undertaken by the NDIA is the participation and provider pathway review. The NDIA recognises that requests relating to assistive technology and home modification drive a notable portion of review requests. These are complex, and the NDIA is addressing these areas. In addition to this, the NDIA has taken on more resources to clear backlogs and process complex claims. In the next 12 months the NDIA will also take on an extra 500 permanent staff. These measures will help us work towards an improved system for reviews and a smoother transition from current arrangements to the NDIS. I can also inform the member that there has been no change to the policy with regard to people with autism qualifying for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Everyone with autism who is eligible for the scheme will be provided with the help and supports they need. As recommended by the Productivity Commission, ongoing work continues on how people access the scheme. I can assure the member that no changes will be made unless they are informed by research, evidence and extensive consultation with stakeholders and the community. Today I have written to organisations that support people with autism to confirm this. Finally, as the Treasurer stated in his budget address, every dollar and every cent committed to delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme remains in place and always will. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 44 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Health Care 44 14:13 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's plan for a stronger economy will create new jobs and economic opportunities in medical research? How will our plan work to improve the health of Australians, including those in my electorate of Chisholm? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. The budget is once again, as I said, a plan for a stronger economy. It's a plan that so far, in the years we've been in government, has delivered more than a million jobs in less than five years. More than a million jobs in less than five years is the product of the stronger plans for a stronger economy that this government has been delivering and will continue to deliver, based on what's in the budget that I announced in our last sitting. That plan includes backing business to invest to create more jobs. That plan includes more competitive taxes for business. It includes the congestion-busting and market-accessing infrastructure that we have as part of our $75 billion rolling infrastructure plan—rolling out across Australia, ensuring that products can get to market, that our cities are decongested and that our economy can continue to improve. It's about securing access to export markets, whether it's for our farmers, where we're putting more technical experts into the field; for our markets, to ensure that those farmers can get better access for their produce to the markets; or right across the other suite of free trade and export trade deals we've been able to put in place. It's about investing in technology and science. I note that, in a letter from the Chief Scientist to me, Alan Finkel has said: 'Your budget's initiatives give the community reassurance that the government is serious about sustained support for science and innovation.' That's from the Chief Scientist, Mr Speaker, because we are delivering support for science and technology. We're backing new industries and supporting industries, including the defence industry plan, which has now committed to the Land 400 project some $10.2 billion and 170 jobs in Victoria in the member's electorate. We're also backing a 21st century medical industry. As the Prime Minister was referring to companies here in the ACT, Planet Innovation is a wonderful company in Box Hill that has now clicked over the $50 million in turnover mark. They have 250 employees. They are a medical technology company. They are participating in a joint project which has $1.4 million invested from the Commonwealth government to create and drive a future industry in medical technology and the medical industry. The health industry; seven per cent of the economy and 14 per cent of jobs. There is $500 million in the budget to support genome research, including for Mackenzie's Mission. This is about investing in the future industries; that's what this government is focused on. We don't have to wear a miner's hat to understand that the entire economy benefits from our mining industry. You don't have to wear a white coat in a lab to understand that investing in creating a dynamic medical industry is good for the Australian economy, good for small business and good for jobs. The Turnbull government has an exciting future-focused plan for our economy that will continue to deliver jobs, because in less than five years this government has delivered a million jobs. Australian Federal Police 45 14:17 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Federal Police commissioner told Senate estimates today that this year's budget will mean that 567 staff will be cut from the Australian Federal Police over the next four years. Why is it that the Prime Minister is cutting 567 Federal Police staff at the same time as he's giving $80 billion to big business, including $17 billion to the big banks? 14:17 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth There has never been an Australian government that provides more support to the Australian Federal Police than the one I lead. Funding for the Federal Police has not been reduced. In fact, I can confirm that the AFP's funding has risen in the 2018-19 budget to $1.485 billion. This funding increase provides almost 150 additional ASL in the next financial year, 2018-19, with up to 269 additional staff over the forward estimates. Included within the funding is $107 million for aviation, air cargo and international mail security; $68.6 million for the establishment of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation; $4.7 million for assistance to Papua New Guinea for hosting APEC this year; and $12.6 million in additional funding for our national security agencies. That is in addition to last year's $321.4 million investment, which was the largest single funding boost for the AFP's domestic policing capabilities in a decade. Our first priority is the safety and security of Australia and its people—a security the Labor Party abandoned when they outsourced our borders to people smugglers and criminals. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The Labor Party can call out what they like, but the facts are there and cannot be denied: 50,000 unauthorised arrivals and at least 1,200 deaths at sea. Now, we stopped the boats and we secured our borders. We ensured that the Australian government, representative of the Australian people, and that it alone, determines who comes to Australia. The Labor Party has failed in government to keep Australians safe and to protect Australians' security. My government is determined to continue to keep Australians safe, and our funding for the AFP and our other security agencies demonstrates that commitment. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the member for Hotham seeking leave to table a document? Ms O'Neil 140590 I am, Mr Speaker, a document from the Parliamentary Library which shows that the highest funding ever for the AFP was in 2010 to 2011 under Labor. And the funding— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the member for Hotham will resume her seat. I've made it very clear a number of times— Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If the member for Hunter could stop being provoked for a second! I've made it clear on a number of occasions that if a document is publicly available there's no— An opposition member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Oh, because it was from the Parliamentary Library, right? Is leave granted? Leave not granted. Taxation 45 14:21 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the Minister update the House on steps the government is taking to ease the tax burden on hardworking Australians, including in my electorate of Robertson? Is the Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:21 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She, like the government, knows that you cannot tax your way into prosperity. That is why the coalition government has already delivered tax relief for around three million Australians, and it is why, under our personal income tax plan, we will deliver tax relief for millions and millions more Australians so that 94 per cent of all Australians will pay no more than 32½ cents in the dollar. Now, of course, those opposite have a completely different approach. They believe in taxing people even more—in fact, to the tune of $200 billion more. They will slug pensioners and self-funded retirees to the tune of $55 billion more. Considering that Labor believe how important it is for millions of Australians to pay more tax, they must be very familiar with the concept of conscience payments. You see, the Australian Taxation Office receives moneys that are voluntary contributions to the nation's coffers. Now, given the Leader of the Opposition's fondness for more taxes on everybody else and given that he thinks millions of Australians should pay more tax, I wonder, 'Has he made a conscience payment?' I can report to the House that last year there were 86 conscience payments of—wait for it—just under $8,600. But this year has been a better year and we have seen 72 payments, totalling around $73,000, including a large payment of $62,000. It did make me wonder: who has made this payment? Was it the Leader of the Opposition? He, of course, is the chief spokesman for higher taxes. Was it the shadow Treasurer? Or was it the member for Rankin, who is the brains trust of the former greatest Treasurer? Who was it? Who was it? Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Ms O'DWYER LKU It seems only fair that Labor lead by example and put their hands in their own pockets first. So, I ask those opposite by a show of hands: who will commit to making a conscience payment? Who's going to commit? Dr Chalmers 37998 Malcolm sends his money to the Caymans! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin! Ms O'DWYER LKU I would like Hansard to remark that there is no-one. I'm going to make it easy for you. I am going to make sure that the Commissioner of Taxation can put a big button on his website that says, 'Donate now: conscience payment'. Dr Chalmers 37998 Stop talking about the Prime Minister! He's right there! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is warned! Ms O'DWYER LKU If millions of Australians would like to make additional contributions, more power to them. But the Leader of the Opposition should lead by example, otherwise, he's a fraud! The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will return to the despatch box and withdraw that last remark. Ms O'DWYER LKU I withdraw. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin's already been warned. He can leave under 94(a). The member for Rankin then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwan obviously wants to join him. Budget 46 14:25 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin sold Senate estimates today that this year's budget will see $205 million cut from the Australian Federal Police. The commissioner said this cut may hit the Australian Federal Police's work combating illicit drugs and firearms. How can the government justify cutting the resources of the Australian Federal Police, who work hard to keep drugs and guns off our streets? 14:26 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Of course we know on this side of the House that the first priority of any good government is the safety and security of all Australians. We also know that the government has not reduced funding or resourcing to the Australian Federal Police. Our national security and law enforcement agencies are amongst the very best in the world. We have a proven track record of giving our agencies the powers and the resources they need to keep Australians safe. This year we have committed $1.485 billion—almost $1.5 billion—of funding to the Federal Police, higher than last year and a record, the highest level of spending ever. Since we got into government we have invested $1.5 billion to combat national security threats, including terrorism. Ms O'Neil 140590 You're cutting $200 million. That's wrong. That's completely wrong. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham will cease interjecting. The member for Hotham is now warned. Mr TAYLOR 231027 We've put $116 million into gang-related-crime evasion. And just a week ago the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and I announced $300 million for a comprehensive aviation security package. That includes in it 190 new positions for Australian Federal Police personnel. When Labor is in opposition, they talk a big game on national security, but the real test is what they do when they're in government. In 2010 Labor cut $20 million from the Federal Police's funding. The next year, they cut an additional $10 million in Australian Federal Police funding. To break the record, in 2012 they ripped a further $65 million out of Federal Police funding. That's a total of $95 million of funding ripped away from the Federal Police. We know that was at a time when they were spending like drunken sailors. The one place where they were able to show budgetary restraint was national security. The signs of Labor's weakness on national security in opposition are already evident. They have refused to support mandatory sentencing on illegal trafficking of firearms. They have refused to support mandatory sentencing on child predators. We also know that the majority of Labor's caucus are itching to open up the borders. You can trust a coalition government on safety and security, but can you trust Labor? Infrastructure 47 14:29 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is investing in nation-building, job-creating regional infrastructure, including in South Australia and in my electorate of Grey? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:29 Mr McCORMACK ( 219646 Riverina — ) ( ): I thank member for Grey for his question. He is a passionate South Australian and does an outstanding job representing the seat of Grey, representing regional Australia, representing regional South Australia. The answer to the question is all about jobs: jobs yesterday, jobs today, jobs into the future. Our infrastructure is building jobs, building our future. I acknowledge the member for Grey. I certainly acknowledge the fact that we are spending $160 million for the Joy Baluch AM Bridge between Mackay and Burgoyne Streets—an important freight and passenger link in the seat of Grey. The project will duplicate the existing bridge and it will widen roads. Once construction is complete, it will increase safety. That's important. It's going to also bolster travel times and improve freight connectivity—those supply chains are so important—and reliability, which is also very, very vital, all of which leads to greater growth, more jobs and more job creation in the Port Augusta region. This project is part of a larger infrastructure investment in South Australia in which we've committed $1.2 billion for future stages of the North-South Corridor: $177 million for the Regency Road to Pym Street upgrade in Adelaide and $220 million for the Gawler rail line electrification. These projects will boost local economies. They'll create hundreds of jobs, building on the more than a million jobs that have been created since 2013, since we came to government. Before time, on budget—that's delivery for you; that's delivery. More than a million opportunities for more than a million Australians. Our record investment is delivering across Australia. Take Mayo, for instance: $14 million for the Lobethal freight access upgrade, supporting around 55 full-time-equivalent jobs during the construction phase. There is $4½ million for the south-eastern freeway, motorway, measures, in addition to millions of dollars under our funding programs such as: Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program and, indeed, the Building Better Regions Fund—another $200 million going into that after the last budget, and I know how important that's going to be to build community capacity in regional areas. We're creating local jobs, improving safety and efficiencies for constituents and travellers, whether they're in Mayo, whether they're in Grey or whether they are in any electorate, particularly regional electorates. All of this investment in infrastructure spending is possible because of this government's sound economic management. The alternative, however, does not exist. It does not exist. There's no viable alternative to our government's proven record of jobs growth, our economic growth and our nation-building. The Liberal and Nationals government, the Turnbull government, is the only one capable of delivering for Australians in our cities and in our regions. Labor has no plan, no vision—no vision for building a better Australia. Budget 47 14:32 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister refuses to provide the details of his secret deal with Senator Hanson to ensure the passage of his big business tax cuts. Given new revelations about that deal today, will the Prime Minister now tell the Australian people the details of that secret deal or is the Prime Minister so arrogant and out of touch that he considers the Australian people don't deserve to know just how far he'll go to give $80 billion to big business? 14:33 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I refer her to my answers yesterday relating to discussions and negotiations with the crossbench. We're always filled with optimism, I'd say to the honourable member, not beset with the gloom that so attends her. We are committed to a positive and respectful approach to the crossbench to do all we can to ensure that our budget and other measures are passed through the parliament. It raises the issue of tax and it raises the issue of economic management. I noticed the member for McMahon has proposed a matter of public importance today which is headed 'The failure of the government's economic plan'. It begs the question: has the government's economic plan failed to produce jobs? No, it actually produced record jobs growth—the greatest in any calendar year in our history. What would be the best test of whether an economic plan was delivering? I think it would be if people were getting jobs, businesses were getting started, people were having a go and investing, and new markets were being opened up by free trade agreements. I have to say that I'm sure the MPI will be interesting and exciting, because we'll see if the member for McMahon can come up with anything to justify his rather parallel-universe MPI. But, of course, he's used to parallel universes—he really is. Last year, when asked—on my birthday, in fact, 24 October— Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 I know—you can always send a card this year! But, last year, the member for McMahon was shifting and slipping and sliding, refusing to say whether Labor would move to repeal the small and medium family company tax cuts that had been passed. Of course, we know they will. His final sort of intergalactic assessment was this. He said: We have further policy announcements to make which will be in this space and not in this space. In this space and not in this space? Well, Mr Speaker, he's a space cadet, and that's the problem for the Labor Party's economic management. Employment 48 14:36 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting workers and our economy through the creation of more jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:36 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Murray for his question. As the Prime Minister has just said, the government have created record jobs—the most jobs in history, in fact, in one calendar year—and we've reached our one million target of jobs that we promised to create, in 2013 when we got elected, five months early. We said it would take five years when former Prime Minister Abbott was elected as Prime Minister on that promise for the election, and we got there 4½ years after we were elected—one million new jobs in the economy. No wonder the Labor Party have fallen silent. It's embarrassing for them to criticise it. How have we done it? We've done it through the government's economic plan—through delivering lower taxes, investing in our people's skills and their education, investing in our industries like the defence industry, agriculture, infrastructure and construction, and delivering on the free trade agreements for exports, which are actually driving much of our economy and many of our jobs. All of this would be put at risk with the election of a Shorten-Setka government, or a Labor-CFMEU government. A Labor-CFMEU government would put all this at risk—a government led by the Leader of the Opposition and John Setka. We need to know what the opposition's secret agreement with the CFMEU says. The Leader of the Opposition should try transparency for a change—it would be a cathartic experience for him—and he should reveal the terms of his secret agreement with John Setka of the CFMEU. No other recent Labor leader has felt the need to have a secret agreement with the CFMEU. In fact, all of them have rejected the CFMEU. Paul Keating said that the unions had taken on too much power in the Labor Party. Bob Hawke kicked the CFMEU out when he was the Prime Minister and Leader of the Labor Party. Kevin Rudd did kick Joe McDonald out of the ALP, and the Leader of the Opposition brought him back in. And Peter Beattie very recently said that they should not take the donations from the CFMEU. So there are sensible people on the Labor side who are calling for the Leader of the Opposition to dissociate himself from the CFMEU and from John Setka. It's very important that he does so. He needs to reject the CFMEU's donations and give back the $2.5 million that has been given to him—not to him, to the Labor Party—since he was the Leader of the Labor Party by the CFMEU. He needs to reject their donations, he needs to kick them out of the ALP and he needs to reveal his secret agreement with the CFMEU that, if he was elected, would mean that he was in coalition with John Setka. Budget 48 14:39 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. The budget numbers presume the government's big business tax cut will be legislated in full. Do the numbers in the budget also presume the Prime Minister's secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson on his corporate tax cuts will also be implemented in full? 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I refer the honourable member to my earlier answers. The budget delivers more money from the hardworking efforts of Australians that they can keep. They can keep more of what they earn. The Labor Party calls that a gift. The Labor Party calls it a giveaway. Well, it's not. What we're doing in the budget is ensuring that Australians can keep more of the money they've earned, and the benefit goes to those on lower and middle incomes, and then, over seven years, that big personal income tax reform will ensure that 94 per cent of Australians pay no more than 32½c for any additional dollar they earn. That is a plan to reform the tax system, and it's a good plan. It's one that will reduce the barriers and the disincentives to hard work, aspirations and getting ahead. It's one that encourages Australians to do more of what they have been doing over the last 4½ years to create the jobs that we have seen. Over one million jobs—1,013,600 jobs—is the record jobs growth that we've seen, and it is because our economic plan is working. The budget also shows that we're bringing the budget back into balance. We're living within our means. It also shows that, contrary to the lies we see put out by the Labor Party every day, we are spending more on health, hospitals and schools. We know we have a by-election coming up in the seat of Longman. The Labor Party has a truck going around Longman claiming that funding is being reduced for the hospitals in Longman. That is completely untrue. It is a lie, an absolute lie. There will be more funding every year going into Queensland hospitals and, under the new five-year hospital deal, well over $7 million of additional funding for Queensland public hospitals, an increase of 34 per cent. The Labor Party does not yet realise that you cannot make a lie into a fact by repeating it again and again. Their lies will not wash, because the Australian people know the budget is delivering and our economic plan is delivering, and that's proved by the strong record growth in jobs. National Security 49 14:42 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of well-designed border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:43 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a significant issue in Western Australia, but it's a significant issue right across the country. In Queensland, for example, Queenslanders feel very strongly about border protection policy, and I notice some comments coming from Susan Lamb, who is the Labor candidate for Longman. She wants to allow the boats to restart and come back to our country, which would be a disaster, because, when Labor last wanted to implement this policy, there were 50,000 people who came on 800 boats, and 1,200 people drowned at sea. You hear Susan Lamb saying to people in Wamuran, Caboolture, D'Aguilar or Bribie Island: It's been a long and deeply disturbing process on Manus. I can't understand why this Government won't accept the NZ offer as a bare minimum? Labor put people on Manus. It was her government. It was the Labor government that put people on Manus. It was Labor who put people on Nauru. It was Labor who allowed 1,200 people to drown at sea, and they want to go back to that tragedy. It's been almost 1,400 days since we had a successful people-smuggling operation. And we've got hypocrites like the member for Batman, the sanctimonious hypocrite— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will withdraw. Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw, Mr Speaker. We have moralising people like the member for Batman and the former member for Longman, Susan Lamb, up there telling us that they want to implement a humane policy. Where were they when 1,200 people drowned at sea? It's this government that's taken people off Manus and Nauru. The Labor Party put people on Manus and Nauru. We aren't going to take a morals lecture from this person opposite. We aren't going to take a morals lecture from this Leader of the Opposition. He has a track record of duplicitous behaviour, whether it's in the union movement, where he ripped off workers, or it's in his professional life otherwise, where he's doublecrossed every person he's ever come across. He's now trying to fool the people in Longman, the people in Braddon, the people in Mayo and the Australian public otherwise that somehow he's going to stitch together a policy that stares down these moralising members of the Labor Party who pretend that they've got a humane policy, when all they will promise is to get through the next election and then undo the work that we've done to stop the boats. What will happen again on their watch is that women and children will again drown. We will have children—8,000 under Labor went into detention. We closed 17 detention centres. We got those 8,000 kids out of detention. And this Leader of the Opposition is, frankly, the most sanctimonious person to occupy that seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will remain at the dispatch box. Members will cease interjecting. The minister needs to withdraw the word 'duplicitous'. That's a personal reflection— Mr DUTTON 00AKI I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG and unacceptable. Taxation 50 14:46 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor My question is to the Prime Minister. Channel 9 news has reported that government ministers consider that now might be the right time to drop the government's big-business handout. For the benefit of his ministers, including the Minister for the Environment and Energy, will he spend the next three minutes outlining why his government is resolutely committed to taking its entire corporate tax cut to the next election? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. On this side of the House, we believe that Australian businesses need more competitive taxes so they can stay ahead and employ more Australians—like the more than a million Australians who've got a job under this government and the many more who will get a job under this government as long as we continue to stick to those policies, as we do, of delivering more competitive tax rates for Australian business. We're following some very important principles, and they are principles that the opposition used to believe in quite strongly. One in particular from the member for Fenner I think is particularly illuminating. He says: Humans— as opposed to other tax-paying mammals— typically … work harder when the tax rate falls … I know he's making that distinction for humans because, remember, when they were in government, they actually made payments to pets. That's what they did when they were in government. So I agree. I agree and I think we all agree that humans, if they're given that incentive with lower tax rates, will actually respond to that incentive. I thank the member for Fenner for his reflections on the biology of taxation. But it's not only the member for Fenner who used to say this. It was the member for McMahon who said: It's a Labor thing … 'It's a Labor thing! It's a groovy thing,' maybe he thought, as Zoolander over there would refer to it. He said: It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth. Now, this morning, when he was on Radio National, when asked, 'What if the company tax cuts did not proceed?' he said: 'It's a good thing. It's a good thing for the country that they don't proceed.' I cannot comprehend the tax logic of the member for McMahon. At one stage, he says that having more competitive, lower corporate tax rates actually drives investment. It creates jobs and it drives growth. And then he thinks it's a good thing not to proceed with those. But the other problem he has is the falsehood he's putting on the Australian people. He's running around saying, 'We're going to be able to do this, that and the other thing, with a big corporate war chest of reversing company tax cuts,' but what we know is that over the budget and forward estimates he won't get one extra cent from big companies. All the money he's getting—the big ticket item on his tax plan is hitting self-funded retirees. The mother of all taxes from the Labor Party is the tax on grandmothers, Mr Speaker. The grandaddy of their taxes is the tax on grandaddies. That's what Labor's tax plan is, and that's why they can't be trusted. (Time expired) Business 50 14:50 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on how unincorporated businesses benefit from the government's strong economic policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:50 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Wright for his question, and I acknowledge that he, like many on this side, comes from his own business background. He had the courage to put his family's home on the line and start his own family business. He built it up to have some 100 employees before turning his back on it and coming here to this place to represent his constituents. I congratulate him on it. His question is very important. There are 1.2 million unincorporated businesses in Australia. And what are the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the coalition government doing for them? We have increased the unincorporated tax discount to eight per cent, on its way to 16 per cent by 2026-27. We've changed the definition of an unincorporated small business from $2 million to $5 million in turnover. Sole traders will, of course, receive further tax relief under the coalition's personal income tax plan. Our economic policies have resulted in the best business conditions since 2007 and over a million new jobs. But where, as the Treasurer and Prime Minister mentioned earlier, are they coming from? They're coming predominantly from small and family business. I'm asked about the risk. If you look at the construction sector alone, 367,000 small businesses operate in this space. Since the coalition came to power in 2013, 35,000 businesses have been started in this sector, employing, of that one million people, 200,000 Australians. In other words, 20 per cent of that one million has happened in small and family businesses in construction. At the moment there is $743.8 billion of projects in this sector, which is exactly why we put the ABCC in place—given the importance of not just the sector but the income and the generation of jobs in the sector. What are the risks to this? The risks are not just the newly emboldened and minted shadow minister for industrial relations, John Setka; they are the ABCC being taken off. This is a lawless place. These unions come in—the CFMEU—and they risk everything that has been created in the last five years. Twenty per cent of that one million jobs are in the construction sector. That is what's at play here. That is why we must make sure, between now and the next election, we carry this message and this plan and explain it fully. What would it mean to change government at this stage? It would mean a return to lawlessness on building sites. It would put at risk the 367,000 small businesses that live there. It is the opposition leader and his secret deal with his union mates that put at jeopardy everything that the Turnbull coalition government has achieved over the last five years. Taxation 51 14:53 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since coming to office he's proposed increasing the GST, proposed broadening the GST and proposed state-based income taxes, only to abandon all of these policies? Now that government members are pushing to dump the big business handout, will the Prime Minister once again be humiliated by his backbench, forcing him to dump yet another of his signature tax policies? 14:54 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for Jagajaga, and I thank her for giving me the opportunity to talk about tax. Mr Speaker, we believe in lower tax. We believe that everyone should pay their tax. That's why we passed the multinational tax avoidance legislation. The honourable member's party voted against it. She may well reflect on that. They voted against legislation to ensure that multinationals couldn't avoid tax. As a result of that and other legislation, $7 billion of additional revenue has come into the Australian company tax net. So we're making sure tax is paid, but we want it to be lower because, as the member for Fenner observed, humans—and possibly other mammals, but at least humans; he can opine on humans!—are encouraged by lower tax. They do work more when there is lower tax. And of course the Labor Party even has one endorsement after another for lower tax—particularly the member for McMahon, who wrote a book about it. The Leader of the Opposition was very eloquent standing right here some years ago and saying that lower company tax creates more investment, more jobs, better jobs and greater productivity. So we understand all of that, and that is why we're seeking to reduce tax wherever we can consistent with guaranteed essential services, whether they are health, schools, national security, infrastructure or ensuring that we bring the budget back into balance. We live within our means, which we are doing, bringing it back into balance a year earlier. So that is what we're doing on our tax commitments. Labor, on the other hand, wants to whack the Australian public with over $200 billion of new tax and, most shamefully of all, a $5-billion-a-year tax grab on self-funded retirees, on older Australians who have chosen to put their savings that they put aside into a self-managed super fund or into an account of some kind, and they've got Australian blue-chip shares which pay franked dividends. And they have quite rightly been able to take those dividends in cash as a refund from the taxation department just like a wealthier person or a person with a big portfolio can use that franking credit to offset tax from other sources of income. It's been fair. When it was introduced by Peter Costello, it was endorsed by Labor. And now the honourable member and her colleagues want to grab that money from Australia's most vulnerable citizens. (Time expired) Mr Gosling interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Solomon is warned. Energy 51 14:57 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is putting downward pressure on power prices to ensure an affordable and reliable supply of electricity for Australian businesses and families? Is the minister aware of any alternatives? 14:57 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for North Sydney for the question. I'm glad that I had the question from this side of the House, because I haven't had a question from the member from Port Adelaide for 215 days. The member for Grayndler built the Pyramids in a shorter time frame than that! Maybe the member for Port Adelaide has been banished for his backroom buffoonery. I can see the member for Lilley with a smile on his face up the top there. My money's on you, son! My money's on you! Wholesale power prices are down nearly 30 per cent on the same time last year, and it's as a result of the interventions in the energy market by the Turnbull government. More gas is now available for domestic use rather than export. We've intervened in the retail market, getting a better deal for thousands of Australian families and a better deal out of the networks to stop them gaming the system. And, of course, there is the National Energy Guarantee, which will be so critical in integrating energy and climate policy. I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that, when Labor was last in office, power prices doubled. We know that we had the carbon tax, we know we had the cash for clunkers and we know we had the citizen's assembly. And now we know we've got a reckless 50 per cent renewable energy target and a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. Do you think the member for Maribyrnong will go to the people of Longman, go to the people of Braddon, got to the people of Mayo to explain how this renewable energy target will work, how much it will cost and what it's even called? The answer is no, because he doesn't know himself. The member for Hunter didn't call it a 'renewable energy target'; he called it an 'aspiration'. The member for Sydney called it an 'ambition'. And the best was the member for McMahon because he was asked by David Speers on Sky: 'So it’s not necessarily a 50 per cent RET in other words.' So here's the member for McMahon: Correct, that’s what I’m saying to you, but there’s two. We do have a RET policy, and then we also have, which we’ve always been very clear and explicit about, a policy objective for 50 per cent beyond RET. Mr Speaker, is there a translator in the House? Because the member for McMahon, the member for Port Adelaide, the member for Sydney, the member for Watson don't even know what their 50 per cent reckless Renewable Energy Target is named, let alone how it will work and how much it will cost. Only the coalition will deliver the people of Australia, the people of Longman, the people of Braddon, the people of Mayo, a more reliable and affordable energy system. Taxation 52 15:01 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith My question is to the Treasurer. This morning, Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker said about Labor's request for more information on the cost of the government's income tax scheme: If it means they need more information to do that, I believe that's being organised. Can the Treasurer tell us when the government is going to release the year-by-year cost of each stage of his seven-year personal income tax scheme? 15:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I have been very clear to the House. The cost of the program is $13.4 billion over the forward estimates and $140 billion over 10 years. That is exactly the practice observed by this government ever since we came to office when these questions have been posed. It wasn't a practice that was observed by those opposite. I have a simple position to put to the opposition: if you support lower, simpler and fairer taxes, vote for the bill. If you think 94 per cent of Australians should face a marginal tax rate of no more than 32½ cents then vote for the bill. If you think you should do something about bracket creep and not steal the hard-earned money away from Australians then vote for the bill. That's what they should do. What we are hearing from the Labor Party are the usual excuses because they don't want to provide tax relief for hardworking Australians. They want to punish some Australians for working hard and then pretend they are helping others. What they have is not a tax plan; what they have is an envy plan. They have a bitterness plan. This country was not built on bitterness or envy but was built on opportunity, it was built on positivity, it was built on plans that actually built the country, not dragged people down. So I would invite the Labor Party to join the government and say, 'We support Australians keeping more of what they've earned.' But they won't. What they are happy to do is commit to expenditure from here to eternity. They'll vote for that every day of the week and they'll double down on it. Ask them to vote for tax relief for Australians for seven years and they scurry away; they can't do it. They can't do it because they don't believe in it, at the end of the day. There is a very simple contrast between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties: we are for lower taxes; Labor are for higher taxes. In particular, Labor are for higher taxes on self-funded retirees. They're proposing to hit self-funded retirees $10.7 billion over the period of the budget and forward estimates. It is their single biggest tax. That is what Labor are counting on to pay for their election splurge, their reckless spending, their promises, which they will spray from one end of the country to the other. You simply need to know that the people they are going to slug to pay for it are the self-funded retirees and older Australians of this country. They'll have their hands in their pockets, they'll have their hands in their purses and they'll have their hands all over everything Australians have earned and worked hard for if they are ever given the opportunity to run this country again. Trade 53 15:04 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Can the minister update the House on the government's ambitious trade agenda? Is he aware of any alternative proposals? 15:04 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for his question. The simple fact is that trade creates jobs—415,000 new jobs were created in the last year and 1,013,600 jobs have been created by the coalition since we came into government five years ago. One in five of those jobs is in trade related industry, which goes to the point that, since the coalition has put in place these powerhouse trade agreements, we've seen more than 200,000 Australians who've got an opportunity to get a job now, thanks to the trade agreements that we put in place. The good news is that, overnight, we've seen the European Union indicate they've got the go-ahead for a new FTA negotiation to commence with Australia. This is the latest in the slew of free trade agreements, export trade deals, that the coalition is doing to make sure that we keep creating opportunities for Australian businesses. It took the coalition to start and finish the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, it took the coalition to start and finish the Japan-Australia free trade agreement, it took the coalition to start and finish the Korea free trade agreement and it took the coalition to start and finish the TPP-11. For many of these, the Australian Labor Party said they were a vanity project. They didn't want to be part of it. They said they had no future. On the TPP-11, which of itself has created new trade opportunities with two brand-new markets, Canada and Mexico, the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party said that we needed to walk away and that it was a deal that wasn't worth pursuing. But the fact is that the coalition will deliver this trade agreement with the European Union in the same way that we've delivered all of these other trade agreements. The reason is that, as I said at the outset, trade creates jobs, and we will absolutely stand by those Australian businesses that are now exporting in record amounts to markets, including, importantly, markets like China—just the latest example of where the Australian Labor Party said that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement shouldn't have gone ahead. They run around now, talking it down, but we continue to see record growth in exports to markets like China, like Korea and like Japan. For all the noise of the Australian Labor Party, the fact is that we continue to see strong growth in exports to markets including China, and that's why I was so pleased to be there last week, to continue to pursue the strength of the bilateral relationship, in the same way that I will continue to pursue brand-new opportunities for Australian exporters in that important market of Europe. Budget 53 15:07 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, which says the Melbourne Airport rail link should be financed off-budget instead of with traditional grant funding. Is the Prime Minister aware the Grattan Institute has said: If infrastructure projects are never going to make a commercial return, the government should stop pretending they will. Isn't it a fact that, if the government maintains its sham funding proposal, the rail line to the airport will never, ever be built? 15:08 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I recognise that the honourable member, when he was responsible for infrastructure, paid no regard to getting value for the Australian taxpayers' dollar in infrastructure—he paid no regard whatsoever. He adopted the lazy approach of just throwing money out like an ATM to states. That was his approach. We're determined to deliver the economic infrastructure Australians need, and we're determined to ensure that the Australian taxpayer gets the value they deserve. That means that, where it is appropriate, the Commonwealth will take an equity stake in that infrastructure, as we have in Snowy Hydro and as we are in the Western Sydney Airport. We look forward to being able to build a rail line to Tullamarine Airport in partnership with the state government. We hope that it'll be a Liberal state government, later in the year, but we look forward to building that with the state government. I can say to honourable members we will do all we can to ensure that we bring in as much cooperation and investment from other parties from the private sector, to make sure that that rail line is not just a line from the city to the airport but one that is city shaping, that strengthens communities and that enhances amenity and creates value. That's the difference. The lazy Labor approach is lazy with other people's money, reckless with other people's money. The approach we're taking is one of commitment, of enterprise, using the most innovative and modern financing techniques to get better value for Australian taxpayers and the infrastructure Australians need and deserve. Health Care 54 15:10 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy allows the government to deliver essential health services to the people of North Queensland? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 15:10 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Leichhardt, who knows that you need a plan for a strong economy and that that, in turn, helps deliver jobs. It's helped deliver a million jobs which are fundamental to guaranteeing services—local services such as an investment of $500,000 in the Junction Clubhouse to assist those with mental health challenges to recover, to have a safe space and to have a way forward. Also it assists in providing record funding each year for Medicare, with an additional $4.8 billion; funding which will help with mental health, with an additional $338 million; funding for the PBS for new drugs, such as Spinraza for SMA or Kisqali for breast cancer; or record funding, with an additional $30 billion to help our hospitals around Australia. He asks me whether there are any alternatives to this approach, and there are. There is the way that Labor has covered up the cutting of and reduction in funding in many parts of Queensland by Queensland Labor. There's a very interesting comparison here. I saw some comments from Susan Lamb, a former member of this place, about Caboolture Hospital, not dissimilar to those of the shadow minister or the Leader of the Opposition. You know what? The Labor comments were Labor lies. The reason is because they asserted that we were cutting at the very time we were increasing and Labor was reducing. Let's look at the situation in relation to Commonwealth funding in the member's own area. What we see is that in the member for Leichhardt's area the state Labor funding was up 14 per cent and Commonwealth funding was up 20 per cent. If you go further south, in Townsville state Labor funding was up zero per cent and Commonwealth funding was up 25 per cent. In Dawson state Labor funding was down per cent after cuts and reductions, and Commonwealth funding was up 30 per cent. Where is the figure greatest? It's in the area of the Caboolture Hospital, where the Metro North has seen a four per cent increase in state Labor funding and a 38 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding. What we see here is that we are delivering the real increases in funding, whilst Labor is slashing. Most significantly, the Labor candidate for Longman is covering up her own Labor mates having cut funding. Last year they reduced funding to Metro North by $20 million, whilst we increased it by $120 million. If you can't manage the economy—Labor can never manage the economy—you can't manage health. (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 54 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Turnbull Government 54 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government's economic plan. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:14 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Gross debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time in Australian history and will remain above that mark for the next decade. Net debt for the coming year is double what it was when the Liberals came to office. The deficit for this year is more than six times larger than it was forecast to be in the 2014 budget. Wages growth is at record lows, barely keeping up with inflation as electricity prices rise and private health insurance costs go up. Economic growth remains well below trend at a time when growth is picking up all around the world. We are seeing 120 economies experiencing economic growth—the first time we've seen that in years—and yet our economic growth remains below trend. Our unemployment rate, which during the global financial crisis was one of the lowest in the OECD, is now higher than the OECD average and higher than in many comparable countries like the US, the UK, New Zealand and Germany. There's no doubt that this economic plan is failing, but there is the small matter of whose plan it is, the small matter of who actually writes the economic plans which get implemented in this country. We're discovering more and more that the economic plan is not written by the Treasurer. You might think that's a good thing, knowing the Treasurer, but you have to think of the counterfactual: who is writing the economic plan? One of the few people I can think of worse to write an economic plan than the Treasurer would be Pauline Hanson. When the government announced they had a deal with One Nation to pass their big-business tax cuts there were a few surprising elements about it. I thought One Nation claimed to be on the side of the little guy, but they were voting for these tax cuts. Then they announced that they'd done a deal for an apprenticeship program in return for the big-business tax cuts. I will make a confession. I thought, 'Geez, maybe the government are better negotiators than I gave them credit for, because they've got a very modest, very small— An opposition member: There's no-one here. Mr BOWEN DZS Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, there's no member of the executive present. The House is not in order; it must be shut down immediately. The standing orders are very clear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I'll refer to the clerk. Mr BOWEN DZS There's no member of the executive present. The Assistant Minister to the Treasurer wasn't here, Mr Deputy Speaker. He was not here. Mr Deputy Speaker, I made a point of order several moments ago. There was no member of the executive present. He was outside. The House should have been shut down at that moment—at that very moment. You can't buy time to allow the member to wander back into the House. You were not here, Assistant Minister. You were outside. Everybody saw it. You were not present. You wandered away. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for McMahon will be seated for a second. I've referred to the clerk. The clerk has advised me to continue with proceedings. Mr BOWEN DZS A point of order: there was no member of the executive present. It was very clear. We all saw him outside. He was not in the chamber. He cannot now claim he was magically here the whole time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for McMahon will be seated again. I've referred to the clerk. The clerk has advised me to continue with proceedings. Mr BOWEN DZS I raised a point of order. I have great respect for the clerk. I did not make the point of order to the clerk; I made it to you. You should have ruled on my point of order at that moment. You did not. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for McMahon will be seated. Mr BOWEN DZS You gave the honourable member time to wander back into the chamber when he was not physically present. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for McMahon will be seated. I did seek advice and I have made my ruling. Mr Burke DYW Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: one of the most serious parts of the entire system of how this House operates is that we have representative government. That means that, unlike the systems in many other countries, the executive must be present when the House is sitting. The last thing we want to do is not have an MPI, but the reality is if there was a moment here when there was no member of the executive present in the House then it is your obligation to collapse the chamber, because the government did not turn up. Government backbenchers are not technically part of the government as far as the standing orders are concerned. Only members of the executive form the government. If we had a moment today when the House sat when no member of the executive of the Australian government was present then it is your personal responsibility in that chair to collapse the House, because we do not have a parliament if we don't have a government willing to show. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Manager of Opposition Business, I take your point of order. I referred to the Clerk and I've made my ruling. Manager of Opposition Business, I refer you to page 262 of House of Representatives Practice, 'Absence of a minister', which states: It is of course desirable from the Government's point of view, and expected by Members, that there should be a Member present able to react with authority on behalf of the Government to any unexpected development. While it's desirable, I have referred to the Clerk and I've made my ruling. Mr Burke DYW Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I'd simply ask you to read to the end of the paragraph which you quoted, which refers to your predecessors on occasion—this happens very rarely—ringing the bells to secure a minister's attendance, which means stopping the parliament. You chose to allow the parliament to continue without someone present. That ought not to have happened. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I also refer the Manager of Opposition Business to the statement there: A short absence of a Minister may go unremarked … I call the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Mr Sukkar 242515 Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You've clearly made a ruling. Unless the Manager of Opposition Business wants to continue to argue the point at the dispatch box, I think the MPI must continue. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW I simply ask what that was. He didn't raise a point of order. He didn't seek indulgence. You simply gave him the call during someone else's time. If you're not willing to chair the House— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I will repeat my ruling that I referred to the Clerk. I've called it, and I call the member for McMahon if he wants to continue with the MPI. Mr BOWEN DZS What an incompetent government! House duty is not that complicated. You sit in a chair and, when you're not here, you admit you weren't here. This is a minister who couldn't even admit he wasn't here. He couldn't even admit it. He couldn't even have the decency and the honour to say: 'Sorry, I got it wrong. I forgot to sit in the chair. That was such a complicated task I had at hand, I didn't know what to do.' That says it all about this government. One-job Michael over here is one of the economic team. No wonder the economic plan of the government is failing! One of the government's economic team—one of the so-called brains trust—can't even get House duty right! That's what we see more and more: the fact that this government is incompetent at every level. No wonder Pauline Hanson's running the show! As I was saying before I was interrupted by the absence of a government minister, I confess I was surprised when the government allegedly got a deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to pass the big business tax cuts for the price of a small apprenticeship program. It turns out I should have been surprised, because it wasn't the case. They had billions of dollars worth of deals; they just won't tell us what they are. (Time expired) 15:24 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The shadow Treasurer has just wasted his opportunity to talk about the wonderful economic news this country faces. He wasted 10 minutes. Instead of talking about the interests of Australians, he thought he would make a shabby point here in this parliament. This is the hallmark of this shadow Treasurer, a hallmark of the disaster that was his time as the Treasurer of this country, with his $16 billion black hole. He doesn't want to talk about the million jobs created by the government in 4½ years. You had 10 minutes where you could have spoken about those one million jobs, but instead you chose to make shabby little points here in this parliament. This defines this disgraceful shadow Treasurer. Here we've got a government that's encouraged Australians to create one million new jobs in 4½ years, six months ahead of schedule, and, instead of talking about that, this failed shadow Treasurer, the worst immigration minister in this country's history, chose to waste 10 minutes making shabby tactical points here in this parliament. Last year we saw 415,000 jobs created in this country. Do you think you can get a smile or anything out of the Labor Party? No, that 415,000 jobs created last year is bad news. You don't hear a word about it. When we took office in 2013, we had a slowing economy, a deteriorating budget position and increasing unemployment. Under whose watch was that? It was the shadow Treasurer's. That is his legacy for this country. We've done the hard yards in 4½ years to rescue that. What did we see on budget night last week? We saw a government with immediate personal tax relief for 10 million Australians. For 4.4 million Australians, there will be a tax offset of $530 a year. For a double-income household, that's $1,000 a year. Members opposite scoffed at $1,000 a year for households. But that is very important for every single Australian managing a tight budget. We don't just have a plan to provide immediate income tax relief for low- and middle-income taxpayers; we have a medium- and longer-term plan to enshrine tax relief for Australians each year for the next seven years. Step 1 of our tax plan provides, as I said, $530 a year for taxpayers—over $1,000 for a double-income household. Step 2 of the tax plan addresses bracket creep by ensuring that that middle tax bracket rises from $90,000 to $120,000 a year, while lower income tax brackets move from $37,000 to $41,000 a year. Step 3 of the tax plan makes our entire tax system fairer and flatter by ensuring that we abolish entirely the 37 per cent tax threshold, which means that 94 per cent of Australians will never face a higher marginal tax rate than 32½ per cent. That has been welcomed across this country, because Australians know that they can spend every single dollar better than the government can. As the Treasurer said in question time today, unlike the Labor Party's view, government is not some benevolent society that thinks they own everything and every dollar that they allow you to keep is somehow a gift from them. No, it's taxpayers' money, and we shouldn't take anything more from them than we need to. But we know the Labor Party has a very different view. We know that the Labor Party, with its $220 billion of additional taxes, is the absolute antithesis of the view that taxpayers can spend their money better than government. The Labor Party want to take your money. They think they've got a better way of spending it. The shadow Treasurer is hairy-chested talking about corporates and the big end of town, but who is the shadow Treasurer attacking to fund his tax plans? Who is the shadow Treasurer attacking to fund his pork barrel around the country? He's going after retirees and self-managed superannuants. That's who he's going after. Not the big, bad, scary corporates or the millionaires or the billionaires that he talks about. No. He's funding his pork barrel through the hard work and hard savings of self-funded retirees and low-income retirees. What a contemptible policy to run around this country running this faux class war campaign. Who's he going after? Low-income retirees. I was out last week at a number of forums, and there are a million Australians who are not going to allow the Labor Party to forget that. They're not going to allow the Labor Party to forget that they're the people the party is attacking to fund their tax plans. In addition to the personal income tax relief which we are providing—over seven years Australians will know that each and every year they will enjoy tax relief of some form—we're also backing businesses. We're backing businesses in the same way we backed businesses when we reduced taxes through the enterprise tax plan for businesses with a turnover up to $50 million. The Labor Party want to talk about small retail stores or small manufacturers with three or four or half a dozen employees that turn over $2.1 million as though they're Apple or Google or some sort of multinational who doesn't deserve tax relief. Well, we know small and medium enterprises are the backbone of this economy. They have been the backbone of the million jobs that we've seen created in record time. They're the backbone of the 415,000 jobs—the record jobs in a 12-month period—that we saw up to 31 December last year. They are the people that we are backing this year. We announced it in the budget, and it's very popular: the extension to accelerated depreciation of up to $20,000. That is a practical way of the government saying: 'We want to help you get ahead. We want to help you invest in your business. We know small businesses often operate more like families than businesses. We know that for every dollar they save they reinvest it into the business. We know that they use that to employ more people. We know that they give more young people opportunities than almost any other sector of the economy.' That's why it was very interesting to see the shadow Treasurer's line of questioning last week asking for costings on the enterprise tax plan. That seems to indicate that the shadow Treasurer has a secret plan of increase taxes for businesses with turnover above $2 million. It seems like the shadow Treasurer, who's been running around all hairy-chested and who's been trying to be like a modern-day Robin Hood going after the big, bad multinationals, is going after low-income retirees and small family businesses. When you boil it all down, the shadow Treasurer squibbed the fight that he's been talking about all these years—this faux class war that he's been trying to run—and in the end he's funding his tax plans and he's funding his pork barrel through a million low-income retirees. They're a million Australians who've worked their whole lives, who've paid taxes, who've been law abiding citizens and who've put money away to provide for themselves in their retirement. They're who he's going after. The second group he's going after is small, family-run businesses. What an absolute disgrace. This faux class warfare campaign is over because we know the two groups he's going after are the most vulnerable. That's who he wants to shoulder the burden of his unrestrained spending. We saw it the last time he was the Treasurer. He was the worst immigration minister this country has ever seen, and then he was promoted to Treasurer, and what were we left with? We were left with a slowing economy, increasing unemployment and a deteriorating budget position. And this man wants to be promoted! He should hang his head in shame. We will ensure that our plans for personal tax relief, for backing businesses and for bringing the budget back into surplus a year early continue to strengthen the economy, because we know that this shadow Treasurer wants to strangle the economy and everything that goes with it. 15:34 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons What an extraordinary performance from the missing-in-action minister who is not even competent enough to sit at the dispatch box, where he's meant to be. What an absolutely extraordinary performance! I'm proud to speak on today's MPI on the economic failures of this government. Can there be any bigger economic failure of a government than to get into bed with One Nation, one of the worst political parties in this country's history; a party that markets itself to the blue-collar worker but sells itself to the banks? That's what One Nation was prepared to do in bed with this government. This government entered a secret deal with One Nation that it refuses to tell this parliament about. What an absolute abject failure. I see the minister is leaving the House. He's made sure he's got his back-up team this time. Off you go, Minister. After last year's display, you'd think this government would have learned. Two ministers didn't turn up—they were on a plane back to Perth, the Minister for Human Services and the Attorney-General—and then we had Minister O'Dwyer, up or down. What an incompetent government on every level. We hear ad nauseam from the Treasurer and others opposite about their supposedly superior fiscal skills. That's a bit like listening to a WWF wrestler: lumpy and loud. But, at the end of the day, this Treasurer is all bluster and wind. He's not in pink and grey today. The pink and grey galah is not in his pink and grey today, but he's still squawking down there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Lyons will remark on people with their correct titles. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 All right: the minister is squawking at the table. Do you remember, Deputy Speaker, when this country was headed to rack and ruin because of a debt and deficit emergency? That's what this government came to government with. After five years of Liberal government, the debt's doubled to more than half a trillion dollars, but apparently it's not an emergency anymore. It's worse than when it was an emergency, but it's not an emergency anymore. The Liberals love rolling out the debt truck under Labor, but now that the debt has more than doubled under their stewardship the debt truck is nowhere to be seen. Maybe the axle has broken under the extra weight. The deficit for this year is more than six times that which the Liberals forecast in their 2014 budget and yet they want us to trust that their forecasts for the next four years of growth are bang on target. This government's economic failures are manifest, and nowhere are they worse than in Tasmania. After five years, this government has left Tasmania completely off the map. It's only discovered us again in recent weeks. There's a by-election on—fancy that! Last year's so-called infrastructure budget had nothing new for Tasmania. There were billions of dollars in projects for other states; nothing for Tasmania. This latest budget is not much better, but at least this time we crack a mention in the papers. There's money for the Tamar River in Launceston. It doesn't kick in for two years. There's money for a new Bridgewater Bridge, but nowhere near enough has been budgeted to complete it. That's going to take at least another election cycle. There's money for roads, but the Liberals don't know which roads, nor how much they'll need. It's all pie in the sky. They couldn't even get their 2016 election promise right. Both Labor and the Liberals pledged to build a new Hobart airport intersection on Tasman Highway. It's two years after that promise and work hasn't even begun, and now we're told it's unlikely to be completed until 2022. That is six years for an intersection. It does not fill me with hope that the Bridgewater Bridge will be completed within a decade. The north-west is suffering too. This government cut $58 million from the University of Tasmania, which has a Cradle Coast campus in the city of Burnie. The last thing the people of Burnie need is less investment in their city. They need a government and a local member willing to stand up for Burnie's young people to ensure they have an opportunity at a great education, because when you cut funding to regional universities you close down pathways for young people who live in the regions. You can't help but be cynical. Two years ago, Labor backed the Cradle Mountain tourism project, but the Liberal MP Brett Whiteley didn't. Now, with a by-election on, the Liberals say they back the project. Hallelujah—they've found the light! But the Liberals are interested only in themselves, not the people of Braddon. The people of Braddon know that the only person who's fighting for them, day in and day out, and has been doing it for the past two years, is Justine Keay, and that's why she deserves to come back to this House. 15:39 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks In 2017, more jobs were created in Australia than in any other year in our history. A very strong economic record, and there is so much more to do to grow the economy. I want to talk about those things, but those opposite have one plan and one plan only, and that is a massive tax increase on the Australian people. They propose to put more than $200 billion of additional taxes onto the Australian economy. Their basic argument is that you can increase taxes by $200 billion and it has no impact on the economy. According to those opposite, everyone will just invest the same amount and do all of the same things that they would have done anyway, even though they now have to pay the government an additional $200 billion. We know, Deputy Speaker Hogan, that the biggest single hit from those opposite is on retirees—older Australians. This is a tax on grandmas, grandfathers and on people who have saved for retirement. What you want to do is make them the No. 1 payer of tax to the Labor Party. That is what you want to do. It is an extraordinary proposal, that the biggest single hit across all of Labor's tax plans is actually on those who can afford it least, people who are retired. Those opposite also voted against tax reductions for businesses with turnover of $2 million. They say that that's some huge multinational business, and so they went into the parliament and they voted against that. When they say that they're opposed to tax relief, what they're saying—and we know it, because they've already done it; they've already voted for it—is that they're against tax relief for a business that might be in the suburbs employing seven or eight people. They voted against a tax cut for that business. That remains their policy to this day, and that is the reality of their position, despite the fact that they mislead the parliament by stating it's all about multinationals—which it's not, because they voted against tax reductions for small businesses. We know that the small businesses that have already received tax relief through the legislation in this parliament employ 6.8 million workers in Australia. We're seeing this tremendous uptake in investment, which is leading to record-breaking job growth, the biggest jobs growth in Australian history. Those opposite say to repeal that legislation; increase tax by $25 billion on small- and medium-sized business. It would be devastating for the economy. That is not this government's plan; that is what those opposite want to do. We also want to extend that tax relief more broadly to another 4½ thousand businesses, that employ four million people. The UK corporate tax rate is 19 per cent; the US is 21 per cent. Oxford University says Australia has the 27th-highest corporate tax rate out of the 33 OECD nations. Now, those opposite say: 'None of that matters. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is.' Of course, we know that the shadow treasurer and the member for Fenner have written books about the importance of corporate tax relief, but now they say it doesn't matter at all what the tax rate is; it's completely irrelevant. 'Businesses will just invest the same amount and the same number of jobs will be created regardless of what the cost to those businesses is in the form of tax.' That, to anyone who has ever operated a business or had any involvement in the private sector at all, is obviously ridiculous, but that is their premise and one that we obviously very strongly reject. We have a wide range of initiatives in the budget to help to continue to grow the very strong job creation we've seen: extending the instant asset write-off so that businesses with turnover of up to $10 million can get an immediate tax deduction on capital purchases of up to $20,000; a $200 billion investment in defence industry, leading to job creation across the country; and a huge investment in medical research, such an important industry for our country, as the Treasurer was discussing today. Those opposite want tax to be the biggest proportion of the economy in Australian history. That is their policy. That would be a devastating blow for this economy, and it's something that must not be allowed to happen. 15:44 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa When it comes to the budget and the economy the government has a one-point plan. The problem with a one-point plan is that there is a real world that exists outside of this chamber. The real world can be unpredictable and it can be a victim to unexpected events. So when point 1 of your one-point plan falls over, what happens next? Well, here's another fact in the real world. In the real world, trickle-down economics is a fringe discredited theory. It doesn't work. Whenever and wherever it's been tried, it hasn't worked. But the real worth isn't a place this government seems very good at inhabiting. They steadfastly are hanging on to a tax cut for the big end of town. How much will it cost? Is it $80 billion or is it more? How much will the big banks get? Is it $17 billion or is it more? Banks' behaviour uncovered at the royal commission over the last month shows that they don't deserve a handout from the Australian people; they deserve other things. The Turnbull government's $80 billion company tax cut is the single biggest hit to the budget that either party is putting forward. And now we hear that One Nation will no longer support these tax cuts. We hear that the Treasurer and Senator Cormann's secret deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation is in tatters. So what's the plan now? Why has Senator Hanson pulled her support? We heard the senator on Sydney radio yesterday arguing that we've got to rein in this spiralling out-of-control debt—not something we've heard for the last five years. Obviously no-one from the government has bothered to tell her that we're also supposed to forget the debt and deficit disaster. Apparently this wasn't one of the conditions of her secret deal with the government. Remember, the debt and deficit disaster, that budget emergency? It's been abandoned, completely forgotten. But obviously no-one thought to tell Senator Hanson and One Nation. While those opposite appear to have suffered collective amnesia about what debt and deficit is, here are some facts for you. Gross debt has crashed through the half a trillion dollar mark for the first time in Australia's history and remains above that mark every year for the next decade. Net debt for the coming year is double what it was when the Liberals came to office. The deficit for this year is over six times larger compared to what they forecast in the 2014 budget. If Senator Hanson and One Nation want to grow the economy, they should have a look at the plan from this side of the House—a plan that passes the fairness test, unlike the government's one-point plan; a plan that doesn't spend $80 billion on the top end of town while everybody else is hurting; a plan that restores $17 billion to schools, commits to fund TAFE, looks after our young and addresses waiting lists in public hospitals. Contrast this to the government's plan. It makes cuts to the pensioner energy supplement and forces people to work until they're 70. People who have worked with their hands, such as builders labourers, can't do that until they're 70. It hits workers in the retail, food and accommodation industries for $77 a week in lost penalty rates. It fails to deal with cost-of-living pressures, which means families and pensioners are paying $20 more for private health insurance and young families in my electorate are paying up to $40 a week more in childcare fees. That is something they can't afford, with electricity prices going up and the cost of transport just to get to their jobs. It is a plan that continues the Medicare freeze, so people in my electorate are $9 out of pocket every time they visit a doctor. Put simply, this is a failure of an economic plan and Australia deserves better. 15:49 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Thank you to the opposition for raising this very important matter. Providing economic management is one of the most important roles that a government has to play in running a country, a key component of being a responsible government. The Turnbull government is sticking to its plan for a stronger economy which will create more jobs and opportunities for Australians. We've already succeeded in creating one million jobs since we came in. Let me say that again: one million jobs. That's one million more people across the country who can provide for their families, save towards their dreams and live better and more fulfilling lives. Having created more working Australians, we're now seeking to cut their taxes. Tax cuts will reduce taxes for 70,000 people in Bennelong, the vast majority of local families, and at the same time we're backing businesses to invest and create more jobs for Australians, building a smarter economy to allow Australians to plan their future with confidence. The government is guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on now and into the future. A stronger economy has enabled the government to deliver record investment in Medicare, hospitals, schools and disability services. We have invested a record amount into our schools. In Bennelong I'm proud to say that we have some of the most impressive schools in the country. They are dedicated to their students, preparing them to thrive in an ever-changing world, but at the same time they're fantastic members of our wider community, responsible for some of the fantastic cohesion that can be found in our suburbs. Our teachers deserve the tools to excel in their jobs, and this government will provide them. Just last month I was proud to welcome the Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and Training and David Gonski to the wonderful Ermington West Public School to show them the incredible work done by our students and by the dedicated principal, Shannan Judge, and her team. At this time, the government committed to support the recommendations of the David Gonski Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, and I'm very pleased to note that we are working with states and territories to ensure student outcomes are lifted. Also in the budget was the new childcare package, which will ease the cost-of-living pressures for nearly one million Australian families in child care from 2 July this year. This will make a real difference to the bottom lines of families across my electorate and across Australia. Health funding matters to everyone. Through this budget, we have guaranteed that Australians have access to high-quality hospitals, a strong Medicare system and vital services for those with permanent and significant disability. It matters even more in my electorate for the employees of Pill Hill, the home of Australian pharmaceutical industry. Pharma and med tech is the largest employer in my electorate, and it is excellent to see that these industries continue to be supported by this government. Commonwealth health funding will reach a record $78.8 billion in 2018-19. This is a $12.4 billion increase over the next four years. Record levels of funding will be provided for public hospital services, while funding for the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is guaranteed through the Medicare Guarantee Fund announced in last year's budget. There is exciting news in the National Health and Medical Industry Growth Plan, which includes $1.3 billion invested into conditions like rare cancers, chronic diseases and the cutting-edge Genomics Health Futures Mission. Through the hard work of my good friend the member for Hasluck, the government is providing more choice for older Australians to live healthier, more independent and safer lives so they can take advantage of the opportunities that a longer life brings. Australians living with permanent and significant disability will have certainty, and they can exercise choice and control over the services they need through a fully funded National Disability Insurance Scheme. On this I would like to reiterate my thanks to the member for Ryan, who has personally overseen some cases in my electorate, including her life-saving intervention to keep open the RASAID home in Ryde. This government has created a far stronger economy than when we came into office, and this stronger economy supports a stronger budget which guarantees funding for essential services, supports lower taxes and allows the government to back new infrastructure investments across Australia. PS: I would be delighted to work here at least until I'm 70. 15:54 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert The Turnbull budget clearly outlines his priorities, and that is giving $80 billion in tax cuts to big business and the banks while delivering absolutely nothing for Townsville. The Turnbull government are putting big business before regional Queenslanders, because that's all they care about. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments Townsville has suffered through the highest unemployment rates in recent history. Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled. You would think that the Turnbull government would actually deliver something in the budget for Townsville given that they are responsible for the worst unemployment that we have seen but, no, not one cent. There is nothing for Townsville's long-term water security, nothing for energy infrastructure for Townsville and nothing for our port expansion development. The Turnbull government don't have an economic plan. In fact, they haven't got a clue. This is a government whose fundamental economic plan revolves around the myth of trickle-down economics. Australia is not fooled, regional Queensland is not fooled and Townsville is not fooled by this absolute myth of trickle-down economics. There is definitely something trickling down on Townsville from this government but it certainly isn't funding or jobs. Just last week Treasurer Scott Morrison was in Townsville to spruik his nothing budget and to try and convince workers, families and veterans that there was nothing in the budget for them to be fearful of. He did not mention the cuts to schools, hospitals, dental services and allied health services for our veterans. He actually told the people of Townsville the budget was very good for them, but Townsville was not fooled. It is reported that the real reason the Treasurer was in Townsville was for a $500 lunch. He tried to come to the Townsville community, tried to spruik his nothing budget, all under the guise of a reported LNP fundraiser—how typical of LNP priorities. The only thing that the Turnbull government has delivered in this budget, as I said, is an $80 billion tax cut to big business and the banks. That's the Turnbull plan. Unlike those across the floor from me, who love sitting in their ivory towers in Canberra and Sydney, I have been out door knocking and speaking to real people on the ground. Of the hundreds that I have spoken to, not one person has supported this budget. Not one person is happy with the fact that Townsville received no funding for water, nothing to relieve the energy costs and nothing for the port. Not one person is happy with the cuts to our schools, hospitals or universities. We have suffered around $9 million in cuts to the Townsville health and hospital service, $14.8 million in cuts to Townsville schools, $36 million in cuts to JCU, $38 million in cuts to Central Queensland University, $1.5 billion in cuts to the National Partnership on Remote Housing—including seven apprenticeships on Palm Island—and $40.7 in million cuts to allied and dental health services on top of the repatriation medical fees schedule freeze for our veterans—which has already seen a reduction medical services for veterans. These cuts will mean further job losses in Herbert. Then there is the absolute sham of decentralisation, with only a few jobs moving, which includes the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner to the established 'very regional' city of Adelaide. I want to see the 110 ATO jobs this government cut restored back to Townsville along with the Airforce's 38 Squadron King Air fleet, the 19 CSIRO jobs, the 50 Defence staff and the 30 regional Queensland customer staff. But instead, this government slashed the Public Service even more by cutting a further 1,280 jobs. Only Labor will deliver a budget for Townsville. Under a Labor federal government, we would benefit from $200 million for hydro power on the Burdekin Falls, $100 million for long-term water security, $75 million for the port redevelopment and $120 million for veterans' transitioning employment program—a very important program for my community. On top of that, we will deliver tax cuts for people, not for big businesses and banks. We will ensure that big businesses pay their fair share of tax and provide relief to the people who need it the most. That is the Labor way, that is a fair go for every citizen in our country and that's what a fair Labor budget would look like. 15:58 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I'm pleased to speak on this matter of public importance because it's an opportunity to emphasise once again just how this government's plan which was outlined in the budget will deliver a strong economy for our nation. We have heard speakers on the government side say this but it would appear that those opposite still need some reminding that, under the government's economic plan, jobs are being created, investment is rising and the budget is strengthening, which means we can guarantee the essential services that Australians and their families rely upon. It's a plan that will provide tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking people, back business to invest and create more jobs, all while ensuring the government lives within its means. The plan outlined in the budget is also about keeping Australians safe. This means stopping the boats and keeping them stopped, protecting Australians from the threat of terrorism and giving our defence forces what they need to do their job as they protect our values and our freedom. We're doing this right across Australia, from our major international hubs to busy domestic interchanges, and all the way across our local community neighbourhoods. In each of these places where people gather and connect, we're working to stop those who seek to do us harm by equipping the Home Affairs portfolio and security agencies with the tools they need in a complex, fast-paced security environment. I'd like to commend the Minister for Home Affairs, who is a great friend to the Central Coast, for his strong suite of measures in the budget, including directly investing $294 million to boost security at our airports. This includes enhanced screening capability for inbound air cargo in international mail, plus more police and Border Force presence at our busy domestic and international airports. For example, Newcastle Airport is just north of my electorate and used by many local travellers on the Central Coast. Newcastle is just one of the many regional airports receiving a boost in the 2018 budget to upgrade their security screening equipment. It means that travellers to the airport remain safe, along with the airport staff, infrastructure and cargo, and that our aviation sector remains protected from the evolving threat of terrorism. There is also additional investment in this budget to improve scrutiny of visa processing and passenger screening and clearance of visitors and goods at our borders. This level of investment is welcome, but it is also important to help people feel safe in their own backyards and in places like our local parks, cafes or skate parks where their children play. This budget addresses this need by funding initiatives such as the Safer Communities Fund, an outstanding program which has been extended in this budget. The Safer Communities Fund is backed by the Proceeds of Crime Act, which means that the funding comes from the pockets of criminals confiscated by police and reinvested back into the community. Because of the significant demand, an additional $30 million was announced recently in this budget to expand the Safer Communities program for a third round. It's all about providing grants for local security infrastructure, such as fixed and mobile CCTV, lighting and other projects. These needs are ones that are identified by the police, local community groups and the local council. Just last week, I was joined by the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs at the Peninsula Recreation Precinct to announce funding for more than 20 cameras on the Central Coast and associated surveillance systems—a major breakthrough that I've already spoken about in this place. This will provide CCTV infrastructure at important places, like the San Remo BMX facility, McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach, the new Banjo's Skate Park at Terrigal as well as the peninsula precinct. We met at the nearby Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk at Umina Beach to announce this funding, and I'd love to share some of the reactions I've had since. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Bruce is warned! Mrs WICKS 241590 Gabby Greyem from Jasmine Greens posted on Facebook: What a delight to receive federal funding and real engagement in building a safer and thriving community on our Peninsula. The Umina Community Group also posted, saying: We'd like to share some exciting news with our community that was announced today with unanimous support from all in attendance. Some of the added benefits will be the installation of better lighting to make sure they are capturing clear images. Hearing these local stories, coupled with the strong national security focus, highlights that this is not the sort of budget described by members opposite in this debate today but, in fact, the sort of budget that is all about keeping Australians safe. It's all about strengthening safeguards against persistent and evolving terrorist, national security and criminal threats, and that is only possible because of a strong budget and a strong plan for our economy. 16:03 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce It's always a pleasure to follow the department of sanctimonious reasonableness. I start with a confession: I'm pleased that the shadow Treasurer is not in the chamber, because I failed to stand up in support of the discussion for this topic, although I was listed as a speaker, because I do have a problem with the proposal—and that is that it presupposes the fact that there is a plan. There's no real evidence that there is a plan. Indeed, a plan, as commonly understood, would be a list of steps with details, timing and resources to achieve an objective. Saying 'Plan, plan, plan, plan, plan, plan, plan—plan, plan,' however reasonably, does not make it a plan. Indeed, to quote the Prime Minister in question time, saying it over and over again does not turn a lie into a fact. Saying it's better, fairer, simpler doesn't make it true. It must be a secret, cunning plan. To be fair, there is a one-point plan we have spoken of and seen: the $80 billion tax cut for big business. That is the start of the plan. There was jobs and growth, which was not actually a plan; it was a slogan and a website and that lovely yellow and blue logo that appeared behind the Prime Minister. Jobs and growth—we don't hear much about that any more. 'We have a plan,' they say, the $80 billion tax cut plan, including $17 billion for his mates at the big banks. As the member for Herbert said, something's trickling down on Townsville. I'd raise you one and say something's trickling out of the Prime Minister's trousers—a little bit of cash from his wallet for the rest of the country. The other aspect of the plan we hear about is the trade deals to open market access. In a desperate rush since being elected, for any passing trade they can get, they will just sign any trade deal with no independent scrutiny. All of them, to a tee, let more temporary workers into this country. That's their economic plan, apparently—a secret, cunning plan. We've heard about the secret deal with Senator Hanson, who is now writing their economic policy. Maybe that is the key to the mystery of the secret $3 billion of revenue to be revealed in the budget. They still haven't told us. Whatever the economic plan, it's not really going very well. The government has been desperately spruiking the jobs figures. We keep hearing this figure cobbled together that since they got elected A plus B plus C equals a million jobs. There's an inconvenient fact, isn't there? Only last week, unemployment went up. The unemployment rate in the country went up to 5.6 per cent. There are 741,000 unemployed Australians, which is 46,300 more than when they came to office. That's not going very well. There are 1.1 million underemployed Australians who want more work. Inconvenient fact: the level of employment increase over the last five years is actually comparable to when Labor was in office from 2007 to 2013, during the global financial crisis. Even if we take them at face value and say, 'Okay, we've had jobs', let's send a thank you note to Daniel Andrews. I'm sure he checks his letterbox every day. In the last two years to April, over one-third of total employment growth in the country was in Victoria, which has three per cent of the land mass, 25 per cent of the population and over a third of the jobs. When we have a look at permanent full-time jobs nationwide, the most recent two-year statistics show that 65.4 per cent of permanent full-time jobs in Australia were created in Victoria. Obviously, cutting wages through slashing penalty rates must be a secret, cunning part of the plan that we're not smart enough to understand. We hear a lot from those opposite about their tax plans. That's part of the economic plan, but you have to wonder which one. Was it the raise the GST plan or the plan to expand the GST base and whack it on health and education? Maybe that's part of the cunning plan. My personal favourite is, 'Let's reintroduce state income taxes.' We got rid of them in 1942, it's about time they came back. It's a cunning plan. Or the latest tax plan, 'Let's give away $140 billion with no information to the parliament in a seven-year grandiose vision.' Surprise, surprise, overwhelmingly, yet again, the biggest benefit goes to high-income earners. Maybe that's part of the plan. What are the fiscal outcomes of all these brilliant, secret, cunning economic plans? Net debt for the coming year is double what it was when they came to office. Gross debt is over half a trillion dollars for the first time in the country's history, and will remain so every year for the next decade. The government's secret economic plan does not even get the surplus to one per cent of the GDP until the end of the decade. Obviously, preparing the nation's future— (Time expired) 16:09 Mr GEE 261393 Calare The opposition is talking about economic planning. There is nothing like leading with your chin. They have an absolutely shambolic record on economic management and economic planning. The words 'sound economic management' and 'the Labor Party' are not words usually uttered in the same breath, and the Australian people know it. They're onto you; they've got it worked out. Let's take a trip through recent history, shall we? On 21 April 2006, the then Treasurer Peter Costello declared 'debt-free day'. Australia had paid off its mortgage. It had paid off the credit cards after a huge debt left over from the Labor years in office. It was the coalition cleaning up the Labor mess; that was what was going on. Having paid off the nation's mortgage, along came the Rudd experience and Gillard and Rudd and more shambolic economic management. The Rudd money—who could forget that? It was money being thrown up against the wall. I say 'thrown up against the wall', but I could use language that is a little more unparliamentary. It was an absolute shocker. It was commodity prices that got Australia out of the global financial crisis; the low Australian dollar and commodity prices drove us and enabled us to avoid going into recession. Who could forget the Building the Education Revolution and the overpriced school halls? Out in my neck of the woods, they wouldn't let local builders build them. It was a noble theory, and it would have been worthwhile, but they botched the management of it. You had horrifically overpriced buildings that weren't suitable for the needs of schools. In my neck of the woods, Nashdale Public School basically told the government to get stuffed. They managed the project themselves and actually got value for money. But they squandered taxpayers' money—Rudd money—with the BER. And who could forget the pink batt debacle, a debacle that cost lives? That was more poor management from the opposition. I was talking to morning radio host Kerry Peck on 2BS in Bathurst today and he was reminding everyone how bad the pink batt experience was for this nation—more taxpayers' money absolutely squandered. So after Rudd-Gillard-Rudd it fell to us again to clean up their economic mess. This is exactly what we're doing. The Australian people can rest easy because it's on our watch at the moment and we're in safe hands. In the 2017-18 budget, the deficit will be $18.2 billion, less than half of what it was just two years ago. This will be the best budget outcome for a decade. It's about living within our means. If we don't live within our means, there is a cost. And the cost is borne not by politicians today but by our children and our grandchildren. A balance of $2.2 billion in 2019-20 is forecast, increasing to projected surpluses of $11 billion in 2020-21 and $16.6 billion in 2021-22. We have stayed on track for a surplus in 2021 for six successive budget updates. The budget is projected to remain in surplus for the whole period of the medium term, with surpluses growing to more than one per cent of GDP from 2026-27 without breaching our tax cap and consistent with our sound fiscal plan and strategy. Average real expenditure growth has been reduced further—down to 1.6 per cent—the most restrained expenditure of any government in the last 50 years. Government spending is falling to 24.7 per cent of GDP, below the 30-year average of 24.8 per cent, over the forward estimates. We are also keeping taxes under our limit of 23.9 per cent of GDP. Net debt, something the opposition has had great problems with, is going to peak at 18.6 per cent of GDP in 2017-18 and will fall to 3.8 per cent of GDP by 2028-29. Gross debt will peak during 2019-20 at less than 30 per cent of GDP. Over the medium term, gross debt will be $126 billion lower in 2027-28 than was estimated in the midyear update in December. The trend is clear: those opposite create the mess; they've always done so. They're creating it again with their big new taxes, especially the one on retirees that will cost about $60 billion over the long term. But it is the Liberals and Nationals who always have to clean it up—and that's exactly what we are doing with this budget. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion is now concluded. BILLS 64 BILLS Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017, Crimes Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme—Worker Screening) Bill 2018, Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018, Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018, Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018, Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017, Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018, Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017, Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018 64

Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017

Crimes Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme—Worker Screening) Bill 2018

Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2018

Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018

Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017

Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018

Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017

Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018

Assent 64 Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 64

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Second Reading 64 16:14 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to make a contribution to the debate on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, allegedly the centrepiece and possibly the only substantive element in the budget. I was here before question time for the contribution of the assistant minister, who spoke in a manner that was true to his sense of Australia's priorities. But at the end of his contribution he spoke of this bill representing competing visions for the Australian economy. I can't agree with that. I think there is a stark division between Labor's vision for Australia and for Australians and what is being offered by the present government—but only one side has a vision. It's only Labor that has a vision for Australia's future. The member for Bruce spoke, effectively, in the MPI debate about the excess of hubris which causes the government to describe this bill as being part of an economic plan. There is no such plan. All we have in place of evidence, in place of a well-reasoned pathway to a destination, are some very well-thumbed, highlighted and tabbed-up copies of The Fountainhead. That's what this is all about. It is an absolute triumph of ideology—and a pretty bleak ideology for those Australians who rely on government to give them a chance of a decent life. The ideology is seen perhaps at its rawest in some of the discussions around this bill. We saw it again in question time today, the notion from government members that taxation is theft. This is crazy stuff. I think it is important that I put on the record my view, that of the great American jurist, Justice Holmes, that taxes are the price of civilisation. In fact, I think they're a bit more than that, because they shape civilisation; they point to the values we have, the things that we value and the things that we would like to change, as well as securing the sort of revenue that a society needs to function and that businesses need to prosper through. It's striking again to see, as we thumb through the budget, the absence of a meaningful investment in infrastructure. If we really are serious about meeting our productivity challenge, that's something that should be at the core of any responsible government and the core of any economic plan that is about securing economic growth which is inclusive. It's not evidenced anywhere in the budget and it's certainly not evidenced in this bill, the alleged centrepiece. Of course, we see government members describe this bill, with its three tranches, as being a long-term policy, but, of course, we are asked to support, in toto, a long-term policy in the absence of long-term costings. It's quite extraordinary. I was pleased to hear that a government senator seems to think that we will be provided with some further information as to the cost to revenue. I hope that she is right and that the parliament and the Australian people get to see the revenue impact of this reckless piece of legislation, because it is just that: it is reckless in so many senses. Many speakers on this side have highlighted their concern that, to get to the promised land at the end of these personal income tax cut arrangements, people will have to vote for this government not once, not twice, but three times, possibly more depending upon how many elections we're dragged into at the whim of the Prime Minister or as the Prime Minister seeks to secure his position from within his party room. What we don't have is any meaningful basis to work through the revenue impact. For government members to talk about our recklessness when it comes to fiscal matters in this context is nothing less than shocking. What is at the core of this proposition is an attack on the progressivity of Australia's income taxation system, and with that I think an attack on Australian egalitarianism. Some government members are honest to say so; others I've heard try to claim that the arrangements here are in fact progressive. I find that absolutely extraordinary. Leaving aside the philosophical debate, when you go to the empirical, it's all very, very clear. Whether you look at the work of Grattan, NATSEM or The Australia Institute, what we see here is a plan to bake in income inequality, and not just income inequality at large. The Australia Institute makes very clear that the proposals contained in this legislation would very significantly increase the income inequality that currently and unfairly separates men and women. Two-thirds of the benefit of these cuts will go to men and, of course, when we look at the whole of the government's so-called economic plan, the cuts contained within the rest of the budget overwhelmingly impact on women. Whatever else this personal income tax proposal is, it's bad news for Australian women. It's also very bad news for Australians who believe in a more equal society at large, and any perusal of these analyses will make that abundantly clear. The description of the Grattan Institute, which is not always a friend of the Labor Party on economic matters, says: … modelling … highlights costly cuts to taxes for high-income earners … Most of the revenue reductions … are the result of lower taxes on high-income earners. Interestingly, given the constant recourse of government members to reference to dealing with bracket creep, Grattan go on to say: The plan … will do little to unwind bracket creep's gradual reduction of the progressivity of the tax system. I think that's a really interesting thing, because that seems to be the main justification that's offered up, other than the Ayn Rand mantras that are recited. Mr Husic 91219 The Fountainhead faction! Mr GILES 243609 It is interesting. The Fountainhead faction is the dominant faction. There's probably an Atlas Shrugged one as well, but I haven't seen those minutes yet! Perhaps we can have an investigation later into that. It's interesting, of course, to be talking about bracket creep as a particular problem now, when wage growth isn't a huge thing. It isn't as huge a thing as the budget predicts, I venture to add, or as the government's wages policy suggests in terms of dealing with its own direct employees. Mr Husic 91219 At least they're optimistic! Mr GILES 243609 They are optimistic, not for Australians and not for Australian workers but for their prospects. But they are wrong to be optimistic. This reference to bracket creep is something that deserves very close consideration because, on this side of the House, we obviously are concerned that bracket creep not eat into the progressivity of our income tax system, but this is far from the answer, particularly in economic circumstances like the ones we are in today. For these reasons, and for many more, I'm pleased to join my Labor colleagues in supporting the member for McMahon's amendment, which shows a pathway through which recognises that there are things we can be doing through the income tax system to better support working-class and middle-class Australians and their families. There are things we can do. We could do them right now but for this government's blind, wilful insistence on pushing through with this attack on progressivity in the income tax system, on our sustainable revenue and, indeed, on our sense of egalitarianism in the Australian community and the Australian economy. I was interested when rereading the second reading contribution of the Treasurer. Obviously his contributions are much easier to read than to listen to. The absence of shouting allows one to reflect on the words. But reading it is troubling. Mr Husic 91219 Because he writes it in coal? Mr GILES 243609 It isn't written in coal, but it may well have been in the first draft, Member for Chifley. I was struck by him saying: …the personal income tax burden is carried by the few, not the many. I really hadn't picked the Treasurer as a big Jeremy Corbyn fan, but this was a particularly unconvincing homage. It shows the smoke and mirrors, the cheap tricks, which characterise this government's approach to economic management: pretending to be on the side of those who are doing it hard while, in fact, putting the boot in yet again to Australians and their families who are doing it tough, who deserve a government which is on their side and a real plan to secure sustainable growth that is inclusive and is a bulwark against excessive inequality. I make the point here, as I try to in every contribution, that on this side of the House we think inequality of income, inequality of wealth more so and especially of power especially are bad in and of themselves, but we also recognise, as does just about every reputable economic body internationally, that excessive inequality is a brake on growth. It's about time this government looked at that if they are serious about doing something to kick-start our economy. It is dangerous nonsense to suggest that the very wealthy, those at the top, people who earn incomes like those of us who sit in this place, are overburdened by the income tax system. It is a nonsense and it needs to be repudiated. It's also a nonsense to talk of the 'speed limit' of 23.9 per cent of tax to GDP. As a number of observers from pretty much right across the political spectrum outside of the Fountainhead faction have said, firstly, this is an arbitrary number. There's no science or modelling behind it. It doesn't really meaning anything other than a commitment to a desire to shrink the state and, in shrinking the state, to shrink those things which bind us together: our sense of what it means to be Australian, our sense of what it can mean to be Australian. We need a tax-to-GDP ratio that isn't expressed in a number. We need a number that is just right to support the services and make the necessary productivity-enhancing investments to drive our economy forwards and ensure that that growth is shared equally and appropriately. That's what we need. We need to be clear and hit on the head the misleading cant that somehow there is a magical relationship between a particular number in terms of tax to GDP and economic growth. You don't have to go very far in looking around the world to find that there is a very poor correlation between these numbers. A number of developed economies similar to ours have a significantly larger tax-to-GDP ratio and have had comparable or better records of economic growth in recent years. What we need in place of the measures in this bill other than those to give relief to people affected in the first tranche and people on middle incomes is a different conversation when it comes to tax, when it comes to tax and inequality and when it comes to tax and productivity. What we need to do is discard the deeply ideologically blinkered thinking that underpins this bill and replace it with a serious conversation, because we do need to have a serious conversation about income tax, but we can only approach that if the government are willing to enter into a debate, and that seems highly unlikely. The refusal to split the bill is quite striking and quite shocking to me. This proposal to flatten the tax structure can't be allowed to pass for an argument for simplifying our income tax arrangements. We're all in favour of building a system that is easier to understand for ordinary Australians who don't have access to the sort of legal and accounting advice that enabled 50 or 60 people last year to turn an earned income of over $1 million to turn a taxable income into zero, for example. That's one of the challenges in creating a simpler and fairer taxation system. We don't need changes to our tax system in which the benefits flow so overwhelmingly to those who are doing reasonably well at the moment—people like members of this place. Sixty-two per cent of the benefits go to the highest-income earners. These are the wrong priorities just like the rest of the budget. To return to where the member for Bruce was making his contribution: this isn't an economic plan. This does not amount to a vision for Australia that competes with that which has been articulated by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. There's a void here on the government's side. They can't articulate a fairer and better future. They can't talk about the country they want to build and how they want to take Australians with them on that journey. They talk about optimism, but they have no optimism. If they did, they would be following Labor's example and investing in the best driver of productivity growth, which is Australians, and educating them, appropriately building them with skills for the future. Instead they are abandoning them and relying on tired, disproven and deeply unfair ideological prejudices in place of an economic plan. 16:29 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay After five years of occupying those benches over there, you would think that maybe this budget might have been an opportunity for this government to get some things right. Unfortunately, we have seen this Prime Minister set out another set of wrong priorities for this country. We see $80 billion going to big businesses and corporations, and $17 billion to the big banks. I am incredibly disappointed on behalf of all the constituents of Lindsay in this budget. It's an unfair budget that, once again, shows how out of touch this Prime Minister is and how wrong his priorities are. As the shadow Treasurer stated, this budget also fails the fiscal test even with $40 billion of additional tax revenue. Net debt for this coming year is double what it was when the Liberals came to office and gross debt, which crashed through half a trillion dollars on their watch for the very first time in history, will remain above half a trillion dollars for every year over the next decade. A Shorten government will absolutely make different choices. In fact, we are proposing bigger tax cuts than the government for 10 million hardworking Australians, not 10 million Australians at the big end of town, who don't actually need a hand. In Lindsay, 74,000 people that I represent will be better off. That's more than three-quarters of my electorate. They'll be better off by $928, and 80 per cent will receive an increased tax refund. This bill today introduces a tax cut scheme that is in three tranches. As the shadow Treasurer made clear on budget night, the very first post budget statement that Labor supports is the 2018 tax cuts. We think they should be implemented. We will propose and make sure that when we come to government in 2019 our tax cuts are bigger and far better than what this government are proposing, and aimed at the right people. If a Shorten Labor government is elected, everyone earning less than $125,000 will receive a bigger tax cut. More than four million people will be better off compared to what this government's offered. It's a plan we can afford and we can afford it because we're not going to give $80 billion of tax revenue to the big end of town—also known as Liberal Party donors. The shadow Treasurer has made it clear this bill should be split. It should be split in the Senate to allow the parliament to take a detailed and considered position on each of the three tranches. It is clear the government are not doing enough for what matters to the people of Lindsay. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, doesn't believe in decent tax cuts for people on middle- and low-incomes, only for those who don't actually need them. The businesses who'll benefit from an $80 billion tax handout are not the people who are finding it hard to make ends meet at home. We don't know if these tax cuts are affordable to the big end of town. We have asked this. We have asked it many times and we still can't get an answer, but we're supposed to trust everything is going to be okay because they're so competent over there, as we saw earlier today when the House almost collapsed. We don't have a detailed analysis of the impact or the consequences. Labor's policy has a budget impact of $5.8 billion over the forward estimates, which we have put on display. We have let everybody know. We're not hiding anything, unlike those opposite. We have done the hard work and don't need to be reading the tea leaves. The full picture of this government's proposed tax cuts is incredibly unclear but analysis by the Grattan Institute shows that, once the income tax package is fully implemented by 2028—I think that works out that we have to vote for this lot another two or three times—$15 billion of the annual $25 billion cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20 per cent of the income earners. How is that fair? How is it fair that those people who are already making ends meet quite sufficiently are going to be taxed less than people who are not making their ends meet so well like middle- and low-income Australians? It's not particularly surprising that there's more for the top end of town by this government or those people who donate to the Liberal Party. And it's starkly clear that the government's thought bubbles usually don't last a news cycle but they persist with this $80 billion in tax cuts. They've been trying to get it through since, I think, 2014, which is very unusual behaviour by this government because they normally they come up with a thought bubble and then run away from it and do a backflip. But still they persist. We know what the priority is here. This is the only piece of legislation they really want to get through; it's the only change they want to make. They don't have any other programs going forward that would make a difference to the real lives of people, particularly in the area that I represent. It's hard for people to make ends meet. Wages aren't keeping up, and services are being cut left, right and centre. We have a clear plan to bring the fair go back to the heart of our nation and to the people who most need it. We will reduce taxes for the low- and middle-income earners and invest in schools. We will invest in the NDIS instead of creating more fear and anxiety and invest in hospitals and services like Medicare, child care and aged care that every Australian can rely on, no matter what tax bracket they are in. At the heart of this government—and I'm not quite sure but I think that might be the wrong word there, because I don't know that they've actually got a heart—they're not giving a break to everyday ordinary Australians. Instead, they're focused on their mates at the big end of town, none of whom reside in my electorate. We have cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts for those who are relying on us. There has been $2.8 billion cut from hospitals, which includes $5 million ripped out of Nepean Hospital. This cut to our hospital mean that people I represent will be stuck on hospital waiting lists for longer. It equates to about 8,500 emergency department visits and 220 knee replacement operations. Currently, if you need one of those in my electorate, you'll wait about three years. But over in the eastern parts of Sydney you won't wait that long. It's about 30 days, I'm led to believe. A freeze on the rebate for specialists means Australians will pay even more when they visit the doctor. They've cut $17 billion out of schools. In Lindsay, public schools and low-fee-paying Catholic schools are about $21 million worse off thanks to funding cuts. In our public schools, we educate some of the most disadvantaged young people. Most children who have a disability are in a public school, and most of our First Australians are in a public school. So when this Prime Minister comes in here and talks about giving opportunity to First Australians, he ought to think about where those cuts are coming from and who those cuts affect the most. The schools in my area, just like in all the other parts of the community where we've lost funding, are crying out for more resources, and I'm pretty sure that the Prime Minister would have been told that last week when he visited Penrith, if he had cared to advertise where he was going to be and had talked to real people instead of inviting guests only to the Town Hall meeting or politics in the pub. I'm pleased, though, that he didn't cut in the line at the local bar in my electorate. I'm not sure that he would have walked out on two feet. Since the Liberals came to office, there have been 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees training in Australia, which is going to lead to a skills shortage gap. You don't have to be Einstein to do the maths on that. If there are 140,000 fewer kids in training at TAFE doing apprenticeships or traineeships, you're not going to have 140,000 graduates coming in to take up those jobs. I don't know how much more we need to press this point, but it's a pretty simple mathematical equation: if you have fewer people training, you're going to have fewer people to fill those jobs. This will lead to a skills shortage, which we're already seeing. In my area, we've got a 37 per cent decline in the number of young people who are actually out there studying apprenticeships or traineeships at TAFE. So we've seen them gut TAFE. They're also cutting $98 million out of our local university and, overall, $2.2 billion out of university funding. There will be 10,000 fewer student places this year and next year. So, if you're in an area like mine where you're cutting education, cutting opportunities for TAFE and cutting opportunities for university, what do you think that might lead to? Is it going to lead to people being able to get a good job? I think it was the former Treasurer who said: 'Go and get a better job.' If you can't get a decent education, then how do you get a better job? We have seen the Liberals cut more than $2 billion from residential aged care and dump our $1.2 billion workforce compact and supplement, and 105,000 older Australians are being left waiting for care in their homes. In the first four years alone, 375,000 Australians will have to wait longer before they can access the pension because this government wants people to work until they're 70. If you're a banker, that might be okay. But, if you're a brickie, a truckie, a carpenter or somebody who has actually had to use their hands and brains for a living, then potentially that's going to be a little bit tougher for them. It's going to be tougher on their bodies. If you're a nurse who has had to stand on your feet for your entire career, working until you're 70 is not really going to be an option. I don't need to go through what happens to your body when you age for all the older people in the audience here, but I'll let you guys figure that out for yourselves. I know older people who haven't had the opportunity of being bankers their entire lives who would struggle to work until they're 70. The $3.6 billion hit to retirement incomes will have results for those 375,000 Australians. This is not to mention the cut to the energy supplement, which will see about two million Australians, including 400,000 age pensioners, $14 a fortnight worse off. That's $7 a week, which might not be a lot to the people in here who earn far more than an age pensioner, but $7 a week to our pensioners to pay their energy bill is quite a significant reduction. What we need for our future is a sound, fiscally responsible plan that is not only responsible but also fair, not economic policy that needs a crystal ball to work out how we're funding it. The Treasurer has designed these tax cuts in three tranches, as I said earlier, so we need to know the impact of each of those tranches. We need the distributional impact and the impact of government decisions on families at different income levels, which we're not seeing; the impact on the budget; the full seven-year costing of the proposed measures. We did give the Prime Minister umpteen chances two weeks ago when we were here, during question time, to answer exactly what that was going to cost. His arms went up. He wasn't so much a teapot or a sugar bowl; it was like the emoji shrug—I don't know. He had no idea what the impacts were going to be. The Treasurer won't tell us what it costs and also won't tell us what the impacts and the consequences will be for lower and middle-income Australians. Whatever claim the government had on fiscal responsibility is wearing pretty thin. They came into this place shouting like a bunch of banshees about the debt and deficit disaster and then managed to crash through and triple the country's debt. The year 2022 is quite a long way down the road. I don't know what I'm going to be doing in 2022 or 2024 and I bet that most households with budgets that will be impacted by this won't know either. I have a few kids. They'll be a bit older, I'll be a bit older and the cost of living will probably go up a little bit, but 2022 is a long way away for people to plan. How does the Treasurer justify making it easy for big business to pay less tax while slugging the people at the other end of the scale who actually need the help? Trickle-down economics—I think it's been disproven a few times. There might be a few books written on it. There is a book by Thomas Piketty. If none of you have it, you can borrow it from my personal collection. It might take you a while to get through it and you might need to reread a few of the chapters to understand that it actually doesn't work. I've asked the Prime Minister a couple of times about where this kind of example of trickle-down economics has worked in any other OECD country or, indeed, any other country, and the answer is that it hasn't. I don't think much is going to trickle down to the hardworking families in Lindsay. I will come in here every single day and I will stand up for my community and for the people I represent. We've committed to bigger surpluses than the government projected over the forward estimates from the election in the 2018 budget. We are seeking to amend this bill into separate measures, which will implement personal income tax relief from 1 July, so that the measures can be passed by the parliament without too much delay. But let's take out the 2022 and 2024 tranches of income tax from this legislation so the detailed analysis and the review can be completed and the impacts, consequences and what it means for this country can be looked at and analysed and we can all understand it a little better. The shadow Treasurer has moved: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to: (1) amend the bill to separate the measures which implement personal income tax relief from 1 July 2018, so that these measures can be passed by the Parliament without delay; (2) introduce new legislation implementing the remainder of the measures in the bill only when further financial information, including year-on-year costs of each step of the Government’s full seven-year personal income tax scheme, is made available to the Parliament— I'm not quite sure when that will be— and (3) support the Opposition’s personal income tax plan to deliver bigger, better and fairer tax relief to Australians." I think that most Australians are pretty fair-minded people and they would think that what we're proposing is far better and much fairer than what this government proposes. A few of them could probably make decisions better than we're currently seeing. This budget, sadly, is giving big business and the banks $80 billion in tax handouts rather than everyday Australians who need it and is making us pay for it with these savage cuts. I said in my first speech, from this very spot, that budgets and governments are about priorities and choices. We tax about the same, but it really goes to the heart of who we are and what we do as a country when we choose the big end of town and big tax cuts for those who don't really need it and we make our students suffer and we make the elderly suffer at the hands of a choice. It is a choice and it's the wrong choice for this country. It is the wrong choice for people in most of our communities, particularly mine in Lindsay. We've got a better plan for the future and I look forward to being in government and delivering a fairer plan than this one currently outlines. 16:44 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I rise both to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 and to support the amendment to the second reading motion put forward by the member for McMahon. I've been in this place for a long time—the member for Chifley, who is at the table, would possibly say for too long—but I've never, ever seen inequality in this country take such a front-and-centre position in the economic and public debate in this place. It's interesting to note that the bill being proposed by the government will not seek to improve inequality in this country but, indeed, make inequality in this country worse. The parliament is being asked to approve a tax package that we really know little about, except for the fact that it's regressive and it's unfair. We know so little because the Treasurer can't, or won't, provide the answers to our questions. We do know a bit about the measures proposed to begin on 1 July next year and we support them. We support them strongly, and that's why we believe that the government should be splitting this bill, allowing us to give quick passage, given the required time line, to the bill so the arrangements which are to come into effect on 1 July 2018 can be passed through the parliament as quickly as is possible. If the government was serious about delivering tax relief to lower and middle-income earners, that's exactly what the government would do, rather than hold members and senators to ransom with the rest of the package and, in doing so, deny low- and middle-income earners some much-deserved and -needed tax relief, after five years under this government. So we are in a position to support phase 1, but phases 2 and 3 of the government's tax package are deserving of far more scrutiny in this place but, more particularly, far more scrutiny in the other place through the usual Senate committee processes. There is no hurry to pass phases 2 and 3, and that's exactly why the government should split the bill. Given the time frames involved and given the opposition's support for phase 1, the government should be declaring today that what it intends to do is split the bill. I want to say a few things about phases 2 and 3, remembering we are talking about a package worth $13 billion over the forward estimates and, allegedly, some $140 billion over the medium term. That's a lot of money to be reallocating within the budget, and surely, therefore, my submission that more scrutiny should be given and more time should be given is a sound one. We want to make sure that those changes are as efficient and progressive as they possibly can be. Of course we know they are not, and that's what we want to test in the Senate committee process. We also know that NATSEM modelling suggests that these proposals will make our tax system more regressive over time, and that needs to be tested in those Senate committee processes. In other words, it will lead to, as I said, more inequality, not less inequality. Phase 1 is progressive, and it's on that basis, amongst others, that we support it. All the goodies, of course, will go to low- and middle-income earners, and we support that. But the later phases will deliver some $7,225 to higher income earners, while those on between $50,000 and $90,000 will receive about $540 per annum and, worse, those on no more than $30,000 will receive tax relief of no more than $200 per annum. Let me share with the House how the constituents in my electorate see this debate. Let's be frank with one another: they're not across all the detail. They don't look at these things as closely as we should and need to, and as we do, but they get snippets of what's happening in this place in this debate, and the first point is that they don't differentiate between the corporate tax cuts this government is trying to deliver to the big end of town, including $17 billion to the four big banks, and the personal income tax cuts being proposed in this package. It is an important point because they see them as one, but they're entitled to see them as one because, when you're giving $17 billion to the four big banks and taking $17 billion out of the education system, that by necessity becomes part of the debate. They sniff the unfairness. They instinctively know that something is wrong here, that this is not a fair package, and it certainly isn't a fair package when looked at in conjunction with what the government is proposing to do on the corporate tax package. They sense the package is not real. They sense that there's a bit of smoke and mirrors in all of this. I'm talking about things I've seen here. In more than two decades, I've never seen the electorate, the broader community, more concerned about the government's budget deficit. It's become a front-and-centre issue for people. I think the shadow Treasurer might have made a similar point at the Press Club. They would rather not get the tax cut if it's going to push our debt onto our kids and onto future generations. They are really focused on this concern. They have seen our budgetary situation not improve under this government but grow worse under this government, despite all of the rhetoric and promises of another course. So they suspect it's unaffordable. There's no doubt about that. They smile and say: 'What's this mob really about? This all seems a bit ridiculous. How can they provide $60 billion to $80 billion worth of tax cuts to the big corporates and also give tax cuts to individuals but also expect us to believe that they're growing education funding and they're growing health funding in real terms?' It's just not believable, and they do not believe it. They are thinking about the things that the government is making savings from to fund the tax cuts. I've already made the point about Gonski: $17 billion gone. They want their kids to have the very best of education. They don't want their kids to miss out on an education because the Prime Minister felt a need to provide big tax cuts to the big end of town. They're thinking about child care and the way this government has mismanaged child care and preschools in particular. They're thinking about aged care. They heard the government say on budget night that it was going to create more community care packages, only to find out a day later that, to pay for it, it's going to take it from our aged-care institutions. What sort of priority is that? These are the things that they're picking up on. They are thinking about their children, not just in education, not just in child care and not just in university. They're worried about home ownership, about how their kids are going to be able to afford to take out a mortgage. They're worried about how they're going to secure a job, because they know that, if you don't have a first-class education from the early years right through to an apprenticeship, a traineeship or university, whatever might be the choice, it's going to become increasingly difficult in the 21st century to secure a job. We have to take our children up that learning curve to something higher because jobs are going to be more complex and more difficult—more rewarding, I hope, but more difficult—and my electorate know that education standards have to improve over time. They are thinking about the cost of university and whether their children are ever going to be able to afford it, given this government's plans with higher education fees et cetera. And, of course, there is one part of our economy that seems to still capture the imagination and create concern in our community, and that is what's happening in our manufacturing sector. While it is partly a myth that our manufacturing sector is in crisis—and I say that because many don't see what is happening at the more complex and technical end of manufacturing; it's not visible or tangible to many people—they are seeing what's happening in meat processing and in our dairy-processing sector and the impact of both of those on our farmers, including our dairy farmers. They're looking at what's happening in wood processing. The fact is that in meat processing, milk processing and wood processing we have gone substantially backwards in this country. These are sectors that have traditionally supplied medium-skilled jobs, and we still need those medium-skilled job positions. Just today, the Australian Agricultural Company sadly, after only three years of operation, mothballed its new abattoir, worth $100 million or more, 50 kilometres outside Darwin. This is a government not providing any strategic guidance to industry. We need a red meat industry plan in this country which challenges some of the difficulties these businesses face, whether they be workforce, energy costs—the list is very long—quarantine inspection costs or markets. At the moment, because of our poor relationship with the Chinese, our products are being blocked out of that country. This is a government whose ministers stand at the dispatch box every day trying to claim absolute credit for three trade agreements with China, South Korea and Japan, agreements which, generally speaking, we began in government. I'm happy for them to take all the credit—they'll continue to try to get away with that—but what about taking some responsibility for the other side of the equation, our inability to access those markets, notwithstanding the signing of those free trade agreements, because of the non-technical barriers, the health protocols that haven't been established and secured, and now just the complete blockage coming as a result of the way this government has mismanaged our relationship with China? So these are the things my constituents are thinking about. In the Hunter region more generally—and it's good to have the member for Paterson in the chamber for this address—do you know what the Hunter region got in infrastructure terms? Opposition members interjecting— Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I thank the member for Chifley. I thank the member for Paterson. It was not $500 million, not $100 million, not $50 million and not even a million; it was zero. All of us in our electorates have significant and worthy projects. In my own electorate, for example, there is the Glendale interchange, the Muswellbrook Bypass, the Singleton Bypass and a link between Cessnock and the Hunter Expressway. The list is very long, but we received zero. Do you know what happened when we were in government for six years? We built the Hunter Expressway, $1.6 billion. We built the third rail track so we get our coal to port more quickly and more efficiently. We rebuilt our primary schools. We put in place the classrooms and other facilities that they so desperately needed. I had kids sitting on the floor in the halls of some of my public schools. We invested heavily. We invested more in our hospitals. We created more GPs. We gave money over to help the GPs to upgrade their surgeries. We put boom gates on our dangerous railway level crossings. The list just goes on and on and on. But, since this government came to office, the money has just dried up. In five years, there has been no money for the Singleton Bypass, no money for the Muswellbrook Bypass and no money for the Glendale interchange—just nothing. So, when my constituents look at this tax package, they also think about that. They are asking themselves why they are being punished for voting for the Labor Party. That's the question they're asking: 'Why are we being punished? We're not getting any infrastructure, our pensions are being cut, it's getting more expensive to go to the doctor, our kids are having their funding cut in their schools, and we've lost the agreement on our preschools.' They wonder what is going on. No wonder this government is so unpopular in my electorate. They are doing the wrong thing by our people in the Hunter region. They should hang their collective heads in shame. It's a terrible way to treat communities no matter where they are geographically located and no matter how they vote. 16:59 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I would like to concur with the words of my neighbour and colleague the member for Hunter: zip, zero, zilch for the Hunter for infrastructure. Like many in this chamber I listened intently to Treasurer Scott Morrison's budget in the hope that the needs of my hardworking constituents and taxpayers in my electorate of Paterson wouldn't be forgotten on budget night. Like most on this side of the House I was let down, as were my people in Maitland, Kurri Kurri, Raymond Terrace and Nelson Bay. What a disappointment. We were let down by the fact that this government still expects many of us to work till we're 70 and provided no infrastructure funding whatsoever. The member for Hunter mentioned the Hunter Expressway—fondly known as Fitzy's Freeway in our part of the world. It's been a major boost. But we have another critical piece of transport corridor, the M1, which vehicular traffic traverses from Sydney to Brisbane—big trucks, grey nomads with their caravans, people in Sydney who are trying to escape the congestion, trying to get north. That intersects with the New England Highway, and there again we have all manner of goods being transported, west to east to the port of Newcastle. It is a major intersection. It is causing so much delay and congestion for the transport economy and also the local economy in my region. There was not a dollar for it, yet Infrastructure Australia lists it as a priority project. Truly, we were let down. We were let down by the Treasurer's continued push to strip pensioners in my electorate of the $14 a week they receive now to help with the astronomical electricity bills—$14 goes a long way when you're on a pension. We were let down by the Turnbull government's smoke-and-mirror tax plan that won't take effect for years and years, and in the end will leave taxpayers in my electorate about $600 worse off than they would be under Labor's real tax plan. We heard a great deal about Prime Minister Turnbull's whizzbang new tax plan in the lead up to the budget. There were more leaks than the proverbial sieve, actually. We gleaned prior to the official announcement that the government wanted us to have a simpler tax system. Those of us outside the highest income echelons also hoped for a system that ensured a fairer distribution of wealth and fewer opportunities for multinationals to indulge and imbibe in tax avoidance. We expected that the taxation changes would be funded so that those who received the least weren't lining the pockets of those with the most. We hoped the government would allocate money to make our schools better, our universities more affordable and our TAFE more accessible and would allocate money to give our kids the best start in life and make sure our retirement years are as comfortable as possible. Yes, on 8 May 2018 the people of Australia once again looked to the Turnbull government to deliver fairness. What a disappointment. They looked for fairness on issues where every Australian, regardless of age, gender, location or status deserved equity. We were badly let down. We are disappointed—not surprised but disappointed. Now, two weeks on, that disappointment is actually turning to anger, and I feel it in my electorate when I get back. People just shake their head. I can't help but think of my lovely mum. She's 86, and she's seen a lot of prime ministers come and go. She's a very intelligent woman, who lived through the Depression as a child. She gets a bit cynical at times, but she said, 'You know, Turnbull: I really thought that he'd be better. I just thought he would be, but he's just turned out to be nothing. He doesn't stand for anything. They're not really doing anything. You know, that budget was really pretty empty.' I thought, 'Wow, Mum.' Older people—you can't hoodwink them. Outrage was really felt that Prime Minister Turnbull and his troupe of economic wizards think it's more important to give an $80 billion tax handout to big business and to the big banks, who've been under the blow torch of that not necessary royal commission: 'Oh no, nothing to see here, folks. We don't need a royal commission.' What a joke! Everyone in Australia knows when they're being ripped off. They've got very strong monitors for when they're being ripped off. Mr Gosling 245392 The BS monitor. Ms SWANSON 264170 The BS monitor—thanks to my friend the member for Solomon for pointing that out. TAFEs, unis and hospitals have all been sent to the boning room and cut back to the bone. How can we expect to have an educated nation? All of this nonsense about being agile and innovative—they just want people to be caught up in trying to get by. Talk about not being able to be agile! Outrage was felt that this government persists with this ridiculous notion that handing the fat cats these billions and billions of dollars will somehow trickle down to the rest of us. As my other good friend the member for Herbert said, there's not a lot of trickle-down. It just seems to be a trickle down of who knows what on poor old Townsville. It's an absolute load of unsubstantiated rubbish. The highly respected Grattan Institute assessed the Turnbull government's new tax plan and, surprise, surprise, it found that once we reach the end of the Treasurer's epic seven-year journey, $15 billion of the annual $25 billion cost of the plan will result from collecting less tax from the top 20 per cent of income earners. That's right: not only is this government locking in policy commitments that don't come into force for seven years; it's locking in higher income inequity. I heard the member for Gilmore say something earlier today. She was talking about how this was a simpler and fairer taxation plan that will mean that people will be incentivised to work harder and do better, and we all want that. Yes, of course we all want that, but simpler isn't always better. In fact, it can really demonstrate a lack of understanding. A tax system where someone earning $40,001 pays the same rate as someone earning $200,000 is not fair. It may be simpler, but it's certainly not sophisticated. Truly, I think some of these things really need to be examined. This government is locking in policy commitments that don't come into force for seven years. When we think back to the Hockey-Abbott budget of just four years ago in 2014, it was really a horrendous indictment on anyone who was fair thinking in Australia. It was absolutely categorically rejected by the Australian people. The budget that has been put out recently by Treasurer Morrison and Prime Minister Turnbull wasn't so immediately and utterly rejected, but I think as people go on and hear more of the detail coming forward from this budget they'll reject it, not because it was an abomination like the Hockey-Abbott budget was but because it is such a hoax. It's bribery in the highest form: 'Vote for us for another two election cycles and you might just get a bit more.' My goodness me! The whole deal starts out stably enough. That's why we've said that if the government were happy to split the bill we would back in the first tranche right now. In 2018-19 low- and middle-income earners will get their tax offset. I think that's a good and positive thing. We've agreed to support that. But when you fast-forward to the 2024-25 tranche, the tax system will ensure that high-income earners gain $7,225 per year, those earning $50,000 to $90,000 gain $540 a year, and those earning $30,000 gain $200 a year. It's like reverse progressive tax. Let's not forget that those earning between $40,001 and $200,000 will pay the same rate of tax. The people of Australia will see this bribe for what it is. The people of my electorate of Paterson won't be bought and sold for a piddling $10 a week, I tell you now. Don't ever underestimate working Australians. We are resilient, we are problem solvers and we stand up for what it is right, and there is much in this budget that is patently wrong. My electorate of Paterson is a beautiful and diverse place. We have the vineyards to the west that I share with my colleague the member for Hunter, and the ocean paradise to the east. As I'm often quoted as saying, I have wine and whales. We are home to wealthy retirees and single-parent households who struggle to meet ends meet. We are home to the unemployed and the entrepreneur. But the cord that binds us is the concept of a fair go. I will be proud to take the Shorten Labor government's tax measures to my electorate. Labor recognises that a tax cut for families will actually flow into the community: shopping, schools, electricity bills, entertainment, transport, even tuckshop money. It will make a real difference in the hip pockets of individuals and in establishments where people lay their money down. As a matter of fact, everyone in my electorate of Paterson who earns less than $125,000 a year—and that's the lion's share, to be truthful, of my constituents; they earn less than $125,000; in fact, many people would be absolutely delighted if that's what their pay packets were—will receive a bigger tax cut. Just let me repeat that: if you earn under $125,000 per year, under Labor you'll receive a bigger tax cut than you will under the Liberals. It's not just working people who'll be better off under a fairer system with Labor. Let's just turn our attention to those embarking upon their lives. In my home town of Kurri Kurri, I had the great pleasure of working with the Kurri Kurri Early Connections Group. They embrace the importance of preschool. In fact, my own preschool, which I went to in 1973, is part of the group. They know that the future for areas like Kurri Kurri and Raymond Terrace is educating young children. In a recent meeting with this group and the shadow minister for early childhood education and development, Amanda Rishworth, we learnt that there have been significant increases in physical, social, language and communication development vulnerabilities between 2012 and 2015. The rate in Kurri Kurri was double the national average in some areas. Children who start their lives with vulnerabilities face even greater challenges as the years progress. For this reason, Labor believes and I strongly believe that early childhood education is an essential part of a child's development. This has been stated time and time again. It's even been stated in the most recent Gonski report. In contrast, the Turnbull government's recent budget made absolutely no funding allocation for universal access to preschool, even though the government likes to say that it's forward thinking and far reaching, innovative and agile. We have to educate our youngest as early as we can. To make matters worse, from 1 July it's going to be even more difficult for people to try to gain access to this pivotal education, as it's going to be made difficult for families. They're going to have to register on a myGov website which is already oversubscribed and which people have so much difficulty utilising at the moment. It really is a problem. One in four families will be worse off under this new childcare package, and 350,000 families will miss out after next year. Meanwhile, big business and the banks are getting their $80 billion in a tax handout. No wonder people are shaking their heads. It is what I would consider a travesty for our country and the prospects of our country, where we need to have people as well educated as we can. It's estimated that nine in 10 jobs created in the coming years will need university or TAFE qualifications. As I've said before, the days of pulling cable for Bluey or getting on the pliers will be pretty much long gone. People will need far more sophisticated skills, even for the entry level jobs, and we need to ensure that our youngest people are well educated. That's why I shake my head at this budget. I shake my head at this taxation system that the government says is going to be simpler and fairer. It's actually precluding fairness. It may be simpler, but it's certainly not sophisticated. It's not sophisticated enough for a country like Australia, which should be faring so much better in the world in terms of our placement in the OECD rankings and in our education prospects for our young people. Labor can deliver the fairness that this country needs. 17:14 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My electorate of Canberra is probably one of the most politically attuned electorates in Australia, not surprisingly, as we have this wonderful, iconic building here that is the seat of democracy, and many of my community are actually servants of democracy as public servants. So I have a highly politically attuned, politically aware electorate here in Canberra, and Canberrans are very quick to identify and point out when the government, particularly this government, is offering them crumbs from the table. That's exactly what they were saying to me about the government's budget when I was out doorknocking last week. I doorknocked a couple of days with my niece, who was up here from Melbourne. I doorknocked in Tuggeranong Valley with her during the week, and then I had a team of us doorknocking on the weekend after the budget reply. We'll hear a lot from colleagues on the opposite side talking about how their tax plan makes things more fair, but what my colleagues opposite need to know in this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 is that Canberrans have their measure. They know what this government stands for. They know that this government stands for cuts to schools, cuts to universities and cuts to TAFE. Talking about TAFE, here in Canberra, since this government has been in power, we have seen a 49 per cent drop in the number of apprentices that are coming on board—nearly a 50 per cent drop in the number of apprentices. We have a significant skills shortage in this town. I met with a number of Canberra businessmen today for lunch. They had bid for a lunch with me—thank you—as part of the fundraising efforts for Buoyed Up. In the discussions today about Canberra's economic future and our prosperity, they mentioned the fact that essentially this skills shortage crisis that we're facing here in Canberra potentially will be a significant impediment to our economic prosperity and our economic growth, because we can't bid for projects if we don't actually have the skills and talent to build the projects. It is a significant impediment and, when we see figures like a 49 per cent reduction in apprentices and trade trainees, that's a significant concern. My colleagues opposite and my ACT colleague up in the Senate don't seem that concerned about it, but to me, as the member for Canberra, it is a significant concern for the prosperity of our nation's capital and for the economic growth of Canberra. Under this government we've seen cuts to schools, universities and TAFE, cuts to hospitals, cuts to penalty rates, cuts to the energy supplement for pensioners, cuts to dental care for veterans, cuts to the ABC, and more cuts from this budget. There is a continued freeze on Medicare, an increase in the retirement age to 70 years old, higher rates for private health insurance and soaring energy bills. All these cuts to education, health, wages, pensions and the ABC are while the government is giving $80 billion to big business and the big banks. The member for McMahon has proposed an amendment to the bill, to split the bill, but my colleagues opposite are opposed to that. They want us to lock in changes that are seven years out—basically just sign it away, approve this and get on with it, even though we don't have any detail. We have been up-front from the start: Labor will immediately support the personal income tax changes to take effect on 1 July this year, the first stages of the tax relief outlined in this legislation. The 1 July changes introduce the low- and middle-income offset of up to $530 per year for taxpayers earning up to $125,333. They also increase the threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. These changes will benefit just under half of my community—about 45 per cent—and put money in their pockets. The 1 July changes are something that Labor can give immediate support to, yet this government is attempting to hold them back unless Labor supports the other changes in the legislation. The second change would come into effect on 1 July 2022 and would increase the low-income tax offset, increase the top thresholds of the 19 per cent and 32.5 per cent personal income tax brackets. Labor has told the government that we will consider the second round of changes but we can't do that without the necessary information. We need the detail. We've been asking for the detail since the budget was released. We've asked the government to tell us how much this second round of changes will cost and we've received no answer. We've asked in question time and there's been no answer. Labor is being responsible and we want all the facts on the table before coming to a view because we're talking about seven years on, and I think we are entitled to have some understanding about what that will actually mean, what it will mean for Canberrans and what the cost is. The third change would come into effect on 1 July 2024 and would see the 37 per cent tax bracket abolished and increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket. These changes are seven years down the track, as I've already said, after two election cycles. We've got no idea what the economic environment will be then. I mean, just think about it: we're really only, what, nine, 10 years on from the GFC. We're still seeing the economic consequences of that in some parts of the world. The thing is we do not know what the economic environment will be, and so without any detail about what it actually will mean seven years on, we are entitled to have our reservations. We don't know what condition the budget will be in. We've got no idea what the shape of global and domestic economies will be. For all the government's talk about this being a responsible budget, it does seem irresponsible to lock things down so far down the track, especially when we could split the bill to vote on immediate tax relief for low- and middle-income earners now. While we haven't been given the full picture, the early indications are that once the government's three-stage stage package is in place, it will deliver larger benefits to those on higher incomes. Analysis from the ANU estimates that after the government's full plan is in place, someone in the highest quintile will see a 2.2 per cent rise in their income compared to a 1.1 per cent rise for those in the middle quintile and a 0.2 per cent rise in the lowest quintile. Of the tax cuts by 2027, around 60 per cent will go to the top 20 per cent of households. NATSEM modelling suggests this new tax system from 2024-25 will result in higher income inequality—the rich will get more of the tax cuts than the poor. The tax offset in 2018-19 for low- and middle-income earners is progressive—more money goes to lower-income earners. But in the later years of this package, as I've just explained, the tax cuts mean that high-income earners gain $7,225 per year while those earning $50,000 to $90,000 gain $540 per year and those earning $30,000 gain $200 per year. So when you take the government's package together as a whole down those seven years, it does exactly what the most cynical amongst us expect it to do: it favours the wealthiest Australians. But it's not just income. Again, analysis by the Australia Institute suggests that roughly two-thirds of the benefit of the government's proposed income tax cuts will flow to men, with men dominating the ranks of high-income earners. For every dollar in tax cuts for women, men get two. We know that this government just does not value the contribution of women. We see it in the way it treats its own, in the atrocious, abysmal way it treated my friend—and I do call her my friend—the member for Ryan, the high-performing Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services. If this government had any respect for women and their abilities, the member for Ryan would be the Minister for Social Services. And they're now going after the member for Gilmore and I understand others are going after Senator Anne Ruston. Also, if the government had any respect for women and their abilities, the assistant minister opposite, the member for McPherson, would be a minister by now. This is the longest-serving assistant minister in the government. Why isn't she a minister by now? I was raging when I heard the news about the member for Ryan on, I think, Saturday a week ago. I don't normally take to Twitter, but was going to take to Twitter. I was so angry. This is a high-performing woman who has done an excellent job. I'm saying this from the opposition ranks. I've worked closely with the member for Ryan on NDIS and NDIA. She's done an excellent job in terms of performing in that portfolio. She's competent, she's intelligent, she services her community with the greatest respect and dignity and passion, and how is she repaid? By some young bloke from the local council coming in and being preselected for her position. Which part of 51 per cent of the Australian population does the LNP not understand? I was enraged. As I said, I never take to Twitter, but I was going to take to Twitter. But I sat down, had a coffee and thought, 'I will speak to the member for Ryan when I see her next.' I do think it's outrageous that we have the member for Ryan going; we've got the member for Gilmore under attack; we've got Senator Anne Ruston, whom I understand is under attack; and I hear that other female senators are potentially under attack. We've got the longest-serving assistant minister in this government who should be a minister by now. We have the member for Corangamite up there who is also hardworking and high-performing—dare I say it—and should potentially be promoted. Which part of 51 per cent of the population does the LNP not understand? We're talking about 19 per cent in the lower house and 17 per cent in the upper house. That is the representation of women on the other side, in government. It's absolutely outrageous. It is shameful in 2018. I also do believe there is an element of sexism here. There is an element of ignorance here and there's an element of ageism. I do believe that, in the case of the member for Ryan, that we had ageism happening: sexism and ageism. How often do we hear that women over 50 have to be regenerated? We've got men in the ranks who are over 50 and they're there with their grey beards, their intellect and their experience, but, when women are over 50, they've got to be regenerated. I had to get it off my chest. I didn't do it on Twitter. I have done it in the chamber because I do think the treatment of the member for Ryan is absolutely outrageous. It's not just the member for Ryan; it's other women too whom I respect on the opposite side of the chamber. Yes, this is a contest of ideas. My views differ from all of you on the other side on the fundamentals of life. I am proud Labor. I am dyed in the wool Labor, and I do not shirk from that. That said, I do understand that this is a contest of ideas and I understand that we have a difference of opinion, but I do want to see more women in this place. We need a critical mass of women in this place. It can only get better if we've got more women in this place. As my colleague said, we need at least 30 per cent for the rubber to start hitting the road, for us to get traction here, for us to get cultural change in this place, for us to see any significant change. We have behavioural change and cultural change. We've got to have 30 per cent—not just on this side, people; on that side as well, and up there. We've got to have at least 30 per cent. So I say to the LNP and I say to the preselectors: please, if you want to see a parliament that represents our community, with 51 per cent of the population being female, then please consider that during preselection and please pay these women far more respect than the way that they've been treated. 17:29 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield That was a fine contribution by my colleague the member for Canberra. I don't think I could quite match it, though I do like the member for Ryan and commiserate with her, as I think all members do. Politics is a tough life, and even tougher when your protege seeks to replace you. It's a pretty cruel act, even if you take gender right out of it. It's a bit of a dog act, isn't it, to do a deal with someone, to be their protege, to accept their support and advice and all the rest of it, and then turn on them come preselection time. It's not a very good entry into this place, and I suspect— Ms Brodtmann interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 Yes, it does. It will cost the young man in the long term, I suspect, when he comes to this place. He'll come with that hanging around his neck. But I really want to talk about taxation and about wages, the two things in this budget that really tell you about the government's way of doing things, their priorities in doing things and their approach in doing things. This is a contest of values, and, of course, we've got the government's values, which are to play political games with people's taxes and political games with the nation's fiscal strategy. The government—and we've made this clear through the amendment to the second reading motion for the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018—can have the tax cuts for 1 July 2018 sail through this place, if only they split the bill. They can split the bill and have the tax cuts for 1 July 2018. Indeed, they could adopt Labor's plan and have increased tax cuts for 1 July 2018 without delay, without political games and without any problems, and then we can properly debate stages 2 and 3 and their impact on the budget. Of the $140 billion of costs that the Treasurer refers to in question time, we know that most of those costs lie over the medium term in stages 2 and 3, so why not split the bill, have the tax cuts secured for 1 July 2018 and have all those other tax cuts properly debated in this House and not delivered on the never-never like this government would have us do? There are important reasons for this. Basically, we haven't been given the full picture by the government about their taxes. We don't know the full implications of those on higher incomes or on the fiscal strategy. We do know that the government's plan to deliver flatter taxes will mostly benefit those on high incomes—and you don't need to believe me. Ms Brodtmann interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 Yes, who would have thought this government wants to deliver for people on higher incomes! But we know that this budget is built on some other issues. It's not just about the sorts of games they're playing on taxes—pretty pathetic games in question time, trying to turn this into a choice for Labor. It's not a choice for Labor; it's a choice for the government to split the bill and have it sail through this House. Then consumers and taxpayers and everybody else, including small business, will have certainty. Arguably one of the most important things that we can do for the public and for small business is to have that certainty out there. But of course the government won't split the bills. They'll try and play this ham-fisted political game and, of course, that will have an impact on the real economy. The other area which I think this budget has issues with is wages policy. And we know this because the government's own budget papers, Budget Paper No. 1, actually talks about it. It says: While wage growth remains subdued, it is expected to strengthen as growth in the economy picks up to an above-potential pace and spare capacity in the labour market is absorbed. But then later it says: Domestically, there are key uncertainties around the strength of the pick-up in non-mining business investment and the degree of spare capacity in the labour market. There are also risks around future household consumption and saving behaviour. That's why Moody's have said: … uncertainty persists on whether wages growth will pick up significantly enough to support revenues. Of course, the Commonwealth Bank says: Wages are the key to many parts of the economic and policy story at the moment. A sustainable improvement in the Budget bottom line is difficult to achieve without the revenue flow from higher wages. So this budget is built on the presumption of wages growth, but this government is doing everything in its power to send a message not just to employers but to workers as well that they shouldn't ask for a pay rise. We've had the government's support for penalty rate cuts for hospitality and retail workers. Ms Collins HWM And more to come on 1 July. Mr CHAMPION HW9 And more to come on 1 July, as my colleague points out. We've had a sort of witch-hunt on trade union officials and now the rather bizarre spectacle of one blackmail charge after another on union officials—blackmail charges for asking for pay rises. It is quite extraordinary when you think about it. It's a pretty 17th or 18th century approach to industrial relations. Of course they've fallen over time and time again, but of course that sends a message. If you're putting trade union officials in the dock all the time, that sends a message to workers. I don't think you can expect a retail worker or hospitality worker on a casual income to march into the boss's office and say, 'I want a pay rise.' It doesn't exactly provoke militancy in the workplace. Of course, we've had Paul Keating today in the Fin Review writing about what is a very big problem, I think. He says: What is concerning many people is the possibility that one of the key drivers of a market economy—the link between real wages growth and the growth in labour productivity—may have lost its magic. He goes on to ask rhetorically: Are we living in a new world where the structure of the economy has changed, where the bargaining position of workers has declined—and declined to such an extent, that they can no longer secure the benefits of their own productivity? That is a pretty critical question, because we have a budget, on one hand, built on the expectation of wages growth accelerating from a miserable 1.9 per cent to 3½ per cent, yet the policy drivers are not promoting that. I would disagree with the former Prime Minister in this respect: I don't think it's some magical thing. I don't think that this is something that's a product just of the economy itself. This is a product of this government and the policy decisions this government is making about wages. On one hand, there are heroic assumptions about wages growth, and then, on the other, you've got this situation where the government is sending this message to every small business: 'Cut penalty rates.' It's sending this message to the public through its policy: 'Don't ask for a pay rise.' There was an Age article the other day about wages called 'Stuck in the mud', and one of the things it said was that 1.3 million workers in retail—think about the effects of this on the real economy—have had a real wage cut of 0.4 per cent. Those 1.3 million workers have had a real wage cut. Of course, we know that's what penalty rate cuts do to hospitality workers. We know that that echoes through the economy. We have problems with out and out wages theft. We have a problem with superannuation theft. In the seat of Mayo, I'm no fan of the Nick Xenophon team—I think most members understand that from my previous utterances—but I can tell you I'm profoundly unimpressed with the Downer dynasty now popping its head up. I'm not against political families. I'm not against politicians' kids seeking political careers, but they've only ever had one idea: the Liberal Party and cutting wages. Georgina Downer, when she was living in Melbourne and working for the IPA, said on David Speers's program, 'The minimum wage itself is very well for people who already have a job, but it actually represents quite an obstacle'— Ms Henderson ZN4 Point of order. My point of order is that I would ask the member to return to the subject of the bill in debate. He's not doing that at the moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member for Corangamite for her advice. I'm listening carefully to the member for Wakefield— Mr Champion interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY who hasn't been given the call yet, but will be in a moment. I'm listening very carefully to ensure that he does keep within the discussion of the bill. The member for Wakefield. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Well, the bill relates to the government's fiscal strategy, and its fiscal strategy relates to wages. I'm just relating all the matters in the economy. Tax cuts relate to wages and the budget assumptions are based on wages growth. Of course, you have a candidate in Mayo who doesn't believe in any wages growth and doesn't like the minimum wage. I'll finish the quote. In her own words: … Australians who are out there looking for work and might not be able to get jobs because employers aren't able to afford them because of these artificially high wages that are set by the Fair Work Commission. That's a quote Ms Henderson ZN4 Point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Before you make the point of order, I've been listening very carefully. There is a slight connection, a broad connection—a connection that I have to say is throwing out the bone. I take your point of order. Ms Henderson ZN4 At the risk of stretching the friendship, I would just remind the member that he should not be defying the chair and he should maintain his debate to the subject nature of the bill/ The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The point of order is taken. The member for Wakefield will return to the bill. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Let me assure the House I'm not friends with the member of the Corangamite. I'll be doing all I can to see her replaced by the Labor candidate in Cox or Corangamite or anywhere else. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I ask the member for Wakefield to stick to the subject. Mr CHAMPION HW9 What she believes in is a magical world where the budget predicts higher wages but government policy acts against it. You can't do that. It's a fiction and a fraud on the public. The member for Corangamite should know this. This is why she gets up and protests when we talk about the fact that their candidates want to neck the minimum wage. What was the approach of the government to the minimum wage and the Fair Work Commission? Zero—that's what they want. They want to back employers in, they want zero wages growth at the minimum end and they want to hand out billions of dollars and wreck the country's finances by this irresponsible Reaganesque tax cut on the one hand. They want to cut services to schools and hospitals, and then they want to build their budget on heroic assumptions about wages. Don't just believe me; it's also the Commonwealth Bank, Moody's and Saul Eslake. The area I think is questionable is the forecast for wages growth in the final two years of the forward estimates period and, obviously, what that does for personal income tax. You come in here and talk about bracket creep, but it's hard to get bracket creep in your economy if there are no wage rises, and you're doing everything you can— Ms Collins HWM They're only talking about bracket creep at the high end. Mr CHAMPION HW9 Yes, bracket creep at the high end. Bracket creep for bankers is what they're interested in, not for workers. So we have this situation and it's a real problem. Later on in the government's own budget it talks about the international outlook. If I can find it—I did leave myself some things. This is the problem with the modern economy, and the member for Corangamite should listen to this: Labour market conditions are tightening, especially in Japan, Germany and the United States—unemployment rates are at multi-decade lows. Despite stronger labour markets and a pick-up in overall economic performance, wage growth and inflation have remained largely subdued. Why is it subdued? I'll tell you. In America it's subdued because they'll never give the working man or woman a pay rise. That's why it's subdued. If you try and organise in a trade union over there you get busted. You lose your job. That's what happens. Union activists are regularly sacked. In this country we have a situation where exactly the same things are happening. People are getting stuck into the minimum wage and getting stuck into penalty rates. This is a matter of government policy, with the anti-trade union rhetoric of those opposite. Yet they have the temerity and gall to build their budget forecasts on some magical lift in wages growth. Well, it's not going to happen for ordinary working people unless government policy supports it. That's why we need a Labor government. 17:44 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's always a great pleasure to follow the member for Wakefield. He asked that I listen to his contribution to this debate. I really haven't listened much to the member for Wakefield since he told the people in his electorate that he was going to save Holden. Ever since those dismal days a lot of what the member for Wakefield says unfortunately doesn't really make a lot of sense, including his comments in relation to wages growth. I just wanted to remind the member for Wakefield that when Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe appeared before the Standing Committee on Economics, which I proudly chair, he made it very clear that the RBA has been particularly impressed with Australia's labour market, which has been particularly strong, with over 400,000 new jobs being created in 2017, three-quarters of which were full-time. Labour force participation is close to a record high. Australia has experienced a record consecutive number of months of employment growth, which is the first time that's happened in the history of the labour force survey. I want to make this very clear—and this just goes to show it's very difficult to believe a lot of what the member for Wakefield says—the RBA expects continued growth in employment to further reduce spare capacity in labour markets and generate a gradual increase in wages and inflation. That comes from the independent Reserve Bank of Australia, and it really does illustrate the problems that we have when we hear from members opposite their ridiculous rhetoric which doesn't match the facts. It is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. The Turnbull government's tax relief plan announced in the 2018 budget is all about encouraging and rewarding hardworking Australians by making income tax lower, fairer and simpler. While those opposite call it a cash handout, most people, including many people in my electorate of Corangamite, have looked beyond the political games and seen it for what it is: a measure to ensure Australians keep more of their hard-earned income. Why should anyone be punished for taking on extra shifts, earning overtime or being promoted if the end result will push them into a higher tax bracket? These measures make sense. They will put an end to bracket creep so working Australians keep more of their money to help pay the bills, save for the future or spend locally. In my electorate of Corangamite, a region with many wonderful and diverse small businesses, service industries, food processors, farmers and, of course, hardworking families, more than 64,000 taxpayers will stand to benefit from the low- and middle-income tax relief in the 2018-19 financial year. As an example, a schoolteacher on $75,000 will have an extra $530 in his or her pocket from budget year onwards, with an extra $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of this tax plan; a workshop manager on $88,000 will have an extra $575 in his or her pocket; an accountant earning $87,000 will have an extra $530; and a fast food operator on $42,000 will be better off by $350. The coalition government's plan is affordable. It will provide tax relief now for lower and middle income earners and over time provide a simpler and fairer tax system for all taxpayers. We need a system that keeps taxes under control so we remain internationally competitive. We don't want a system that puts a greater burden on hardworking Australians. The more the tax burden hurts individuals and businesses—small, medium and large businesses—the more it hurts our economy and job-creating opportunities. The coalition government's tax relief measures will be implemented over seven years in three steps, and all three steps are vitally important. The first stage will deliver tax relief to low- and middle-income earners now, to help ease the rising cost-of-living pressures. In 2018-19 alone, 4.4 million Australians will get tax relief of up to $530, which will be delivered at the end of each year as part of completing their tax return. Over the next four years, more than 10 million Australians will benefit. The second stage of this bill will lift the tax brackets to protect taxpayers from bracket creep. This second step will ensure that, as inflation and incomes rise, workers won't get pushed into higher tax brackets and pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Australians who work hard, who take extra shifts or earn pay rises or promotions, will be encouraged and rewarded under this plan instead of punished for trying to get ahead. From 1 July 2018, the government will provide tax relief of up to $135 per year to around three million people by increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. When the low- and middle-income tax offset concludes in 2021-22, the benefits will be locked in by increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket from $37,000 to $41,000 and increasing the low-income tax offset from $445 to $645 from 1 July 2022. From 1 July 2022, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $90,000 to $120,000, providing tax relief of up to $1,350 per year. The third stage is about making personal taxes simpler and flatter by finalising the government's plan for more Australians to pay less tax by simplifying the system. This means that workers will be able to plan ahead, knowing that they will pay one consistent rate of income tax regardless of the overtime they're paid, the extra shifts they take on or the promotion they're awarded. From 1 July 2024, the government will increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000, removing the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. The plan means that around 94 per cent of all taxpayers, including the majority of workers in my electorate of Corangamite, will be projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024-25. This compares with a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024-25 without change to current settings. Under our plan, Australia's tax system will become internationally competitive. It will be a system that rewards effort and helps to grow a stronger economy. And, while this three-step plan has been heavily criticised by those opposite, rest assured that we will fight tooth and nail against Labor's plan to increase taxes. That's what we've heard again today in this chamber. Of course, this is the very reason that Labor will not commit to all three steps and stages of this package—because Labor's plan is to hit Australians with higher taxes. When we watched the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech, I have to say that it did look a bit like the Leader of the Opposition was selling steak knives. It was like watching Tim Shaw on one of those Demtel ads, because it was very, very difficult to believe what he was saying. Between budget night and budget reply night, suddenly out of nowhere he'd come up with this so-called miracle tax plan. But, as we know, when it comes to Labor running the economy, it's very hard to believe anything that the Labor Party says. The Turnbull government is delivering a plan to provide tax relief and ease cost-of-living pressures. But what the opposition has done is concocted a plan to increase taxes on electricity, on small and family businesses, on incomes, on housing, on investment and—really sadly, frankly—on retirees. Those opposite want to increase taxes on Australians by more than $200 billion, and the biggest single hit is on some pensioners and self-funded retirees, a $10.7 billion hit in this budget and in the forwards, and senior Australians will pay the biggest price under Labor. Higher taxes are Labor's plan—higher taxes that will hit hardworking families, higher taxes that will hurt family businesses that employ more than six million Australians. It is a plan that is absolutely deliberately calculated to hurt retirees, to hurt pensioners who have worked very hard all their lives to save for their retirement. Labor has absolutely no interest in senior Australians. This is a shocking, disgraceful, terrible plan—a $10.7 billion plan designed to hurt some of the most vulnerable people in our community and across our nation. So Labor's plan is about hurting the Australian economy and hurting the chance for future generations to secure a job. As I mentioned before, there is no doubt that under a Labor government and it's untrustworthy leader Australians will pay more and more jobs will be at risk. How can anyone trust Labor? They talk about tax cuts, but we know what that really means. We have seen and had a great insight into the plan. There will be higher taxes and higher deficits to pay for their out-of-control and irresponsible spending spree. Our government has worked hard to deliver for all Australians. We were elected to clean up Labor's deficit mess, grow the economy, create more jobs and deliver the vital services on which we so rely. Labor, despite all the promises and the four magic surpluses that never arrived, has not delivered a surplus since 1989. On the other hand, we have delivered, and all of this could be taken away if Labor gets its chance. Labor is a risk that Australia cannot afford. Only the coalition government is delivering a responsible, affordable and well-thought-out plan for tax relief. Only the coalition government has delivered record jobs growth and a stronger economy. Only the coalition government will deliver a surplus. I'm very pleased to speak in support of the coalition government's responsible income tax relief plan and I commend this bill to the House. 17:57 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook In summing up this debate, I want to thank members for their contributions to this debate. In concluding the debate, there are a couple of points I just wanted to reinforce to the House. The first of those is who currently pays tax in the country and how much tax they pay when it comes to personal income tax. When you look at the distribution of that, what you see is that the share of personal tax paid by those on the top tax bracket is 30.3 per cent. The average—median—tax paid by those individuals is $84,600 a year. They represent 4.1 per cent of taxpayers and they pay 30.3 per cent of tax. In the next tax bracket, from $87,000 to $180,000, are just less than 20 per cent of taxpayers, and they pay 34.8 per cent of tax and pay, on average, around $30,500 a year in tax. Combined, those two top tax brackets account for less than a quarter of taxpayers and pay two-thirds of the personal income tax in Australia. The $37,000 to $87,000 threshold—remembering this government increased the threshold from $80,000 to $87,000 a couple of years ago—accounts for more than half of taxpayers. That is 5.4 million taxpayers, in fact. And they pay less than a third of tax—32.5 per cent—and have an average tax paid, based on the 2015-16 data, of $10,400. That's about a third or just over of what's paid on the next tax bracket up and about a sixth of those on the top. And then you've got those on the lowest tax bracket above the tax-free threshold, and that's 2.3 million taxpayers. It's 23 per cent of all taxpayers—almost a quarter—and they pay 2.4 per cent of personal tax. They pay each year, on average, a median tax of $1,900. We have a progressive tax system. That is what it is designed to do. Those who earn more pay more—and they pay more not just in terms of dollars, they pay a higher rate overall. A bigger percentage of income is paid in tax for those on higher incomes than for those on low incomes. That is what enables us to provide for a safety net in this country. I don't think Australians subject to that principle at all. In fact, I think they support it. But they don't want to be taken for mugs either. They also understand that the system has to provide reward for effort. As we were reminded by the member for Fenner, humans, if they are in the position of paying less tax, tend to do more. Mr Pasin interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L As for other taxpaying mammals, I'm not sure what the practice is! The point is this. We have a progressive system. That is a good system but it shouldn't overreach on those who are out there working hard and doing better and become a disincentive for that, because that undermines the economy. So what this tax plan that we have announced in this budget is designed to do is ensure that we conform to that principle. It respects the progressivity of our tax system. In 2024-25, the year when the full plan comes into being, those on $40,000 a year will be paying an average tax rate of 11.2 per cent under our plan and those earning $200,000 a year will be paying an average tax rate of 30 per cent. So the progressivity of the system is not under challenge—not at all. We retain, as indeed we should, a progressive tax system. Indeed, it will move from those on the top tax bracket paying around 30.3 per cent of the total personal tax bill in this country in 2015-16 to, at the end of that plan, 36 per cent. So those on the higher tax brackets will then be paying an even higher proportion. Mr Pasin 240756 It's more progressive. Mr MORRISON E3L It is more progressive, indeed. So we are retaining the progressivity of the system. What the plan is also doing, though, is protecting against bracket creep. This is an incredibly important part of this plan. If you are on an average wage at the moment, the full-time ordinary wage of $84,600, in 2022-23, which is when step 2 of the plan kicks in, you will be earning $96,850 and by the end of this plan you will be earning over $100,000. Bracket creep, unless addressed, will unfairly take back from those working Australians what they haven't earned. So what our plan is designed to do in three steps, as other speakers from the government have rightly noted, is, firstly, deliver that relief to low- and middle- income earners. We understand the pressures they face and the many expenses they have, particularly their fixed expenses–utility bills and all those things. Step 1 of our plan responsibly delivers that relief by providing a tax offset for low- to middle-income earners of up to $530 a year, which is claimed back through their tax refund. Step 2 of the plan is to adjust the thresholds in 2022-23 to address the theft of bracket creep. We do that by adjusting the thresholds from $37,000 to $41,000 and by moving the $90,000 threshold, which we have moved from 1 July this year under this plan, as part of step 2, up to $120,000. That will ensure that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians will be prevented from paying higher rates of tax. Step 3 simplifies the system. It removes the 37 per cent tax bracket so that 94 per cent of Australians will not pay more than 32.5 per cent as their marginal rate of tax. That is a structural change to the tax system. It makes it simpler, it protects against bracket creep and it provides immediate relief. It is important to understand that these parts of the plan are linked. Step 1 and step 2 of the plan are inextricably linked, as, indeed, is step 3 to achieve all the purposes of the plan. Under step 1 of the plan, the low- to medium-income tax offset runs for those four years, and then it is absorbed into the threshold changes and the adjustments to the low-income tax offset to ensure that the tax relief for low- and middle-income earners is preserved for all time. It's preserved into the future by the adjustments to thresholds and the adjustments to the low-income tax offset that is in step 2. So the idea that you can break these two apart and not impact on low- and middle-income people shows a complete lack of understanding of or a failure to read the budget documents or a willingness to not seek to understand them. That's why it's incredibly important that we understand the componentry of this plan. I look at the componentry of this plan and I could set out the costs for you over the short-term—over the budget and the forward estimates—and over the 10-year period. When you look at the cost of the low- and medium-income tax offset over the forward estimates, that's $11,650,000,000. Over the full 10 years, just the residual component of that step 1 program is $15.9 billion. If you look at step 2, which includes the increase in the threshold from $87,000 to $90,000, the cost over the budget and forward estimates is $1.75 billion. The cost, though, of that over the full 10-year period is $6.45 billion. When you take steps 1 and 2 together over the medium term, the cost of that program is $102,350,000,000. Now I stress that when you're projecting over the medium term, there are very real issues. Over the medium term, over a full-year period, the Treasury will advise, of course, that there are swings and roundabouts that happen with forecasts and assumptions that you make. I also stress, though, that it is nominal dollars. A dollar 10 years from now is obviously going to be worth less than the dollar is today. The dollars we're talking about here are nominal figures, so when you see larger figures in out years over the back of the medium term, those dollars don't cost the same as the dollars in the medium term. That $102,350,000,000 is the combined cost of step 1 and step 2 over the medium term, and the combined cost of the entire program over 10 years is $143,950,000,000. So that sets out the costs of step 1, step 2 and step 3 of the plan. I think it demonstrates the proportions. Of the $143 billion or thereabouts—we've been saying roughly $140 billion—just over $100 billion is actually going to steps 1 and 2 of that program, which is targeted towards low- and middle-income earners over that period. That's what steps 1 and 2 are costing, and the total cost of step 3 over the medium term is just over $143 billion, at $143.95 billion. This plan is also designed not just to provide this relief and deliver actual, real reform to our personal tax system and deal with real problems in the tax system; it's also designed to ensure that taxes as a share of our economy do not rise above 23.9 per cent. That is something we've set as a fiscal rule, as a tax speed limit, because we know that if you allow taxes to rise as a share of the economy to unsustainable levels this undercuts growth, costs jobs, costs investment and costs the budget. It's self-defeating. It's like a snake eating its tail. The shadow Treasurer used to believe that. He actually set us a goal of staying below 23.7 per cent. That's what he said. He said that was the test of the new coalition government. In the first election he went to subsequent to that, he came forward with a tax plan which saw tax to GDP rising to 25.7 per cent of the economy over the medium term, and I suspect it's much higher now. We don't share the view that taxes as a share of the economy should be able to consume the economy and slow growth, and we've committed to that. Our personal tax plan is designed to ensure we stay under that speed limit. That's what this plan does. Our tax plan also does not seek to punish those who are self-funded retirees, small and medium-sized businesses, family businesses, or nurses and police officers who've decided to buy an investment property. We're not seeking to punish any of these people. That's the Labor Party's plan. What we are doing is providing this tax relief and this personal income tax plan which says that 94 per cent of Australians will not face a marginal tax rate of more than 32½c in the dollar. We're doing that without hitting anyone else with higher taxes, because we don't believe that you have to punish Australians who are working hard in order to provide relief to other Australians who are working hard. That's fair. I think that's fair. It's not fair to go around and say, 'We are going to punish you because you're doing better,' to simply provide tax relief elsewhere. We believe you can achieve both things: encourage those in all parts of the tax system— Mr Sukkar 242515 Including retirees? Mr MORRISON E3L especially retirees—and, at the same time, deliver that fairer outcome for those on low and middle incomes. It's a responsible plan. It's a comprehensive plan. It's a plan that deserves to have the support of this House. If this House is prepared on numerous occasions to commit the Australian taxpayer to decades and decades of expenditure as far as the eye can see, this chamber should also be prepared to say to taxpayers, 'We're also prepared to commit to tax relief in the future.' If you're prepared to commit to spending in the future and if you're concerned that tax relief might in other ways undermine the budget in the future, that same rule should be applied to expenditure in the future. You can't apply a double standard. We understand that you've got to fund hospitals into the future, and we do: $30 billion extra in just over five years as part of our plan. This is a tax relief plan that gives Australians certainty in the future. For that reason, I commend it to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 60 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Macklin, JL McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Zappia, A 69 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:22 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative. In accordance with standing order 127, the names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 83 18:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (7) and (12) to (23) as circulated in my name together: Leave granted. Mr BOWEN DZS The amendments that I just moved will effectively split this bill. Those elements that start on 1 July this year would remain and those elements that start on 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2024 would be removed. It is, frankly, good governance to allow both houses of parliament, and this House in particular, to vote on each tranche on its own merits. The Treasurer has said that this is a take-it-or-leave-it offer, an all or nothing proposition. It's not. It doesn't have to be. The Treasurer said they're intrinsically linked. They are not. They are quite separate tranches of tax cuts. The Labor Party has made it very clear that we support the government's efforts to have tax cuts on 1 July 2018. That's why we just sat with the government, to support those tax cuts. We also sat with the government to facilitate this amendment to allow us to split out the 2022 and 2024 tax cuts, as any responsible opposition would do, because we want to analyse the proposals. The Treasurer just released new figures on the different tranches. That's good. It would have been better if it had happened earlier. To do it in the summing-up speech of the legislation is a rather novel approach, a rather odd way, an odd order, of doing things—providing the information to the House at the end, not the beginning, of the debate. But, anyway, that's the way the Treasurer's chosen to do it. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been unable and unwilling in question time after question time to answer the Labor Party's questions about the costs of tranches 2 and 3, so it's only appropriate that we separate this bill and vote on the things that we all agree on—at least the government and the opposition agree on. The honourable members on the crossbench do not—that is their right—but the government and the opposition do agree on the need for the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners to come into force in 2018. Indeed, we think we should go further, but that's a subject for the second amendment, which I'll be moving later in this debate. It should not matter to the government that we split the bill, because we are very clear in our support for the 2018 tax cuts. But we want to carefully deliberate on the other tranches. I would be surprised to hear the government mount the argument that it is urgent for the 2022 and 2024 tax cuts to be voted on, because it is 2018. We can argue at the edges about what's urgent and what's not urgent, but something that's happening in 2024 is not urgent to vote on in the House in 2018. What is appropriate is for the House to take due consideration, for the Senate to have an inquiry and for the government to release much more data on the impacts of the costs, particularly as Treasury does not know what the financial circumstances will be in 2024. It doesn't know what the fiscal environment will be. I don't know. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, with all due respect to your good self, you don't know. No economists knows. We can all make predictions, forecasts and best guesses, but none of us know what the economy will be like in 2024, whether these tax cuts are affordable or whether indeed something larger might be affordable. Something larger might be affordable or something less. We just don't know, so this takes very careful deliberation. The government wanted us to vote for it sight unseen. The Treasurer wanted us to do it the day after the budget, such was the Treasurer's disregard for the processes of the parliament and for the principles of review by the House of the legislation. The government has, as I said, singularly failed to provide the information that the opposition has asked for. We have made no secret of the fact that we have a high degree of scepticism about the nature of the 2024 tax cuts and their impact on the progressivity of the tax system and the fairness that goes with that. There are elements of the 2022 package that we see we should consider and the House should consider, but we want to consider them. I say this very clearly to the government: do not hold the 2018 tax cuts hostage to the 2024 tax cuts. Do not say that to the Australian people. Do not be so cynical that you think they will accept that you can hold their 2018 tax cuts hostage until you get tax cuts in 2024 through this parliament, because you don't have to do that. You know you're going to have to blink. You know you're going to have to split the bill, just as you did on corporate tax. You'll have to split this bill. You might as well do it now. You might as well get it done now, because we'll be arguing the same in the other place. Other senators have said they will argue the same. Split the bill. Let the House determine each tranche on its merits, as you should. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Before calling the Treasurer, can I ask the honourable member for McMahon to formally move the amendments. Mr BOWEN DZS My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thought I had. I move the amendments: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 5 and 6), omit the table items. (3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit "and Low Income tax offset". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit "and Low Income tax offset". (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 and 25), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 and 6), omit "2018‑19, 2019‑20, 2020‑21 or 2021‑22 income year", substitute "2018‑19 income year or a later income year". (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 17 and 18), omit the note. (12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 10) to page 8 (line 12), omit sections 61‑110 and 61‑115. (13) Schedule 1, page 9 (line 12), omit the heading. (14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (lines 13 to 18), omit the item. (15) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item, substitute: 6 Section 13 ‑1 (table item headed " low income earner " ) Omit: substitute: (16) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 1 to 4), omit the item. (17) Schedule 1, page 10 (line 5), omit the heading. (18) Schedule 1, items 8 and 9, page 10 (lines 6 to 15), omit the items. (19) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 11 (line 1) to page 12 (line 16), omit the Part. (20) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 13 (starting at line 2), omit the Part, substitute: Part 1—Main amendments Income Tax Rates Act 1986 1 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 2 Clause 1 of Part I of Schedule 7 (table item 3, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 3 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table item 1, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 4 Clause 1 of Part II of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the ordinary taxable income of the taxpayer that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 5 Clause 4 of Part II of Schedule 7 (example) Repeal the example. 6 Clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table item 2, column headed " For the part of the taxpayer ' s working holiday taxable income that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 7 Clause 1 of Part III of Schedule 7 (table item 3, column headed " For the part of the taxpayer ' s working holiday taxable income that: " ) Omit "$87,000", substitute "$90,000". 8 Application The amendments made by this Part apply to the 2018‑19 year of income and later years of income. (21) Schedule 2, items 10 to 12, page 18 (lines 3 to 12), omit the items. (22) Schedule 2, items 15 and 16, page 18 (line 22) to page 19 (line 3), omit the items. (23) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 20 (line 1) to page 21 (line 12), omit the Part. 18:31 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Labor Party do not agree with the government that 94 per cent of Australians should pay no more than 32½c in the dollar as their marginal rate of tax. They don't agree with that. That's what they've just said. They also don't agree that we should be dealing with bracket creep. That's what these amendments are designed to address. They're designed to say: 'No, we don't support the government's plan to address bracket creep. We want to take that hard-earned money from Australians and keep it and spend it.' And they'll spend it. At the last election, this shadow Treasurer put up $31 billion and more in higher spending. I note—it's interesting—that he says, 'We don't know what's going to happen in 2022-23 and 2024-25,' but he's quite happy to spend money in 2022-23, 2024-25 and in 2050-51. He'll spend money forever, and he's happy to pass bills in this place that spend money, but he's not happy to pass bills that provide for tax relief. That's what they're not prepared to do. What he's saying is that someone who's on an average wage today of $84,600 should pay a higher rate of tax in 2022-23 than they do now. They will move into the 37c tax bracket without these changes. In 2024-25 it will get even worse. Someone on an average wage today will be on around $100,000 in 2024-25. In 2022-23, they'll be on about $95,000 and a bit more, and they'll be paying a higher rate of tax. Make no mistake: what the Labor Party are saying here is that they want to bank bracket creep, and they want to spend it all. They just want to spend it all in a big splurge at this election. The reckless spending will be back from the Labor Party. And they'll be seeking to do it by pilfering the hard-earned savings and earnings of Australians. That's why we won't be supporting these amendments. We believe that you need to deal with these structural problems in the tax system and that you need to lay out a clear plan. That plan has to be fair. That plan has to protect the progressivity of the tax system, which our plan does. And it has to ensure that Australians have some certainty as they put that extra effort in. We're talking about a seven-year plan. They can't even commit to tax relief over seven years, let alone 10, but they will commit to expenditure forever. So what we're learning here is that the Labor Party are for higher taxes. What they're not agreeing to is the full tax relief of $143.95 billion that is set out in this bill. They're not agreeing to $192.35 billion of tax relief. What they are simply seeking to do is pull one over on the Australian people, pilfer what they earn and pilfer what they save, whether they're retirees or just people going to work honestly every day who want some certainty that the government in the future won't be putting its hands deeply into their pockets and that what they earn they'll be able to keep. This is a cynical exercise from the Labor Party. The shadow Treasurer himself used to believe in lower taxes. He no longer does. He's become hostage to those who sit on his own front bench, unable to stand up to any of them. It's disappointing. But he makes his bed; he can lie in it. But he shouldn't force Australian taxpayers to lie in a bed of higher taxes, because that's what he wants to do to them. He's going to stop us dealing with bracket creep here in this place and he's going to stop us having a simpler tax system into the future. That's his choice. That's Labor's choice. This is why tax as a share of the economy will let rip under the Labor Party. This is the same shadow Treasurer who said that this government should be held to the standard of ensuring that tax as a share of the economy should rise no higher than 23.7 per cent. We've been achieving that and we've set a tax speed limit to ensure that we stay under that into the future, and that's what this bill does. By not supporting the full tax plan, what Labor is saying is that they want taxes to go up and up and up, because under Labor they'll spend and spend and spend. You want to know what the proof of that is? At the last election they committed to $31 billion of additional expenditure and they put taxes up by over $15 billion, and they still ended up with a higher deficit after all that was done. Higher taxes, higher spending, higher deficits—that's the form of this shadow Treasurer. 18:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Last year the Senate asked the government to split its corporate tax bill. That was the bill that was seeking to reduce corporate taxes for big businesses from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, and the Senate wanted to split that bill and only have a threshold of $50. They would lower the corporate tax rate for businesses with a threshold below $50 million. What did the government do at the time the Senate made that request? The government agreed. The government agreed to split that corporate tax bill at the time and ensure that there was tax relief for businesses under $50 million worth of turnover. The bills that we're discussing here today come in three phases, and it's clear that there are three phases of this particular plan. On 1 July this year the low- to middle-income tax offset of $530 comes into effect. Labor has said we will agree to this phase of the personal tax plan. But, as to the second and third phases, in 2022 and 2024, which really are a con job to try to hoodwink Australians into voting for the Turnbull government again and again, Labor, many in the Senate and, indeed, the Australian public have requested the year-by-year breakdowns and that this bill be split. We want to be able to guarantee this first phase of these personal income tax cuts, and we can do that. We do that and ensure that this tax relief is provided on 1 July this year. So what we've got here is that the government is willing to split the corporate tax bill. They're willing to do what the Australian public didn't want in terms of tax cuts but what the Senate wanted in terms of splitting that bill, but they're not willing to do what the parliament now wants in terms of splitting these bills. It says everything about this government's priorities. They are willing to bend over backwards for business but are not willing to do the same to provide tax relief for households and workers. And, of course, we know that the big banks are the big beneficiaries of further tax cuts in the corporate sector and we know their record when it comes to supporting the big banks Labor will support the first phase of the plans, and the reason we're still considering the second and third phases is that the government won't provide the year-by-year breakdowns of the cost of this proposal for the second and third phases of the tax plan. Given that the proposal doesn't come into effect for another seven years, there's no urgency to phases 2 and 3 of this tax plan. There is in respect of the first phase, and Labor said we would agree to that. We'll agree to that. Given the uncertainty that exists in the global and domestic economy into the medium term—something that's been recognised by Treasury, and something that's been recognised by this Treasurer sitting at the table today—and the fact that Treasury has admitted that the overall cost of this tax plan is $140 billion to the Australian budget, it's entirely reasonable that the Labor Party, as a good opposition, ask questions and get the details of the year-by-year breakdown of what's proposed here. We have tried to do that through several days of questions in the parliament during question time and we've tried to do it through the Senate estimates process, but guess what? The Treasurer and this government aren't forthcoming on this issue. We think that this is a reasonable request. The IMF, the RBA and many economic commentators have said that this is a time for fiscal consolidation and not fiscal expansion. Given that there's uncertainty in the global economy moving into the second and third phase, it's entirely reasonable for the Labor Party to be asking for those details, and the government will not provide them. That is the reason Labor is still considering those second and third phases, and that is the reason Labor, entirely reasonably, is asking for this bill to be split. It's not inconsiderate, given that the government did that with the corporate tax plan. If they do that, we can provide immediate tax relief for households and workers in this country. So we once again ask that the government act reasonably and in the interests of Australian workers and consider splitting this tax bill. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 69 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:50 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon by leave—I move opposition amendments (8) to (11) together: (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 20) to page 5 (line 2), omit subsection 61‑107(1), substitute: General rule—2018 ‑2019 income year (1) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2018‑19 income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). (9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 2), after subsection 61‑107(1), insert: General rule—2019 ‑20 income year and later income years (1A) The amount of your *tax offset for the 2019‑20 income year or a later income year is set out in the following table in respect of the following income (your relevant income): (a) if you are an individual—your taxable income for the income year; (b) if you are a trustee—the amount of the share of *net income referred to in subsection 61‑105(2). (10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 4), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". (11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 23), omit "subsection (1)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)". This is an opportunity for every member of the House to vote for bigger tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. We've heard a lot of rhetoric in this debate about one side of the House being the party of lower tax. Well, now they can vote for lower tax. The Leader of the Opposition announced in his budget reply that Labor would deliver bigger and better personal income tax cuts on 1 July 2019. You can imagine, around the country, people thinking, 'Well, that's a good idea.' But you could see the blood drain out of the faces of honourable members opposite, who thought, 'There goes our tax scare campaign.' 'It's a little inconvenient and problematic for our scare campaign,' said the government, 'that the Labor Party now has better and bigger personal income tax cuts for Australians earning up to $125,000 a year.' A teacher on $65,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $928 under the Labor Party. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively will receive a tax cut of $1,855 a year. Will we see this so-called party of lower taxes over there vote for or against these tax cuts? We're giving them the opportunity. Their only argument is to say, 'The Labor Party won't deliver those.' Well, you can make them law right here, right now, tonight. You can make the tax cuts law by legislating them. The reason I suspect they won't is that the government will vote against them. The government will vote against the tax cuts which the Labor Party is proposing and is happy to legislate this evening in this House. The Labor Party is happy to legislate it right now. The Labor Party can do this because we've made good, difficult but well-calibrated decisions elsewhere in the budget to ensure that this is sensible, sustainable and responsible. The government has done none of those things. They have a modest tax cut on 1 July 2018, which we are happy to support. We just voted for it. That's why we sat with the government to make those tax cuts a reality. We certainly think that they should happen, but we think that they should be the beginning not the end of tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. We think that, with wages growth at record lows, wages growth hardly keeping up with inflation and cost-of-living pressures on Australians of modest incomes, they deserve a bigger and better tax cut, and the Labor Party will deliver it. We're more than happy to deliver tonight. We're ready to vote for it now, and we will vote for it now, and I look forward to hearing the Treasurer opposing bigger tax cuts for working Australians. 18:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook When it comes to Labor and taxes, they're unbelievable. They really are. We all remember the Paul Keating tax cuts, the L-A-W law tax cuts. We remember those. The Labor Party thinks that the ears of Australians are painted on and that they never hear what it says. But they do hear what it says and they do see what it does, and what it does is make big promises. Labor even promised to put the tax cuts in law. L-A-W was the famous phrase of Paul Keating. But we know they don't believe it, they don't do it and they don't follow through. They are completely unbelievable. The other thing we've learnt from the Labor Party today is that Labor does not have a plan for personal taxes. They have no plan to deal with bracket creep. They have no plan to make taxes simpler. They have no plan to deal with people who are able to do better over time and ensure that bracket creep is addressed. They've got no plan for that. All we've heard from the Labor Party is some sort of Dutch auction on tax. We're not going to get involved in that, because we have a responsible plan. We have an affordable plan. We have a structured plan to deal with structural problems in the tax system. What you're hearing from the Labor Party is what you always hear from the Labor Party before an election: 'We'll do this. We'll do that.' And you all know what happens after the election. If they're elected, it all turns to custard, absolute custard. Whether it's with their forecasts of revenue that we heard or the four surpluses announced tonight, none of them ever turn up. This is why they're completely unbelievable when it comes to tax, deficits, surpluses, budgets and debts—all of these things. They are just completely unbelievable when it comes to tax and the economy. I'll tell you the other thing about this mob. What they're not telling Australians as they put this forward tonight, and what they didn't tell them the other night, is who's paying for this. Who's paying for this at the end of the day? The reason we're not supporting these amendments is that we don't support all of the other taxes that they're putting on Australians to go around and make these big-noting promises. Let's run through what some of those are. What the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer say is that they're paying for this by pulling bigger taxes out of big companies, but let's look at what the budget and forward estimates show. What the budget forward estimates show is that, over this period to 2021-22, the biggest tax increase is not reversing the enterprise tax plan at all. It's not that at all. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Order! There's too much noise. Mr MORRISON E3L That's $6.2 billion, and that is for them reversing tax cuts for small businesses, medium-sized businesses and businesses up to a turnover of around $100 million. There are no big banks there, no big multinationals there, just higher taxes for small businesses and medium-sized businesses. There are higher taxes for those on the highest rate of income tax. There's $5.2 billion in that, but that does not come within a bull's roar of the real target of the Labor Party when it comes to tax, and that's their retirees tax. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that they will take $10.7 billion from the retirees of Australia. This is a Labor Party which sees an older Australian and just sees a tax target. Ms Rowland interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Order! The member for Greenway will desist. Mr MORRISON E3L Older Australians have a target on their backs from this Leader of the Opposition, because he knows how to put his hand in their pockets and in their purses. What he knows, if he bothers to listen to Australians, is this: they know. They know that you're coming after them if you get into government. Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Yes, I note the member for Fenner. Older people are humans too, Member for Fenner, and you're after them as well. Those retirees are going to remember every single one of you. There are thousands in your electorates, and they are a quiet army against the election of a Labor government at the next poll. They will remember you, and they will put a 1 in the Liberal box. They'll say to the Leader of the Opposition, 'We've had enough of your big taxes.' Higher taxes, bigger spending, bigger deficits—that is the story of the Labor Party. That's what these amendments say once again. Labor cannot be trusted on tax. They are unbelievable from here to eternity. 18:58 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to support these amendments because 10 million Australians deserve a fair dinkum tax cut next year. We have seen this economy being mismanaged for the last five years. The cost of living goes up and up and up. Private health insurance companies know a soft touch when they see one in the government. The out-of-pocket costs of Medicare are going up and up and up, and wages growth is flatlining. Energy prices—well, that's just far too hard for this government to fix. This is why the government should support a fair dinkum tax cut for 10 million working Australians. The look of stunned surprise on a government not known for its innovation when it heard on budget reply night that Labor was able to support a tax cut almost double that of the government's speaks volumes for the lack of imagination of this government. What we endure in question time is the Liberal Party and the National Party saying that they will offer lower taxes to Australians. Well, if they vote against this amendment they are wrong, wrong wrong. Only Labor is offering 10 million working Australians almost double the tax cut next year of this government's tax cut this year. Labor supports the plan on 1 July this year—of course we do—but next year we want to do almost double that. Labor can offer lower taxes for 10 million working Australians because we can pay for our promises. Look at the Treasurer. We know he's listening—he's just pretending not to! He wishes that he had thought of our idea. But he can't—because they have already sold the budget to the top end of town. We can afford to pay for our much better tax cuts for 10 million working Australians because we're not giving $80 billion away, most of which goes to the top end of town. Only a government truly arrogant, truly out of touch and truly in the pockets of the big banks—they're giving $17 billion to the big banks— Mr Sukkar interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Deakin knows I'm right. Only this government would offer $17 billion to the big end of town and the banks whilst denying working Australians a tax cut of about $20 week. We can afford to pay for our promise to give 10 million Australians lower taxes because we've made genuine economic reform proposals which we'll put to the people. We will reform negative gearing. We won't be handing out income tax refunds to people who don't pay income tax. We will tidy up the family trust discretionary situation, where the lucky few can income split and the many cannot. But not only, when they vote against our amendments, can they no longer say that they are the party of lower taxes; not only can they not say that Labor can't afford the promise because, in fact, every day they go around the country saying the problem is that Labor has made economic decisions and they are not prepared to give away corporate taxes to the big end of town. They know we have a better tax offer, a better income tax cut, for 10 million Australians. They know we can pay it. But they also know the final fact of the matter: they know we have a better economic plan. This Treasurer's budget on the Tuesday night was so devoid of information. It was a statement of residual accounts of the nation, with their sneaky cuts to hospitals and schools and TAFE baked into it. We can assure Australians that we have a winning trifecta for the middle class and working class of this country. We can afford to this pay down our national debt faster because of our genuine economic reforms. We can afford to properly fund our schools, reverse the $17 billion cuts that these Luddites are inflicting on the children of the future, properly fund TAFE with 100,000 places that the upfront fees pay for and provide 200,000 more university places. We can do the trifecta of better income tax, better deals for hospitals, schools, TAFE and universities and pay down the national debt—because we have a plan. I say to the government: if you vote against these income tax cuts tonight, we will remind you every day between now and whenever the by-elections are and whenever the election is. The next election will decide the future of this country. It will decide what sort of society and what sort of direction we want. It will decide whether we want trickle-down economics, from the representatives of big business, or fair go economics where Labor puts 10 million Australians first, second and third. 19:03 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner There is a reason the government ran out of speeches on this debate. There is a reason the Treasurer had no-one behind him. It's because this government is, deep down, ashamed of the package they have. They're ashamed that we on this side of the House are offering tax cuts which are better, bigger and fairer than theirs. On budget night, the Treasurer cunningly put together two sets of tax cuts—a set that comes in in about six weeks time and a set that comes in in about six years time. The set that come in in about six weeks time would, according to the Grattan Institute, make the tax system more progressive. That's why Labor is happy to support those tax cuts due to take effect in six weeks time. In fact, we won't just back them. We'll do better. We will offer an average Australian an additional $400 a week compared to those opposite. But then there's the tranche that come in in six years' time, and those tax cuts will make the system markedly less progressive. I can see them leaving the chamber, 'SloMo' and 'No Show', chatting away together. According to the Australian National University, middle-income earning Australian households would see an extra $913—about one per cent of their disposal income—while the top fifth of Australians in 2024 would get $4,900—2.2 per cent. When we look across Australian suburbs, in the 2024 tax cut, according to NATSEM, Toorak would get three times as much as St Albans. A household in Bellevue Hill would get three times as much as a household in Lakemba. That's what the government's 2024 tax cuts would deliver. So the tax cuts in six weeks' time, they're fair. The tax cuts in six years' time, they're deeply unfair. The Australian Institute has looked at the gender composition of where the money goes in 2024. As the Leader of the Opposition says, we're not talking to the frontbench because, this week, when the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services stood up, the frontbench had no other women on it. The Australia Institute estimates that for every dollar that goes to women in 2024, $2 goes to men. This idea that we're going to start off with a small tax cut to the middle class, back ended by a big tax cut to the top one per cent, well, that's got a long playbook. If there's one thing that I detest more than ideologues, it is unimaginative ideologues who are borrowing their playbook from overseas. These tax cuts are so similar to the 2003 Bush tax cuts—a small, flat-rate stimulus to all Americans and then a back-ended tax cut, half of which went to the top one per cent. They bear more than a passing similarity to President Trump's tax cuts—passed through, short-term impact, looking fairly equitable—but the long-term impact of the Trump's tax cuts sees the bottom 50 per cent get nothing and multimillionaires get a tax cut of $700,000. There is a more than a passing similarity to the 2014 budget, where we had permanent benefit cuts to low-income Australians, but the only short-term hit was the increase to the debt levy, which went up from July 2014 to June 2017 and was then taken off despite the fact that this mob opposite have doubled net debt. They have sent gross debt through the half-a-trillion dollar barrier for the first time in Australian history, and they hate it. When the shadow Treasurer stands up and says we won't just match you on debt reduction; we will beat you on debt reduction, we can do that because we can make the tough decisions on trusts, because we'll take on tax havens, because we will close unsustainable tax loopholes. We will not only tackle housing affordability but we'll close tax loopholes that your own predecessor, the member for North Sydney, said he would close but those opposite were too gutless to close. 19:08 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This government's budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 are the end of progressive taxation as we know it. When you come into this chamber and say you want to set up a taxation system in a few years' time, where someone who is earning less than the minimum wage pays the same rate of tax as a CEO on $200,000, that's a direct attack on egalitarianism in this country. The reason that we have a progressive tax system in this country is there is an ingrained belief that the majority of the population share that, if you earn more, you can contribute a bit more. The reason we ask people to contribute a bit more is that, if that money goes to fund universal health care and universal public education, we then stay an egalitarian country. People understand that, in order to have a world-class public education system and to be able to do things like get rid of so-called voluntary fees that are costing people sometimes thousands but in many case hundreds of dollars a year to send their kids to public schools, we need to have a secure revenue stream. That is why this bill needs to be voted against. It is a direct attack on progressive taxation. When you ask people, 'Which would you rather: a tax cut of $10 or even maybe $20 a week; that the government invests to make sure that every time you go to the doctor you don't have to put your own hand in your pocket to pay for it; or that when you send your kid to school you don't also have to fork out for voluntary fees?' most will say, 'Provided that the government spends it on making sure Australia remains an egalitarian society and provided it goes on universal services, I would probably rather you spent it on those than gave out a tax cut of $10 or $20 a week that's probably going to disappear because no-one's going to regulate electricity prices, and they're going through the roof, or that's probably going to disappear because schools are underfunded and we're asked to pay for that.' But, if there's one thing that the appalling budget and this bill have done, it's successfully fired the starting gun for the next election, turning it into a tax cuts arms race. It is very disappointing that we are here not debating how we can make Australia a more equal society but instead having this competition about who can have the bigger tax cuts. There are much better ways of looking after people who are doing it tough and who are on low incomes. Let's raise the minimum wage and let's have a discussion about those people on Newstart, who are living in poverty and aren't going to benefit one iota from a tax cut if they're solely reliant on Newstart. Let's look at ways of lifting those people up and making them more equal. Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr BANDT M3C I hear interjections from the opposition, saying, 'What about low-wage workers?' I would say the best way to support low-wage workers is to lift the minimum wage and ensure they get a wage rise, because I think a wage rise is better than a tax cut. I also say to the opposition: whatever you think, I don't think someone earning $125,000 classifies as being on a low income. When you've got housing prices going through the roof and a rise in insecure employment, there are, it is true, many people in my electorate who are earning at the top end of the income scale but still finding it hard to make ends meet because most of their money goes on the mortgage because we've failed to get house prices under control. But no matter how you squint at it and how you twist, you can't say that someone earning $100,000, $110,000 or $120,000 is on a low income. So the question that we have to ask is: is money best spent giving people on $100,000 an extra $1,000, as this amendment proposes, or is money best spent by saying, 'If you're earning $100,000, then perhaps let's have the discussion about putting money into health care, schools and lifting Newstart so that we can make Australia a more equal society.' I know that, instead of having a $900 bribe, most of the people I talk to in Melbourne who are on decent incomes would rather have that money go to people who are doing it tough on Newstart. They would rather that money go to funding public schools so that people don't have to pay out-of-pocket voluntary fees. They would rather that money go into the public health system to make sure it doesn't cost you an arm and a leg to go and see the GP. It is a sad day when we're having a 'my tax cut is bigger than yours' arms race instead of focusing on making sure Australia is an egalitarian society. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that amendments (8) to (11) moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.

The House divided. [19:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 61 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 19:22 The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 93 19:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 94

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

Second Reading 94 19:26 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga The 14th of December 2017 is a day that I will never forget. It was the final hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse. As I approached the building, I could see the unmistakable blue and yellow shirts of the Clannies standing out against the grey suits of downtown Sydney. The Clannies are, of course, the Care Leavers Australasia Network, a support group of survivors of child abuse. They were there with the irrepressible Leonie Sheedy—kind, determined and resilient. Leonie is one of the most remarkable people I've ever had the good fortune to meet. There are so many people who've made an enormous contribution to the cause of justice for survivors of child sexual abuse, including Leonie and everyone at CLAN and Caroline, Carol and everyone from the Alliance for Forgotten Australians. I'll never forget Caroline telling me her story to help me understand the horror of what had been done to her and so many others like her. There was the late Anthony Foster and his wife, Chrissie. Chrissie and Anthony Foster discovered in the 1990s that two of their daughters, Emma and Katie, were raped by their local priest. Emma began harming herself after the trauma she experienced. In her teens, Katie was hit by a car, leaving her permanently disabled. In 2008, Emma died of an overdose. And so began Chrissie and Anthony's tireless fight for justice, taking on the Catholic Church and eventually suing the church, personally giving counsel and tireless support to hundreds of survivors. To this day, Chrissie continues to be a powerful advocate for survivors, particularly on the issue of redress. I remember Chrissie saying to me on that day that we must implement the recommendations of the royal commissioners. These commissioners, she said to me, were the people who had listened to the experiences of the survivors of child sexual abuse. The commissioners had spent five years considering their recommendations, and they must not be ignored. The hearing room on that day was packed and, as the commissioners very formally filed in, there was a loud cheer. So many people had been heard; so many people had finally been believed. The people in the room and all those others who had been so badly abused are now relying on each and every one of us to establish the National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, and we must not fail them. I seek leave to resume at a later time. Leave granted. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Werriwa Electorate: Multiculturalism 94 19:29 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I am proud to live in a diverse and vibrant multicultural community. South-west Sydney comprises people from all walks of life with a range of backgrounds and stories. It is a strong community because of its diversity. For many migrants and refugees, their journey to Australia has been a tough one. Some are here because of war and famine, others because of study or work. But all are here to make life better for themselves and their family. Family is important to all of us and especially so for migrants from parts of the world with a different language and culture than ours. Strong links to family and community mean migrants are better able to succeed in their homeland. This benefits all Australians. Successive Australian governments have understood this, and that's why family reunification visas have been a part of the Australian migration program for decades. Therefore, I was shocked to learn that, without warning or consultation, the government had drastically increased the assurance of support requirements in April. This would have meant the amount families in my electorate were required to earn to act as financial backers in a range of visa categories—most notably, parent visas—would increase by more than double. More outrageously, these proposed changes were not grandfathered, meaning families already well down the visa process suddenly had the goalposts moved. I have fielded calls from some very distressed constituents who are happy to abide by the rules but couldn't reconcile such a change without warning. Thankfully, due to pressure from this side of the House, the government has since performed another one of their backflips. The migrant communities of Werriwa are an important part of my electorate and they deserve to be treated with respect and fairness. Their contributions help build a stronger community, and I'm always grateful and honoured to attend the many events held in my electorate and throughout the south-west of Sydney. I was fortunate to attend the Kstigarbha Bodhisattva blessing and purification ceremony for the new Buddhist Hall at Bonnyrigg that was done on behalf of the Australian-Chinese Buddhist Society. Among those who joined the formalities were representatives from local community groups, New South Wales Police, colleagues from local council and state parliament, and many hundreds of community members. It was a very impressive achievement and I congratulate all those involved. Last Sunday the Timorese community celebrated the anniversary of the restoration of the independence of Timor Leste. I joined members of the Sydney Timorese community, the Timorese United Association, for celebrations last week at Wetherill Park. There were stirring speeches from those members present and the Consul-General here. This restoration is still fresh in the minds of many of those in attendance. Another important event I have recently attended was the 23rd Flores de Mayo celebration. It has many vibrant colours and beautiful displays, especially the Santacruzan. I always look forward to joining my local Filipino community for the many special occasions they hold during the year. I am looking forward to the approaching 120th anniversary of the Philippines declaration of independence from Spain, in June this year. I recognise this and the other significant milestones for Filipinos everywhere. Macarthur Diversity Services celebrated 25 years of aged-care services last week. For the last 25 years they have provided services to over 400 residents, with dementia care, community visits, aged disability services and other things for older people in my community. They are supported by well over 80 volunteers and they are an asset to our community. We in this place all know how much work our volunteers do and how much wouldn't happen without them. Occasions like all of these that I have detailed are an integral part of the fabric that makes up my electorate of Werriwa and the wider south-west Sydney community. Whether it is Chinese, Timorese, Filipino or other events throughout the year, including the many iftars I'll attend during this month of Ramadan, or events held by Mandeaen, Hindu, Bengali or local Indigenous communities, it is wonderful to be able to join them and celebrate with them. Redland Hospital 95 19:34 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Redland Hospital offers incredible service to my electorate under difficult conditions, but the funding over the last three years from the state government has risen only 17 per cent overall, and that is half of the increase in health and hospital funding for other health and Hospital areas around Queensland. Why that is is something that will have to be answered by local state Labor MPs, but I want to deliver tonight unfettered the Facebook threads that reflect feedback from my constituents. My job is not to filter their opinions. I asked them yesterday for their verdict on Redland Hospital. Matt Harvey wrote: Used to work there. It needs an ICU. It needs 24 hour operating theatre availability. Sheridan Cuyler: I have … children and over the years we have made trips to emergency for two broken limbs, a knee dislocation, stitches and a burst appendix. Apparently there are no funds to staff the paediatric ward at night so children are moved to the adult ward. Lucy Anne: A whole overhaul. Buy land over the road, build a new hospital and have a bridge linking the old with the new … Nicole Lynch: Redlands hospital need doctors that can do their job properly Amy Creighton: ED needs to expand to relieve ambulance ramping times. Also a palliative care ward. Car park expansion. Dominique Glading: Carparking!! Kat Lovell Parking—its shocking! Tara Young: I had a baby 13 days ago at the redlands hospital and spent 6 nights there. new computer system— all of the files were gone. The nurses and midwife couldn't use the system— for 6 nights and 6 days every single shift NOT one staff knew the system. Elizabeth Papalia: Definitely more parking … Bec Sims: Im not an employee but parking has recently become a nightmare. Its to the point where one needs to take public transport to a hosptial thats five minutes down the road … Belinda Hammond- Coleman: Private emergency section, 24 hr X-ray, more staff, larger waiting room, separate area for drunks and addicts … Shandi Stevenson: A carpark, pediatrician 24hrs for emergency, more security, a better mental health unit and more doctors Marleene Brooks: Car parking would be a good start! Chris Aynsley: Health should be taken away from state … and federally run. Mersina Bee: Just there today with my daughter and a broken bone … the parking was shocking. However, the care was exceptional. The nurses and doctors were fantastic. The wait times are not nearly as bad as when I lived in Sydney! Linda Meredith: Car park Emily Wilson: A bloody car park for afternoon staff. It should not take 45 minutes driving around— to get a place. Kevin Cuyler: … I don't think the Redlands Hospital has grown at the same pace as the Redlands has. Jesse Firebug: Less wait time in emergency. I was taken in by ambulance and waited in the hall way for an hour on an ambulance bed then was kicked off that to go wait in the waiting room. Absolutely disgusting! Emma Elder: I'm not an employee but have 3 family members who work there, as well as 1 recently born there and 1 recently passed away there. Priority is the emergency department, there's not enough beds or staff, it's beyond a joke. Kym Courtenay: Parking Hayley Kaur: More parking Kerry Conlon: Palliative care unit … Chantelle Worth: PARKING! Justine Claire: Private emergency Es Jay: I'm not an employee—but more staff. My sick 7 year old and I waited in ED for 2.5 hours before leaving and going home to call a home doctor. There was only a crappy vending machine to get Food for my other child who was waiting with me. Rowanne McKenzie: I'm not an employee but a resident with 3 children. Parking is a nightmare. I've had to leave my 9 year old in Emergency by himself while I parked the car down the road. The paediatric ward is not open at night … Holly Underwood: Ppl who give a sh#t. Honestly will never go back there have had too many dangerous experiences I hate that hospital. Patrick Fraser: If it's still the same as when I was young, doctors who speak English and actually know what they were doing would be great. Alexander Stormon: More parking Honnie Laurine: More parking! Staff and patients are forced to park on the grass then the council comes and fines each car … Melanie Jai: car park.... still for free Kathryn Ebsworth: There is not enough high dependency or any intensive care beds for surgical patients to be cared for post operatively so we cannot provide those procedures to patients nor can we take on patients with multiple co-morbidites. Sophie Lumley: A fully operational orthopedics wing. When I broke my wrist i couldnt drive for 2 months and had to make the trip all the way to the PA— and back— via the shocking public transport …. Ching Tan: Car park! - It is the most horrible place to find car park Jenna Gould: Staff and training Scott Trigger: I'm not an employee however, I was at the ED the other night for 4.5 hours - standing room only. Tiny waiting room that was running at 150% capacity. Oh and maybe Burger Man Chips in the vending machine Chelsea Conlon: A complete over haul! I work in the city as a nurse but live in vicky point … Liza Baudry Jagga: parking and more staff! Sarah Doolah: More doctors on so people who r in emergency can been seen faster Dane Carlile: An expansion Cheri Heisig: I think security for nurses is a real concern … Rianne Flanagan: The parking Kellie Rose: A complete overhaul Sarah Watson: Parking. Ness Crawford: Greater weekend/after hours services, particularly for adolescent children. Lance Rentoul: Less road and traffic congestion. Emma Head: ICU Ward Maeghan Elizabeth, Amy Creighton and Beccy Bush: Better emergency system. Louisa Korschenko: Imagine if redlands had its own fleet of 6 dedicated ambulances … Rebecca Elms: A better mental health unit!!!! Michelle Privitera: A dermatologist!! Rosa Davis: A bigger hospital … Tania Tuesday: a better surgical theatre … Grant Schmidt: Adequate Car parking: Ben Parker: More employees? Val Campbell: Lots of demands, but who is going to pay for all of these (Time expired) BHP 98 19:39 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I rise to speak about the continuing tax avoidance and evasion of BHP. BHP is using political muscle to continue to eat away, like a tax termite, at the integrity of our company tax system and royalty system. BHP continues to hit new lows of corporate behaviour. In recent times, in the Queensland Supreme Court, it has sought to suppress further evidence of tax evasion on royalties payable to the Queensland government. According to The Australian, a new assessment has now been issued to BHP by the Queensland Office of State Revenue, believed to be in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The hearing of this latest claim begins in the Queensland Supreme Court on Monday, 28 May. It will add to BHP's existing $300 million dispute with the Queensland government over royalty avoidance through transfer pricing. Altogether, this pushes claims against BHP's marketing hub from state and federal governments to $1.8 billion. No wonder BHP has done its best to ensure its misdeeds are not examined in the court of public opinion. BHP has sought orders from the Queensland Supreme Court to suppress key evidence relating to the price it charges its customers for coal and the amount that it told the Queensland Treasury that it should pay royalties on. In open court next week these documents will be revealed. BHP is one of the biggest tax dodgers in the country, if not the biggest. Its Singapore marketing hub is a blatant exercise in tax minimisation, a fiction confected to aggressively reduce BHP's tax bill and minimise its contribution to Australia. The Queensland government is demanding that BHP pays royalties on the amount that the final coal customer, typically in China, pays to BHP's Singapore marketing hub. True to form, BHP only wants to pay royalties on a much smaller amount—namely, the amount that the Singapore marketing hub pays to the BHP Mitsubishi Alliance in Australia for its own coal. This is the information that BHP has sought to suppress in the Supreme Court of Queensland. When I've raised claims about BHP and its marketing hub, BHP has sought to present itself as a model corporate citizen, fully transparent, when in fact at every turn it has endeavoured to suppress the truth and mislead the public about its tax activities. BHP's Singapore tax shield exists solely to smuggle profits out of Australia. There is no question that BHP has been gaming the system and is in a billion-dollar dispute with the tax office over its unpaid taxes. BHP's evasion of state royalty payments through its transfer pricing activities has robbed the governments of both Queensland and Western Australia. When companies are rorting the system both at the state and federal level they give a green light to everybody else to get in there and do the same. The business community in Australia claim to be a group of honest, tax-paying corporate citizens. Many are, but some are not. Sadly, the Big Australian has become known as the 'dishonest Australian' for the use of its Singapore tax hub and, now, for its attempts to fleece revenue from the state governments of Queensland and Western Australia. What we have in this country is a commodities Kremlin, where some of the big companies are behaving like governments, treating this country and the people of this country with contempt and behaving as if they are above the law. That sort of behaviour produces political polarisation and alienation. While the Business Council continues its crusade for a cut in the corporate tax rate, the behaviour of those affiliated with it, including its biggest affiliate, BHP, demonstrates just how ineffective and insincere their case for a cut in the corporate tax rate is, when so many of the members of the Business Council of Australia are not complying with the law of the land. They wouldn't pay more, invest more, employ more or increase wages if there were a lower corporate rate, because they're doing everything they can to avoid that rate, whatever rate it may be. Of course, the directors of the boards of these companies who have approved this activity, who are some of our most respected directors in the land, have been part and parcel of breaking the Australian social contract—part and parcel of white-anting our tax system and depleting the capacity of the country to pay for the essential services that make us not only a great economy but a civilised society. We need to see some public contrition from these directors and a commitment to change behaviour. We need to see them put their hands up and say, 'We've not done the right thing.' We need to see a commitment from them to this country, the country that has nurtured them, to pay their fair share of tax so that as a country we raise the revenue we need to grow more strongly and fairly. Capricornia Electorate: Anzac Day 99 19:44 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My, what a cracking pace we've set the last few weeks! Throughout April and May, I've spent very little time at home, choosing instead to cover the vast spread of my electorate. Capricornia is a reasonably large electorate, covering some 91,000 square kilometres, encompassing five local government areas and stretching along the east coast to the mouth of the Fitzroy River, which is full of crocodiles, all the way up to Alligator Creek—presumably full of alligators. It then turns inland but keeps heading north-west up to Collinsville and Glenden and goes as far west as the Carmichael and Belyando River country out north-west of Clermont. I am abundantly proud of the area and the people I represent. They are a hardworking bunch with a strong sense of community—one that has been put to the test with countless fires and floods and two cyclones during my tenure. The pride I hold drives me to do all I can to serve my electorate effectively and to keep my job, the best one in the world. That means a gruelling regime of driving. Last month Anzac Day dominated the nation's thoughts, and it certainly created a full day for yours truly, attending six ceremonies. Anzac Day, as many others in this place can surely attest, is something of a dilemma for a federal member each year. There are always far more ceremonies than one could possibly attend. The case is made all the more difficult with the added distance between services in regional electorates such as mine. The sad solution to this predicament is that each year we have to choose which communities we will join for this most solemn day. After last year spending the day in Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast, this year I headed north to cane country. 24 April saw a wonderful service at Mirani State High School, where school and community came together and gave their thanks to the diggers of the region. It was a lovely, moving ceremony run by the students, highlighting the talent of many students, with the school band, choir, and public speakers all doing themselves and their community proud. Then came 25 April, Anzac Day. The day started with one of the most memorable dawn services I have attended, the Hay Point Half Tide Beach ceremony. This service had everything: a World War II veteran, visiting naval officers, an outstanding drumming procession, a hearty breakfast with all one's heart could desire, hundreds of locals, and a flyover right at dawn by the port pilot helicopter. The rest of the day was going to have to be pretty good to top that. From Hay Point we ventured south to Koumala, a little town on the Bruce Highway with a crocodile on the front of the pub. There was another touching ceremony there, with a huge contingent of young cadets from Sarina parading in unison. Then it was on to Sarina for what was certainly the biggest ceremony of the day. Sarina's cenotaph is smack-bang in the middle of the Bruce Highway, so Anzac Day can have a bit of an impact on traffic. Hundreds lined the streets and flocked to the cenotaph for a service that was equal parts formal and familiar. Sarina's ceremony is followed by one heck of a lunch back at the RSL, where I believe some patrons may have taken up a game of two-up later in the afternoon. It had already been a big day, but we had far to go as we tripped up the Pioneer Valley to Mirani and Finch Hatton for their evening ceremonies, wonderful examples of national and valley pride, with schoolchildren, Army cadets, jeep enthusiasts and even a pipe band from Mackay making their way up the valley to help the locals mark what is such a special day in all Australian calendars. How these communities do it each year with such gusto and such emotion is an absolute credit to them. I take my hat off to the organisers within each community. I'd like to thank Tom Andrews of Sarina RSL for his service and assistance to the Half Tide Beach, Koumala and Sarina services; Jan Lindbergs for her masterful stewardship of the Mirani service; and Tammy Sprott, the female president of the Finch Hatton RSL. All in all, it was a very moving day. Lest we forget. Budget 99 19:49 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I understand that each and every one of us here in the House of Representatives waits with bated breath as the Treasurer hands down his federal budget. Each of us has a wish list for those that we represent, no matter what side of the parliament we sit upon. In recent days, those of us on this side of the House have railed against the government's cuts to the ABC, hospitals, education and training, and pensioner supports. These cuts are faced by low- and middle-income people and families right across our nation, and they are crucial to children, families, the elderly, to our economy. As the federal member for Paterson, I would like to use my time this evenings to highlight a challenge faced by my constituents and also by many constituents of my colleagues from both sides of this House. It is an obstacle and an impediment to daily life and to the economy of our country. It is a problem created by national circumstances and it is too big for my community to solve on its own. I am talking about road transportation, which is absolutely critical in my electorate of Paterson. Specifically, I am talking about the critical junction of national importance involving the M1, the Pacific Highway and the New England Highway. This is crucial not only because many people face a lengthy commute from regional areas of my electorate to Newcastle's CBD to go to work but it is crucial because two major highways deposit national travellers and transport drivers in the middle of my electorate travelling east to west on the New England Highway, and north to south on the M1. I was just having a conversation with my colleague the member for Werriwa. She regularly travels up the M1 to visit her family in Newcastle and she said to me, 'At Christmas, you get to the end of the M1, go over the speed humps as you get to the end of the national motorway—in my electorate—and you hit a roundabout, which is soon to become a traffic-lighted intersection, and then you turn right, go up the road and take a dogleg left, go over a bridge and off you go again. And sometimes that three-kilometre stretch of road can take four to five hours to get through.' That is just unbelievable at this time. You know it's not just happening at Christmas; it's Easter, it's public holidays, and now it's happening with monotonous regularity when there's no special event on, just because of the increase in traffic. It's crucial because our area is expanding and experiencing rapid growth. In fact, my area of Maitland, which takes in the New England Highway, is the second-fastest growing area outside of Western Sydney in New South Wales. So this problem is critical, not just to the people I represent but to many people that those present in this chamber represent as well. After Mr Morrison's federal budget failed to mention this motorway, I sought and received a briefing with Anna Zycki, the Hunter region director of Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales. I thank Ms Zycki for her briefing. I was able to confirm from this briefing that this national road corridor was identified as a potential problem more than 15 years ago. However, timing for construction is still not confirmed. Indeed, since the initial plan to address this bottleneck was investigated around the turn of the century, population has boomed and industrial developments are predicted to drive a marked increase in vehicular movements. In fact, it was flagged in the Infrastructure Australia priority list earlier this year as a national connectivity problem. The Infrastructure Australia list acknowledges that this strategic junction, where the north-south traffic flows between Sydney and Brisbane cross the east-west traffic flows between the Hunter-New England region and the Port of Newcastle. The proposed fix is an extension of the Pacific Highway M1 to Raymond Terrace and an upgrade to the motorway. It is black and white. This is a junction of national importance and yet the government has put not one cent towards it. It is a matter that is critical now. It needs attention now, it needs funding now and it needs this government to solve it and step up to the plate; otherwise we will. Hay Private Irrigation District 100 19:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Last week I attended the opening of the new pipeline for the Hay Private Irrigation District, just north of Hay in the Riverina. In doing so, I was able to recognise a substantial Commonwealth investment of $10 million under the Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program in New South Wales. PIIOP, as it is known, aims to improve the efficiency and productivity of water use and the management of private irrigation networks to deliver water savings for the environment. In essence, investment in water efficiency can provide a win for the environment and a win for farmers. What has been created is a $10 million pipeline of works incorporating a state-of-the-art fully automated delivery system to over 150 outlets in the region. Another important benefit has been to the wider local economy, with two-thirds of this funding spent on contracts won by local service providers. The origins of the Hay scheme lie 126 years ago, when Mr JL Thompson, principal of Hawkesbury Agricultural College, visited the Hay area and believed that, with suitable irrigation, the land could be ideal for the production of olives, figs, vines, citrus, peaches and apricots and that the climate was also perfect for drying fruit. At the time, the Hay Irrigation Trust pumped water in open channels with a steam-driven pump, but there wasn't enough water and the timing wasn't right to realise the early visions of Mr Thompson. But now it is. By utilising modern irrigation methods, we can actually deliver capacity through the pipeline and the system, which means farmers can pretty much get the water they want at the time they want it to suit their farming program, whether it be for lucerne, fat lambs, horticulture or any other uses. This is now state-of-the-art technology which has the capability of receiving an order via mobile phone from anywhere in the country or, indeed, the world and then delivering the right amount of water at precisely the right time. As Ross Headon from Aroona, whose farm we visited, said, 'The best part is it's water on demand.' Ross admitted he'd once been the biggest knocker of the project, but told us last week, 'This is my third watering for the autumn, and it's the first time I've been able to water three times, and with no rain that's an absolute necessity. Being at the end of the line, it used to take 24 hours for the water to get here. Now, with the outlet in my channel, I can pump 10 megalitres a day—water on demand—which gives me a saving of 25 per cent.' Ross has a sheep-fattening enterprise, and he can now water a second block while he grazes sheep on the first, meaning the lambs are on green pasture permanently. Previously, that stock would have lost condition while they waited for the grass to grow. He runs 600 lambs on 500 hectares and mentioned to me that both the lamb price and the wool price were very good, so he was taking advantage of keeping the lambs a bit longer to shear them. Ross Headon and the rest of the Hay Private Irrigation District will be the modern beneficiaries of a vision set out more than a century ago. Hay may be the oldest privately run irrigation district in New South Wales, but the needs now are pretty much the same as they were then. In a country like ours, the condition and flow within our great rivers has always been the lifeblood of our nation's productive agriculture. By learning to work with less water we honour both our farmers and the environment to ensure we can continue to feed the nation. The Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program includes not only the $10 million launch in Hay last week but also the Murray and Murrumbidgee irrigation areas, as well as Coleambally and Goodnight, all in my electorate of Farrer. Across New South Wales, the first two rounds of this program have funded about 455 kilometre of new or refurbished water delivery channels, more than 1,000 kilometre of stock and domestic pipeline for water supply to 225 farmers, 4,468 new meters and control points and water delivery infrastructure on 324 farms. To sum up the impact, as chairman of the local Hay irrigators board of directors, Tom Jarratt, said last week, 'This is indeed a historic moment. With water becoming more expensive and scarce, it is indeed the board's hope that our customers will graduate to more high-value crops. This project does more than just deliver water in a timely and efficient manner. It also eliminates the public risk factor of open channels. It saves maintenance costs of maintaining earth channels and addresses metering compliance issues that the irrigators could not have afforded to do. In essence, it takes us into the future.' House adjourned at 19:59 NOTICES 101 NOTICES

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 09:45.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 103 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Aged Care 103 09:45 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I rise today to speak about the crisis in aged care and to advocate for so many of my older constituents who contact me about the failure of the government in supplying them with the home care packages that they need. We are incredibly lucky to live in a country like Australia, where we have both a belief in the community that we need to look after one another and also the resources in our country to provide people with a level of dignity when they fall ill or attain a disability, and also in aged care. The current government is utterly failing to live up to that responsibility. I see it for the constituents who frequently walk through the door of my electorate office. There are more than 100,000 people on the waiting list for a home care package today. Close to 79,000 older Australians waiting for these packages have high-care needs. Many of these older Australians have dementia. They are not getting the care that they need, and this is totally unacceptable. The average wait time for level 3 and 4 home care packages for the highest level of care has blown out to 12 months and beyond. I ask: how are we expecting these elderly Australians to survive while they are waiting for the packages that they have already been determined as eligible for? Some older Australians will receive interim low-level care packages, but there are almost 700 older Australians who have been waiting for more than a year without receiving any care at all and, even worse, some 300 who are on the national prioritisation queue but have been waiting more than two years. I believe that our older Australians deserve better treatment than this. I'm sure that all of us in this chamber are in the same position—we receive frequent, and sometimes heartbreaking, requests for help with this matter. I want to talk about some constituents I represent—Mr and Mrs Dao, who are in desperate need of assistance. Mr Dao is a 92-year-old who is frail and suffering memory loss. He was approved for a level 4 care package on 17 June 2016. He contacted my office when he had been told he had to wait an additional six to nine months. It would have meant waiting 2½ years from the time of the approval of his high-care package till he actually received the support that he deserved. His wife was his carer. She is 88 years old and is suffering her own issues. They were not able to get assistance until I advocated for them to the minister. It shouldn't have to take the intervention of a local member of parliament to provide these elderly people with the assistance that they need and deserve. I need to note that the federal government's recent budget was a complete hoax in how it approached dealing with this issue. The government proposed to implement 3,400 new places a year. The waiting list grew by 20,000 in the last six months alone. It's not enough and it doesn't show these elderly Australians the respect that they deserve. International Women's Forum, Warwick, Mr Thomas Frederick 103 09:48 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins This month the International Women's Forum held its global cornerstone conference in Melbourne, bringing together 550 pre-eminent women leaders from 30 nations across the world. As a founding member of IWF in Australia, I was pleased to be part of the conference, which tackled many of the big issues currently facing women globally in 2018. The IWF aims to lift up women of all backgrounds, encouraging them to take leadership positions that will benefit families, communities and businesses right across the world. Members come together across cultures, careers and continents to raise their voices for the advancement of women globally. While opening the conference, President Teresa Weintraub described the IWF as a global community of outstanding women leaders who come together to build better leadership for a changing world. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. Impressively, in just four years, IWF Australia has grown from 20 women sitting around a table—of which I was one—to an organisation of 135 influential women across every state in Australia. Next month, in Washington DC, the IWF Leadership Foundation will celebrate 25 years of advancing women. I wish them well for this milestone and commend their continued commitment to advancing opportunity for women. I also want to take the opportunity to rise to pay tribute to Higgins resident Thomas Frederick Warwick, who, sadly, passed away this month. Tom made a significant contribution to Australia in his 76 years. As a 24-year-old entrepreneur, he founded Warwick Fabrics. Over time, the business would add a substantial number of jobs to the Australian economy. From humble beginnings, he built the business through hard work and ingenuity. He later remarked: I attempted to make a very humble business appear much more grand; I often answered the phone in one voice and then 'paged' myself as managing director to take the call. Tom's determination to build something special saw Warwick Fabrics open offices in the UK, New Zealand, India, South Africa and the UAE. He turned a small family business into a big business. He was also the founding chairman of the Australian Motor Sport Foundation, and was renowned for fervently helping young drivers to achieve their dreams. He was a passionate member of the Liberal Party for many years and, while we didn't always see eye to eye on every policy, there can be no doubt that the debate was richer for his contribution. Our thoughts are with Tom's family, including his wife, Robyn, and sons, Cameron and Leighton, and their mother, Anthea, at this difficult time. Vale, Tom Warwick. Lyons Electorate: State Emergency Services 104 09:50 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons This week, we celebrate National Volunteers Week, saying thank you to the six million Australians who volunteer their time in all manner of ways. And today is Wear Orange Wednesday, or WOW Day, which is why I'm sporting this handsome, bright tie! Wear Orange Wednesday celebrates this nation's State Emergency Services and their amazing volunteers. Think for a minute about what SES volunteers do. Whenever there's a storm, a flood or a bushfire, you will see people of all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life in orange overalls. They will be there. They will have taken time off work; they will have been awakened in the middle of the night, or perhaps even left a family get-together. They will have put on their gear, quietly closing the door behind them so they don't wake up their spouse or their kids, and they will head into danger in the middle of the night to keep the rest of us safe. Across my regional and rural electorate, I have many SES teams and they're all amazing. In recent years, they've been on hand to deal with devastating floods and bushfires, as well as being a vital part of major events, like Agfest, held recently. Today, I would like to pay particular attention to the men and women of the Derwent Valley. Last week, southern Tasmania experienced a major weather event which flooded the centre of Hobart. It also flooded parts of the Derwent Valley north of Hobart and washed away bridges, cutting off the community of Molesworth. The SES was there to help keep the community safe, to get food and water to the folk of Molesworth and to clear debris. I know it's dangerous to name names in case someone is missed out, but I want to thank Nigel King; Chris Draffin; Troy Bester; the Lawrence family—Jason, Dean, Nicole, Thomas and Alec; Reece Bradley; Alan Baker; Nadia Lobb; Adrian James; Daniel Barry and, I'm sure, so many others behind the scenes. And the work of the SES never ends. Two nights ago, southern Tasmania experienced severe winds that toppled century-old trees in the botanical gardens. The SES was there. Yesterday in Granton, just south of the town of New Norfolk, the SES was there to pull a bloke out of a car following a traffic accident. And after all this they go home, the overalls go into the washing machine, they climb back into bed and get back to their normal lives, ready for the next event. They are amazing, our heroes in orange, and they deserve our thanks. They also deserve better. I think it's shameful that we don't have in place legislated annual leave support for those without volunteer leave in their workplace agreements. And for those who give so much of themselves, the least we could do is to equip them properly. There's a Central Highlands ambo service in my electorate. They have an ambulance—it's a city van. They need a four-wheel drive like they used to have. Let's do better by our volunteers. To everyone who volunteers for any reason: thank you. And to the SES teams across Lyons, I will always have your back and at #thankyouses Menzies Electorate: National Volunteer Week 104 09:53 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I too rise to mark National Volunteer Week, which is occurring throughout Australia these days. I was privileged to be at the launch of National Volunteer Week on Monday with the Minister for Social Services and also the CEO of Volunteering Australia, Adrienne Picone. This recognises the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Australians, who in one way or another volunteer their services in a range of community organisations. We pay tribute to them in this place and elsewhere in the country this week. This morning in my electorate at MannaCare—an aged care, community care, respite care and day care centre service, conducted by the local council—there was a service breakfast to recognise many volunteers. I was delighted to provide certificates to the volunteers who were attending that function this morning. On Friday, I will attend another function in my electorate, arranged by Doncare, which is the major welfare organisation in the Menzies electorate. That, again, will be an opportunity to recognise hundreds of volunteers who give so much of their valuable time to others in our community. On Australia Day each year, it has been an opportunity for me, for many years now, to recognise so many people in our community—most of them volunteers—who do so much to build the fabric of the society in which we live. This brings me to what I essentially believe is the basic principle here: what matters most about society happens in that space between the individual and the state. That is the space which is occupied by families, communities, civic and religious groups, institutions and the private economy. Creating, sustaining and protecting that space and helping all of who are part of it to continue to do that work which they do is part of the foremost purposes of government in this country. Rather than viewing these institutions, organisations and agencies, et cetera, with suspicion, we must treat them as critical to the society in which we live functioning well. It should never be the role of government to usurp their functions, but it should allow them to freedom to operate as separate spheres of activity. Reflecting on it, it strikes me that what is one of the marks of a democracy, like the country in which we are so fortunate to live in, is that we do have these vital organisations of civic society. That is a difference between a country like Australia and other countries that are less free, less democratic and, in fact, totalitarian in their nature. Cheers to all of the volunteers in Australia, who do such a wonderful job. Infrastructure 105 09:56 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Today my theme is partnerships—that is, partnerships between the Commonwealth, state and local governments and communities. In the 2018-19 budget, the government committed $206.5 million for round 3 of the Building Better Regions Fund. We know that federal government investment in infrastructure improves connectivity, delivers key services and amenities and is an essential part of thriving regional Australia. We know that success relies and is built on coordinated regional plans and collaboration between local, state and federal governments, with a clear understanding of impacts. We know the best outcomes are where government investment builds local capacity. To do that, we need to strengthen the role of the RDA network, we need to support the sustainability of rural and regional councils and we need to work with communities to develop regional deals. In my electorate of Indi, local government, community and state government are already working together to develop significant infrastructure projects that will create jobs, encourage new business and build the economic and social viability of my communities. There are projects such as the Murray to the Mountains Rail Trail cycle tourism project. It's led by Indigo Shire, in partnership with Alpine Shire, Benalla, Wodonga, Mansfield, Wangaratta and Towong councils. It also is working with Tourism North East and Regional Development Victoria. The project will extend the Murray to Mountains Rail Trail into key regional towns and tourism experiences, including from Beechworth to Yackandandah and Osbornes Flat and from the Winton wetlands to Glenrowan. It is a fantastic project. The Wangaratta aquatic centre project is being led by the Rural City of Wangaratta in partnership with the Wangaratta Swim Club. This project will build a regionally significant, heated 50-metre pool together with a toddlers' pool and hydrotherapy pool. It will also be part of an aquatic complex in Wangaratta. Connecting Corryong and the Tallangatta caravan park is led by the Towong Shire Council. This will improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity between key tourism destinations, and elevate the caravan park to a BIG4 standard. To my colleagues Minister McVeigh, Minister McCormack and Senator McKenzie, I look forward to the announcement of the successful projects in the Building Better Regions Fund's round 2. I commit to continue to work with you to ensure strong federal investment for the communities of North East Victoria. But, colleagues, our partnerships are our strength in building better regions. We need to work together with our communities to build capacity at all levels and to absolutely ensure that North East Victoria has much better regions because we have got strong partnerships. Miscarriage and Stillbirth 105 09:59 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Today I want to talk about what is a very sensitive issue, but life-changing for many people across Australia—miscarriage. A miscarriage is the loss of your baby before 20 weeks of pregnancy. After that, it is known as stillbirth. Both can be traumatic for a mother and her family. It is estimated that one in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Miscarriage is bereavement, but because it's not talked about, because it's made taboo, this makes the bereavement more intense for the mother and her family to speak about. Too Beautiful For Earth Incorporated is an online information service, based in my electorate of Dunkley, that provides emotional support for parents who experience a miscarriage. They provide emotional support to women after a miscarriage to help them deal with their grief. I'm proud that we've been able to support them with $5,000 in funding through a community grant. There needs to be more emotional support for women who miscarry as the taboo around it makes the experience of miscarriage even more lonely and complicated. Miscarriage is a real grief that people find difficult to communicate. There also need to be better processes around miscarriage. This could include better understanding a mother's wishes in respect of what to do with a lost baby. It could also include understanding the trauma a woman can experience being placed in a maternity ward after they've had a miscarriage or stillbirth. It needs to be better looked at. Also, many people don't announce their pregnancy until after 12 weeks in case they do miscarry. Why should people have to hide this loss of their baby? If people feel that they can announce earlier that they are pregnant, we would all be able to discuss miscarriage as it happens to so many of us. Some ways that you can remember your baby may include remembering your baby on your baby's due date or anniversary of the loss; planting a tree; making a memory book; buying a memorial plaque; talking to others about your experience; wearing a heart, angel or a 'too beautiful for earth' necklace close to your heart; or participating in the International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day events near you on 15 October each year, including lighting a candle at 7 pm on that day to represent your baby while creating a wave of light around the world. I encourage my colleagues and those around Australia to gain a better understanding of the issue surrounding miscarriage, and to support those who have been through this experience. Thank you for the time today to speak about this issue. Kingsford Smith Electorate 106 10:02 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On Sunday, 13 May, more than 400 Kingsford Smith locals turned out for the Biggest Morning Tea Bangladeshi style at Mascot Public School. They were raising money for cancer research, and while the rain poured down, the spirits were high. I'm proud to represent a community with a very active and passionate Bangladeshi community, which has been running this event for more than a decade. I have been delighted to see the growth, over those years, of the celebration of volunteering, community spirit and delicious Bangladeshi food. The annual Good Morning Bangladesh morning tea has so far raised over $220,000 for the Cancer Council NSW. I want to thank the many volunteers, young and old, who have contributed their time, energy and outstanding cooking skills for this great cause—they helped turn a good morning into a great morning—and a very special thank you to Azad Alam for helping to organise this year's event and raising funds for the Cancer Council's vital work and research into cancer and its causes. I'm also happy to report that on Sunday I was again proud to be part of the Running for Premature Babies team that competed in the Sydney Morning Herald Half Marathon. After losing their first-born triplets in 2007, Sophie Smith and her late husband, Ash, of Coogee established the group known as Running for Premature Babies to raise money for the Royal Hospital for Women's newborn intensive care unit in Randwick, including for medical research and equipment. This group is an inspiration. Sophie Smith has motivated thousands of people to run on her team in the half marathon and raise funds this wonderful cause. I can now update the House that this group has raised over $2.5 million for the Royal Hospital for Women in Randwick. This year, the Running for Premature Babies squad entered the event with the goal of raising $250,000. So far, they have smashed that goal, raising a whopping $350,000 for new equipment and research into premature babies. They had close to 500 runners, and were by far the biggest team in the event. Congratulations to all the members of the Running for Premature Babies team, in particular to Sophie Smith, the leader of the group, but also to Mandi O'Sullivan-Jones, the coach. I wish to pay special tribute and give a shout-out to the dads from St Angnes' Primary School, my kids' local school. Michael Ghattas, Paul Maurice and Johnny Vigliante, well done, it was great to run with you guys. And Sophie Smith, you are a legend. Retirement Visas 106 10:05 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I welcome the announcement in the federal budget that the government will introduce a pathway to permanent residency for holders of retirement subclass 410 and investor retirement subclass 405 visas. Under the scheme, from 2018-19 a portion of the planned parent permanent migration places will be quarantined for retirement visa holders each year. Retirement visa holders in Australia will be eligible to apply onshore for a permanent visa through the parent subclass 103 or the contributory parent subclass 143 visa streams. Retirement visa holders will be exempted from some parent visa requirements which they would typically be unable to meet, such as having family in Australia. The pathway will remain open until all retirement visa holders who wish to transition to permanent residency have done so. As part of the establishment of the pathway, the government will close the subclass 405 visa to new applicants. The subclass 410 visa is also closed to new applicants. The measure is estimated to provide a gain to the budget of $8.2 million over the forward estimates period. The revenue generated from this measure will be directed by the government to fund policy priorities within the Home Affairs portfolio. I have previously advocated in this parliament on behalf of a group of individuals who are self-funded retirees, have private health insurance, have passed police clearances, have brought millions of dollars in capital and overseas sourced pensions into Australia, and who make a valuable contribution to our community through volunteering. A number of positive factors need to be taken into account in making the decision to grant this group of migrants a pathway to permanent residency, including the economic benefit of assets and foreign income brought into Australia, the projected increase in taxation revenue that will be generated from investments and superannuation brought onshore and the contribution to Australian society through volunteering and family support such as child care. I acknowledge the dedicated and persistent efforts over a number of years by a group of local constituents, including Mike Goodall, David Humphries and Jean Newstead, in advocating on behalf of the 410 visa holders. I believe that this group of individuals is worthy of permanent residency and citizenship, because they have demonstrated financial independence, the values of good citizenship and civic mindedness. Organ and Tissue Donation 107 10:08 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Recently in my office, I had a young man, Louie, doing work experience. The story of his 18 years is one I think we can all learn from. Louie has kidney failure. While waiting for a transplant Louie spent years on dialysis. During his childhood, while he waited, he couldn't do the same things kids his age were doing—sleeping over, running around the schoolyard or even drinking water. For Louie, it was a four-year wait, one that took him to a depressing, dangerously dark place. Neither of these facts, the length of the wait nor the impact on those waiting, is uncommon. Donate Life, created by the Rudd government in 2008, has increased organ donation rates, but the simple truth is that we do not see enough donations to save kids from suffering. Last year, there were 1,192 potential organ donors and 510 donations. I'm advised that since 2013 there have been 305 children on dialysis in Australia. One friend of Louie's spend 12 years waiting for a kidney transplant, a whole childhood. Louie told me the joy he felt when he heard the news that this friend had received a kidney. Imagine, if you can, the joy this teenager and their family felt after such a long period of waiting, and the freedom that came from that precious gift. Australia uses an opt-in model for organ donation. Louie wants to see this change to an opt-out model instead, where people register their objection to donating their organs. This is a policy that saw 2,182 deceased organ donors Spain last year. Louie hasn't been sitting around hoping for change. He's been out with a petition gathering support. He's signed up Dr Cathy Quinlan from the Royal Children's Hospital, who said it would make the organ donation process even easier. 'I have four kids and a very busy job, and even though the process to sign up to be on the organ donation registry is really straightforward, I think a lot of people just don't get time to do it,' she said. Louie believes an opt-out policy increases organ donation in a number of ways. For one, it will create a change in culture around organ donation. In Spain, opt-out saw an increase in donation rates from 14.3 per million people to 33.6 from 1989 to 1999, and it has now reached 46.9. The Australian donation rate, by comparison, was 20.7 per million last year. An opt-out policy would help increase conversation about organ and tissue donation and make sure the views of donors' families would still be respected. Like Spain, Australia has built a national body in charge of organ donation and the infrastructure to make sure these invaluable gifts find a home. There is no doubt that, as a parliament and as a country, we have a duty of care to Louie and others like him. It's time we made opt-out work. Finally, can I acknowledge Louie Hehir, a student at Kardinia International College, Geelong, who prepared this speech. Turnbull Government: Economy 107 10:11 Mr IRONS HYM Swan When the coalition government came to office in 2013, it made a strong commitment to set the right conditions to help businesses create jobs and invest. This coalition government set a target for one million jobs in five years. After just 4½ years, thanks to this government, one million more people are in work. Many people forget that it's not the government that creates jobs; it is businesses of all sizes—small, medium and big business—that employ people and allow individuals to strive towards the high standard of living that this country has to offer. Governments should not be the main employer, nor should they ever regulate businesses to the point that they cannot grow. Our job in this House is make sure we get out of the way of business owners and let them do what they do best—run businesses and, as they grow, create jobs. We on this side of the chamber understand this. Many of us have business experience and understand what the pressures of running small and medium businesses mean for you and your family. I see the member for Moore and the member for Fadden in the chamber; they are both ex-business operators, along with me. A hundred per cent of those on this side of the chamber today have run businesses. This government understands the role and the needs of business, and we know what we need to do to support them to grow and employ Australians. Our plan for a stronger economy has seen a record rise in employment, with 12.5 million Australians in work. This is the highest level of employment this country has ever seen. We have seen the participation rate across Australia rise to 65.6 per cent. Last year alone, this rose by one per cent, and I will add that a rise of that size has not been seen in Australia since 2005. Those opposite don't want to talk about jobs; they want to talk about a casualisation of the work force, and that is why the unions should not be allowed the keys to the Treasury. Unfortunately for Sally McManus and those opposite, the rate of casualisation has been steady for the last two decades, at 25 per cent. The Fair Work Commission agrees that the level of casual employment has not significantly changed since the enactment of the Fair Work Act. I remind the Labor Party that they set up the Fair Work Commission. There is a clear choice coming up for the Australian public at the next election: you can vote for the anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-aspiration and anti-worker Bill Shorten's Labor Party, or you can vote for the coalition. You can vote for Bill Shorten—a man who wants to take Australia back to the times of Gough Whitlam and Chifley, a Labor leader who wants to see our borders go back to the mess they were in under the member for McMahon as immigration minister. Or you have the choice of strong borders, a government that supports aspiration, rewards hard work and enterprise, and supports workers of all stripes, be it in the mining industry, with the removal of the carbon tax and the mining tax or in new industries like a space agency. This government remains steadfast in helping businesses create jobs and helping Australians get into work, like we have with the one million new jobs. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 108 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 108

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 108 10:15 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I'm pleased to speak in support of these appropriation bills, which make provision for the moneys required to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as part of the 2018-19 budget to fund the day-to-day operations of the Commonwealth. This budget forms part of the government's plan to build a strong, prosperous economy while funding the operations of the government. The centrepiece of the budget is that it ensures that the government lives within its means through disciplined fiscal management, maintaining a pathway to the projected surplus in 2020-21. The growth in government payments has been limited to 1.6 per cent, and, from this year, no longer will the Australian government be borrowing for recurrent expenditure. Keeping taxes below 23.9 per cent as a share of gross domestic product means that Australians will not be unfairly burdened and economic growth will not be constrained. Disciplined fiscal management, ensuring that wage growth is matched by productivity growth, helps keep inflation under control, which in turn takes pressure off interest rates. Maintaining low interest rates is important to ensure housing affordability for millions of Australians paying off their mortgages in our suburbs. I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Perth in April to announce the $3.2 billion infrastructure package for Western Australia, as an interim measure to partially alleviate the inequality in GST distribution to our state, pending a more comprehensive review by the Productivity Commission into the methodology of distributing funds between states. This positive outcome has been achieved through the advocacy of the team of West Australian members and senators. For the people in my electorate of Moore, the federal budget delivers more than $320 million for local projects, including $158 million for the Joondalup hospital extension, $108 million for the extension of the Mitchell Freeway northwards to Romeo Road, $50 million for a new cybersecurity research centre at Edith Cowan University, and several millions of dollars in financial assistance grants to the City of Joondalup. Federal investment in the Joondalup hospital will meet the medical needs of one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, delivering an extra 90 public hospital beds, 75 mental health places, eight new operating theatres, and specialist medical facilities. When completed, local patients will have access to a regional hospital with more than 880 beds, delivering world-class medical services locally, without facing the prospect of a two-hour commute to Royal Perth or Sir Charles Gairdner hospitals for their treatment. The much anticipated extension of the Mitchell Freeway for six kilometres north of Hester Avenue to Romeo Road will connect residents of the coastal corridor around Alkimos, with Joondalup as their closest regional CBD, boosting demand for goods and services and supporting the growth of Joondalup. Widening the Mitchell Freeway southbound by adding an extra lane to the sections between Hodges Drive and Hepburn Avenue and Reid Highway to Erindale Road will alleviate traffic congestion as a top priority for residents faced with traffic congestion daily. Currently, federal funding to widen the freeway southbound for seven kilometres between Cedric and Vincent streets has been delivered, with the construction scheduled to commence later this year. The total cost of the project is $40 million, with the federal government contributing $32 million in funding and the state contributing the balance. It is necessary to widen the southern traffic congestion point on the approach to Perth's CBD, prior to commencing works further north, in order to minimise traffic banking up along the length of the freeway. I would like to place on record the importance of maintaining financial assistance grants to local government authorities across Australia, in particular in my electorate, where the funding is used by the City of Joondalup to deliver community facilities, upgrade local roads, minimise traffic congestion and improve road safety. The strong level of federal funding support to local government has been maintained in the current budget in order to deliver services and amenities for local ratepayers of the City of Joondalup. A key measure in the budget is the provision of tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking Australians through a plan, which will be implemented over the next seven years, for lower, fairer, and simpler income taxes. From 1 July 2018, immediate tax relief up to $530 will be provided to low- and middle-income earners earning between $48,000 and $90,000 annually. In addition, increasing the income threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000, from 1 July, will reverse the impact of bracket creep for some 200,000 taxpayers, and in the medium term, the abolition of the 37 per cent tax bracket will further simplify the tax system and provide incentives to income earners. Due to increased revenues from a stronger economy, there will be no increase to the Medicare levy. By maintaining the current capital gains tax discount of 50 per cent for assets held for more than a year, the Liberal-National coalition government will protect the interests of those who save and invest for their future financial independence and self-sufficiency. In contrast, under Labor's proposal, 75 per cent of capital gains will be taxed at an individual's marginal tax rate. The coalition government will also maintain the existing negative gearing arrangements to assist people who save and invest for their future financial security and independence in retirement. The coalition will oppose Labor's plan to stop surplus tax credits on dividends, on which company tax has already being paid, being refunded to shareholders on lower incomes, which will affect 1.6 million Australians, 200,000 of whom receive part pensions and 14,000 of whom receive full pensions. An estimated 97 per cent of people currently receiving refunds are on annual taxable incomes of less than $87,000. The Turnbull government has an economic plan to encourage business investment and create more jobs, through measures such as legislating for lower taxes for Australian businesses, extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off, and investing $75 billion in transport infrastructure across our nation. Our government is supporting international competitiveness and exports in the agricultural, defence and medical industries. The government's plan to reduce corporate tax rates is designed to maintain Australia's international competitiveness in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. As emerging nations in our region become more automated and mechanised through the adoption of new technology, Australia must reform and innovate in order to stay competitive in terms of trade and investment. Australia's total agricultural exports increased by an impressive 27 per cent between 2012-13 and 2016-17. Export deals with China, Japan, South Korea and many countries in the ASEAN region have opened up markets for Australian producers. The budget provides $51.3 million to expand our network of agricultural trade counsellors in Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through a strong economy the coalition government is able to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on: continuing to guarantee Medicare; pharmaceutical benefits; record funding for new hospitals, with the states; and full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will benefit around 1,839 people and their families in my electorate. The budget includes new and amended items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including cystic fibrosis testing, 3D breast cancer screening, and MRI tests for prostate cancer. Bulk-billing for GP visits remains at record levels, with 84.3 per cent of GP visits in 2016-17 being bulk-billed, representing three million more visits than the previous year. The budget includes $1.4 billion for new and amended listings on the PBS, including medicines to treat spinal muscular atrophy, breast cancer, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and a new medicine to prevent HIV. $6.2 million has been invested in the Insulin Pump Program to increase the availability of insulin pumps for children with type 1 diabetes. To meet the needs of our ageing population an additional 14,000 high-level home care packages have been provided for the in budget. In my electorate 145 aged care places have been approved for Southern Cross Care on the site located on the corner of Burns Beach Road and Connolly Drive in Currambine, including 60 specialist rooms, and services for people with dementia. The planned facility will offer an integrated health, wellness and residential care service, with housing options for downsizers to continue living independently with in-home care services as well as medical support of GPs and allied health professionals. From 2 July 2018 the government will ease the cost-of-living pressures for nearly one million families by implementing the new childcare package. Families on incomes of around $187,000 a year or less will no longer have an annual limit on the amount of childcare subsidy they receive. This covers more than 85 per cent of families with children in child care. More than 348,000 young Australians will have access to 15 hours of quality early learning in the year before school, including more than 2,071 children in my electorate. The government's needs based funding model for schools delivers an additional $24½ billion for Australian schools over the next decade, representing a 50 per cent increase in funding per student. This is based on the 23 recommendations of the Gonski review. The budget also provides permanent funding for a National Schools Chaplaincy Program, providing an additional $247 million to more than 3,000 schools over the next four years. The budget invests in strengthening airport security and improving national security architecture. Measures include investing $294 million to increase the capabilities of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force at nine major domestic and international airports, enhancing screening capability for inbound cargo and international mail, and installing new advanced screening technology at 64 small regional airports across Australia. The coalition has invested in our defence forces to provide new offshore patrol vessels and Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft. The government has stepped up efforts to stop drugs and illegal weapons at the border before they hit our streets, as well as enhancing measures to manage biosecurity risks to protect our environment, agricultural exports and tourism sector. Our government is introducing significant reforms to ensure welfare is targeted at those who genuinely need it and that working-age recipients comply with their obligations to look for work. The compliance rules have changed, requiring welfare recipients on drugs to undertake available treatment. Cashless welfare cards require 80 per cent of welfare payments to be spent on food and living essentials, and a trial of drug-testing for welfare recipients is being sought. The government will save $203 million over the next five years by increasing the waiting period to four years for newly arrived migrants to access certain welfare benefits from 1 July 2018. In summary this legislation forms part of the government's fiscally responsible plan to balance the budget, reduce debt and build a strong, prosperous economy whilst funding the traditional functions of government such as health, education, social services and national security. I commend the bills to the House. 10:29 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My remarks on the Appropriation Bill and the budget concern health policy. I think the best way to describe this budget when it comes to health, as my friend Lesley Russell from the Menzies Centre for Health Policy has said, is that it is a budget of ad hockery and missed opportunities. It's a budget that has no strategy, no vision for how to prepare Australia's healthcare system for the many challenges ahead. It's a budget that is bereft of big ideas. True, there are some measures in the budget that Labor has welcomed—a new rural health strategy, although I would argue it's actually a new rural health workforce strategy. It's something that is needed, but it's not actually a rural health strategy. There is some investment in the health of mums and bubs and new medical research Future Fund disbursements, some of which of which have been badged as the National Health and Medical Industry Growth Plan. I want to flag three serious concerns today. First, the budget in health does contain significant new savings. The budget includes over a billion dollars of new savings. This number has so far gone relatively unnoticed, perhaps because, compared to the savage cuts inflicted in previous Abbott-Turnbull budgets, a billion dollars no longer seems that much when it is being cut out of our healthcare system. It's a sad indictment of how much damage the government has done in health since coming to office nearly five years ago. These savings include $416 million from GP visa changes, $336 million from increased use of generic and bio-similar medicines, $190 million from the Medicare Benefits Schedule review, $78 million from improved use of blood products and antirheumatic drugs, and $40 million from the MedicineWise and national return of unwanted medicines project. Of course not all of these savings are necessarily bad. Labor has offered bipartisan support for the clinician-led MBS review, despite calls for us to do otherwise from some quarters. Indeed, it was Labor who established the framework on which the MBS review is based, in order to improve efficiency, quality and safety in healthcare. Our intention was that the framework was to find smart, sensible ways to update and modernise the MBS, not to provide a fig leaf for further cuts. We are pleased that so far the government has followed the recommendations of the review, although we remain concerned about the government's overall intent. We also have welcomed constructive engagement from the medicines sector, which has led to further savings in this year's budget on top of savings banked last year. But some of these savings will be contested. In particular, the government must urgently explain the claimed savings from the GP visa changes. Weeks on from the budget, we still don't know the details. AMA president Dr Michael Gannon has argued that these savings won't actually be realised because these patients will move to other GPs. If that's true, the government effectively has a half-billion-dollar black hole in its budget. The only alternative is that these $416 million of savings will be realised, and that means that people's access to Medicare services is being cut. Either way, the government needs to come out of hiding on this point and share the details with the Australian people that that is what it intends to do. There is a broader question to be answered here. Where are the savings actually going? Where is that $1 billion going across the portfolio and what is actually happening in relation to other cuts that have happened in previous years? The government claims that it will redirect or reinvest these savings back into the health portfolio, but there is no guarantee or detail about how they are going to do so. For example, while there is $190 million in savings from the MBS review, there is just $25 million in new MBS listings, meaning a net cut to Medicare. You might call me a cynic, but I simply don't trust the government when it comes to health anymore. How could I? Nearly five years of broken promises and savage cuts, and trust is pretty low across the sector. Labor will be pushing the government for more detail on this new $1 billion in health savings, particularly in Senate estimates next week. Our second concern is that the budget includes new listings for the National Immunisation Program in the PBS. Of course that is always very welcome. The minister is right that thousands of Australians will benefit from new drugs to prevent and treat diseases, including refractory hodgkin lymphoma, spinal muscular atrophy—a terrible disease—and breast cancer. These listings are particularly welcomed where they have been delayed, as in the case of the pertussis vaccine, which was recommended for listing almost two years ago. I'm not quite sure why it took the government so long. I want to make three points about this. First, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule listings are the ordinary business of government. The last Labor government spent over $6 billion to add around 800 new medicines and vaccines to the PBS, the Life Saving Drugs Program and the National Immunisation Program. We understood that the credit for listings doesn't belong to the minister of the day—they are not his personal gift to the nation. The credit belongs to the medicine companies that develop new treatments; the patients, the clinicians and the researchers who build evidence from them; the independent committees that have ensured that the new listings are clinically and cost effective; and the Australian taxpayers, who ensure that we actually have a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Second, whether they admit it or not, governments of both stripes have struggled to afford the new high-cost drugs that will increasingly characterise the PBS, but list them we must. The discussion around PBS sustainability is crucial. The $1 billion provision for new listings in this budget is a start and it will go pretty quickly, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the $20 billion in PBS savings under the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments through simplified price disclosure. As many of you know, in our second term of government, Labor agreed to establish in essence a notional bank, allowing the health minister to offset new listings on the PBS against those savings. That concept was lost when this government came to office, so we are essentially back where we started. Third, the PBS has been and always should be defined by a rigorous focus on clinical and cost effectiveness. There are worrying signs that the government has begun to politicise the PBS to secure support for its changes to rebate arrangements. Those changes may prove worthy, but no minister should overrule the respected advice of the PBAC on any issue. When there is a perception that overruling the PBAC has resulted in a drug being listed on the PBS and a company participating in a rebate trial, we have a problem. The politicisation of the PBAC process would be a shocking legacy for any minister and for any government. Of course, we will again be pursuing this in the weeks ahead. In terms of my overall thoughts on the budget when it comes to health, this budget is notable for what it does not include. The government failed to speed up its very slow thaw of the Medicare rebate freeze, meaning elements still remain in place up until 2020, forcing soaring out-of-pocket costs even higher. They've already banked billions of dollars of savings from this freeze and they are banking billions in savings right now. That is money that has come out of the patient rebate for Medicare services. Billions of dollars have been cut from Medicare. The government has also failed to abandon its hospital cuts—$715 million between 2017 and 2020. They went to the 2013 election committing to Labor's National Health Reform Agreement and committing explicitly to funding 50 per cent of growth in the efficient price of hospital-based activity. Their policy document stated that. They, of course, in 2014 decided to completely abandon that commitment, ripped up those agreements, started off with a $57 billion cut to public hospitals—a campaign was strongly run by Labor and the states against them for those cuts—came back and said: 'Okay. We'll fund 45 per cent of growth in the efficient price capped at 6.5 per cent.' That is a cut to public hospitals. Those are the facts. It is $715 million from 2017 to 2020. The new agreement the government is seeking to impose on states is the same funding formula, entrenching that level of hospital funding again over the next five years in the agreement. A number of states have signed, and they have said very clearly to us that they have only done that because of budget certainty; but they recognise that this hospital deal that the government has put on the table is entirely inadequate to fund our public hospitals properly. It does nothing to deal with problems of elective surgery and emergency department waiting times, it does nothing to deal with outpatient waiting times and it basically locks our public hospitals into a funding death spiral when it comes to the Commonwealth. With trying to lock in those similar cuts to the 2025 periods, Labor has said very, very clearly that we will reverse that $2.8 billion with our Better Hospital Fund, as was announced by the Leader of the Opposition in our budget-in-reply speech. There is also very little in this budget on prevention, other than a continued commitment to provide support and some initiatives in relation to physical activities. There is nothing in this budget on innovation in primary care. There is very little on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. In fact, there are some concerns about where the government might be going next in relation to savings for Aboriginal medical services. We will be keeping a very close eye on that. There is certainly nothing in the budget that actually starts to tackle health inequalities. In fact, while there is a lot of activity in the budget—listings, disbursements and grants—there is very, very little focused on outcomes or innovations in that long-time future vision that we need for our health care I am sorry to say that is typical of the government's approach to health. There are plenty of announceable things—anybody would think that maybe we are in an election year—but no overarching strategy for the portfolio itself and no attempt to grapple with the big challenges ahead. After repeatedly attacking health throughout it first term, the government has spent much of its second term settling disputes that have been on it own making. It certainly has taken up a lot of the minister's time over the last 18 months. But what we actually need is a government that is prepared to ask and help to answer the big questions in health and not just clean up the messes of its own making. These are questions like: how do we better promote health and prevent disease; what is the role of the national government in that space; how do we ensure all Australians can access quality, affordable healthcare; and how do we adapt our unique healthcare system to meet our future needs? There isn't the slightest indication in this budget that the government is asking these important questions, let alone seeking to answer them. In the last few minutes I have got remaining, I would like to talk about the budget in relation to my own constituency of Ballarat. In two words, what does the budget mean for Ballarat? Not much. The budget fails the people of Ballarat pretty badly. It seems like this government would struggle to pinpoint Ballarat on a map, let alone take a look at the worthy list of projects that needed funding in our community. There was a long list: the establishment of an emergency services hub at Ballarat Airport, stage 2 of the Ballarat Western Link Road and waste-to-energy projects that have been pursued by the City of Ballarat and the Hepburn Shire for some time. They are great projects. There is also the Bacchus Marsh regional community sporting hub and the restoration of our historic Her Majesty's Theatre. None of those projects are mentioned in the budget. Hopefully we will see some election announcements, but I am not holding my breath. Under the budget, these projects will have to continue to await funding. I note the government's previous announcements that they will support the Melbourne Airport rail link, but as with everything the devil is in the detail. The $5 billion looks like it is going to be equity funding; it is not going to be a grant, which makes it incredibly problematic when it comes to public transport infrastructure of this nature. I have also said very clearly it is important that the route—when and if developed; it's in the never-never for this government—must go through Sunshine in order to ensure that the west of the state actually benefits. Equally, the government has failed to fund aged-care packages to the level that is required. They have basically funded an additional 14,000 packages over the next two years, but taken that money out of the aged-care portfolio overall. When you have 100,000 people there, those circumstances are simply untenable. That includes my own dad—as his local member, the member of Chisholm, knows—who is waiting for a level 4 package. There are continued cuts to public hospitals. In my region, there was a $5.7 million cut. There are continued cuts to TAFE. All of those have significant effects on regional communities such as my own. This budget certainly does very little for Ballarat, very little for Victoria and very little for the nation, particularly when it comes to the vital area of regional services and health. (Time expired) 10:44 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Before I talk about some of the wonderful things that will be funded under Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the related bills, I just want to pick up on what the previous member said—her accusation about the politicisation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Let's talk of facts here: that committee's decisions used to be done completely at arm's length, and it was, in fact, Nicola Roxon, a previous Labor health minister, who decided that all of those things from the PBAC would come before cabinet. She completely politicised the process. I would just put that fact on the record. This budget has some wonderful themes to it. If I look at the themes of this budget, there is major infrastructure spending, as you and many people would well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. There is a $75 million spend in infrastructure over 10 years, and I will talk a bit about that. The overarching theme of this budget, too, is that this side of politics understands. I am almost at despair that the other side don't understand that all of the wealth of this country is created by the private sector. Every single taxpayer funded job, every single taxpayer funded program and every bit of money we spend on education, health, welfare and defence—you name it; basically, the whole city of Canberra—survives on the taxpayer dollar. And the taxpayer dollar is all generated by the private sector. These are people who have a go; people who go out there, start a business, start employing people, make money and do well. They then pay taxes to fund the public sector. So the theme of this budget is very much about giving money back. It is not about cutting money to any public sector or to any public area; it's actually making it easier for the private sector to thrive. This has been well proven: one of the reasons that I think this country has had uninterrupted growth for the last 20-odd years—and I will give credit to the other side—is the tax cuts for both individuals and companies from both sides of politics over those 20-odd years, begun under Hawke and Keating. They were into personal income and company tax cuts, as was, obviously, the Howard government as well. It stalled under Rudd and Gillard, obviously, but, again, we are looking to re-institute those. What that means is we're competitive. It means that those private businesses have more money to spend and they thrive. And every single company tax rate cut that we've ever done, for example, has meant that the tax collection from the corporate sector not only increased in dollar value within two to three years but it increased as a percentage of the GDP of this country. So that says that when we have a thriving private sector, therefore the public sector benefits from that. I just want to go through a couple of things to begin with—infrastructure projects that I'm very excited about out of this budget. The one thing I think that we do need to do as a government is that while the private sector will create jobs and grow our economy, we as a government need to provide good infrastructure and provide the types of things that a modern, thriving economy and country has to provide for people for be attracted here and for things—goods and services—to move with ease around our country and, indeed. leave our country to be exported. One part of what I'm very excited about is the Pacific Highway bypass of Coffs Harbour. The reason that we do dual duplication of highways, as you would well understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to reduce fatalities. Fatalities on our roads are still far too high. Fatalities on the Pacific Highway, which is very dear to my heart, are now at multidecade lows. When you consider the increase in traffic over the decades, that is a great statistic and it's because we are dual-duplicating it. We still have a bit to go, and the last bit, really, that funds have been allocated to is the Coffs Harbour bypass. One of the reasons for this is that the Coffs Harbour area itself was dual duplicated. It was not unsafe, so the parts that we were doing first were those that weren't dual duplicated so that we could reduce fatalities on the road. There are big parts happening in my electorate; it is now probably down to four, but the dual duplication was a $5 billion project a few years ago. The big section still to be done is between Woolgoolga and Ballina. Again, billions of dollars of federal money are going into that—80 per cent of the funding of that is federal and 20 per cent is from the state. The missing link was the Coffs Harbour bypass, and in this budget we have allocated $971 million to bypass Coffs Harbour. Coffs Harbour has 12 sets of traffic lights and is busy in itself. It is a thriving regional centre with a large, growing population. With the 12 sets of traffic lights, just with local traffic, it is busy. When you have B-doubles and a lot of people driving up and down the highway it is in lockdown, especially around tourist times and busy holiday seasons. So I was delighted to see and be part of the announcement in the budget. The northern beaches of Coffs Harbour recently came into my electorate in the last redistribution in New South Wales at the last election, and I have been spending a lot of time in places like Sapphire Beach, Moonee Beach, Emerald Beach, Sandy Beach, Corindi, Arrawarra and other places. When I am down there and in those communities, this issue is raised a lot with me. So I was delighted that that was announced in the budget. There are four other programs that I would like to commend that are going to be re-funded in the budget. One is the Building Better Regions Fund. Our cities—the Sydneys and Melbournes—really are overcrowded. A lot of the growth in Australia's populations does get centred in those two major cities, and we are looking to decentralise. We have some thriving regional centres and regional cities where people can move without necessarily locking down the infrastructure or overloading the infrastructure in those places. The Building Better Regions Fund is an important part of that and I am delighted to see that funded. We also had a pilot program, the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, and I will be looking to see that further extended as well. RJIP is about not only building public infrastructure—the roads and the bridges that you need—but encouraging and giving incentives to private businesses to move to regional centres. I announced some at the start of this year, which I was really excited about. We are going to help along a medicinal cannabis facility in Casino. We gave money to them and their projections have them employing up to 280 people within the next three or four years. We also are looking to relocate a robotics company called Adaptapack. This is a world-leading company that will relocate to the Northern Rivers as well, and will bring, very importantly, high-paying, skilled jobs to the region. One thing with regional areas is that they often do not necessarily have the career choices for our young people, if they elect to stay in a region. Some of the career choices have been more limited, obviously, than in the capital cities, so attracting companies like this to regional areas is important. We also are helping the blueberry industry again. Regional areas tend to be great exporters; we produce things. Whether we grow food or produce other stuff, we are large exporters. We are helping the blueberry industry out as well with one grant that we are providing. We are building some infrastructure around Cumaran Creek Road with one of the biggest agribusinesses in our area, Mara Seeds. Just as an anecdote, they provide 85 per cent of the soybeans for Vitasoy in our country. You wouldn't know it if you were driving around that area, but they are hidden away behind hills doing wonderful work, and we are going to be helping them as well. Again, these are very exciting things about developing regional Australia and making sure we get our fair share of spending. It was great to see also the 20,000 extra at-home care places in the budget, and also the ACAR funding in the budget. There has been an amazing growth in aged-care retirement villages and nursing homes within my electorate. There is a new one in Grafton—144 aged-care beds for Signature Care in Grafton. There is more money for aged care in Kyogle and Yamba There are some exciting developments there that I look forward to watching grow and come online in the next few years. It's also great to see the Stronger Communities Program funded in this budget as well. They're not necessarily large amounts of money, but a lot of people talk about partnerships when they have been speaking on these appropriation bills. That is a great grants program helping what are often volunteer based organisations, where people are giving of their time and sometimes of their own resources to provide essential services or facilities in local communities. The Stronger Communities grants are all about helping them and whatever service or facilities they are providing. There have been some wonderful examples of that in my community. That program is continuing as well. Just on the bigger picture again, I started by saying how important the private sector is. This country only thrives if our private sector is thriving. We always need to create the environment where they do thrive. Some of the things that are very important in this are the asset depreciation write-off, the $20,000 as a one-off capital purchase or anything under that. That created a real boon in my regional towns when that was introduced two or three years ago. If you were a small business and you were going to buy something, whether it be a piece of equipment or something in the office, you could instantly write that off. As soon as we introduced that a number of years ago, a lot of businesses came to me and said that it had made a real difference. That is because we understand it; we understand that people investing and putting their capital into their business is important. Updating equipment and re-investing has created a real boom. It's great to see that as well. Let's talk about tax relief. The other side, when they use this word, say, 'Giving people tax relief is almost like robbing the country.' This is about letting people keep more of their own money to invest and spend so they can thrive. It is a bit disturbing, because this current Labor opposition is really the first government in 30 years that doesn't accept that. We've had 20-odd years of growth because of that philosophy, and it is very disappointing to see that after 30 years we're starting to disagree on that. Very importantly, we have already given tax cuts to small businesses with turnover of less than $50 million. That is very important as well. Again, the other side would like to think it's a fluke. But we have seen 400,000-odd jobs created in this country in the last 12 months. It's not a fluke and it's not good luck. It's about the fact that we are creating the environment and the conditions where small businesses are encouraged to invest and grow their businesses and therefore, obviously, employ more people. We do free trade agreements, and they are great. A lot of them get caught up in protocols, and different agreements get established with different parts. They are micro areas of the different economies, if you like. It was good to see new trade councils with different countries funded in this budget, which is going to help our export markets. Obviously everything that we export creates more wealth in this country, which is important. I have spoken a lot about where we might be spending money and allocating resources, but with all of this, because we have a growing economy, more people in jobs and less people in welfare, we actually are increasing funding in important social infrastructure like education and health. Other speakers have mentioned the PBS and other health areas where we are increasing funding. That is social infrastructure, which is a very important part of our country's growth as well. Above all that, there is other great news. It is often said that if you run continual deficits and run up the debt of your country you are literally robbing future generations. It's not okay to leave your children and grandchildren with a huge debt that they would have to pay back. The coalition government since 2013 has been looking to restore the country's finances, which were ruined by the previous Labor government. We are bringing the surplus back a year earlier, and for the first time since the Howard government we will be running a surplus, which, along with ensuring the security of this nation, is one of the most important things we do. 10:59 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I am so pleased to be involved in this discussion. We watched the budget with great interest, thinking that we may see something productive come out of it in the context of looking after ordinary Australians, the health system, the education system, housing, remote communities and infrastructure across Australia, but how disappointed we were! We ended up with what we have seen in successive budgets from this government: they're all spin, and the substance leaves a great deal wanting. In 2014, $500 million was unceremoniously cut from the budget for First Nations peoples across the country, money that has never been restored. When you look at this budget, you ask what's in it for ordinary Australians—let alone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in remote parts the country—and you find there's not a great deal. We know this budget is aimed at the top end of town and denies the opportunity it should provide for ordinary Australians. We've heard repeatedly that it fundamentally fails the fairness test: 'We'll give a massive $80 billion handout to big business, $17 billion of it to crook banks, and at the same time cut funding to hospitals, schools, TAFE and housing.' How does that work? An opposition member: It doesn't. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 It does not work. Ordinary Australians are having their pockets pilfered. We can see that in the government's support for the Fair Work Commission's penalty rate decision. How do you say to ordinary Australians, 'We're looking after your interests; we want you to do well and have good access to education and health care,' while at the same time ensuring the beneficiaries of this budget are not them, but the people who do well out of this community already? We're seeing record profits for the banks in particular. I cannot comprehend how this government sees it as a good idea to give banks a $17 billion tax cut, and how anyone in the community supports that idea. $17 billion is what they're cutting out of schools. How do you justify that? When the opposition comes up with budget measures designed to restructure the tax system, like the decisions proposed for negative gearing, we get nothing from the government except criticism that this somehow or another is going to pilfer the pockets of the rich. That's the people it will impact upon, not working people, not families dependent upon public housing—the people who are going to suffer directly as a result of this budget. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have made it very clear that we'll restore the funding cut from hospitals and schools in this budget. That means we'll scrap the up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students as part of our $470 million plan to boost TAFE apprenticeships in the schools of Australia. We'll invest $100 million in modernising TAFE facilities around the country. We'll provide 10,000 pre-apprentice places for young people who want to learn a trade and 20,000 adult apprentice places for older workers who need to retrain. We'll put $2.8 billion back into hospitals. That will impact upon the health care of ordinary Australians right across this country. That's what is important: health care and education. If we want young Australians to have a sustainable long-term future and the opportunity for a job, we have to make sure the foundations are right. We've got to make sure that they have good access to early childhood education, to a good health system and to a good education system which provides them with the opportunity to learn as they should learn and provides them with good post-school training, whether it's in the TAFE system or the universities—areas which have been impacted directly by this government's budget. The people who will suffer the most from this budget are people who live in regional and remote communities of this country. The $17 billion cut from schools over the next 10 years, which this government has put in place, will impact on my electorate in a disproportionate way. The most disadvantaged students in the country live in rural and remote parts of my electorate—Aboriginal communities scattered across 1.3 million square kilometres of my electorate. They will be the ones who suffer the most as a result of these cuts. It means that, over the next two years, schools in the Northern Territory will be losing $71 million—that is $71 million that schools across the Northern Territory will lose. Of course, the kids in Lingiari will be losing access to almost $40 million: $37.3 million of that money will come out of the seat of Lingiari. Let's be very clear about it, they have the highest levels of poverty and the greatest disadvantage of any kids across this country. That funding cut to the Northern Territory is equivalent to cutting four teachers from almost every school. We need to be clear that 70 per cent of kids in the Northern Territory are enrolled in the public education system. It's not reasonable. It's not fair. That is why Labor is committed to restoring the $17 billion cuts from education. This budget is such a con. It is such a con! We learn from the budget that Scott Morrison, the Treasurer, has led Territorians to believe that the Central Arnhem Highway will receive funding of $180 million for bituminising—by the way, $180 million won't be sufficient—and another $100 million for the Buntine Highway, which should also be upgraded. You would think as a result of those announcements that the people of the Northern Territory would be jumping up and down with glee, knowing that this money would be coming almost immediately and that the next financial year they could see the engineers, the road workers, the vehicles, the tractors and the bulldozers. We could see all this work happening on the roads in the Northern Territory—well, far from it. Four out of every five dollars of this money will appear in not this parliament, not the next one but the one after. It is in 2022 when we'll see any of the real money hit the deck. It means that people have been told to believe that this money would be forthcoming through this budget process, when, in fact, they won't get it until 2022. And it's even worse than that. What we know from their previous budgets and from estimates this week is that, in their first four budgets, this government have committed to investing $675 million in the Territory's infrastructure—that is $675 million that they have committed—but they have actually invested only $451 million. So, $224 million of the $675 million promised in budgets over the last four years to the Northern Territory for infrastructure have not appeared. What sorts of fools do they think the people of the Northern Territory are, if they believe they're going to say, 'What a great thing it is that you've told us once again that you're going to spend more money on us, when we know that the money you said you were going to spend in the past has not been spent'? It's worth pointing out where some of that money hasn't been spent. Just think of this: $305 million was committed to major road projects and only $237 million has been spent—a 22 per cent underspend. The Bridges Renewal Program was allocated $17 million and $2 million has been spent—an 89 per cent underspend. With the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, we hear it all the time—I can remember the former Deputy Prime Minister standing up in the parliament and telling us what these beef roads were going to do—that there are funds for Northern Australia. I will tell you what has happened. The Northern Territory was allocated $14 million, but do you know how much has been spent over the last four years? It was $1 million—and 89 per cent underspend. What sort of fools do you think we are in the Northern Territory that we're going to cop the crap you give us all the time. Northern Australian roads—$98 million coming to the Northern Territory. How much has been spent? It was $15 million, an 86 per cent underspend. We're not galahs around here. But you are, because you take us for galahs. We know that this place needs a lot better outcomes than you're providing. The funding profile across the Northern Territory between 2018-19 and 2021-22 is $222 million in 2018-19, and by the time we get to 2021-22 it is $61 million. You cannot be serious. We see the current Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Northern Territory and pontificating about how much money is being spent and all the infrastructure that is going to be developed, when we know it's a fraud. We know it's an absolute fraud, and they should be ashamed of themselves. It's not all brickbats, though, I might say. I want to acknowledge a couple of bouquets in this budget, because they impact upon particular groups of people. One of them is the excellent announcement of $23 million allocated in the budget for Western Desert Dialysis, or the Purple House. This is the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation, which provides renal care for people living in remote communities. What this government has done, and I support it absolutely, is to provide a Medicare item number for remote renal dialysis, which means there will be a dedicated item number, providing $590 per dialysis treatment, at a total cost to the budget of $34.8 million for 2022. This is welcome. The expansion of remote dialysis will take the number of dialysis machines in remote communities from 36 to 54, allowing more than 400 patients to receive dialysis, compared to the current patient load of around 250 in these remote communities. For those who don't understand the importance of this, let me say that the number of people who live in remote communities across north and central Australia who have had to relocate to places like Alice Springs, Katherine, Darwin, Adelaide, Perth, Broome, and other places for end-stage renal treatment is enormous. It means there's an impact on those communities. If we can provide these services to people in their home communities, that releases pressure on the towns, it will be cheaper in the long term, and it will provide a better health outcome for those people, which is where they want to be—in their home communities. That's a very important announcement and I congratulate Minister Ken Wyatt in particular for it. There were some other announcements that I thought were important, although much overdue. They related to the Indian Ocean territories of Christmas Islands and Cocos Islands, although I note there is nothing in this budget directly for Cocos Islands. There is money for Christmas Island to relocate and upgrade the wharf crane and mooring systems at Flying Fish Cove. This is a process that has been going on for over 10 years, so it's about bloody time it was done, and I think it's important we acknowledge that it is being done. This money is welcome, but I have to say there are no infrastructure announcements for Cocos Islands. We know that the airstrip on Cocos Islands needs to be upgraded—it is being upgraded, but there's no money in the budget for it. So, I just wonder what is happening? Where is the money coming from for this work? It's vital for the nation, as many will know. It is important that we acknowledge that it needs to be done, but there's nothing in this budget for it. I have given the bouquets, but the brickbats are a lot heavier and they are creating a lot more damage. I have mentioned a number of things, but I haven't gone into all the issues to do with remote area housing. We have seen a welcome announcement from the government of $110 million a year for remote area housing over the next period. That is $34 million a year less than was being provided under the previous agreement for remote housing in the Northern Territory, and no money has been allocated in this budget for remote housing in the other states of the country, and that needs to be done. This budget is a fraud. 11:15 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I think that one of the most crucial things about this budget is that we return to a surplus position. If we do not return to a surplus position as envisaged, in 2020-21, with a small surplus and more substantial surpluses after that, then the budget loses its integrity, and at any future time it really won't matter what you say in the budget, because there will be no money to do it. This is a task that was left to us by the trajectory that Labor Party imprudence put us on. At that time, I remember being at the front doors and giving a speech, because I was amazed at how quickly they had taken our gross debt from around about $60 billion to over $100 billion, in lightning form. Then came the time where, apparently, they were going to save Australia from the global financial crisis. Might I say, we were saved from the global financial crisis not by school halls or ceiling insulation or other ridiculous money that was thrown out the door for people to go and spend as they wish. A lot of it went into such things as the pokies; I don't know whether the pokies revitalised the Australian economy, but they certainly gave it a good crack. We were saved by a range of things. Coal exports were a very big one; iron ore exports were another very big one. We also had a large export of grain, especially from Western Australia, at the time. These factors contributed to our capacity to avoid a downturn in the economy, to keep that record growth going; it had nothing to do with Labor prudence. The repair mechanism we were placed on from that trajectory has been long and arduous. It has taken hard work, it's required people to deal with a lot of pain as they had to try and remove themselves from these crazy contractual obligations like some madman who'd been on a late-night television shopping splurge, buying everything they could possibly see. Now we are heading back to a surplus. I hope, no matter who the government is, that they are cognisant of the fact that, if we don't move towards surpluses, then your promises to an electorate are meaningless because there is no money to back them up. Within this budget, though, we do have a range of things that talk to the growth of our nation, and I want to identify a few of them. Infrastructure is the core to the development of our nation. We have a nation that is basically seen through the eyes of a crescent economy: it starts at about Rockhampton, goes through to about Adelaide and sticks very closely to the coast. That is not the way our nation should see its future. It has to develop further regions. Within this budget, we have a continued equity injection into something the National Party fought for, and in which I was proud to play my part—that is, the inland rail. This is absolutely vital in how we drive another section of our economy into a form of economic development, and you will see this in its most prevalent form in places such as Parkes, where Pacific National is already investing in excess of $35 million into new infrastructure—into Narrabri, into places such as Goondiwindi and Toowoomba, and of course the beneficiaries of this reside at the bookends, which are Melbourne and Brisbane. This is one of the most seminal statements of regional development that this nation has seen, certainly in my time in politics, and it is something that we fought for and that we can still do whilst bringing the budget into surplus. Hand in glove with that I'd like to acknowledge that, yes, we do have an obligation to make sure that we make the lives of people better. The member for Lingiari, who spoke previously, brought to our attention such things as the renal dialysis issues, and these are vitally important, especially for Aboriginal people, Indigenous people, particularly those of the Western Desert. Renal dialysis is vitally important because of the high incidence of renal failure that is present in Indigenous communities. Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, you would also have a personal engagement in the investment that will be made in such things as the Murray-Darling Basin medical school, something I know you have fought diligently and ardently for over such a long period of time. Once again, the only way these sorts of things can happen is due to the prudence of having a budget that is ultimately going back to surplus. We must also invest in roads. Within my own electorate, we're looking for close to $75 million to be spent in the current year on capital on roads, especially the New England Highway, which is our corridor of commerce. It will go between the Inland Rail to our west and the Pacific Highway to our east. To our east, we'll also see something we have been fighting for over a long period of time, and I acknowledge the work of the member for Cowper, and that is the Coffs Harbour bypass. Coffs Harbour is one of those areas where it's a bottleneck. We have a national purpose to remove these bottlenecks, because we should be able to get on a dual highway at Gympie and go all the way to Melbourne. One of the last major bottlenecks is Coffs Harbour, and now we have brought forward the capacity to start working on that. It was always in the budget, but timing was the issue. I know that the member for Wide Bay is very aware and thankful for the work that will be done on section D of the Bruce Highway. Section D was slightly easier because there were other savings, and these savings in the allocation within that portfolio were allowed to be brought forward to 'like purposes', and a like purpose was obviously seen to be section D of the Bruce Highway. Regional airport security and the upgrade of regional airport security are other issues of vital importance, and two beneficiaries of that reside in my electorate, including Armidale. The federal government and the state government have invested a large amount of money in Armidale, and this $3.5 million will take that airport to the next stage—that is, getting the proper screening facilities in. I'd like to acknowledge former Leader of the National Party Warren Truss and the work he did in bringing about $1 billion for the Building Better Regions Fund. During my time we refurbished that with in excess of half a billion dollars, and that fund continues on. This work is hand in glove with the requirements of councils, who always have certain projects they're looking for funding for. I'm not trying to be parochial, but working closely with councils allows us to deliver to people the projects that they want. There has also been an unfreezing of the financial assistance grants, otherwise known as FAGs. They'd had their indexation frozen, but they have now been released so that councils can have greater access to money. We must work closely with our local councils because they are, to be quite frank, closest to the people. In that working relationship between state and federal and local governments, we must allow them to have access to resources to do their jobs. By so doing, they are doing ours. We can also see there is a $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. Now $1.5 billion of this is going to be spent in northern Australia, so I would like to take issue with what the previous speaker, the member for Lingiari, brought up when he asked, 'What are we doing in northern Australia?' This is yet another statement, a $1.5 billion statement. It allows another $2 billion to be spent on other Roads of Strategic Importance initiatives. I think we should really start thinking of roads that not only go north-south but also east-west. Within my patch we have things such as the Bruxner Highway. We need to make sure we upgrade that; it's a major corridor. We have the Taree to Tamworth road, including such things as the Bucketts Way and Port Stephens Cutting, which is a vitally important piece of infrastructure that needs to be upgraded. Recently the Armidale Regional Council approached me about a major road—that is, the Kempsey to Armidale road, a large section of which goes over the Great Dividing Range Range—that is without side rails, so if someone goes over the edge, they're dead. It is roads such as those that are crying out for an investment—an investment that can only be made by a budget that is going back into surplus. Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, Bells Line of Road is something that you drove us half-crazy with, so it's good to see that there is a pool of funds with the capacity to allow us to deal with issues such as that one. The digital transformation package, which is $10.1 million, will allow us to further build on something that has been a core issue for the National Party, and that is decentralisation. This is genuine decentralisation: decentralisation to regional towns, not decentralisation to other suburbs within Sydney, or to other major capitals within our nation, but actually to regional towns. I know that one of the more noteworthy of those, and something we fought for, was the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale. Obviously, it builds on the concept of centres of excellence—people who can socialise the acumen on research into plants and animals. And by doing so in an area such as Armidale—a university town, with cathedrals, art galleries and the CSIRO—we hope that after the transition, which always has to be managed, that we allow and set up our nation for a better future, with resident expert knowledge and the capacity for that to cross-fertilise in such a way that we have a better outcome. This will be a better outcome for the CSIRO, a better outcome for the University of New England in its research into animals and plants, and a better outcome for the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, because these skill sets are in close proximity to one another. In your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, we're doing the same thing. We are setting up to do the same thing, with the financing of soft commodity products to stand behind such things. I commend the work done by David Littleproud in finalising the movement of the Regional Investment Corporation, a $4 billion investment cooperation, to Orange, where it can cohabit with Paraway financial, which is part of Macquarie Bank, with the regional and rural investment arm of the National Australia Bank and with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. This is creating, yet again, another centre of excellence, a centre of financial excellence. I may have talked about this excessively, but giving vision to it is our own form of Chicago in Orange. That is what you want to do when you have real vision for this nation. I know there's further decentralisation, such as the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. A section of that has gone to Wodonga. That is good, taking jobs to Wodonga. And might I note that there were more applications for those jobs in Wodonga than we had places available for them. That is real decentralisation. And I know that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, the member for Maranoa, has further goals to set in further decentralisation. I would also like to commend the work that is being done by the member for Riverina, the Leader of the National Party, in making sure that the offices for the Inland Rail Corporation are not in Canberra, but actually out in places such as Dubbo. This is the sort of decentralisation that our nation has to do if we want to evolve from this crescent economy that resides predominantly within 10 to 50 kilometres of the coast, in an arc from Rockhampton around to Adelaide. It's only through a budget such as this that we have the capacity to invest in what is important. For the New England, it has been a good outcome: there is the further investment that is happening for the New England Highway, the further investment that is happening in our airports and the further investment that is happening in securing better water infrastructure. I note that we've had the upgrade of the Chaffey Dam in the past, and we're now driving for a further upgrade of water infrastructure to secure the water supply for the City of Tamworth. If we hadn't upgraded the water supply we'd be in dire consequences now. In the past we fought for it and we achieved it. Water is wealth, and it also underpins the economic development of those areas. We're also working hand in glove with the resettlement of refugees. It was great, the other day, with Settlement Services International to see people such as the Yazidi people, who were persecuted. We may remember when they were on Mount Sinjar, being pursued by ISIS. I have a great sense of joy in making sure that these people find refuge, solace and a great future in a city such as Armidale. We can show compassion when we have the wallet to do it. It is very hard to show compassion when you don't have the money. So the first responsibility—and concluding where I started—in anything is to make sure that what you spend, ultimately, is less than what you receive, otherwise you will go broke. You must pay off the credit card, otherwise your promises are without purpose. They are false and they are misleading, and you leave your nation in a dire position in the future, where the people who come after us, and our children, have to pay back debts—and they really would be debts. We have to set ourselves on that path, no matter who is in government. We must set ourselves that task and put ourselves on that path, otherwise we are being totally and utterly selfish in how we see it. We are letting down the people in the future who would have needed that money for a better lifestyle and for a better future—for better health, for better education, for better roads, for a nation that can defend itself, for a nation that has the capacity to show compassion in looking after others and for a nation that decentralises for a greater purpose in the future. 11:30 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I must pick up on something that the member for New England just said. He said, 'You can show compassion when you have the wallet to do it.' Sorry, compassion and humanity should not depend on how much money is sitting in your wallet. That is not the definition of compassion and humanity, and it is shameful that this government has that attitude to refugees, asylum seekers or anyone in need for that matter. Too often, people tell me that they can't see a difference between Labor and Liberal. Well, I think we just saw a very stark difference there. That is not something that they can say today; they cannot say that there is no difference between Labor and Liberal—not today, not this budget, not this government and not this alternative. These things are as different as apples and oranges, red and blue or Labor and Liberal. There is a very clear choice to be made. Let's look at hospitals. The Liberals have cut $2.8 billion from hospitals, which is locked in in this budget. Labor will reverse public hospital cuts and create a $2.8 billion Better Hospitals Fund and put 20 new MRI machines in regional centres and outer suburbs. That is a very stark contrast. On schools, the Liberals have cut $17 billion. Labor will restore the full $17 billion so there is more money for teachers and resources to make sure that our kids get the education they need. In universities, the Liberals are cutting $2.2 billion, which means 10,000 fewer places. Labor will abolish the cap on university places so that students who want a university degree can get one. At TAFE, under the Liberals, there are already 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in Australia, and this budget cuts $270 million more from TAFE on top of the $3 billion already cut. Labor will rebuild TAFEs and waive up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE places in courses where Australia actually needs those skills. This means developing kids who have the skills that this country needs for the jobs that we have. Let's look at pensioners. The Liberals have tried to cut the energy supplement for pensioners three times. That supplement is $14 a fortnight to help pensioners pay power bills, and the Liberals have tried three times to cut it. They also want people to work until they are 70. Labor will continue to fight these cruel measures. The contrast between red and blue, Labor and Liberal, couldn't be more stark, and so it is with tax cuts. The Liberals say they want to deliver tax relief for low- and middle-income Australians; but their income tax plan is modest, to say the least. It holds those low- to middle-income earners hostage to tax cuts for those at the higher end of the income scale years down the track. If this government really cared about low-and middle-income workers, they would split out the tax cuts so that the relief could flow from 1 July, which Labor would support immediately. Our tax plan is a better one. Our plan will deliver lower taxes for 10 million working Australians. Labor's plan will see those who earn up to $125,000 a year paying less tax than they would under the Liberals. More than four million people will get a tax cut of $928 a year—so that's chalk and cheese, apples and oranges, Labor and Liberal. What really appeals to me about our approach to tax cuts is that it puts more money into low- and middle-income earners' pockets. We know that most of that money will actually flow through to local economies where those people live. They will be able to have that extra meal out for a special occasion or, God forbid, not for a special occasion. They will be able to let their kids go on that extra school excursion. The fees for soccer and netball won't be such a stretch. All of our tax cuts support an engaged, involved and less cash-strapped local community, where small businesses can thrive because people are able to do more than simply struggle to survive. At a time when no-one is getting decent wage increases and the cost of living keeps rising, Labor's tax plan has benefits to local communities, like mine throughout the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. The government's budget has failed not only the fairness test set by Labor and the community but also the fiscal responsibility test the government set for itself. For years I have heard the Liberal Party banging on about the debt and deficit disaster. Now there's barely a peep from them on those topics. On the back of the best global economic conditions in more than a decade, we now have net debt for this year coming in double what it was when this government came to office. Gross debt, which crashed through half a trillion dollars on their watch for the first time in history, will remain well above half a trillion dollars every year for the next decade. No wonder they're not talking about debt and deficit. Both types of debt are growing faster under this government than under the previous Labor government, which had the global financial crisis to contend with. Let's talk deficit, since they won't. This year's deficit—the 2017-18 year—is 6½ times bigger than the Liberals predicted in their first horror budget in 2014. Any budget that gives $80 billion tax handouts to big business while cutting from schools, hospitals and pensioners is an unfair budget. Labor will achieve a budget balance in the same year as the government and deliver a bigger surplus. On top of that, a Shorten Labor government will be guided by clear fiscal principles, which include repairing the budget in a way that doesn't ask the most vulnerable Australians to carry the heaviest burden. We'll more than offset new spending with savings and revenue improvements and we'll bank changes in receipts and payments from any changes to the economy to the bottom line if this impact is positive. We won't just use them; we won't just spend them. Labor has made the tough and big calls on tax reform, like negative gearing, capital gains tax, trusts and dividend imputation refundability. We've made those calls to close loopholes to those who need them least. We will have a superior debt reduction plan than the Liberals. Our plan is fairer and more responsible because we've made the big calls and we've got them right. The budget gives an $80 billion tax handout to big business, including $17 billion for the big banks. This is at a time when it is clear to everybody that banks have questions to answer about their culture, their governance and their dealings with customers. Yet here we have a Liberal budget that looks after big banks at the expense of small businesses and individuals. Clearly, there is a massive power imbalance when it comes to what one can demand or do to the other. We've heard of the pressure put on guarantors for small business loans. We've heard revelations that people at the Commonwealth Bank have meddled with the savings accounts of children, including those in the Blue Mountains in my electorate of Macquarie. These are the sorts of revelations that the Liberals tried to keep from people for so long. First, the Prime Minister resisted a royal commission into the big banks and now he wants to reward them with a $17 billion tax cut. He always sides with the big banks and big business over ordinary working Australians and ordinary hardworking small businesses. It says it all about the Prime Minister that he wants to give a $17 billion tax cut to the big banks at the centre of the rorts and rip-offs that are being exposed at the royal commission. This budget lays bare, once and for all, the utter contempt the Liberals and Nationals have for Australians and the ABC services that they trust and rely on. We all remember the promise by the coalition on the eve of the 2013 election that there would be no cuts to the ABC. On top of the $254 million in cuts that they've imposed since 2014, this budget contains a further $127 million in cuts. They have frozen indexation of the ABC's operational funding. That's effectively a new cut of $83.7 million. It is supposedly to ensure that the ABC continues to find back-office efficiencies. The reality is that this government knows full well it will mean cuts to jobs, cuts to content and cuts to services at the ABC. The Liberals and Nationals complain the ABC isn't doing enough news coverage, yet hypocritically they have left a $43 million hole in funding for ABC news and current affairs. You can't keep cutting the ABC's funds and expect the same quality of news coverage. I have been a journalist in a newsroom. My husband was in the ABC newsroom for years. We've both been foreign correspondents. We know the reality of gathering news on the ground. We know that it is changing, but as the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance says—I am a proud member of the MEAA—they describe it as a dangerous and irresponsible assault on public broadcasting in Australia. At a time when news platforms are expanding but credible, on-the-ground, informed news sources are contracting, the implications for audiences looking for reliable news and information are really serious, particularly for audiences in rural, regional and remote Australia. The ABC is already cutting 20 journalist positions in a proposed restructure, cuts that will hurt its local newsrooms and starve local communities of quality reporting of news stories that matter to them. With fake news needing to be exposed and countered and social media undermining the current news models, the ABC has a crucial role in providing high-quality public interest journalism. It is still one of the most trusted sources of news, and it needs to be adequately funded to remain so. The MEAA warns that the budget cuts also represent a dangerous threat to the creation of original Australian television production, particularly drama. The constant slashing of funding by governments endangers the ABC's ability to produce quality Australian screen content and fulfil its really important role of telling Australian stories. Even before the budget, more than $250 million had been cut from the ABC since 2014. Over this same period the ABC's commissioning budgets for adult drama and children's content each dropped by 20 per cent. Given their important cultural role, the ABC must be properly funded and future funding must be guaranteed so productions can be developed with certainty. The Liberals say this budget is about investing to create more jobs and support essential services, yet these cuts will force further redundancies at the ABC and a reduction in ABC services that Australians value. It is pretty clear that just as he shed his leather jacket for good, the Prime Minister has also launched the biggest attack on ABC independence in a generation. There are three pieces of legislation lined up, a fake competitive neutrality inquiry and a further efficiency review, all designed to undermine the ABC. After years of budget cuts at the hands of Malcolm Turnbull, first as communications minister and now as Prime Minister, it is clear you can't trust the Liberals or the Nationals with the ABC. I want to speak about the impact of this budget on women. Not that the government wants you to know the impact, because back in 2014 the Liberals abolished the annual women's budget statement. Recent Senate estimates show that after five years of supporting policies that disadvantage women, the Liberals are still failing to take real action to achieve gender equality. If you don't have women in your cabinet or your ministry or even on your team, you will never have policies that bridge the pay gap and the gender gap. The Labor 2018 Women's Budget Statement shows gender equity just isn't a priority for the Prime Minister or the Liberals. After five years in government, they have taken no serious action on gender equality, and I suspect they never will. In this budget they have locked in $80 billion of big business tax cuts but refused to scrap the $30 million a year tampon tax. Labor, of course, has promised to remove the tampon tax and we have made budget savings to do so. The Liberals still haven't secured a national housing and homelessness agreement with the states, leaving women's refuges and homelessness services unsure whether they will receive federal funding after 1 July. After five years and five budgets, the Liberals are still leaving Australian women behind. Think about what they have done or tried to do. They have tried to cut paid parental leave, calling working mums rorters and double dippers. They have introduced a childcare policy that leaves 279,000 families worse off as childcare costs continue to rise. They have frozen funding for the six national women's alliances and they have cut millions of dollars from community legal centres and capital funding used for safe housing options for women. They have cut almost $2 billion of pay rises and support for workers in feminised industries such as early childhood education and disability care, and they have cheered on cuts to penalty rates that disproportionately impact women. They clearly don't see women and women's equality or even a fair go for women as a priority. 11:45 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the appropriation bills in light of what has been received and welcomed as a fair and equitable budget from the Turnbull coalition government. We went to an election openly, and our message to the Australian public was jobs and growth. We pretty well bored most of the Australian public with that message of jobs and growth and jobs and growth. Still I stand at this lectern today in front of the Australian public and suggest that we are delivering both jobs and growth—prosperity for our nation as a result of our prudent, responsible fiscal management. The budget is our major platform for that. Regarding jobs and growth, 2017 was the strongest year of jobs growth on record, according to the Bureau of Statistics, with no less than 415,000 jobs created, three-quarters of which were full time. Sometimes those brave trolls on social media say, 'Where are these jobs?' If you don't believe in the integrity of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I ask you to go to the Australian Bureau of Statistics website. It will give you a breakdown of the service divisions of where those jobs are being created. If you don't trust them, go to the Reserve Bank. They will also give you a sense of where the economy is growing. More than a million jobs have been created since the Liberal-National government was elected in 2013. That is such an amazing feat. To put those jobs into some type of contrast, and to understand whether or not 415,000 is a reasonable increase, we must ask what Labor produced in the way of jobs over a similar period and have a look at the final 12 months from when they were last in office. Was it 300,000 jobs? It was a bit lower. Was it 200,000 jobs? Again, it was lower than that. Did they get over the 100,000-job mark in that 12-month period? No, they didn't. Labor, the so-called 'friend of the worker', produced only 89,000 jobs, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, during the remarkably disastrous 12-month Rudd-Gillard-Shorten-Rudd period of absolute anarchy. That is the contrast. We will hear the rhetoric of how this side of the House is deserting families and giving $17 billion worth of cuts to the big banks. I want to have a chat with the Australian public about when our corporate tax rates are set to kick in. They are outside our forward estimates period—that is, four years down the track. They talk about the $17 billion worth of tax cuts we are giving to big banks. By that time the additional levy we have imposed upon the big banks will generate no less than $16 billion for the federal coffers. We will pull that benefit back from the banks, and it will offset their tax cuts. The corporate tax rates will advantage those businesses in my electorate with turnover of $50 million. Guess what? Businesses with over $50 million turnover will be the benefit of our company tax rate. They go broke as well. It is a competitive industry out there. The largest contributor to GDP in my electorate is agriculture. I was on a farm the other day with the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister. When I say farm, it is a large organisation. They employ 900 staff. They add value to their product. When you go into the large retailers, you see their product, grown in the Lockyer Valley, on the shelves: zucchini noodles, carrot noodles—ready to cook, picked and packed—coleslaw mixes, bean mixes and cauliflower rice, which is delightful on the dinner plate. So those companies, if given the opportunity, if given a financial break through the company tax rates, will reinvest back in their communities. They will reinvest back with the likes of John Deere, the local tractor agents and the produce and fertiliser salespeople. That is how our local economies grow. If the opposition looked closely, they would also see that the banks in the 2015-16 period paid a combined company tax bill of over $10 billion. That was reported by the Australian tax office data.gov.au, if you want to have a look at it. Banks pay company tax at the company tax rate. They don't get a special deal, but we do trim them up with the levy. Why is it that the Labor Party want to drive down jobs growth and wages down by stifling those businesses that want to employ Australians. They are businesses like Hood's Rugby Farms—local businesses. With Australia's current tax competitiveness ranked as one of the lowest and poorest rates across a range of measures, Labor would want to drive the coffin nails in a little bit further. Let's talk about how competitive we are in that tax space. Data released by the Oxford Centre of Business Taxation suggests that, in the 2017 tax competitive ranking of OECD countries, Australia was ranked as the 27th worst performer out of 33 nations. So we are trailing at 27 out of 33. This is the seventh worst ranking on the basis of headline tax and the effective average tax rate. We are ranked 26 out of 33 on the basis of effective marginal tax rates. It is important to understand that last bit, because those who don't want to acknowledge the work done by the Oxford Centre of Business Taxation suggest that there are other local rates of taxation that offset it and skew that data. But when you look at it through the prism of the effective average tax rate, all of those factors are taken into consideration. In October 2017, the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook report found that a stimulus budget with a mutual reduction in corporate tax rates in France, Germany and the United States would increase economic activities in those localities, whilst also having negative economic spillovers for countries such as ours. The IMF are flagging to the world that, if Australia does not move into this space of company tax rates, it will be left behind. The world is a competitive place for the international flow of capital. We ignore it at our peril. Chris Richards from Deloitte Access Economics said this about the company tax rate: 'This federal tax hurts the economy more than any other.' It is shrinking our economy. We ignore these commentators at our own peril. When Australia cut its tax rate to 30 per cent in 2001 there were 19 OECD countries with higher tax rates than us. Have a guess how many there are today: two. We are lagging. When France's legislation kicks in in 2020, the only OECD country with a higher company tax rate than Australia will be—guess which country, Mr Deputy Speaker?—Portugal. We're asleep at the wheel on this. Labor claim that it will fund its spending promises by not proceeding with the company tax reductions under our enterprise tax plan. So, as I suggested earlier in my contribution, the revenues that we are going to get from the company tax rates, the $17 billion, won't be realised in our receipts for another four years. But, if you have a look at what Labor are proposing in their budget reply speech, they are going to start spending that money today. Once again, it is Labor who are recklessly spending money they don't have. If you want to put our prudent economic management up against Labor's, remember when they were last in power. They thought they would put up taxes and call it the 'super mining profits tax'? It was to raise $300 million. Mr Wallace 265967 I remember that. Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 What happened was that they went out and spent all of these revenue gains. Member for Fisher, can you remember how much revenue that tax raised? Mr Wallace 265967 I believe it was somewhere between nil and zero. Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Let's call it nil then, for the sake of splitting hairs. It raised no money. They were unable to raise it. That is the difference between our prudent economic management in running the economy and providing jobs and growth, as opposed to those on the other side, who should never, never be allowed anywhere near the economy. The Australian Labor Party will happily discard the hopes and aspirations of hardworking Australians, Australians who have paid taxes their entire life and have budgeted for their retirement so that they are no longer a welfare burden on the taxpayer. They are people who make contributions to our society, like nurses, teachers, police officers, Defence personnel. In retirement they will be worse off under a Labor government. People are right: they deserve better. In my electorate they deserve better. I want to give you some statistics for the benefit of Hansard. 63,095 taxpayers live in Wright. Our plan is to address bracket creep, which means that around 95 per cent of all taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less. Many initiatives in the budget, for example the More Choices for a Longer Life package, will support no less than 22,700 people aged over 65 and their families in my electorate. We have extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses, which will affect over 2½ thousand businesses. I was very proud to be able to lobby the government to maintain the National School Chaplaincy program. They do an amazing job. That is $247 million. My heart goes out to all of the unsung heroes in that space. We have committed $200 million for a third round of the Building Better Regions Fund. Last year our community benefited from this fund with $15,000 for research into horticultural practices in the Lockyer Valley and $80,000 supporting the Scenic Rim for their Eat Local Week activities. Funding for other rounds of the highly successful Stronger Communities program is under way. It has been such a great program backing local schools, P&Cs, local sporting clubs, charities, historical societies and showgrounds. I look forward to making sure my community is connected with more money from those funds. This budget also includes $29.7 million for sports infrastructure grants, which help sporting clubs do a fabulous job, especially in the regional communities like my electorate. There is a 56 per cent funding boost to the Local Sporting Champions program. There is a funding increase of 34 per cent for Queensland public hospitals. You will hear those on the other side saying that we are cutting funds to hospitals. Go and have a look! The cheque gets bigger and bigger every year. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 You hear those on other side squealing in disbelief—it's like taking a baby suckling from the sow's teat—as they suggest that we are cutting money from hospital funding. No-one in Australia should be able to trust Labor, because the reality is we are spending more in hospitals and more in schools. The way you would work out whether or not we are spending more is to have a look at what we spent last year. Opposition members interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 You should hear the outcry from the other side of the chamber! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I can hear the outcry. Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Of course you can. People in my electorate can hear it. They know quite well. In order to spend more money on hospitals, the cheque that we give to hospitals in Queensland is greater than what it was last year. If we were spending less, that money would be a smaller amount. Those on the other side are mendacious in their claims that we are not spending more on hospitals and in our schools. There are 6,400 local families set to benefit from the new childcare reforms. More importantly, the Prime Minister was in my electorate the other day announcing $51.3 million to grow our agricultural exports. We have a number of free trade agreements around the world, but behind that there are inhibitors that mean my local growers can't get into some of these free trade economies because of biosecurity protocols. That $51 million will strategically place assets around the world so that my growers can get access to those free trade agreements. We will also spend $121.6 million investing in biosecurity protections for product that is going to come to Australia. In the horticulture sector—in the agricultural sector at large—we have a clean, green image, and we will spend and invest money to make sure that we protect that. This is a great budget. It is a budget that shows quite clearly the difference between our side of government and those on the other side—who can't be trusted and who, when last in power, did nothing but wreck the economy, 12:00 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I'm not surprised that members of the LNP from Queensland have been thrown under the bus by this government, because this is the party, for Queenslanders, that has a reputation for cutting, sacking or selling. You only need to look at the recent disgraceful comments, which I want to place on the record at the beginning of my remarks, about a tragedy that occurred in Brisbane yesterday. A very sad event happened when a mother was hit by a bus in the CBD. I extend my condolences to that poor family, but I want to place on record just how out of touch and offensive the former LNP Premier Campbell Newman is. At this time of tragic loss for a family, the loss of their mother, when the first responders came onto the scene the former LNP Premier decided it was more important to complain about traffic congestion—to issue tweets attacking the police and saying they do not do enough to ease congestion. I think those remarks stand on their own. I extend my deepest condolences to that family, and also place on record in the parliament my thanks and recognition for those dedicated first responders who were on the scene, the brave men and women of the Queensland Police Service and the ambulance and fire services. They risk their lives and do everything they can to keep us safe. They deserve our respect and support; they certainly deserve much more than the former LNP Premier criticising them and not showing compassion. But the time for excuses is over. The time for shifting blame is over and the time for underdelivering for the Australian people is over. There is nowhere that this government can hide with the budget. They've had five years. For five years the Australian people have had to put up with this poor excuse of a government. For five years they've been kept waiting for this government to deliver. But, year after year, we get nothing but cuts and chaos from the government. Put simply, this budget fails the fairness test. It fails the family test, it fails the infrastructure test, it fails the health and hospitals test and it fails the education test. Perhaps the only area where the budget delivers is for the Prime Minister's and this government's big mates at the top end of town. We know that in this budget the centrepiece, the signature piece, is an $80 billion tax handout to big business, including, as we keep hearing in the community time and time again, this government's priority of delivering $17 billion in tax breaks for the big banks. How on earth could any member of the government get up on their feet and defend that? How could any person in the parliament think that with the banks—with the royal commission, the rorting and the rip-offs that we're seeing— it's somehow a good economic policy to deliver a tax break to the same people who are seen time and time again ripping off mainstream, ordinary Australians. While the government continues to defend, support and look after the top end of town, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and members of the opposition will continue to fight in this place every single day to bring fairness and opportunity to hardworking Australians. I note the members in this chamber now are getting upset at what I'm saying. They're not happy I'm pointing out the fact that their special interest mates, their millionaires and billionaires, are their priority. I know that's who they want to look after, and that's fine. Many Australians are waking up to that: 31 Newspolls in a row show that. We understand that. They don't like the fact that we hold them to account. A government member interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 Oh, we've just heard, 'The tide is turning.' Let me guess: the Prime Minister's got his mojo back; the Treasurer's got his mojo back. Every second week: 'We've got the mojo back'—we hear that time and time again. We heard that the Batman by-election was the test. We heard that the budget was the test. But do you know what? Time and time again we're seeing the government not understanding what Middle Australia needs. The coalition government has done nothing over the past five years other than axe funding and support for seniors, pensioners, those who are vulnerable in my community. It's a long rap sheet. And many of the cuts in this budget still hang around the 2014 horror budget. We know that they tried to cut pension indexation—a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. That unfair cut would have ripped out $23 billion from the pockets of pensioners—from every single pensioner in Australia. We know that they axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card and that they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds—a cut that would've affected 500,000 part pensioners. We know that in 2015 the Liberals did a shonky deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. And in 2016 the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. Further to this, the government still wants to make pensioners born overseas wait longer to get the age pension, by increasing the residency requirements from 10 to 15 years. Legislation has been before the House for the past four years to increase the pension age to 70, meaning that Australia would have an older pension age than the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This would mean that, for the first four years alone, around 375,000 Australians would have to wait longer before they could access the pension—a $3.6 billion hit to the retirement income of Australians. And, of course, the government is still trying to axe the energy supplement to two million Australians, including around 400,000 age pensioners—a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, worth $365 a year, and a cut of $21.20 a fortnight to couple pensioners, making them around $550 a year worse off. I know that, if you're living in a $50 million Point Piper mansion, clinking glasses of champagne on Sydney Harbour, that's not a lot of money to you. That's a round of drinks—it's less than a glass of Cristal for the Prime Minister. But what this also means is that, for pensioners— Government members interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 That's right, and the members of the government are defending the cut, time and time again. Whenever we talk about a fair go for pensioners— Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I am having difficulty hearing the member for Oxley. Order, please. Mr DICK 53517 adequate services for pensioners, a decent retirement or income for pensioners, the government go berserk, because their priority is always those millionaires and billionaires. We get it. We understand that's the priority for the member for La Trobe and the member for Fisher, who are in the chamber. That's their top priority. They're proud of it; they stand by it—that's the centrepiece of their budget. The centrepiece of the Leader of the Opposition's budget is delivering fairness and opportunity for middle Australians, giving 10 million Australians a fair dinkum tax cut—doubling what the government has on offer— delivering real tax reform for middle working Australians. They laugh at that. They think it's funny that workers have not had a real pay increase, that inequality is at a 75-year high. The government laugh at it. They think it's all a joke. Well, come and talk to the people in my community, in Redbank Plains, in Goodna, in Gailes, in Camira. Laugh at them—those families that are struggling to make ends meet, to get their kids to school, to get the shiftwork, to get the pay increases. They're the families in my community that don't want millionaires and billionaires and banks and multinationals getting a tax break. They're the families who just want a fair go for them and their kids. This is another central piece of this government, no matter how those opposite or the Treasurer wants to dress it up: this government, when it comes to debt and debt management, is a failure. Since coming to power, net debt has doubled to more than $350 billion. A government member: Who started that debt? Mr DICK 53517 We've just had an interjection from a member of the government, saying, 'Who started the debt?' That's the interjection from the government. It's not about how we're going to fix the debt and not about how we're going to lower the debt. We now have a government so intent on this that they have given up on debt management. They have completely given up. Let's put the facts on the table. Gross debt crashed through half a trillion dollars on the LNP's watch for the first time in history. They're remaining pretty silent now as I give that fact. We know that will remain well above half a trillion dollars. Those opposite are proud of it. They are absolutely proud of it. After five years and six budgets being delivered, they are proud. They're proud that our debt is the highest it's ever been in this country. Look, I know they don't like it. I know it's painful. When the facts are placed on the table, they squeal and they yell. The community across Australia is demanding better management of our economy than we're getting from this Treasurer. It's not often that I would say this, but I would say bring back Joe Hockey. That's what I would say. That's how bad this Treasurer is. This year's deficit, in 2017-18, is six and a half times bigger than what the members of the government predicted in their first horrific budget of 2014. All of this was confirmed through a recent OECD report, which stated that the Australian government has added more to their debt over the past five years than almost any other developed country. The biggest problem overall is that the government has nothing to show for it. A mountain of debt has been delivered under the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. That's a huge amount of debt that Australians have to pay back under this government's watch, but they have nothing to show for it. There has been no global financial crisis for this government to deal with. Actually, rather than a GFC, they've had global economic conditions that have been improving, yet they have nothing to show for this enormous blowout in debt. However, for some unknown reason, the days of talking about the budget emergency and the debt truck are never to be seen again. Where's the debt truck? That's parked at the back of someone's house at the moment. The wheels have fallen off. That's never to be seen again. They don't like it when we talk about that. Under Labor, it was a budget deficit emergency—I think that was their slogan. But when the debt is tripling under this government, they are remaining silent—nothing to be seen or heard here. We know that these cuts are as a result of their reckless mismanagement of the economy. In my own home state, we've seen a real cut to hospital funding. In hospitals right across Queensland, particularly in the Caboolture Hospital, we have seen cruel and savage cuts by this government. The government are not interested in the outer suburbs of our community. They're certainly not interested in the south west of Brisbane. Thank goodness, we have Susan Lamb in Longman fighting for a decent health system for her community. In the south west of Brisbane, we have terrific candidates. We have Corinne Mulholland, who will be our new voice for the people of Petrie, and Ali France in Dickson. We have a whole range of strong advocates, rather than the do-nothing MPs who we see across the city of Brisbane. We know that the LNP, when it comes to infrastructure, really is trying to pull a swiftie on the people of Australia and particularly the people of Queensland. There is no funding for the Cross River Rail—zilch, zero. The Cross River Rail is the No. 1 infrastructure project in the country, which will mean families getting home with real time savings. This government is not interested in that at all. So, this budget is one of lost opportunities. We know that it still contains the horrific cuts we have seen time and time again from this government—a real cut for hospitals in Queensland, schools across Brisbane and the wider metro region are facing some of the biggest cuts they have seen from any Commonwealth government, and no real funding for infrastructure for my state. I'm disappointed that this government has failed to deliver for my community and the wider community in Queensland. I will keep fighting to make sure that they have equity and fairness in a future Labor budget. 12:15 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and the electorate of La Trobe. This is a great budget when it comes to more infrastructure funding for Victoria, with a number of projects continuing the good work previously announced by this government in regard to major projects such as the Monash. La Trobe covers up to Dandenong ranges, including the suburbs of Ferny Creek and Olinda, right across to Emerald, Cockatoo, and Gembrook, which are great suburbs. We have previous election commitments there. For Emerald it is the Emerald Discovery Centre, which is part of the Puffing Billy Railway. In total, they have over 500,000 tourists visit each year, which has an incredible impact not only on the local economy but on the economy of Victoria. A lot of the visitors are international tourists, so it helps all Australians when we invest in Puffing Billy. In the electorate we also have Narre Warren South, Beaconsfield, Officer and Berwick. I make the point that when it comes to infrastructure we need to keep up overall in Victoria, and especially in my electorate of La Trobe, where we have 300 families moving into Casey and Cardinia council electorates each week, which is quite amazing if you consider the number of families moving in and the need to keep up with schools, with police and with infrastructure. One thing we have noticed in my electorate, sadly, is that there has been a lot of criminal activity when it comes to gangs and home invasions, and I know that Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou is well aware of this. The Migration Committee, which I chair, had recommendations for something that is very important to me: the Australian Criminal Intelligence Database. This is part of the budget for helping law enforcement right across this country. In my maiden speech I raised the need to ensure that police agencies are able to capture the data from other departments. It could, for example, be what we saw as the failings of 11 September, where agencies such as the FBI were not immediately aware that terrorists were actually undertaking pilot training. You need to have this direct link in a database where agencies can look at it. Prior to my role as a member of parliament I was in the counter-terrorism unit with Victoria Police. I remember there was a domestic situation where the police from Malvern contacted our unit and said it seemed a bit bizarre to them that they went through 'domestic' and weren't aware that the person involved in the domestic had access to explosives. Why? Because that person had a licence to possess explosives. So, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Database is very important. The crime figures in Victoria are something we really need to look at. Since the election of the Daniel Andrews government, crime overall is up 12.5 per cent, robberies are up 32 per cent, sexual offences are up 24.9 per cent, home invasions are up 54 per cent—that has had a huge impact in my electorate—assaults are up 17.2 per cent, and thefts of motor cars are up by 20 per cent. In actual fact, while the population of New South Wales is obviously greater than Victoria's, I believe their rate of theft of motor vehicles is something like 25 per cent lower than ours, and firearm offences are up by 14.6 per cent. The key issue that I've raised time and time again is: how do we make Australia safe? This database is something that will help not only in Victoria but nationally. The NCIS will weed out foreign thugs, terrorists and youth gangs. This system is a crime database, providing agencies with new intelligence on potential suspects. I'm sure that this is happening right across the country at the moment. The police will be interviewing a person at a police station—laying charges or allowing the person to leave on bail or summons—and the police will not be aware that that person is on a visa. This raises a few issues. First of all, the immigration department is not aware of the person being in custody. If it were a minor offence and Immigration were aware, they could send a warning notice. If it were a theft, they could tell the person basically that if they continue down that path they are potentially jeopardising their chance of becoming an Australian citizen. In more serious cases it will alert the immigration department that action needs to be taken in preparation of cancelling that person's visa—something which is very important obviously to protect Australian citizens. NCIS will be a whole-of-government capability operating in a secure national information-sharing environment. Let's look at one thing this database can actually do. For example, there could be a very specific way a criminal is committing an offence—we call this their modus operandi. It could be a sexual offence or an armed robbery. If that person moves interstate, the data exchange is not what it should be. This National Criminal Intelligence System will be able to wash through all the databases across the country and find a potential link with the modus operandi. All of a sudden you could have police in the Northern Territory realise that there were similar offences committed in Victoria and then the agencies could start working together. This is very important. I go back to the Russell Street bombings. Sadly, this is where police Constable Angela Taylor died. This was just before my time in Victoria Police. The homicide investigators were trying to determine who the offenders were. They had the vehicle that had been used in the bombings. It was stored at Dawson Street. In those days there was the stolen motor vehicle squad. One of the detectives was walking through and out of curiosity looked at the car. He noticed that the vehicle left by the Russell Street bombers had very individual characteristics—I think there was drilling on the identification plate of the vehicle. The detective straightaway realised it was the same people they had been looking for 12 months ago for stealing cars. So then the investigation went from a homicide investigation to a stolen motor vehicle investigation, and that was how they eventually identified the offenders. This is the sort of thing this database can do if you have offences committed in one state and they wash right across the country. This is something I have been very excited about. I very much want to thank the Home Affairs minister, Mr Peter Dutton, who has invested $59 million over four years. We need the states and territories to get on board. I acknowledge Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou because this was one of the recommendations of the migration committee. The great news is that this recommendation has now come to light. It's great to see that the government is very much focused on this. This will be a game changer when it comes to law enforcement. I know Victoria Police and the AFP are very excited about this. It is such a great tool that will dramatically help law enforcement across the country. There is one thing I very much like about it. I was talking about gangs. Some 18 months or two years ago we had the Apex gang in Melbourne. This database will enable law enforcement to identify a potential gang that is emerging. Police officers can identify the gang and add to it. If the gang is growing quickly or becoming more violent then police can put more resources towards it. That was missing with the Apex gang. I again congratulate the minister, the PM and the Treasurer for ensuring this was included in the budget. It's an easy thing not to include in the budget, but law enforcement and security are so important to me. This is a great initiative. When it comes to infrastructure in Victoria, the government committed $1.75 billion towards the great North East Link Project. This connection is a key missing link in Melbourne's outer metropolitan road network. The project will create approximately 10,000 jobs and save 30 minutes of travel time. Rowville Rail is another project that has always been talked about but no federal government has ever decided to put funding towards. Even state governments have not put money towards it. This is a crucial project. The route would see trams running in the central median strip of Dandenong Road, along the Princes Highway and down the centre of Wellington Road, beyond EastLink to Stud Road. $3 million has been invested for the design and planning works to examine details such as locations, park-and-ride options, and the travel time benefits that will be very much needed at this stage. The route will carry roughly 3,000 people per hour in peak times. The project will create another 2,000 parking spaces at Melbourne railway stations. This is a very good project, because so many people need this to go to Monash University. The Turnbull government has also provided tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians: 17,800 taxpayers in La Trobe stand to benefit from low and middle income tax relief in the upcoming 2019 financial year. That's a very important part of the budget. When I talk to families, I hear that the Monash Freeway is a great concern of theirs. It's something I've been lobbying about for a number of years. The great news back in March 2016 was that we were able to secure $500 million from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The only annoying aspect is that the money came from the East West Link, which we're still committed to, but it was sitting there doing nothing, so we passed that money on to Daniel Andrews and the state Labor government. It's annoying that it has been sitting there for two years, and pretty much nothing has happened. Finally the state Labor government has committed to start the Monash Freeway Upgrade Stage 2. Stage 1 was from Clyde Road to the South Gippsland Highway. Stage 2 will be an extra lane from the South Gippsland Highway to Warrigal Road and from Kardinia Road to Clyde Road on the other side, where my electorate has this amazing growth in suburbs such as Officer and Clyde North. This project wasn't on the radar, and this is where I very much congratulate my federal Liberal Victorian colleagues and national members for understanding that, in an area growing so fast, we want the infrastructure to keep up. That's something all governments have always seemed to fail at. Very importantly, though, it also includes money for the Beaconsfield Interchange and the extension of O'Shea Road. This will make life so much easier for residents living in Berwick, but to be honest, it will just be keeping up with what we need. Back in 2007 I committed $10 million for overtaking lanes on Wellington Road between Clematis and Lysterfield; sadly, the Labor government diverted this funding when they got in power in 2010, and only $2 million was spent. I'm on a mission to finish the job we started, and I'm in the process of sending a survey to residents in Cockatoo, Gembrook and Emerald to see whether they want full overtaking lanes or a dual carriageway the whole way through. That's something I'm very focused on. The other big budget announcement was $5 billion for the airport rail project. All Victorians will be very excited about this. It's something that has been talked about for many years, and only the Turnbull government has decided to put its hand up and make this happen. I always say that it's embarrassing when international and interstate visitors come and have no rail connecting them from the airport to the CBD. We just want to catch up with the rest of the world. To me that's a great announcement. I will continue to listen to the residents of La Trobe when it comes to putting extra funding towards road and rail, and I'll be surveying my constituents again to find future road and rail projects for La Trobe. 12:30 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay It's great to be speaking on these appropriation bills, also known as 'filibustering by a government that doesn't actually have a program or any legislation that we could be otherwise debating in here'. I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about this budget that has just been handed down by this very out of touch and arrogant government because the people in Western Sydney—we were looking forward to something in the budget that may have— A government member: How's your citizenship? Ms HUSAR 263328 My citizenship is great—thanks for asking. Outrageous. I'll take that interjection, because clearly he's a constitutional expert. But look, to support a great future for the residents of Lindsay we need a government that is actually committed to Western Sydney, not a bloke who gets on a train to go out there every election cycle and who, when he gets a difficult question, decides to get in a car and scoot back off to where he came from. This is the same fellow who went out there but wouldn't advertise where he was going to be holding his community meeting. It was all clandestine because he didn't actually want to face the people of my community. If he did, he might find out something about the real world. This budget has been delivered and, after five years, you would think they'd had a good opportunity to take off the training wheels. Their L plates should firmly be in the back street. We should at least be riding with some P plates on. But, no, not this government, not PM Malcolm Turnbull. He defies all sense of normality when it comes to being a Prime Minister. He snubbed the Prime Minister's residence at Kirribilli; he's living in his Point Piper castle because Kirribilli is obviously not good enough for Malcolm Turnbull. And while he's over there in his Point Piper castle—not living in the real world—he's taken away crucial funding for high schools in my electorate. More than $1 million has been taken from Kingswood High School, which has about 20 per cent of Lindsay's Indigenous kids being educated there. It is also one of the lowest socioeconomic areas of my community. That school was doing marvellous things with the additional funding. We've seen $5.7 million ripped out of Nepean Hospital. For anybody who hasn't heard me speak about that place before, I will put on record this reminder: it is the most under pressure hospital in New South Wales. Why would you take money away from a hospital that is already doing it tough? That money equates to 220 knee operations. People in Lindsay have to wait three years for a knee operation, but over in the eastern part of Sydney they only wait about 23 days for the same operation. That money is also the equivalent of 8,500 patients being seen in the emergency department. But instead of funding hospitals and places like Kingswood High School, this bloke wants to give the big end of town an $80 billion tax cut—$17 billion of which will go to the big four banks. We haven't seen any arrests of these big banks' CEOs like we have with other royal commissions—I'm waiting for a raid on banks by the AFP to be televised. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see that happen because these people are friends of this government, so they're not going to be served with the justice that the people who have been victims of the banks' malpractices need to see. In spite of that, these tax cuts are still going to go to the big banks; $17 billion to the big banks. They've had five years to get it right, five years to come up with something that is halfway decent, but instead they do this. It just goes to show how arrogant and out of touch they really are. I'm incredibly disappointed in this budget and I'm disappointed on behalf of all of the residents that I work very hard to represent. It was a chance for him to set out his priorities for our nation, and to talk about the things that he wanted to change or the things that he felt needed to be improved. His priorities have failed the fairness test. It is clear that Liberals are putting everyday, hardworking Australians at the bottom of the barrel, but that is absolutely where those opposite should be put come the next election—and, indeed, in the by-elections that we have got coming up. I was given the ultimate honour of representing my community of Lindsay in 2016, and every day since then I have seen this government fail, fail and fail again the people of my community. Being in government is all about choices and priorities. I said that during my very first speech to this parliament, and it is something that I will continue to say as long as I am here. We tax around about the same amount and we collect around about the same amount of revenue, but it is up to us as to what we spend it on. When you see spending of $80 billion going to big banks and big multinationals and not to schools and hospitals, you have got to ask yourself where their priorities lie. They are not doing enough for what matters to everyday Australians. Locals in my community are struggling to make their pay cheques last. Wage growth, as we know and as we certainly talk about on this side, is at an all-type low. We just faced losing penalty rates and that affected a number of people in my community. Meanwhile, services are being cut left, right and centre. Labor has an alternative vision for this country. It is really great that a couple of members are here, and I do hope they spread the news far and wide. They have a clear plan to bring back the fair go to the heart of our nation. Government members interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 I can hear the interjections on the other side. If they did have a plan for a better Australia, we might actually be up here debating some of their proposed legislation rather than filibustering in Federation Chamber. Our plan is one that we can afford. When you are not handing out $80 billion in a big business tax cut, you can actually afford to deliver services. We did ask the Prime Minister and the Treasurer a number of times where this money was coming from and how much it was actually going to cost over 10 years. They had no answers. They were given opportunity after opportunity to give that answer and they refused. Now, we will reduce the taxes for low- and middle- income earners and invest in schools, hospitals, services that rely on Medicare, child care and aged care. Labor will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million Australians. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for O'Connor and the member for Bran will cease interjecting, and you most certainly will pay attention when the Deputy Speaker asks for your attention. Ms HUSAR 263328 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wasn't sure where that member was from. I have never heard him make a contribution before, so thank you for pointing out where he has actually come from. Labor will deliver bigger, fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Labor's tax refund for working Australians increases the tax cuts currently being offered under the government's current tax offset proposal. As our shadow Treasurer has said—I am proud to call him our shadow Treasurer—we will support the government measures that begin on 1 July this year. A Shorten Labor government will deliver bigger tax cuts from 1 July 2019, and they will be permanent. That's because we know that's how you actually help families and help the economy. With Labor, working and middle-class Australian also pay less tax because tax cuts for families are more important than an $80 billion tax giveaway to the donors of the Liberal Party. Everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger cut under Labor compared to the Liberals. I hear no interjections. Obviously, they know I am right. More than four million people will be better off by $398 dollars a year compared to under the Liberals. In the health space, the Turnbull government has cut $2.8 billion from hospitals. Now, as I said before, that is just over $5 million ripped out of the Nepean Hospital, affecting the delivery of really critical health services for the people of my community. There would not be a week that goes by that I am not contacted by somebody who has needed the services of the hospital. They constantly tell me about how overworked the doctors and the nurses are, how underfunded the hospital is and how we need to do better for the residents in my community. We need a great hospital in Lindsay. We have huge disease burden rates and the hospital is just not coping. When you cut $2.8 billion out of hospitals in favour of $80 billion for banks and multinationals in some trickle-down fantasy, this means longer wait times, longer waitlists and less doctors and nurses for every single patient. When you don't look after the health of your community—surprise, surprise—they can't go to work. Surprise, surprise, they can't get an education because they are too busy trying to get by when they are so critically unwell. What we have said to this government is they must drop their Medicare rebate freeze immediately. They must scrap the tampon tax once and for all. It is probably pretty hard to understand what that means with the low representation of women over on the other side. They also must fix the health insurance affordability crisis. We will cap the private health insurance premiums at two per cent over two years. I already mentioned the education inadequacies and the cuts to education. We know—certainly, I know, coming out of a background as a former aspiring teacher—a great lifetime begins with a great education. We believe that it should not be determined by where you live or who your parents are. This government is cutting $17 billion from schools. Now, that is not logic that actually supports a ticket to a lifetime of good opportunity. In Lindsay, we will be $21 million a year worse off, thanks to these funding cuts. There will be $1.2 million out Cambridge Park High School, $1 million out of St Marys North Public School, $1.1 million out of Kingswood High School and $1.7 million out of schools in Emu Plains. The schools in Lindsay are crying out for resources. I know firsthand that Cambridge Park High School, which I just referred to, was able to teach a group of year 9 boys how to read with the extra funding that they were given under the Gonski funding model, which saw more money flowing into schools. That program and others like it will not be able to come to fruition in the next few years, because of these cuts. It is incredibly galling to me to see Malcolm Turnbull take funding away from the education of our kids to pay for these massive handouts that are going to multinationals, millionaires and the big banks. I want to know: how is Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, actually able to look at himself in the mirror and justify making it easier for big business to pay less tax rather than supporting some of our most vulnerable Australians? Only Labor will restore the fair, needs based funding and replace the full $17 billion that we have seen cut out of the education system. We also have a crisis in TAFE. Out in my area, TAFE is one of the most preferred methods of tertiary education, but in this budget we've seen another $270 million of new cuts to TAFE, on top of the $3 billion that has already been ripped out of TAFE. The government is just going in there and gouging it out. Instead of investing in local jobs and skills, instead of investing in people, the government continues to cut funding and vocational education. Since the Liberals came to office, there are 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in Australia—that is, 140,000 fewer than when you guys came to office. These cuts have affected my community. The decline in the number of apprentices and trainees is about 37 per cent, and it is continuing to climb. The Liberals are failing to support the apprentices and the trainees, yet again, and are relying on 457 visa workers to come into this country and fill what is going to be a huge skills shortage in future years. We have said that we are going to invest $470 million to boost TAFE apprenticeships and skills for Australians. The Liberals are cutting $2.2 billion out of the entire university budget—that is $98 million out of Western Sydney University, of which I am a very proud alumni, and 10,000 fewer student places next year. A huge number of the students who go to the University of Western Sydney are female. Another huge cohort at that university are those who are the first in their families to go to university. They are not blooded into this system. They have overcome many things in their lives, and they are the first in their families to go to university. When you cut $98 million out of a university that is providing those kinds of opportunities, you are not really giving those people a fair go or a ticket to a lifetime of opportunity. Instead, you are going to give the multinationals an $80 billion lifetime to an opportunity at something, which is probably for their shareholders, their corporates and the pay of the CEOs. Honourable members interjecting— Ms HUSAR 263328 Oh, you know, 'all of those mum and dad shareholders' is what I am hearing on the other side. The other area of concern for me is the $2 billion cut from residential aged care. The government have dumped the $1.2 billion workforce compact and supplement. There are 105,000 older Australians who have been left waiting for care at home. For four years, the government have tried to increase the pension age, as we know, to 70. It might be fine if you have been a banker all your life to work until you are 70, but if you've been a brickie, a mechanic climbing under cars or a truckie climbing in and out of the cabs of a truck, it is probably not going to be in your best interest or your physical health to work until you are 70; if you are a banker, maybe that is okay. We've fought and we're going to continue to fight the government's proposal to make people wait until they are 70 before they can access the age pension. In its first four years, 375,000 Australians will have to wait longer before they can access the pension. This is a $3.6 billion hit to the retirement income of Australians. I hear that those on the other side of the chamber are so concerned about shareholders, but how about $3.6 billion towards the retirement of older people who have worked their whole life in this country? We see that the government are cutting $7 each week out of the energy supplement. They are cutting $7 a week from the pensioners of this country. We cannot trust a single word that this Prime Minister says. He's more interested in an $80 billion tax break to big business and the banks than he is in helping out the pensioners of this country, who have earned their pension. It should also come as no surprise that there is no comprehensive strategy to deal with people movement in Western Sydney. We have a Liberal government in New South Wales who just want to toll and toll and toll their way to prosperity. We've seen this government come up with an airport plan for Western Sydney, but no infrastructure to go with it, and no money to build the railway line. We had a really fanciful announcement, but there was just $50 million in that budget to prepare a business case—not to actually lay a single piece of the rail line that is needed or the infrastructure. That is $50 million just to prepare a business case. This government are not doing enough. They're letting down the people of my community, and I'm going to fight that every single day. 12:45 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance on preparing what has been a great budget for my electorate of O'Connor. It's the culmination of five years of hard work on behalf of the government—a plan that has us on a realistic trajectory back into surplus. Given the situation that we inherited in 2013, with a $48.5 billion deficit, to get us on track to be back into surplus next year is an extraordinary achievement and, once again, I applaud the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for their hard work. Part of that plan has been to get Australians back into work. In the last 12 months we've seen 413,000 jobs created, with 75 per cent of them full-time jobs. And as a former great Prime Minister said, 'The best form of welfare is getting people into work.' That's what this government has done and that's what this government is doing. In relation to my electorate, which is home to 19,200 small businesses, we are seeing that plan really come to fruition. In the town of Kalgoorlie, the capital of the Goldfields and the capital of the goldmining industry in Western Australia, we see unemployment at 3.1 per cent. I'd like to say that that has fallen, but Kalgoorlie has been in full employment now for some time. The local chamber of commerce up there have identified around a thousand unfilled jobs, so I'd love to see some of the people from Western Sydney or other parts of the country who aren't finding work to maybe look at the option of coming to towns like Kalgoorlie. There are very well-paid jobs, a wonderful community and we'd love to see them. If there is high unemployment in those areas then we'd love to see them move to towns like Kalgoorlie. Or, indeed, the town of Esperance. It's a beautiful coastal town with a population of 14,000 and it has an unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent. I'm struggling to think of a better place to live. Perhaps Albany, which is the largest town in my electorate. It has an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent. And all of those jobs have been created by small businesses. We don't have large multinationals—the much-hated multinationals. We just have 19,200 small businesses. They are benefiting from our tax cuts, they are reinvesting those tax cuts in their businesses and they are employing local people. That's the plan that the government has put in place, and that plan is now starting to show fruition across the rest of the country. A big part of supporting those small businesses has been to extend the $20,000 instant asset write-off, which not only benefits the small business which might be upgrading its equipment—the restaurant that's buying some new cooking equipment and so on—but it also benefits those businesses that supply those products. So that has been a wonderful asset to the business community across O'Connor, and over a thousand businesses have taken advantage of these measures. Of course, the farming sector is very important across my electorate. Once again, they have taken advantage of that $20,000 instant write-off. There is a whole range of locally manufactured products, like silos, field bins, sheepfeeders and all of that sort of equipment that's used on farms. They're manufactured locally by local businesses, such as Birds Silos in Popanyinning. Popanyinning is a town of about 50 people, and about 20 of them work in that particular business. It's a great business, and they're benefiting from that instant asset write-off, because their sales have gone through the roof. We're also trying to work our way through red-tape reduction, which has been a big part of this government's agenda, and we'll continue to do so. Small businessman don't want to spend all of their lives filling out forms and dealing with red tape; they want to get on with doing what they do, manufacturing great products across my electorate and creating jobs and profit for themselves. Through our free trade agreements we're also boosting exports. The wine sector across my electorate—the regions of Plantagenet and the southern forests—produces wonderful wines that are now being exported in huge volumes, particularly to China. China is taking more and more of our wines. I think we're up about 50 per cent by volume and about 100 per cent by value, so it's a terrific result. We're seeing some of the fruits of our free trade agreements. We're also investing another $335 million in skilling the Australian workforce. Obviously, training people is important. We are struggling to attract skilled labour to my region. As I said, there are wonderful towns with plenty of well-paid jobs, but, unfortunately, we're seeing people concentrate in places like Western Sydney. We want to skill them up and get them working in our regions. I was out on the road last week selling the budget and meeting with various chambers of commerce and other groups. The budget was extremely well received, particularly because of our tax relief. Over 61,000 people in O'Connor will benefit from the government's tax relief—up to $530 for someone earning between $48,000 and $90,000, so for an average family that could be up to $1,060. The point I made to the chambers of commerce is that this money will stay in their communities. If it goes to Canberra, they're not going to see it all come back. They might see some come back in the form of infrastructure funding or whatever, but essentially they're never going to see that $1,060 come back to their communities. If we can leave that in people's pockets, they will spend it in the community and that will increase economic activity and provide more jobs and wealth in our communities. That's what we're about—creating wealth in those communities. We've also made changes to superannuation. I've always thought it very pernicious that a young person in their first casual job, while studying or still at school, has their compulsory superannuation contribution paid into a fund—it's a small amount of money—and that fund tends to charge fees and also often charges for compulsory life insurance when that young person obviously doesn't need life insurance at that stage of their life. So we've made some changes to make that illegal. That will leave more money in those young people's superannuation funds so that that balance continues to build for the rest of their working lives. We're also making changes to self-managed super funds. The limit of four people in a fund will be changed to six people in a fund. I think that will benefit family businesses in particular who want to keep family members together in a fund and pool their resources. It also allows for succession planning. Parents in a business can transition and allow the younger people in the family to take over. The super fund acts as a tool to allow that succession planning. We're also delivering affordable and accessible child care with no annual limits on the childcare subsidy for families earning up to $187,000. As I've pointed out, we've got very low unemployment. We're looking for everybody to get back into the workforce in towns across my electorate. Allowing people, particularly obviously women, to access that child care and get back in the workforce is a major part of our plan. One of the key features in the budget—and this is particularly pleasing for me because I've done a lot of work on this—is the overhaul of the independent youth allowance scheme. We've raised the parental income cap from $150,000 to $160,000 and we're allowing $10,000 per additional child. I'll explain this. A young person who does a 14-month gap year—another initiative of this government—earns $23,500 and then applies for the independent youth allowance has often been found to be ineligible because their combined parental income is in excess of $150,000. As we know, $150,000 is, effectively, two median wages—it might be a policeman and a nurse. These are people who are not considered wealthy, by any stretch of the imagination, but they are being told that their child doesn't qualify for youth allowance. Raising that cap to $160,000 and allowing an extra $10,000 per child, which, for a family of three children, lifts that rate to $180,000 is a marked improvement, but I'll be working, together with my regional colleagues and the Treasurer, to have that cap lifted further or removed completely in future years. We've put in an additional $440 million to support 15 hours of quality preschool for all children. Preschool is a very important aspect of early childhood education. My wife, who is an early childhood educator, would very much support that move, and, hopefully, we will see that rolled out across O'Connor. We have seen 29 childcare and early-learning centres share in more than $6.7 million in the Community Child Care Fund. Just the other day I visited the Willi Wagtails Childcare Centre in Williams. It's a great little facility there. There are only 12 kids, because it's a small town. This money is helping them develop a plan that will guarantee their long-term viability. It's giving them three years of funding to assist the transition to that phase. We also dropped into the Narrogin childcare centre. Once again, it is a great facility. It services the Upper Great Southern region. They have shared in this funding to transition to a more sustainable funding model in the future. With fair and needs based funding for schools—it has been referred to as Gonski 2—we have seen a 6.7 per cent increase in funding for schools across my electorate of O'Connor. In Gonski 1, the original Gonski deal—as the member for Brand would be well aware—Western Australia did very poorly. There were 23 or maybe 27 separate deals done around the country, and Western Australia missed out very badly. So Gonski 2, which has seen a 6.7 per cent funding increase across the board in my electorate, is wonderful news. We are blessed with a wonderful range of schools and educational opportunities across O'Connor, and I am very pleased to see that funding increase across the board. The $247 million to continue the Schools Chaplaincy Program is one of the features in the budget that has been well received. I have spoken to many school principals, many of whom you probably wouldn't think would necessarily be supporters of the conservative government or voters for me. But one thing they have in common is that they strongly support the School Chaplaincy Program, because of the pastoral care that those chaplains offer the kids in their schools. They see it as an absolutely essential part of the make-up of their schools now, and they are very, very happy we have extended that funding. Brent Findlay and his crew of 20 chaplains across the Albany region do a fantastic job. I've met with them on several occasions, and for them it's great news they have some funding going forward and some surety about their own futures. We are also are assisting regional students with 685 additional Commonwealth supported places for students studying regionally. The other headline feature that was very well received as I travelled around the electorate talking about the budget was that we have fully funded the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's a wonderful program. It had bipartisan support, but when we came into government in late 2013 it was discovered that there was no funding allowed in the forward estimates for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. So, it's wonderful news that the Treasurer was able to announce that it is now fully funded and will be rolled out in parts of my electorate from 1 October. I had the pleasure of taking Minister Tehan, the Minister for Social Services, to Kalgoorlie on Monday last week on Monday to meet with the Goldfields Individual and Family Support Association, which is run by CEO Robert Hicks. The Chair, Graham Thomson, was there as well as other board members. They had the opportunity to tell the minister about some of the challenges that they might be facing rolling out the National Disability Insurance Scheme in some of our more remote communities. They operate from Kalgoorlie 1,000 kilometres north to Warburton, and there are some particular issues around some of the Indigenous communities and how we're going to roll the scheme out there. They got a very good hearing from the minister, and I'm sure they will continue to work to make whatever changes we need to make sure those people get the services they deserve. Affordable access to life-saving medication: there's a whole new range of drugs that have been added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I want to touch on one area that is not new, but is great news. I see it making a difference to families. (Time expired) 13:00 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak on the appropriation bills of the 2018 budget. Like every other Liberal budget—we've heard this over the last couple of weeks—it fails the fairness test. An $80 billion dollar tax handout to big business, including $17 billion to big banks; at the same time, savage cuts to schools and hospitals, and secret deals with Pauline Hanson, who is running our economic policy, apparently. It is not only unfair; it is short-sighted. One of the areas where the coalition demonstrate this short-sightedness is in the cuts to the development assistance part of the budget. It's not often discussed, but they have effectively sacrificed long-term regional security for short-term political expediency. We've heard all the recent news about China's interest in a potential military base in Vanuatu. I don't know whether that's true or not—it's unverified. It's just the latest in a pattern of emerging powers using aid in the Pacific to assert their geopolitical influence. Now this is being extended to potential military bases. We know that the geostrategic outlook for Australia and our region is uncertain and unpredictable. We need to integrate better all tools of state craft—development, defence and diplomacy, the three Ds—to safeguard our future in the region. The Turnbull government, and certainly foreign minister Julie Bishop, in overseeing a dramatic decline in our development assistance budget, have turned their back on this region and diminished our standing in the world and our influence. They have left critical tools of state craft unused and sitting idle in the toolbox. In contrast, under the previous Labor governments, Australia's aid contributions grew at an average of seven per cent per year between 2007 and 2013. In 2012-13, under the Labor government, Australia's foreign aid budget reached its highest level ever, just above $5 billion. Yet this coalition government have cut $11.3 billion, ripped out of Australia's foreign aid budget over the past five years. Under this coalition government, since 2013 in cumulative terms that is a cut of just over 32.8 per cent of the aid budget since 2013-14. Under this coalition government Australia's proportion of aid spending is now at its lowest level on record. It is 22 cents out of every hundred dollars of national income or 0.22 per cent of gross national income. It is projected to fall even further to 0.19 per cent of GNI by 2020-2121. Under this coalition government AusAID was dismantled and dispersed into DFAT, which led to the loss of experienced aid management staff. Under this coalition government, the percentage of Australia's aid budget funnelled to managing contractors has grown to 20 per cent of all development assistance, and under this government foreign aid will be cut by a further $110 million over four years after the previous deep cuts in 2018. It's little wonder that the former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said last year on this topic: When your development budget is at an all-time low, which it is right now, it feels like Australia is not taking its place in the world… We miss Australia. Australia should be big influential, taking your space, helping with humanitarian issues and disasters. It didn't have to be this way. Either the coalition government fundamentally misunderstands or is wilfully blind to the fact that our aid and development assistance is critical to our national interest. If it is wilfully blind, it is blind to the fact that aid lifts millions out of poverty and works to create stability and security in our region and across the world. If they're wilfully blind, it can only be in order to direct their narrow, myopic vision to short-term raids on the aid budget to plug the gaping holes in their policy and budgetary agenda. It's no excuse for Julie Bishop to argue that aid to the Indo-Pacific has been maintained in nominal terms with only a small cut in real terms, because these cuts that have been made have impacted sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. They could all, of course, have been invested into PNG and the Pacific regions if the government were so inclined to focus more on our region. In the wider Pacific, Australia is by far the largest donor of international development assistance, providing over $1 billion a year. Indeed, in the Pacific there are 10 nations whose principle relationship in the world is with Australia. Pacific funding in this budget has gone up to $1.3 billion, but around $200 million of that is for an underground communications cable. While that's important, this spending really does hide the cuts to education and health that we've seen in the Pacific. Labor is not blind to the importance of aid to our national interest, nor its interrelated importance to humanitarian objectives. In fact, we can see the possibility that they are not mutually exclusive and that both can be achieved. There has been an acknowledgement of, and I think there is, a demonstrable link between the aid program and Australia's national interests. A report by Save the Children highlighted through statistics that inequality harms economic growth because it is a barrier to sustainable and inclusive growth and it entrenches discrimination, undermining social and political cohesion. It creates the conditions for political and social tensions, instability and conflict. On issues around gender, Labor has consistently articulated a clear vision in relation to the importance of foreign development assistance in addressing gender equality. Throughout the developing world, women are confronted with a plethora of basic challenges that Australia ought to play a role in addressing through our provision of development assistance. This includes efforts to promote women's human rights in accordance with the Convention for Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. For instance, Australia's foreign aid contribution can have a meaningful impact on promoting women's empowerment by funding educational programs and initiatives aimed at ensuring that women have fair and equal access to education, training and employment. Labor supports eliminating the cultural and economic barriers faced by children, and, in particular, girls, attending school, such as child labour, child trafficking, child marriage, safety to and from school, community attitudes and teaching practices. With respect to climate change, our development budget is effectively silent—the government's budget is effectively silent on this. Yet it is incumbent on all of us to play our part in addressing climate change. This is particularly so within the context of its impact on our Pacific neighbours. In the Pacific, the impact of climate change has the potential to actually reverse the reduction in poverty that has been made in the past 30 years. While a sea rise of a few centimetres would have an impact for us here in Australia, certainly, those same changes would be catastrophic and absolutely devastating, for example, to the people of Tuvalu. Indeed, according to some predictions, several island nations may cease to exist as we know them today in the span of just a few decades. And yet the recent OECD report noted that Australia spends less on development supporting climate change than many other OECD countries: 13 per cent of Australian aid in 2015, compared to 26.2 per cent average for all of the other OECD countries. Conservative estimates indicate that the impacts of climate change will result in more than 100 million additional people being pushed into poverty by 2030. So, unless you are the coalition government, there is little doubt that climate change and climate-change-related disasters clearly pose risks to economic growth, poverty reduction, education, health and regional security in the Pacific. Addressing climate change is imperative if Australia is to mitigate the long-term cost of having to make adequate provision for the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing the impacts of that change. Senator Wong, in the other place, our shadow foreign minister, has noted: If our development assistance program is seeking to grow the social and human capital that lifts people out of poverty while the consequences of climate change continue to undermine that outcome, then disaster risk reduction must become a more prominent feature of our development assistance planning. Climate change impacts every aspect of the Australian Aid Program such that we cannot be serious about tackling poverty in our region if we are not serious about tackling climate change. And this government is not serious. In fact, they're going backwards as far as their discussion of climate change goes. The issue of climate change is even being factored into defence planning. The 2016 Defence white paper mentioned climate change eight times, and warned: Climate change will be a major challenge for countries in Australia’s immediate region. From a Defence perspective, this could exacerbate conflict and fragility issues in the Pacific Island states. To address the strategic consequences of this issue, particularly with the increasing influence of outside actors with interests that are inimical to ours, it's important for Australia to: … help support the development of national resilience in the region to reduce the likelihood of instability. That assistance includes defence cooperation, aid, policing and building regional organisations. The ADF expects to be called upon more and more to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. That is as a direct consequence of what we are seeing with climate change in the Pacific. Balancing our humanitarian and our moral objectives with our more pragmatic political objectives, which are often tied to the national interest, is a difficult process, but there is a need to get that balance right. People familiar with the Venn diagram would note that there's a crossover point. If we can get our objectives—the geopolitical, the humanitarian and the business—all aligned in that crossover point in the Venn diagram, it shows where you get peak effectiveness and efficacy of our aid program. On business, too, there are efforts to partner in developments with companies already on the ground, to leverage private capital flows, ensuring enhanced dividends on commercial enterprises and development working together. We need to understand what our national interest is, and why it's so. This is, of course, always open to analysis and debate. Senator Wong has articulated Labor's position on this: the security of the nation and its people; the economic prosperity of the nation and its people; a stable, cooperative, strategic system in our region anchored in the rule of law; constructive internationalism; and, of course, our values, which she points out: compassion, equity, inclusion, and mutual respect. These need to find expression in the rule of law, in the principle of the rule of law. That is, of course, the basis of our democratic practice and, as she points out, the social contract between the government and the people. To answer the question: why do we invest in development assistance in our budgets? It is because it is unquestionably in Australia's interest to create a more stable and secure world by helping to reduce poverty, to improve health and education, and to fight inequality. Senator Wong also acknowledges that both developed and developing countries have something to offer each other and to learn from each other when it comes to ensuring equality and prosperity. This is the essence of social and human capital development. A lot of studies have been done on aid and development assistance. Some of them refer to the head and the heart as the philosophies behind humanitarian assistance. The heart is the compassion, the moral underpinning of our aid programs. You could argue it's intrinsically linked to the Australian spirit and to the boundless plains that we want to share with people—our Australian values that promote egalitarianism and fairness. The head is the logical. The evidence based benefits of an effective aid program are trade, security, stability and prosperity. Labor has agreed to improve the Australian aid program because we understand both the head and the heart of development assistance policy. Development is a critical tool of state craft and it works with the other tools at our disposal. Diplomacy and development, if successful, can establish peace and security in our region. You then don't need the sharp end of the spear, which is defence—the third D. The military is and always should be the last resort. But we increase the chances of having to reach into that defence tool if we don't use the other tools at our disposal well enough. This government is not doing that. Even General Mattis, President Trump's Secretary of Defense—who was described in a recent New York Times article as a person who was dismissed as a warmonger by the Obama presidency—someone you wouldn't really associate with supporting aid and development assistance, said in a summary of his views on statecraft and diplomacy, in 2013: If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. That's very true. There's elemental truth in this. If you don't fund development assistance and diplomacy, by extension you will need to utilise the tools of statecraft, such as defence, and you'll spend more on it. At a relatively low-cost alternative to force projection, foreign aid and development can help to achieve our national interest goals in the Indo-Pacific. From the national security and defence perspective, funding programs intended to reduce poverty, improve access to education, enhance standards of living, can reduce the conditions for radicalism. In responding to potential cuts to aid, Allan Gyngell, a former head of the ONA, said: Why is it that instruments of deterrence, the instruments of war-fighting, the instruments of national security—all of them—are considered a legitimate expenditure of taxpayers money but instruments of persuasion are not? It's a very good question. As a democracy, we should seek to promote the welfare of our neighbours. We can utilise the tools, the three Ds, especially development, to avoid the unnecessary violence and civilian strife these countries may fall into. Balancing our objectives—humanitarian, moral and political—and tying them to the national interest is something that we can do with a healthy development assistance budget. I'll say this: we can look to examples globally. You've got a conservative government in the UK that has successfully committed to 0.7 per cent GNI for its development spending. That government was put under enormous pressure to reduce that—some of the issues that Oxfam had. The UK government and Theresa May still stood firm and said, 'We are not going to cut our development budget.' They legislated for 0.7 per cent of GNI. At least that conservative government is doing the right thing and standing on principle. I think it's an example that this government should look at and take note of. The Australian Labor Party has committed to a national platform of 0.5 per cent of GNI. I'd like it to go beyond that, but we have a very good target to aim for. We engaged with the international development sector to do that work. My colleague the member for Brand here, among many other MPs, worked with NGOs in the sector on the important policy issues we need to deal with if we are to form government. We are committed to the development assistance budget for our neighbours and for the world. 13:15 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I rise today to speak in support of these appropriation bills for a stronger economy, more jobs, tax relief for hardworking Australians and guaranteeing the essential services upon which Australians rely. Importantly, the coalition is ensuring that the government lives within its means. Let me be clear: the Turnbull coalition government is delivering for all Australians. No matter where you live in our amazing country, no matter what your line of work, no matter the size of your family, you will benefit from strong coalition policies. These policies promote the values of hard work, fairness and looking after those least able to support themselves. Those living in my electorate of Ryan know all too well the benefits of good government policy, which seems to occur only under coalition leadership. It does not matter whether you are a small business owner, a parent using childcare or a superannuant downsizing their home; they all have one thing in common: confidence and prosperity as a result of well-grounded coalition policies. My constituents and the wider Australian public care about the future of our children, the cost of living, and ensuring their hard work does not go to waste, but in reality, if those opposite achieve government then Australians should worry about those basic tenets. The Ryan electorate is home to world-class facilities at the University of Queensland. With cutting-edge research and innovation being undertaken, their achievements on a worldwide scale continue to materialise. As the member for Ryan I have continually advocated for funding to support science, innovation, research and commercialisation at local universities. I am proud that the prestigious University of Queensland, ranked 55th in the top universities of the world and in the top 10 for commercialisation, has increased its successes through direct assistance from the coalition government. Only recently three University of Queensland professors were successful recipients of funding through the Medical Research Future Fund. With a combined total of more than $5 million, this funding supports the work of Professor Gandhi into a study of brain lymphomas, Professor Claire Wainwright and her clinical trial into multi-drug resistant organisms, and Professor Janet Hardy, whose study will examine the use of medicinal cannabinoids for advanced cancer patients. This very research undertaken at the University of Queensland will likely contribute to longer, healthier lives for Australians and people worldwide. I consider this a significant achievement to which I have contributed through advocacy and funding support as part of the coalition government. UQ is also home to other state-of-the-art research facilities, including the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, and the Queensland Brain Institute. Research like that by Dr Kate Schroder, whose breakthroughs in cell biology and molecular medicine are paving the way for cures and treatments for diseases like Parkinson's, is inspiring confidence for millions of sufferers globally. The development of the HPV vaccine by Professor Ian Frazer, Professor Maree Smith's oral treatment for chronic pain, and Professor Mark Kendall's nanopatch immunisation technology are all achievements of a well-supported sector underpinned by strong government policy and investment. I cannot claim to be part of UQ's world-leading research, but I feel honoured to have been their federal member during some remarkable advancements. Following the recent redistribution in Queensland, postcode 4306 is no longer part of the Ryan electorate. I would like to talk briefly about my contribution to this mammoth, David-versus-Goliath fight. During my eight years as the federal member for Ryan, I have continually engaged with local residents in Karana Downs, Kholo and Mount Crosby, for whom their postcode causes mass confusion on a daily basis. Following on from work commenced almost 20 years ago by Bruce Scott, the former member for Maranoa, I've called on Australia Post to review this age-old issue. I'm pleased to report back to the House that some progress has been made. Given the dense population and growth of the southern zone of postcode 4306, Australia Post is actively looking for a site in the Ipswich area to create a new Australia Post delivery centre to optimise delivery services. Some postcode redistribution will be necessary when a site becomes operational. While this still does not resolve the matter immediately, despite what many of us see as an obvious solution, it certainly shows some light at the end of this 20-plus-year conundrum. The electorate of Ryan is home to a diverse range of community groups which support the local region and contribute to social cohesion and culture. These community groups are run by dedicated volunteers, many of whom have jobs and family commitments as well. So it is vital that they receive government backing to continue their work. The Stronger Communities Program—an initiative of the coalition government—has provided me with opportunities to further assist local community groups and not-for-profit organisations through often much-needed grant funding. The latest round of SCP funding, round 3, saw 11 Ryan community groups successfully awarded funding. For a small investment, community projects deliver immense benefits. The Bardon Girl Guides sought funds for an extension to their hut. This facility is also used by other community organisations for their activities and provides an inclusive environment to foster female participation. With an ever-increasing demand on their playing fields and seeking to grow participation, the Bardon Latrobe Football Club and Taringa Rovers soccer club were successful in their bids to upgrade facilities for equipment and fields for play. Wests Brisbane Junior Rugby League have received vital funds to upgrade water facilities at Purtell Park. In the hot and humid Queensland summers, the situation has become unbearable for two local groups. Firstly, Ewaste Connection, which provides people living with disability an opportunity to learn and engage with others by recycling electronic waste, have been successful in their bid for funding to install a much-needed air-conditioner to keep participants cool, calm and on the job. The local Vinnies at Grovely in my electorate has also struggled through hot summers. Volunteers and customers alike work and shop in steamy conditions. As a result of this SCP round, Vinnies at Grovely will soon be installing new air-conditioning. The local Moggill Pony Club has very poor stable facilities, with white ant infestations. Through community fundraising and support, and some SCP funding, the club is in the process of constructing some brand-new, fit-for-purpose stables. I recently enjoyed officially opening these stables at their first club day for 2018. A big thankyou must go to local supporters James and Clare Robinson for the work their business did to demolish the former stables and construct the new ones. A number of school P&C committees applied for funding as well, for projects which benefit their wider local communities. St Joseph's at Bardon is currently repurposing their library for community book clubs and community playgroups. St Andrew's Catholic School at Ferny Grove is also upgrading their sports oval with disability access. This will create a more inclusive space for the wider community to enjoy. And I must not forget the Pullenvale Progress Association, which is using their SCP funds to upgrade the facilities around the historic Pullenvale Hall. Help Enterprises, in association with the McIntyre Centre Riding for Disabled, is constructing disability access pathways at the centre for safer access for those participating. Congratulations to everyone who successfully applied and are now delivering stronger communities for everyone. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank all volunteers in the Ryan electorate for your ongoing dedication and contribution to our wonderful area. Volunteers truly are the glue that binds our community. Earlier this year, I attended the annual Gaythorne RSL volunteers dinner, which celebrates their volunteers and the highly valued support of this age-old establishment and close-knit community. President Merv Brown OAM has worked tirelessly to keep this sub-branch connected with the local community and schools. In fact, it is with sadness that Merv steps down as president of the Gaythorne RSL after 11 years of continued service. From a distinguished career in the Australian Army, through to his community ties, Merv has been a significant advocate and voice for the veteran and widow communities. Merv truly espouses the values of the RSL. I congratulate him on his achievements and thank him for his service. No matter where you travel throughout Australia, volunteers are always in great demand. From volunteering at local sporting clubs and charities through to assisting people living with disability, the immense pride and sense of achievement gained by this type of unpaid work is fulfilling. And while on the topic of our Defence community, I recently had the privilege of attending the farewell parade for troops from 7th Brigade at Gallipoli Barracks, who are deploying as part of Task Force Taji. As the mother of a son currently serving in the Army, I'm all too familiar with the emotions of these events. In March, the Prime Minister announced Rheinmetall was the successful proponent selected to deliver Australia's new combat reconnaissance vehicle, the Boxer, for Land 400 phase 2 mounted combat reconnaissance capability. During the 30-year life of the vehicles, Australian industry will deliver two-thirds, or $10.2 billion, of the acquisition and sustainment, creating up to 1,450 new jobs right across Australia. With Rheinmetall basing its manufacturing hub in South-East Queensland, local Australian-based businesses will support this major manufacturing and outfitting work. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to my good friend Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, who will continue his service to Australia as Chief of Defence Force starting in July. Lieutenant General Campbell has demonstrated the leadership and experience vital for this role. At the same time, Major General Rick Burr will assume Lieutenant General Campbell's position as Chief of Army. I compliment him on his career to date, which I'm sure will prove valuable in this role. My appreciation also goes to outgoing Chief of Defence, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, who has made an outstanding contribution at the helm of the ADF. When it comes to hard work and making contributions to Ryan, I acknowledge the determination of the more than 17,000 registered small businesses in my electorate. It cannot be forgotten that their contribution to the local economy and larger Australian economy is nothing short of significant. With business tax cuts, the very welcome $20,000 instant asset write-off, and red tape reduction to name just a few, I am proud to be a member of a government that is doing everything it can to ensure the future success of small business. I have many mum-and-dad small businesses locally that can now see a future for their operations as a direct result of coalition policy. Small businesses like newsXpress Kenmore, the Clean Bean Espresso Bar at Gaythorne and Ultra Tune at Indooroopilly are all enjoying the benefits of coalition policy supporting small business. Unlike Labor—a threat to business, employment and investment in Australia—the coalition is getting on with the job of working with the sector, which strengthens our growing economy. However, there is one thing that stands in the way of business, small business and overall success: the renegade unions. I cannot tell you how often my office receives calls from local business owners, and even some employees, who struggle with unionised work sites. In fact, recently one local constituent told my staff he was a Labor voter, but could not stand the turmoil his business was facing at the hands of thugs, ruffians and generally abrasive union members. The very fact that those opposite are working at the behest of their union puppet masters gives a clear indication to all Australians that their interests are not in supporting families; they are in the back pocket of union bosses. When will Labor realise that business confidence, investment growth and employment growth rely on a stable economy? Plucking money from the mystic money tree and using tips from the book of magic pudding economics simply do not work. Australians are not fooled by those opposite, who would squander their futures and the economic prosperity built by the coalition government. We have seen time and time again the ALP plague Australia with poorly-formed policy and economic mismanagement akin to an adult with mountains of credit card debt who constantly shifts debt from one card to another. It is the hardworking mums and dads in small business who are on the receiving end of Labor's attacks and unfair policy. These bills are integral to ensure the continuity of the government's programs. As a strong coalition government, we are ensuring that Australia's taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. Unlike those opposite, we are creating a stronger future for Australians: for their safety, their health, their education and their employment prospects. We are creating foundations for investment in this country, we are reducing Labor's debt, and we are providing for those least able to do so. Unlike the Labor governments of the past and the unions that those opposite represent, this coalition is delivering. I recently received an email from a local constituent comparing Anzac Day to Labor Day and questioning why Anzac receives more attention. This is the vile vitriol of those individuals in the unions which support the opposition leader. I have grown a thick skin during my time in politics, but it truly hurts deeply when some Australians believe that unions should be recognised on a par with veterans and members of our defence forces. I have had pleasure serving the people of Ryan for the past eight years. During this time, I have established lifelong partnerships with people from all walks of life, and I feel privileged to have been able to deliver so many benefits for them and their families. I commend these bills to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the member for Ryan and also note her service to the electorate of Ryan for the last eight years. Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:06 16:06 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to talk about the appropriation bills, which are the budget bills for the government. This affords me a good opportunity to talk about the priorities for my electorate and my region of Lake Macquarie and northern Central Coast. I'd like to start my contribution today by reflecting on a picture of what my electorate is like. When you look at the budget and everything that's in it, its priorities, you'd assume that the typical worker in Australia earns $100,000, or $200,000 as the case may be, and that families earn much more than that. That's where the tax cuts are targeted, and that's where those opposite seem to think people are residing in terms of affordability. The true picture is very different for my electorate. The true picture for my electorate is that the median worker—so if you lined up every single worker in my electorate end-to-end and picked the 50th percentile, the person in the middle—earns $47,300. Half of all my workers earn less than $47,300; half of all my workers earn more. The median household income in my electorate, including retired households, is $65,000—that is, they live on $65,000 a year. A very high number of pensioners, about 22,000, reside in Shortland—it's a fabulous place to retire to—and the average retiree household survives on $32,000 a year. That's for a couple; that's not for an individual. The median retiree household in Shortland lives on $32,000 a year. The median household assets for retired couples is $650,000. This includes the family home and all their assets, including car, couch, furniture, clothing and everything else. And the median super balance for retired households in my electorate is $165,000. It's very important to put these facts on the record, because this goes to who the people of Shortland are and what their priorities are, and it is my job to reflect and to deliver on their priorities. I regret to say that one in five children in my electorate will go to school at least once a year without a meal, without having breakfast—not because they didn't want Corn Flakes or Weet-Bix, but because their family could not afford to have food in the fridge for breakfast. This is a sad indictment on our society, and it's an indictment that, along with every other member of the Labor team, I am intent on rectifying. That's the true picture of the people of Shortland. I want to now go to some of their priorities. The No. 1 priority for the people of Shortland is affordable health care: being able to see a doctor when you're sick; being able to get into the hospital when, heaven forbid, something's happened to your child or your grandparent or your mother or your father. I'm sad to say that this government's budget bills contain $715 million of cuts to hospitals around the country, including $37 million of cuts to hospitals in my region. That is already having an impact. For example, waitlists are increasing and only 66 per cent of urgent emergency department patients are seen within the recommended 30 minutes. These cuts are having an impact, and it's something we need to rectify. That's why I'm so proud that the Labor opposition, in our budget-in-reply speech by Bill Shorten, announced $2.8 billion of additional funding for public hospitals and $80 million for 20 new MRI machines in regional hospitals and outer suburban hospitals. This is so important. At a budget forum I held last week, I had a constituent who said that their partner had gone to a private hospital and they'd been required to get an MRI. Not only was that MRI not Medicare rebatable but they didn't have a licence so they couldn't even claim the cost of the MRI off their private healthcare insurance. This is unacceptable, and we need to do much more about that. We also need to restore needed funding for Medicare. Under this government, Medicare has been cut and cut. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to unfreeze the rebate for specialists, despite making a cast-iron promise to do so. Out-of-pocket fees to see specialists have gone even higher. They've increased to $88, an increase of $12 since the election, and that will only go higher since the rebate has been frozen. If you freeze that pay specialists get from Medicare, they will charge their patients more. We've also seen the out-of-pocket costs for visiting a GP increase by $4 since the election as well. If this government was serious about health care, they would restore the vital funding needed to public hospitals, they would match our commitments around MRIs and they would ensure Medicare is adequately funded. I will turn to the other great priority for my electorate, and that's education. This budget confirms the $17 billion in cuts to school education through the needs-based funding model. This is $17 billion in cuts against what the government committed to in the 2013 election. They proudly bragged about the cuts in the infamous 2014 budget, where their glossy document bragged about $80 billion of cuts to schools and hospitals. Their exact words were $80 billion of cuts—not reductions or increases, but cuts. That is having an impact. My schools are some of the poorest schools in the country. They made great use of the early years of the needs-based funding. One great example is St Pius X Primary School in Windale. I'm grateful to my colleague, the member for Lyne, in correcting me yesterday. Dr Gillespie 72184 No fibs! Mr CONROY 249127 I referred to a St Pius XI yesterday. I got carried away with my popes. It is, in fact, St Pius X Primary School in Windale. I want to congratulate St Pius X Primary School on their absolutely fantastic NAPLAN results. In the category of schools they are in, because they're one of the lowest socioeconomic schools in the country, their year 3 students came first in the whole of Australia in reading, grammar, punctuation and mathematics and second in writing and spelling. Year 5 also excelled, again coming first nationally in writing, spelling and mathematics. They were second in reading and third in grammar and punctuation. I cannot emphasise to the House how truly remarkable these results are. St Pius X is a very special school. The school and the community face some very severe socioeconomic challenges. It's a small school of 50 students, and 57 per cent of students are Indigenous. Because of the early years of the needs-based funding, the Catholic Schools Office was able to allocate very significant additional resources and they employed two extra teachers in a school of 50. Two extra teachers in a small school of 50 is such an amazing investment, and that is having a positive payoff right now. I'm sure we can all appreciate the dramatically positive impact these additional staff are having in that school and the life-changing impact on these children. As I said, they are excelling. They are first in the nation in reading, grammar, punctuation and mathematics and second in writing and spelling. I spoke to one of their teachers at an Anzac Day ceremony, who was brought on using the early years needs-based funding. She was adamant, as is the school leadership, that those results would not have been achieved, and that improvement would not have been achieved without those early years of the needs-based funding. Congratulations to the principal, Peter Brown; his staff; the community of St Pius X and most importantly the gifted and special students at that school. That's not the only success story out of needs-based funding. Lake Munmorah Public School have used the early years of the funding to specialise in teacher development and really invest in teacher development for their class teachers. I was talking to the principal of Swansea High School only last week, and she was saying that they allocate a lot of the money to additional tutoring for kids who are probably entering years 7 and 8 with the least developed literacy and numeracy skills. They know that, unless they get those kids back on track, they will fall even further behind on the path to year 12. That is the power of education. That is the power of true needs based schools funding in this country. That is the opportunity that is being squandered by this government's $17 billion of cuts to needs based school funding. That is why I'm so proud that Bill Shorten in the budget reply reaffirmed Labor's commitment to restoring that $17 billion of funding. That means an extra $33 million of funding to schools in Shortland in the next two years alone. Let me repeat that: a Labor government means that in the next two years schools in the Shortland, Central Coast and Lake Macquarie area will get an extra $33 million of funding to boost educational opportunities. In December last year the government announced $2.2 billion of cuts to university education, ending the demand-driven approach to higher education. That means 200,000 fewer students will go to uni than otherwise could. Again, I'm proud that Labor has committed to restoring that $2.2 billion of funding. The budget also contained $270 million in cuts to TAFE. This is a dramatic cut on top of the $1.5 billion this government has already cut out of TAFE. The Hunter region is dominated by mining and manufacturing. We are particularly dependent on tradespeople and their skills. Any cuts to TAFE hit my region disproportionately. That's why this $270 million cut to TAFE was so short-sighted. When I did my budget fora last week, it was the cut that received the most vociferous opposition from the audience, even though it wasn't as big as some of the others. That's why I'm proud that Labor's budget response committed $473 million of additional funding to TAFE, including $100 million to upgrade TAFE facilities. Some TAFE workshops are very old. I've said to some tradespeople in their 40s and 50s that they probably haven't changed much compared to when they went through TAFE, so $100 million to upgrade those workshops is great. Spending money to provide 100,000 scholarships means there are no up-front fees for students studying in areas of critical skills shortage such as carpentry. That's so important if we're to turn away from filling those vacancies through temporary skilled migration programs and employ Australians in those positions. That is a sound investment in our future that only Labor will make. The other big change coming down the path at the start of July is the childcare benefit scheme becoming the childcare subsidy scheme. Something urgently needs to be done to reform child care. Child care is becoming increasingly unaffordable in this country. Unfortunately, instead of fixing the system this government is making it harder by changing the activity test, which means 1,372 families in Shortland will be worse off. For example, families earning more than $65,000 with one stay-at-home parent may fail the activity test and be ineligible for any childcare subsidy. Families that rely on seasonal, irregular, contract or casual work will lose access to 24 hours of child care if their hours fall under eight in any fortnight. That is a real possibility in the increasingly insecure work environment. There are many casual and seasonal workers in my electorate. My electorate is chock-full of tradies, aged-care workers, disability workers and nurses. Some of those jobs are hostage to changing and falling hours at very short notice. They stand to lose 24 hours of child care per fortnight if they work less than eight hours, through no fault of their own. That is what I'm concerned about: 1,300 families in Shortland becoming worse off because of this government's childcare changes. This is appalling and short-sighted. The first five years of a child's development are the most crucial, so if we want to invest in our children's future, we need to invest more in child care, not less. Part of that investment is also boosting pay for early childhood educators. Early childhood educators do a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances. With two kids in early childhood education, I'm in awe of their educators. They have to have a minimum of a cert III qualification. Often they have a cert IV. Some of them have university degrees. Yet they are paid as little as $21 an hour. It is an absolute disgrace to pay our early childhood educators as little as $21 an hour. It is unacceptable. It is selling them short. It is selling our children's future short. It's no coincidence that this is allowed to happen in an industry where 97 per cent of the workforce is female. It's another example of the gender gap that we all need to work much harder to rectify. Unfortunately, the priorities for my electorate will go unsatisfied again under this government. The priorities for my electorate are adequate investment in health care and proper investment in education—school-age and early childhood, university and VET. Again, this government is selling them short, because, ultimately, this government is hostage to its true constituents. This government is hostage to high-income earners. It's hostage to large corporations. It's hostage to the hard Right that control the Liberal Party and that is threatening the preselections of many members of the Liberal Party right now. It's hostage to a shrinking minority of the population. The great majority of the population are suffering under this short-sighted, mean, arrogant and out-of-touch government. The election cannot come soon enough. 16:21 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The 2018 budget has delivered on our plan to make a stronger economy so that everyone benefits. It guarantees essential services like Medicare, schools, hospitals, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and it allows us to build the massive infrastructure that the nation requires. Firstly, I want to compliment the Treasurer on his initiative in the tax plan. In my electorate of Lyne, we have 51,000 taxpayers. Most of them aren't from the big end of town. Most of them are hardworking mums and dads, running their small businesses or working in our hospitals and schools. They are going to be better off because of the low- and middle-income tax offset. Each person in that bracket will be $530 better off. We're also raising the tax threshold for when you go up to 37c in the dollar from $87,000 to $90,000. So that's addressing bracket creep. They're my people. Most people in my electorate are earning that sort of money. There is a plan in the future to extend the benefit and get rid of the 37c tax rate so that the expanded $90,000 limit will go up to $200,000, and you will only be paying 32c in the dollar. That is a long-term benefit for people who are working hard. We want to incentivise them. We want to let them keep more of their own money. It's not our money. The people on the other side treat it as though the government owns all your money, and they'll let you keep some of it. They've got it back to front. We're incentivising small business. We love small business because, as in my electorate, they're the biggest employers. We've got to empower them. We've reduced the company tax rate to 27½ per cent for companies with a turnover of under $50 million. The other side want to put it back up and only allow it for businesses with a turnover of under $5 million. They've got to be joking. Anyhow, that's the way they think on that side. For small businesses in my electorate like the many that turned up at the Dungog Business Awards, it was a celebration of so many great businesses. While I was there, I visited the Tinshed Brewery. Jimmy Cox and Haley Collis have got to be congratulated. The craft beer industry is getting a benefit, too, from this budget, because the alcohol excise for small boutique craft breweries is being reduced so that they can get the same deal as the bigger breweries. It means that he can now put his craft brewery kegs into restaurants and the smaller outlets. It wasn't viable for them to put their product into the smaller restaurants and bars, because those places don't have a big enough turnover. It means the amount that they are paying in excise is reduced and the level they get goes up to $100,000. But there are many other craft breweries in the Hunter and in the Hastings, at the northern and southern ends, that will benefit, like Black Duck Brewery and many others. Mad Abbot and lots of other boutique breweries will get big help from this so they can compete. As I mentioned, we are also paying for the infrastructure that's allowing people to get home sooner and safer. We are building transport lanes and freeways, which means goods can get to market a lot more cheaply and efficiently. It means tourists from Brisbane and the Gold Coast can come down to the beautiful Mid North Coast. Whether they want to visit Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens or the beautiful Great Lakes area of Forster Tuncurry, they will soon be able to come all the way from the Queensland border on a dual-lane freeway without a traffic light. We've just announced $971 million to complete the Coffs Harbour bypass, the missing link. It means the roads will be safer and it will be great for business and great for transport costs. Things will be delivered into the region more cheaply and we will get our exports out. We've also announced the Roads of Strategic Importance fund. There is money going into the north of Australia and Tasmania, but in our area, in New South Wales and the other states, there's $1.78 billion not yet allocated. We'll be able to use that to work on roads like the Bucketts Way and Thunderbolts Way, which is an avenue of commerce for beef, dairy and poultry, all the agricultural, horticultural and tourism industries around Stroud and Gloucester, down through Lorn, Largs, Bolwarra—all that area. From the south, they go into the Newcastle market. The middle of the electorate rely on the Buckets Way and Thunderbolts Way. A huge amount of tourism dollars flow into the Gloucester valley, Stroud and the area going down into the Hunter, and these roads connect the Pacific Highway; they connect Taree up to Tamworth. It's such a good idea. We have got guaranteed extra funding for health. New South Wales public hospitals are getting an extra $39½ billion out of the new hospitals agreement. With that, they will be able to expand services. There is a 29 per cent increase over the five years of the hospitals agreement. That's $8.94 billion extra. That means places like the Manning Base Hospital, Gloucester hospital, Wauchope hospital and the New South Wales health department will have extra funds from the Commonwealth. Our senior Australians are getting a better deal too. We have 40,000 people aged over 65 in my electorate. Everyone on a pension likes to earn a bit of extra money so that they can have quality of life and keep themselves active. We've raised the limit of the amount that you can earn without it affecting the amount you get on the pension. That amount has gone from $250 up to $300 a fortnight. We've also got new skills programs and entrepreneurial and mentoring schemes for senior Australians aged 45 and over who need to get back into the workforce. The Pension Loans Scheme allows people to draw down on the value of their house and contribute to super. So we are also looking after senior Australians. We have delivered extra nursing homes in the southern part of the electorate, at Peter Sinclair Gardens in Hawks Nest, at Largs, at the GLAICA development at Forster or up in Wauchope. We have extra beds allocated to Gloucester. I'm hoping that Anglicare can get on with it and build the nursing home that we've given the funds for. And we have allocated an extra 14,000 high-care home support packages around the country because people want to age in their own homes for longer. We are delivering in spades. For my small businesses, we have continued the instant asset write-off, because we know it's targeted. Businesses will only buy equipment that is going to help them grow their business. So we're empowering them to get more equipment or assets that will allow their businesses to grow. Child care is getting a huge extra 3½ billion dollars. Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Education and Training, has spoken about this, but this budget will be what pays for that. We've got $440 million around the nation in the next year to allow 15 hours at preschool, or prep—whatever age you turn in your year before school. In the Lyne electorate, we've got just short of 2,000 children that will benefit from that. That means they'll get their 15 hours of preschool in the year before they go to school. And the childcare arrangements will mean that people are better off, particularly in the income band in my electorate, where I live. When the new childcare system comes in, people who are earning $80,000 will get a benefit that will mean they're $8,000 better off. The $7,500 cap is being removed for those people. The more they work then the more they can get the subsidy to keep their children cared for, getting their early learning and education while the parents are able to work. There is better funding for schools being delivered in this budget too. In the Lyne electorate, there is $30.9 million extra out to the year 2027 for all the schools—government, independent and Catholic schools—because we're delivering. We've grown the economy and we've got extra revenue in that allows us to pay down the debt that had been locked in through spending by the people on the other side before they left. We've controlled our spending and grown the economy. That's part of our plan. The other side gives these Dutch-auction-giveaway prizes, but people see through that. They know you have to pay for it. We will come in with a balanced budget a year sooner. We know how to make the economy work. We empower small businesses and entrepreneurs, and people who work hard, and we want them to get ahead. You can look at the NDIS, which we are funding—we're not having to put up the Medicare levy. Again, everyone wins when we get a stronger economy. It's part of our plan. In the health space, I've mentioned the extra funding for hospitals, but there is also the extra funding for pharmaceutical benefits—the drugs that we all rely on at some stage of our lives are so important. We have funded new drugs like SPINRAZA. I've got several children in the electorate who have spinal muscular atrophy, and I was speaking to one of their mums. She was in tears about how her son, Finn, was going to get the treatment that he deserves. But we have to pay for it somehow, and that's why growing the economy is so important. There are plenty of people from my former life who I've treated and cared for and who have suffered from a cancer of one sort or another. Whether it's the new funding for KEYTRUDA in refractory lymphoma, or other drugs—KISQALI for breast cancer—there are thousands of patients who are going to benefit from this. Since we came into government, there has been an absolutely amazing explosion of new medicines that have been funded on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That totals $8.3 billion of new drug funding. That is a fantastic outcome. We are taking the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and finding ways to fund them. I congratulate the Minister for Health on his novel agreement, getting old drugs that were holding up funding the new ones off the PBS, so that we have a system of paying for them now. There are always going to be new drugs, but we have a strong economy with extra revenue coming in. There are 140,000 fewer people depending on welfare now than there were when we came into government. It's the lowest level of people depending on welfare. The best welfare is a job. With policies that have empowered the economy, small businesses and large businesses, we have got rid of red tape and reduced taxes where we can in a responsible, measured fashion. We've got over a million people working in new positions because of those policies. That's part of our plan. The other side gives away trinkets and things, but they don't address the fundamental reliance there. For any budget, state or federal, you've got to have the revenue. That's why our plan to grow a strong economy is delivering dividends. It's a really sensible budget. Coming into surplus means we can start paying off our debt—the nation's mortgage—that has come as a result of all these locked-in spending programs that the other side left when they left government. They have blocked all the other things that we've tried to do to save and control our budget. But we've grown the economy and we've grown the pie, so revenue is up. Our multinational anti-avoidance legislation has delivered $7 billion in extra tax revenue. We are giving small businesses help by lowering their company tax and giving them instant asset write-off, and the growth in small business employment has been 23 per cent higher than other employment. We've got a lot more to do, but this budget has been a great budget. Everyone ought to rejoice in the fact that we're coming back into surplus. 16:36 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Budgets are about priorities. Budgets are about choices. Sadly, with this government, this budget is about winners and losers. I don't really like to talk about winners and losers, but there are clear winners and losers in this budget. No-one in my electorate of Dobell is left wondering just who the winners and losers are. The winners are clearly high-income earners, big business and the big four banks. The losers are young people, pensioners and people living outside of the big cities in regional communities like mine on the Central Coast. The government has pushed on with its plans to deliver an $80 billion tax cut to big business. It is a tax cut that just isn't fair and a tax cut that we can't afford. The government's plan to deliver tax cuts to big business is at the expense of young people, pensioners and people living outside of big cities. The government has failed to properly fund schools, failed to look after older Australians waiting for home care packages and failed younger people. This government has continued with its ideologically driven, trickle-down economics and the flawed notion that giving a tax cut to the wealthiest Australians will benefit other Australians. It isn't fair and it doesn't work. There are some parts of the budget that Labor does support. Labor supports the tax changes for low- and middle-income earners that would come into effect on 1 July. We support the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business and the tax cut for small businesses. We support the crackdown on the black economy and multinational tax avoidance and, to some degree, the changes on superannuation. I—more than most, as a pharmacist—support the new listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, knowing firsthand the importance of being able to afford your medicines and see a doctor close to home when you need one most. Labor wants to see the economy grow. We want to see more jobs. We would prefer not to be spending billions of taxpayers' dollars servicing the interest bill on the government's record debt, which has doubled over the past five years despite positive global conditions. Labor does not believe the policy settings in this budget will mean more jobs or will pay down the debt. We are not paying down the debt fast enough, not going about it in the right way and not making the most of our opportunities. We have $40 billion of new receipts in the budget as a consequence of the global economy picking up after the GFC, but we don't know how long these positive conditions will last. Some of the assumptions in the budget are a bit rosy, given flat wages and international uncertainty. Labor is approaching the forecasts with caution. We also have record net debt that is twice what this government inherited and gross debt of over half a trillion dollars. We don't agree with the company tax cut for big business, especially to the big banks, given the evidence that has been heard by the royal commission. It's important to note that Labor opposes the tax cuts for big business and high-income earners not on ideological grounds but for fiscal and economic reasons: we cannot afford them, and we can do better. Labor priorities are about targeting tax relief at low- and middle-income earners in genuinely small and medium enterprises. That's why we would introduce the Australian investment guarantee, to give tax relief to companies investing onshore, in Australia. We want people to have lower taxes so they can spend more on the things they need in local businesses in regional communities like mine. We want businesses to have the workers that they need, so we will waive upfront fees to 100,000 TAFE students. Labor will rebuild TAFE—a TAFE system that has been hollowed out under this government. We will get more from those policies than from tax cuts to the wealthiest Australians and overseas multinationals. Labor is ready to govern, to walk through the front door of the parliament with sound policies, having listened to people. We are making difficult decisions and getting them right. As Labor has always said, we are about a fairer approach. This budget won't make Australia a fairer place. This budget will help the rich get richer. On the question of tax, Labor will ensure bigger income tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Labor will provide tax cuts to everyone who earns up to $120,000 a year. But Labor will not give an $80 billion tax cut to big businesses, and Labor will not give a $17 billion tax cut to big banks. By not supporting tax cuts for large corporations and by closing loopholes in our tax system, Labor will be able to restore $17 billion in schools funding, restore $2.8 billion in hospitals funding, restore $2.2 billion to universities and restore $473 million to TAFE. The TAFE spend includes $100 million to update ageing TAFE facilities, as well as scrapping up-front fees for up to 100,000 students who choose to learn the skills that Australia needs. This will make a difference in regional communities. This is how we can transform regional communities. This is how we can provide opportunities to people living outside the big cities. And we will pay down government debt faster. We will fight for pensioners. Labor will not increase the pension age to 70. We will not abolish the energy supplement, as the government plans to do for new pensioners, costing a new pensioner couple $550 a year that they just can't afford. We have been brave enough to reduce capital gains tax discounts, stop tax refunds where no tax has been paid, and crack down on multinational corporate tax avoidance. And, by taking those measures—not by giving tax cuts to big business—we can fund schools properly, we can better support hospitals, we can rebuild TAFE and support universities, and still pay down debt faster than the current government is promising to do. Under this budget, schools on the Central Coast will lose $33 million. These are schools that have used needs based funding to make such a difference in our local community, schools that have employed extra teachers' aides and speech therapists, schools that have been able to provide specialist Aboriginal programs, coding and robotics classes, specialist support for students, and leadership and mentoring for teachers to give them the support they need to support our children in their classrooms. I want to now turn to something that is very close to home for me—and something that means a lot to so many people in my community. At the moment on the Central Coast 750 older Australians are waiting for home care packages, and a third of them are waiting for high-need level 4 packages right now. Those are people—like my late father—who lived with young onset dementia. This is urgent. These people can't wait. The people that are caring for them are under enormous strain. And what has the government decided to do? They're not going to be better off under this government's promise of 14,000 in-home aged care packages over four years. How will that go anywhere near to fixing the current waiting list of 105,000 Australians? It's just not good enough. There needs to be a sense of urgency and a sense of responsibility to change this, and change it now. Incredibly, the small amount that these home care packages were increased by—and I welcome any increase in home care packages—has been funded by cuts to residential aged care. As a pharmacist, I've been visiting residential facilities since my first year of work. There are definitely areas and pockets of success where people get the support they need without financial strain, but I see so many people under enormous financial strain, particularly when one person in the couple has to enter care sooner than they thought. We need to help people living with early onset dementia, like my dad and so many of the people I've met through his experience. These people need support now. There is no more funding in this budget for aged-care services. It simply beggars belief. Cuts to the Public Service lead to cuts in services to the public. That is exactly what we are seeing with this government. A further 1,200 jobs will be axed from DHS, even though unanswered calls to Centrelink increased from 29 million to 55 million last year, and wait times blew out. This government doesn't seem to care about people in regional centres. This government speaks about infrastructure, but there has been no new infrastructure spend on the Central Coast. There has been no increase in spending on health, education, aged care or child care; in fact, funding for all these essential services has been cut. On the Central Coast the youth unemployment rate is currently 18.6 per cent. Almost one in five young people in my community are looking for work, yet there is nothing for young people in this budget except a further cut to TAFE and higher education. TAFE, where my father worked as an engineer, used to be a trusted pathway to an education and a secure job, has been completely decimated under this government, as have apprenticeship opportunities. This government has delivered modest tax cuts for some Australians, but these in no way make up for the job insecurity, record low wages growth and loss of penalty rates that Central Coast workers face under this government. Labor will deliver bigger tax cuts to those who need them most. We know the cost of living is making life difficult for many Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote communities. Nowhere is that more true than on the Central Coast of New South Wales. My community of Dobell has more older people, more very young people, more people looking for work, more people on low or fixed incomes and more people struggling to make ends meet. I saw this in my work at Wyong Hospital in the mental health unit. Each and every day there for almost 10 years, I saw people whose circumstances were contributing to their being unwell. One in five people on the Central Coast are aged over 65, and one in five are aged under 15. Our median household income is $1,258. We have more than 21,000 small businesses, more than half of which are sole traders. We aren't a rich community, but we work hard and support one another. Last week in Dobell I hosted Labor's shadow minister for finance, the member for Rankin, where he introduced a number of our small business community on the budget and Labor's alternative plans. I share you with you a telling comment from one person in that room. Ernest told Jim that, while tax cuts for low-income earners would be more than welcome in many households, the national debt was top of mind for many people. Ernest said: People are worried. They are worried about the national debt and they would like to have it paid off as soon as possible. The community will make sacrifices if they have to, but we must pay off the national debt. Ernest is not the only person to have said this to me. A retiree, John, said that while he was happy with the tax cut and would welcome the $10, he has preschool-aged grandchildren and would much rather that $10 tax cut provide better services in early education and to schools, and that there are much bigger priorities for many Australians, particularly those living in regional and remote Australia. Labor has those priorities front of mind, and those priorities are not the winners in this year's budget. This budget is about high-income earners, big business and the big four banks. Labor's priorities, and those of most middle and working Australians, are the losers in this budget. Labor's priorities are with students, and with older Australians waiting for aged care. Labor will look out for the regions—regions like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales; regions where the quality of the NBN connection matters, where affordable housing matters, where good schools matter, where access to health services matters, where vocational education matters, where jobs matter. This budget does nothing for the regions. Labor is committed to the regions. We are committed to rebuilding TAFE to provide the skills base for employers to hire the workers that they need. We are committed to a pre-apprenticeship program and an advanced adult apprenticeship program to help workers, young or mature, to get the training or retraining they need. Labor is committed to securing pathways into work for those apprentices, with one in 10 jobs on Commonwealth priority projects to be filled by Australian apprentices. Labor will not oppose these appropriation bills. Labor will support supply, but Labor will never put tax cuts for big earners—for big business and the big four banks—ahead of vulnerable Australians who need our support; young Australians looking for a start or a chance to get a job or an education; older Australians who are looking for work, secure housing and dignity; Australians who live in our regions; Australians who have been put last by this government. This budget is about winners and losers. In this budget the winners are the big end of town, the big four banks and big business. In this budget the losers are the people in communities like mine. They are young people looking for work, older Australians who are waiting on the queue for home care packages, people who need support from Centrelink, people who are doing it tough, people who really need support now from a government that cares about people and wants to change things and improve things and make them better in our regions. 16:51 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support these appropriation bills. This budget delivers for Australia, and it certainly delivers for the electorate of Calare as well. It will make life better for Australians and people in central western New South Wales. Making life better for the people we represent is the reason we are here. It's the reason we're in politics. It's the reason that this parliament exists. For the people in my region, one of the highlights of this budget was certainly the delivery of a new medical school in the Central West to be delivered by Charles Sturt University. It's part of the Murray-Darling medical schools network, which is a five-medical-school network. At its heart is this new medical school, which will be a partnership between Charles Sturt University and the University of Western Sydney. Folks out in my neck of the woods have been campaigning for this new medical school for a decade. For 10 years we've been trying to get this over the line. For two years I've been making speech after speech in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, trying to raise the profile of this issue and stress its importance. Why is it important? It's important because there is a chronic shortage of doctors in country Australia. It's raining doctors in Vaucluse and Wahroonga and Toorak, but there's a chronic shortage in country Australia. Country people know this. They are the ones that have to put up with not being able to see a GP or a specialist for weeks or months. They are living in the communities that can't get new doctors to their towns when the existing ones leave or retire. They're living this issue, and they've been living it for years. They've known about this issue for a long time, and they're crying out for a solution that can change this and make life better. The cold, hard truth is that country people die younger than city people. That's the way it is. Their health outcomes are worse on just about every single measure. That's what's been driving this campaign for this new medical school. It's been the community which has come together over a sustained period of time to lobby, to fight, to plan. And finally this budget has delivered it. The new medical school will open its doors in 2021. The capital spend will be in the tens of millions of dollars. It will train doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. The curriculum will be designed to train country doctors. It will be a country curriculum. Of course, we believe that, by putting more country students through the training pipeline and filling postgraduate training places with country students, more of them will be likely to stay in the country, work in the country and raise their families in the country, if that's what they choose to do. We know that it works because James Cook University in Far North Queensland has been a pioneer in this field. Charles Sturt University plans to quarantine 80 per cent of its places for students from rural and regional Australia. It's going to be a partnership with the University of Western Sydney, which already has a presence in Bathurst. I commend the University of Western Sydney for the constructive way that it has worked through this issue with Charles Sturt University. The resistance has in some cases been very fierce. All sorts of medical organisations, student organisations and doctors groups have been dead against this proposal, but it has prevailed because it has been the will of the community. People power has driven this. I say to those folks who may not be that keen on the new Murray-Darling medical schools network: 'Let's put down our swords and beat them into ploughshares. Let's work together now because we have an opportunity in central western New South Wales to make our area a world leader in rural medicine.' This is an extraordinary opportunity that we have. This new medical school and new medical school network will change the practice of medicine in country New South Wales and country Australia. That's how important I believe this initiative is. That's how worthwhile I actually think it is. We now have about seven years before the first students graduate. If there are any issues in terms of postgraduate training places or hospital placements, we have seven years to sort that out. Indeed, the work on the new Charles Sturt University medical school is now commencing, with the formation of a steering committee. I think we now need to come together in good faith and in goodwill and let our region achieve its full potential now in terms of medical training, medical research and the provision of medical services. We can do it. This is a profound and transformational change. It's a change the community has sought for a long time. We've done it—it's mission accomplished. I take this opportunity to again thank all the individuals, community members, community groups, doctors, local councils and local council groups like Centroc. So many have contributed to the campaign and been so supportive that I can't name them all in this chamber today. They have all been very active. Schoolteachers and school principals have been writing in their school newsletters about the need for this medical school. That's how community driven this campaign has been. I'm not sure that the folks who make medical policy in this country really appreciate how deep this campaign ran through our communities. They probably did towards the end. It's been a long and hard road and it's been a long and hard fight, but I think it's been worth it. Sometimes in politics you get the opportunity to be involved in something that will make true and lasting change for people in our communities, and this is one of those moments. I hear people talking down the budget and saying that there's nothing in it for country Australia. There's a lot in it for country Australia. This is a profound change and a profound and transformational initiative, of which country people can be very proud. The effects of this will start in 2021 when the school opens its doors, but the effects of this will be felt for generations. This will reverberate through the generations. The graduates from this medical school will train to become specialists. I believe that they will, hopefully, become the people involved in making medical policy in this country. They may even become MPs. But we are starting something now which will have a profound effect through the generations, and I think that's something that we can all be very proud of. In terms of other initiatives in the budget, one of them is the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, a $3.5 billion fund designed to get key road projects going, including those that link regions. I welcome this initiative, because I've been fighting for such a fund for a long time. When I first became federal member for Calare, one of the first things I did was to invite then roads minister, Darren Chester, to our neck of the woods. We drove across the Bells Line of Road and over the crossing at Dixons Long Point, between Orange and Mudgee. I said, 'We need some money for these, Minister.' He said, 'We haven't got a bucket of money we can do this with.' I said to him, 'Wouldn't it be great if we could create a bucket of money?' And so former Minister Darren Chester, and those who followed him, worked hard to create it, and it has been delivered in this budget. For example, the crossing at Dixons Long Point, between Orange and Mudgee, is currently dirt for most of the way. There is no crossing: you've got to drive through the river to get across it. I did it a couple of weeks ago on my way to help launch the new mobile phone tower at Hargraves. The river was down, so it was pretty easy to get across. But there has been many a four-wheel-driver who has come adrift—they've come off the side of the crossing and floated downstream. We can see the photos on the internet. People have been trying to get this crossing built for a hundred years—100 years! Sir Charles Cutler, former Deputy Premier of New South Wales, former member for Orange and war hero, was an early proponent of this road and crossing. Russell Turner, who was my predecessor in the state seat of Orange, was another fierce advocate for this. But we haven't been able to do it. What I'm hoping to do now is to bring all levels of government together. We've just got the consultants' reports back. I'll be meeting with Cabonne Council next week, and in June I hope to bring local governments and the state government, and we'll be there as well, together at the table to discuss how we can progress these key projects. I'd also like to see continued upgrades of the Bells Line of Road. I'd love to see a new fast road across the Blue Mountains. But until that is secured, I think that what we need to do is keep upgrading. So I believe that the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative was also a very significant item that this budget delivered, and I was very pleased to see it. The $20,000 instant asset write-off was another big win for country Australia, including small businesses in my area. It's expensive to run a small business, as we know, and anything that we can do to make life a little easier, and also to kick along economic growth, we should be doing. The extension of the instant asset write-off is a great way to do it. It allows our small businesses and our farmers, who are small-business people as well, to write off instantly the cost of assets up to $20,000 in the financial year in which that cost is incurred, rather than having to write it off over a series of years. It has been welcomed very warmly. For example, by small businesses like Angus Barrett Saddlery in Orange. It is run by a young couple, Angus and Sarah, who built that business from scratch. They are going to be able to take advantage of the write-off. They buy a lot of equipment and machinery for their workshop. It's the small businesspeople like that who are really going to find this extension useful. And I should point out that Angus is often referred to as the next RM Williams. In fact, I'm wearing an Angus Barrett belt as I deliver this speech in this chamber today. So it's the small businesses like Angus Barrett Saddlery in Orange that are going to find the instant asset write-off very useful. When the member for Gilmore visits my area, we will go out to the factory and meet Angus and Sarah, and they will warmly welcome her. There has also been good news on the youth allowance, and this is a very important one for country students. The means test threshold has been increased by $10,000 to $160,000—it is a big one for country students—and that is increased by $10,000 for each additional child. We've also made it easier for students to work out whether they need to take a gap year to work out whether or not they qualify as being independent. I think that is really important, as well. The assessment of parental income will now be undertaken in the year prior to any gap year, so they will know whether their parental income is above or below the cut-off figure before they decide whether to take a gap year. I think that is a big improvement. And, of course, we've reduced the time that students need to have a gap year—that time frame has been reduced. That is another important initiative in this budget for country students, and I applaud the relevant ministers. Not only does this budget deliver for Australia but it certainly delivers for country people and those folks in the Calare electorate. It is a responsible budget. It helps to reduce our debt and bring the national debt under control. As I have said, it has some profound initiatives that will benefit country Australia for generations to come and I commend it to the House. 17:06 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise to speak on the appropriation bills. Two weeks ago this government delivered its federal budget, its economic plan. This is a government that fought against establishing a royal commission into the banking system, a government that refused to take action with respect to cuts to penalty rates for low-paid workers, and the Liberal coalition government persists in pushing $80 billion worth of unfunded corporate tax cuts while pensioners receive a cut to their energy allowance. This government trumpets its plan—it is proud of it. It doesn't recognise the unfairness now proposed to be baked into tax cuts that disproportionately favour those on higher incomes. This is a government for the wealthy, while maintaining the fiction that a strong economy is the only thing that will pay for the essential services that ordinary people rely upon and quite reasonably expect a competent government to provide. What they actually mean—the underlying code—is that a strong economy is necessary, otherwise essential services will be cut. They want you to believe that if you are a single parent in part-time to work, struggling to bring up children, your access to essential services like Medicare, to public hospitals and to public education being properly funded depends upon the strength of the economy, an economy that might be subject to external shocks, just like those we saw here in Australia during the global financial crisis. Australians know that institutions like Medicare and access to public education and public hospitals should be paid for by competent governments making choices as to how best to expend public money. This government consistently fails lower-income and middle Australia in making those choices. But, most of all, this government fails the people of my home state, Tasmania. This budget of missed opportunities doesn't do anything to address the potential to relocate public service jobs into regional areas like north and north-western Tasmania. This budget, a budget by press release with no detail as to specific projects, announces projects that will receive funding, such as $400 million for Roads of Strategic Importance, without identifying any project whatsoever. Tasmanians know better than anyone that this government cannot be trusted on its promises, given that it cut $100 million from funding for the Midland Highway in the first Hockey budget. There is absolutely no attention to strategic investment in Tasmania, whether it is in health, such as support of the Launceston General Hospital, or in regional infrastructure, like funding for the West Tamar Highway traffic relief, or in freight roads to the north-east by upgrading the sidling within my electorate. Even when there is a road map detailing possible future investment, such as the redevelopment of the northern suburbs of Launceston, as foreshadowed in the government's own Launceston city deal, this government comes up short. There are areas of disadvantage in Tasmania that require a sustained, long-term investment, such as education, particularly public education, rather than $17 billion less being devoted to education over 10 years, which was exposed in last year's budget. There is nothing in this budget to address housing affordability and the present housing crisis in Tasmania. It is shocking to hear that rental affordability in Hobart is worse than Sydney. It is an indictment of state and federal government commitments to the relief of poverty generally and housing more specifically to hear that there are no homeless services available, particularly crisis services, for people who present to our hardworking but overloaded community services, like the Launceston City Mission at the weekend. It is an often repeated phrase that budgets are about choices. You can tell what the priorities of this government are when you realise that this Prime Minister would prefer to allow $17 billion in tax relief for the large banks rather than reinstating $17 billion to the education budget over the next 10 years. You can tell the priority of this government when you realise they claim that the ability to schedule or fund new medicines is conditional upon the prudential management of the budget and the economy. That is why they are prepared to pay $80 billion worth of corporate tax cuts to the largest corporations in Australia. Even when this government recognises that it has a problem with fairness by insisting that large corporates receive a tax cut before low-paid workers receive a wage rise, its plan for tax cuts stills favours the higher paid. We know, for example, that it wants to hold lower paid workers hostage in order to guarantee tax cuts for higher paid people. The government is prepared to deny tax cuts to lower paid workers, unless tax cuts are delivered under a future government for higher paid individuals. In other words, tax cuts that are way down the track for higher paid individuals are more important than delivering real taxation relief to lower paid workers. In contrast to this, Tasmanians will be better off and will always be better off under a Labor Shorten government. Tasmania is a place of great beauty, and it has now experienced a great tourism resurgence. It has become the place to go to experience the finest food and drink in the country. In my electorate alone, there is some of the finest seafood, beef, wine and beer, I would challenge, on offer anywhere on the globe. Being a great tourism destination doesn't, however, guarantee quality of life for the residents of Tasmania. Tasmania has its problems. We have the lowest average incomes in the country, the lowest number of university graduates, the highest youth unemployment and the fastest ageing population. This is why a plan to address these shortcomings has the opportunity to transform Tasmania. We have the opportunity to offer fantastic tourism experiences and also unparalleled opportunities in business, employment and lifestyle, not just for an ageing population but also for those who choose to make their career in Tasmania. Strategic investment in infrastructure and investment in education to improve educational outcomes and address long-term disadvantage will improve the lot of all within our state. Investment in services, particularly health and public education, will ensure that all can receive access in an equitable manner to good-quality public health and public education. The experience internationally demonstrates that long-term investment in health and education do more to address long-term disadvantage than any other measures. These are just some of the reasons why Tasmania will be better off under a Shorten Labor government. Under Labor, the majority of Tasmanians will pay less income tax because Labor believes that they are more important than multinationals, big banks and big business. Under Labor, Tasmanian workers with incomes between $48,000 and $90,000 will be $928 better off, which is $398 better than the tax cuts offered by the Turnbull government. Cuts to personal income tax mean more disposable income, which is good for local Tasmanian businesses. Tasmanians' average annual income is $53,357, but the median annual income is just $29,796. The government's second round of tax cuts to high-income earners won't help Tasmanian businesses. Economic modelling has found that Tasmania will miss out simply by virtue of the fact that our lower average income means that less benefit is delivered from consumption within the economy. The majority of Tasmanians will be better off under Labor, as will Tasmanian small businesses, by virtue of the fact that Tasmanian consumers will have more money in their pockets to spend. Australians believe in a fair go for all. Our tax and transfer system is one of the most progressive in the world. This means the tax we pay as well as the benefits we receive are highly targeted to those who need it. Under this government, our egalitarian society that we're all so proud of is at risk. A flat rate of tax will not address rising inequality; it is a move in the wrong direction. The effect of this is obvious. Labor doesn't believe that a cleaner on $40,000 a year should pay the same tax rate as a CEO on $200,000 a year. It's just not fair. This budget is like every other Liberal budget: it consistently fails the fairness test. Labor is opposing the Turnbull government's $80 billion tax cut for big business and big banks. This tax cut will be of no benefit to more than 13,000 businesses in Tasmania. According to the ABS, there are just over 2,800 businesses in Bass; only nine of those businesses will benefit from the government's $80 billion tax cut. Labor believes there are better ways to use the $80 billion tax cuts slated for big business. That tax would be better used with wise choices made to support the services that we need and those who are in need. In my hometown of Launceston we have one of the best regional hospitals in the country. I know because I was on the board of Tasmanian Health Organisation North. Workers at the LGH are to be commended for the outstanding work they do despite cuts to funding. Under the Liberals, the cuts to our hospitals are putting those workers under pressure and the lives of northern Tasmanians at risk. The personal stories I hear almost daily speak of the stresses placed upon our emergency department. The story late last year of a patient left waiting outside the LGH for treatment informs me the cuts to health that this government has overseen need to be seriously addressed now. Instead, this government's budget prioritises tax cuts to big business instead of the health of the Australian people. As Labor is not giving big business an $80 billion tax cut, Labor can afford to reverse the Turnbull government's cuts to hospitals and create a $2.8 billion better hospital fund—a practical step to address those daily pressures. Labor has already committed to a $30 million investment to slash Tasmania's elective surgery backlog. Labor will also invest in your education—in schools, TAFE and university—because when people get the opportunities, Australia gets the benefits. As part of my election campaign I argued for funding for two important projects in Bass: $150 million for the University of Tasmania northern campus relocation and $75 million for the Tamar River improvement plan. I believe that with appropriate planning these two projects would have given long-term economic growth to northern Tasmania. Of concern to me are the reports that there are many trades facing skills shortages, from carpenters to bricklayers to bakers to pastry cooks, but, despite high unemployment in some areas, workers can't learn the skills that industries are crying out for. Over the last five years, the government has cut $3 billion from TAFE and training, including $270 million in this budget. Northern Tasmania has 1,300 fewer apprentices today than it did when the government was first elected. Labor recognises that the number of apprentices needs to increase dramatically if Tasmania is to reach and deliver its full economic potential. This is why, under a Shorten Labor government, we will scrap up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn the skills that Australia needs to become a modern, advanced manufacturing economy. Labor will invest $470 million in a plan to boost TAFE apprenticeships and skills for Australians. Labor will invest $100 million in modernising TAFE facilities around the country. On projects like the University of Tasmania relocation, one in 10 jobs will be filled by Australian apprenticeships. Labor will also provide 10,000 apprentice programs for young people who want to learn a trade. With a changing economy and an uncertain future of work, we understand that workers need to retrain, which is why Labor will provide 20,000 adult apprentice programs for older workers. Under Labor, Tasmanians will be better trained. Tasmania has the highest proportion of pensioners and is ageing faster than anywhere else in the country. Pensioners are some of the biggest losers in this government's budget. The government persists with the former Prime Minister's energy supplement cut of $14 a fortnight for single aged pensioners, whilst giving tax cuts to large companies. They're also telling Australians they have to work until they are 70 with no thought for what that means for people doing jobs that are hard on the bodies. We know 105,000 older Australians are waiting for home care packages. The government is only offering 14,000 and no more, with no extra funding to pay for those places because their priority is an $80 billion tax cut for big business. I'm proud to stand here in parliament representing the hardworking people of northern Tasmania. The people who I represent will be better off under a Labor government, which will be a government prepared to invest in people, invest in infrastructure and invest in jobs. 17:21 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise in absolute support for these appropriation bills and implore those on the other side of the House to join me in doing so. This is a bill that seeks to right many of the wrongs within in our system and deliver a new age of economic growth for us all to benefit from. Politics was not my first choice of career. It probably was not even my second. What politics was to me, and to many others who serve in this place, was a calling to help better provide for my community. I grew up in Rockhampton in a loving family that relied on their small business to survive. That's the beginning of a story for so many people across Central Queensland today, just as it was when I was a child. Small businesses keep the wheels turning. That's why there are a range of policies in this budget that I'm so happy with, particularly when it comes to taxation. As I get around my diverse and large electorate, the single most popular policy is the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses. This policy has been a godsend for businesses right across this region, not only for the businesses that decide to buy something that they would not have without the policy but for the businesses that they buy it from. This instant asset write-off has allowed farmers to buy motorbikes, cafes to buy espresso machines, accountants to buy new computers, chippies to buy new vehicles and so on and so forth, right across the local economy. As I said, this is a benefit not just for these businesses that take advantage of the write-off but also for the businesses that sell these businesses the equipment, allowing them to then go on and purchase their own. The sales team of the expresso machine, the computer store and the car salesman all get that extra sale, helping their bottom line as well. The only downside of this instant asset write-off is that its future is not certain. Each year it is extended, but we don't know for how long this will done. To make it permanent would be nice, but perhaps it would lead to businesses not being quite so keen to take advantage of it. Only time will tell. This budget is not just about a single policy, though. It's about a plan. This is a plan that delivers on the promise we made to the electorate to turn the debt ship around and to deliver jobs to more Australians. It is a plan that has seen over one million jobs created since 2013. Just let that sink in for a moment: there are one million more jobs in the economy. Here in Australia, since the coalition took control of the Treasury benches, that includes over 400,000 jobs created in 2017—a monumental achievement and one only possible through real, sound economic management. In my electorate of Capricornia, we are seeing the benefits of implementing a corporate tax plan that makes Australia more competitive on the global stage and of a real, no-nonsense approach to developing real job-creating infrastructure. In the Mackay SA4 area, which accounts for the vast majority of the Capricornia electorate, 6,500 jobs have been created in the last 12 months, driving the unemployment rate down from 5.7 per cent to an incredible 3.9 per cent. This does not happen overnight and it doesn't happen just because government decides to make it happen; it happens because over the past five years we have given businesses the confidence to hire, given them the confidence to strive to do more and given them the confidence they need to help turn our local economies around. Businesses like Coxon's Radiator Service in Rockhampton, who, over a short period, have diversified and grown their business, taken advantage of opportunities within the resources sector, and employed local workers to help them do so. It's a family business, and while what they do is very, very big, what they take out of the business is quite small. By Julie's admission, she and her husband Gary took home more when Coxon's was a smaller operation with fewer staff and less awe-inspiring jobs. What businesses like Coxon's show is what our small and family businesses do when they get a chance. They grow their business and hire more staff, and, in many cases, they take home less money themselves. That's why our corporate tax plan is so important and has been so successful, because if government can take less out of our local economies, our local economies will be stronger and more resilient. While the corporate tax plan has had and will continue to have a huge impact on the economy, it's important to address personal income tax as well. While a business will take tax relief and turn it into jobs, so too will people who are given the same. Shifting personal tax brackets to avoid the dreaded bracket creep is a good, sensible measure to help CQ families whose weekly budgets depend on it. Removing the 37 per cent bracket altogether is a bold and hugely beneficial move for the vast majority of Australians. This move will mean 94 per cent of Australians will never face bracket creep at all. This means more money in more people's pockets to be spent in more ways around the economy. Add to this an ongoing commitment to fully funding the NDIA and our hospitals and schools, and it is clear: this is a government committed to serving its purpose and improving the lives of each and every Australian. One of the most important methods we are implementing to improve people's live, especially in Central Queensland, is to develop real job-creating infrastructure. Projects like Rookwood Weir and Urannah Dam are what this government is delivering. $352 million sits on the ledger waiting for the Labor state government to lift their finger and get the ball rolling on what is the No. 1 infrastructure project for Queensland. This green Labor government is committed to holding back the Central Queensland region, and the saddest part is why they wish to do so. This is a government that has delivered unconscionable tree-clearing laws that promise to effectively lock up 1.7 million hectares of productive country and put an end to agricultural development across the state. I'm sure this won't stop the concrete jungle of the south east continuing to grow, but it certainly will have a devastating affect on agriculture. This is the sort of green mentality we face in Queensland, the same mentality that drove the Premier to pull her support from the opening of the Galilee Basin, even vetoing a NAIF loan her own government applied for. This is a world away from the support Central Queenslanders find in the LNP. The LNP wants to build dams. The LNP wants to give farmers the tools they need to put food on their tables, and the LNP wants the Galilee Basin to be developed and to produce thousands of jobs for Central Queenslanders. Labor knows it's pushing policies that will see thousands of Central Queenslanders worse off, but Labor doesn't care; all they care about is the prospect of clawing back the electorate they once took for granted, my seat and my home of Capricornia. Labor will do all they can to slow the progress already being felt in places like Clermont, Clarke Creek and Carmila. They will do whatever it takes to stop the state's most important water infrastructure project just so they can say that I have not delivered. Well, the people of Central Queensland are smarter than that. They have seen the way Labor have sold them out at virtually every opportunity, and they are sick and tired of it. They have seen the enormous investment and interest this federal government has shown in Central Queensland compared with previous Labor governments, who took the region for granted. For the record, I will give a quick snippet of just a fraction of the funding I have attracted to CQ since 2013: $178 million for Rookwood Weir; $7 million for the Rockhampton Hospital car park; $5 million for Signature Beef to develop an on-farm abattoir near Moranbah; $1 billion invested into our military training facilities at Shoalwater Bay; $1.5 million invested into stage 2 of the Fraser Park development, giving Mount Archer the infrastructure it deserves so it can help sell Central Queensland to the world; $120 million in this budget for the Walkerston bypass so we can get heavy vehicles out of the tight town centre and make it safer for everyone; $5.8 million for Tropical Pines to develop a new fruit-processing facility at Yeppoon; $234,500 for the Middlemount Bowls Club to install new carpet; $100,000 for Spinal Life Australia to upgrade facilities in Rockhampton, delivering services to sufferers of spinal injury; $166 million to duplicate the Eton Range crossing on the Peak Downs Highway; $300,000 for Koorana Crocodile Farm to build new rearing facilities, taking one of the icons of Central Queensland, the crocodile, and turning it into a valued economic resource; $349,000 for upgrades at Sarina's St Anne's Catholic school; $60 million to duplicate the Capricorn Highway between Gracemere and Rockhampton, easing congestion and improving safety; $653,000 for Western Suburbs Leagues Club at Walkerston to finally realise their dream and develop a state-of-the-art undercover, all-weather bowling green; and billions of dollars poured into the Bruce Highway, with $10 billion more announced. The Mobile Black Spot Program, which didn't exist before the coalition took over, has delivered better coverage to stacks of CQ residents, especially in rural spots like Clarke Creek, Gargett, Mount Chalmers and Marlborough. This work continues to roll out and help support our growing coastal strip, as well as Yeppoon and Emu Park, which are set to benefit from new towers as well. This budget is full of positive policies and an investment in the people of Central Queensland. From what I hear around the traps, people appreciate the mature, responsible approach we are taking, getting government out of their lives and giving them the opportunity to grow and get more out of life. I wholeheartedly support this bill and look forward to the ALP growing up and supporting it on the whole as well, for the sake of Central Queensland and Australia. 17:33 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Turnbull government's 2018-19 budget is a budget full of trickery which seeks to create a perception that the nation's finances are under control, that the Turnbull government is a government with a social conscience and that this budget will assist older Australians and working families. It also purports to be a nation-building budget, with big infrastructure projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. A close analysis of the budget will not only expose those perceptions as being false but also expose the budget as being a cruel hoax. Most of the tax breaks do not take effect until several years away, with the last phase of those tax breaks being in 2024, possibly three elections away. Infrastructure spending is equally a long way down the track, and mostly dependent on unsecured substantial commitments from state governments. The much-touted aged-care announcements, one of the cruellest hoaxes in this budget, are nothing more than a sneaky trick by this government. There is no new money for the aged-care system; what is happening is that one area of funding is being cut in order to prop up another. Can I go to the detail of that, because that is one of the claims that this government has tried to hang its credentials on with respect to this budget. It claims it will fund an additional 14,000 home care packages over the next four years. That is 3,500 each year. There are currently almost 105,000 people on waiting lists for home care packages. In the last six months of last year alone, there was an increase in demand of 20,000 people added to the waiting list. On those trends an additional 14,000 new packages would not even meet the needs of the next six months, in terms of the new numbers that will come on stream. Waiting times for packages will get longer, not shorter. The House health and ageing committee currently has an inquiry underway into this very issue, and we have heard many submissions on it. This is an area of real need as of now. It's not an area that the government should be playing these kinds of tricks with. We know from the inquiries thus far, and from numerous other reports that have been made available and other inquiries, that the aged care sector is riddled with claims of insufficient staffing numbers, poor access to allied health services, inadequate care and poor food quality. Yet there is no additional money for any kind of improved levels of care from the government. Rearranging the oversight of the aged care sector through a newly formed department will not of itself overcome the problems associated with the inadequate daily funding or inadequate access to allied health professionals and other needs of the sector. The critical industry problems will not be resolved by the establishment of an audit and safety commission. The government thinks that simply by rebadging the oversight body all the problems are going to be magically resolved. They won't be. It is simply kicking the can down the road. I now turn to the overly exaggerated claims of this budget being an infrastructure budget. The nation is being conned, and in particular South Australia, my home state, is once again being dudded. I will quote directly from a post-budget press release issued jointly in South Australia by the RAA, the South Australian Civil Contractors Federation, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and the South Australian Freight Council. None of those organisations could be described as left wing, Labor Party stooges. Their press release states: The Commonwealth’s re-asserted pledge to complete the North South Corridor by 2023 is now a seemingly impossible task with none of the $1.2 billion needed for the North South Corridor works making it into the forward estimates. It goes on: Only $52 million of the promised $177 million for the Regency to Pym project is included … Duplication of the Joy Baluch Bridge has also taken a back seat with only $60 million of the $160 million promised for its duplication … Rail electrification from Salisbury to Gawler has also been short changed, with only $50 million of the $220 million required accounted for … The new $3.5 billion ‘Roads of Strategic Importance’ program allocates $530 million over the forward estimates, and South Australia receives just $3.7 million, less than 1% of the funds allocated … Of the new $250 million ‘Major Project Business Case Fund’ only $75 million appears in the estimates, with SA allocated $4.1 million, or just 5.7%. In closing, Evan Knapp, the Executive Officer of the SA Freight Council, said: This year’s Federal budget is all smoke and mirrors and delivers none of the promise of the pre-budget announcements. That press release sums up the real situation for South Australia in respect of infrastructure funding. Those bodies and organisations that put that press release together have scrutinised the budget because it is in their members' interest to do so. And in their assessment is the truth of just how poorly South Australia has been treated. What makes it even worse is that this is the second year in a row that South Australia has been so shamefully treated with respect to infrastructure funding for our state. I turn to the government's much-touted tax cuts. Even the most modest tax cuts proposed will not make their way into households until July 2019. That is probably after the next election. So there is no immediate assistance to people who are struggling with stagnant wages and rising living costs. Even worse, when all of the tax cuts do take effect, 60 per cent of the money will go to the top 20 per cent of households—such are the priorities of this government. At a time when many households are indeed struggling to make ends meet, when wage growth has stagnated and when the cost of living is increasing almost on a daily basis, there are two ways that householders can be helped. Either their taxes can be cut or their wages can be increased. Both put additional spending dollars in the pockets of households. And yet this government, at best, believes that by providing householders with a measly $10 a week, it will fix all of these problems. Well, it won't, and, quite frankly, when it puts $10 into the pockets of average householders, but down the track wants to give over $7,000 to those on very high incomes, it clearly shows that this government is totally out of touch with reality. One of the cruellest parts of this budget is not so much what is in it but rather what is not in it. There is no additional support in this budget for welfare recipients and pensioners, other than to say to pensioners: 'If you want more money, you can go and work for it, because we're going to increase the amount that you can earn each week before it affects your pension. And you can also, if you want to, use your house as collateral to get money under the Pension Loans Scheme.' Can I say to the government that most pensioners—not all, but most pensioners—are not able to work? They are simply not able to because of their age. So increasing the amount that they can earn is of no use to them whatsoever. And for those many pensioners who are already in rental accommodation, the Pension Loan Scheme will also be of little assistance. And it is those pensioners, those who cannot work or who live in rental accommodation, who are most likely to be in the most difficult financial situation of all. So the government's pretentious support for pensioners will not help those in the greatest need. And then we look at people on Newstart. There has been a debate in recent weeks about whether it's possible for a person to survive on Newstart. For many people, surviving on Newstart is indeed very, very difficult. We know that unemployment in this country is 5.6 per cent at the moment. In my home state it is 5.9 per cent. Many of the people on Newstart are on Newstart because they can't get a job, and they can't get a job because, in many cases, they have no skills or they have limited skills. They already find it incredibly difficult to get work. For them, the option of even relocating is sometimes not possible. Perhaps they might have a disability of some sort or they might have other medical problems. For example, for a single mum, perhaps with a couple of children, transferring schools and finding a suitable home in a new region in order to get a job, is just going to make that person's life even more difficult than it already is, and possibly add costs to that person that they simply cannot afford. Likewise with respect to young people, who often have strong ties and responsibilities in their place of residence. Indeed, I know some young people who actually act as carers for their parents, so moving out of home and moving to another region is not possible for them. And yet for them, Newstart has remained stable for years and, indeed, there are attempts to cut the benefits that they might already have access to. The other matter that has totally been neglected with respect to this budget is any real commitment to climate change. I accept that not everyone supports the view that the climate is changing and, if it is, what the causes are. But the reality is that the climate is changing and whatever the causes are we need to be taking steps and have a strategy in place to help with adaption to climate change. But, again, this government has totally neglected that. Lastly, I turn to the government's claim that conservative governments are better economic managers. We know that net debt in this budget is going to reach $350 billion in the year 2018-19 and gross debt will hit close to $600 billion in a couple of years' time. If this government believes they are better economic managers, why are they allowing those debt figures to grow at the rate that they are? The most damning criticism of this budget is that the Turnbull government is a government that clearly is not only out of touch with Australian sentiments but has its principles and priorities absolutely wrong. For a government to be saying that the highest income earners in this country, and the corporates, can get huge tax cuts—$80 billion for the corporates and tax cuts of over $7,000 for higher-income earners—at a time when $17 billion is being cut from schools, hospital funding is being cut, the ABC is being cut, the $14 energy supplement assistance for pensioners is still on the books to be cut, $77 in possible cuts to people who are currently earning penalty rates, the Medicare freeze continuing with respect to specialists, and increased child care costs of about $40 a week to most householders. With all of those cuts being made, this government, the Turnbull government, says it can find money to hand out big-business tax cuts, $17 billion of which I might add is likely to go to the four big banks, but it can't find the money to help people struggling out there in the community. Budgets are about priorities but they are also about ideology. The problem with this government is that it is too much controlled by the big end of town in this country. It has been for too long. This budget totally reflects that and it totally reflects a government that has completely lost touch with Australian households and Australian working people. 17:48 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan 'Age is not an issue. It is just a number': Roger Federer, probably one of the most exciting tennis players of our generation. Before I start, if you hear this address and identify with the stories I'm about to tell or the issues I'm about to address, I would like to hear from you. My name is Russell Broadbent and I'm the federal member for McMillan, in Victoria. I'm a government member, but don't let politics get in the way of contacting me. Ageism is alive and well in our society. It makes people lose a sense of belonging, a sense of value and a sense self-respect. It deprives society of skills, knowledge and experience that take decades to learn. It goes to the heart of how prepared we are to value and accept people, based on their good character and capacity to contribute, not based on their gender, race, religion or age. Take Robert. Robert is a 55-year-old CEO with decades of experience in the manufacturing sector. He has built businesses, led teams and implemented change in many businesses making iconic Australian products. When in his mid-40s, Robert went to see a recruiter, who said to him, 'You've got some fantastic experience, but once you get a five in front of your age employers won't want you.' Robert went for a CEO role in his 50s, the same CEO role he did exceptionally well at many times over. The job was a perfect fit. He was enthusiastic about wanting to work there. The job went to a man 10 years younger with 10 years less experience. Take Joan. Joan is in her 60s and lives in my electorate. She has enjoyed a successful career as a planner in local government. Joan is known for her skills, experience, good character and good judgement. Upon entering her 60s, she has struggled to find full-time employment in her chosen area of local government. Joan often gets looked over for someone substantially younger. Sometimes Joan is offered a short-term contract. Often Joan is asked to come in and fix other people's mistakes. The upshot for Joan is that she now has full-time employment, albeit a long way from where she lives. Robert is enjoying working as a consultant. Robert and Joan are good people. They are very good at their jobs. They are resilient, reliable and respected, and they both feel redundant because the first thing employees see is not all of their exemplary qualities but their age. As an economy, we need Robert and Joan to continue working. As a society, we need Robert and Joan to feel valued for their character and contribution—not counted out for their date of birth. The Australian Human Rights Commission's national prevalence survey results provide clear evidence of discrimination in Australian workplaces. The findings clearly indicate that age discrimination discourages older workers from remaining in and re-entering the workforce. Over a quarter or 27 per cent of Australians aged 50 years and over indicate that they have experienced some form of age discrimination on at least one occasion in the workplace in the last two years. The highest incidence of age discrimination was observed in the population aged between 55 and 64. The results also suggest that discrimination is part of the culture of some workplaces and some work practices. It is common for Australians aged 50 years or older to witness someone else experience age discrimination in the workplace. Further, a substantial number of respondents who were employees and managers reported that they would regularly take an employee's age into consideration when making decisions about hiring, promoting and training staff. The most commonly experienced forms of age discrimination were related to limiting employment promotion or training opportunities and to perceptions that older people have outdated skills or were too slow to learn new things. Jokes and derogatory comments based on age were also among the most common discriminatory behaviours reported. Age discrimination has significant negative impacts on most people who experience it. The most commonly reported factors are a negative impact on self-esteem, mental health and stress. A negative impact on family, career and finances was the second most common effect of discrimination. A significant proportion of people believe that taking action about discrimination would be too stressful or embarrassing, or it is easier to keep quiet. For the majority of those who had experienced age discrimination and took action with regard to the most recent event, their response in most cases was to think about leaving their job, changing career or discussing it with family, friends and colleagues. Relatively few raised the issue within their organisation or approached an external organisation for assistance. Women are more likely to be perceived as having outdated skills, being slow to learn new things or being more likely to perform unsatisfactorily in their job. Women are also more likely than men to report that their most recent event of discrimination affected their self-esteem or mental health or caused them stress. These results are of concern, given the increasing emphasis on encouraging women to return to the workplace or to continue their participation in the workforce beyond the traditional retirement age. Ruth Williams, a research fellow at the Centre for Workplace Leadership, University of Melbourne, reports that ABS data consistently shows that, despite their wealth of knowledge and experience, older workers are overrepresented in underemployment statistics. They experienced countless problems such as being denied additional work hours or experiencing unwanted cuts. Consequently, they are unwillingly locked into part-time or casual work. Mature age workers often face limited training and promotional opportunities and, as a result, they are left with outdated skills and minimal career progression. They are often denied flexible working conditions, with less of a chance to assume responsibility within the workplace. With such obstacles, older workers are sometimes unable to have productive impacts in their workplace. This is just the tip of the iceberg of age discrimination in the workplace. Work-related age discrimination and mature-age unemployment and underemployment can have complex and far-reaching outcomes. Many often overlook the wealth of knowledge, experience and skills that equip mature-age workers to apply leadership in workplace settings and projects. Most older workers have crucial business relationships and industry contacts. These cannot be recorded in a manual for others to read and easily implement. Industries requiring specific skills and knowledge, such as the mining sector, are deeply concerned about losing this specialised knowledge as older workers retire. HR and line managers need to apply an understanding and positive approach to how the ageing workforce can improve business. There are considerable economic costs associated with low labour force participation of older Australians. According to Deloitte Access Economics, an extra three percentage points of labour force participation among workers aged 55 and over would result in a $33 billion boost to GDP, or about 1.6 per cent of national income, and a five per cent lift in paid employment among this group would result in $48 billion in extra GDP, or 2.4 per cent of national income. These gains are on top of the expected $55 billion, or 2.7 per cent, boost from participation amongst the over-55s already factored into the latest Intergenerational report. At the individual workplace level, lower participation rates and experiences of employment discrimination impact in a variety of ways, including loss of knowledge and highly experienced and skilled staff, high costs of recruitment and training, loss of productivity in the workplace, levels of job satisfaction, and limiting diversity and its associated benefits in the workplace. The Australian Human Rights Commission's research found that many people who experience age discrimination in the workplace subsequently give up looking for work or think about retiring or accessing their superannuation. Other impacts include involuntary early retirement, unemployment and long-term unemployment, social exclusion, outdating of skills, barriers to accessing benefits and the age pension, and housing stress. Certain groups within the community may experience discrimination on the basis of their age differently from others—for example, people with disability, women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and LGBTI people. The 2015 Intergenerational report projects that the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will more than double by 2054-55. As a result of the growing population of older people and increasing life expectancy, there will be greater pressure for older Australians to remain in the workforce for longer. Labour force participation rates for older Australians are currently low. As a proportion of the whole population, one out of three Australians over 55 participate in the labour force, approximately 1.9 million people. This accounts for 16 per cent of the total labour force. Statistics also indicate that labour force participation declines with age. In the year to June 2010, 71 per cent of Australians aged 55 to 59 years were participating in the labour force, 51 per cent of 60- to 64-year-olds were in the labour force, and 24 per cent of those aged 65 to 69 years were in the labour force. Referring again to the national prevalence survey of age discrimination in the workplace, the commission found that over one-quarter—27 per cent—of Australians aged 50 years and over indicated they had experienced some form of age discrimination on at least one occasion in the workplace in the last two years. The highest incidence of discrimination was observed in the population aged between 55 and 64 years. Furthermore, managers aged 50 years or older reported that they took an employee's age into consideration on a regular basis when making decisions. Overall, one-third—33 per cent—of Australians aged 50 years and over who were in a role responsible for decision-making about staff took an employee's age into consideration always, frequently or occasionally when making those decisions. People in vulnerable circumstances are more likely to experience a negative impact of discrimination. Workers in the lower income bracket were more likely to experience a negative impact as a result of the most recent episode of discrimination—90 per cent versus 77 per cent respectively. In addition, one in two—50 per cent—of people in the lower income bracket gave up looking for work as a result of experiencing discrimination, as opposed to one-quarter of those in the higher income bracket. Of people in a single household with no children, 91 per cent were more likely to report negative impacts as a result of discrimination when compared to those who were a couple with children, which was 71 per cent. Of those who were a couple with no children living the household, it was 80 per cent. For people in a single-parent household, 87 per cent were more likely to be negatively impacted by the experience of discrimination when compared to those who were a couple with children, which was 71 per cent. As a society, we need to better understand and prepare for the impending issues facing ageing populations. Older people in this nation are not being given the opportunities in the marketplace that they deserve. Today, I heard a commentator in the National Press Club say that older Australians were not making the contribution to the tax base that they should. I say today that they have already made that contribution for all of their years. This nation needs to reform and work hard to revitalise older Australians to take their place in society, take leadership roles and use their experience for the national benefit. We need to change the focus of ageing from catastrophe to opportunity and remove barriers to older people leading healthy and productive lives. Speaking of opportunities, it is relevant that I mention the Labor Party's policy to increase collections on older Australians. This is their intention, if they are elected to govern. In regards to older Australians, they're going to reduce the negative gearing tax discount, reduce the capital gains discount and further reduce superannuation concessions. There are going to tax family trusts, end cash refunds of unused franking credits, abandon the cut in the company tax rate to big business and increase the top income tax rate from two per cent to 49 per cent. These measures alone will increase the tax take of a future Labor government by $30 billion over four years. Ross Gittins' article in The Age today should be compulsory reading for anybody who has worked hard and saved for their retirement. You are the people who will pay for Labor's largesse—yes, you. These people are the risk-takers, the investors, the innovators, the builders, the businesspeople and the employers and their employees. It is you who will have to cough up your hard-earned money to pay for the Labor's redistribution of your wealth—or, should I say, the redistribution of your wealth to others in our community. The fact is that 47 per cent of taxpayers pay no net tax in Australia. The top 10 per cent of taxpayers will pay 55 per cent of all tax in Australia this year and the top 20 per cent will pay a staggering 80 per cent of the tax burden, which will increase under a Labor government, which Labor says is just fine. I say it will dampen the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs and the risk-takers to have a go and create the jobs and opportunities of the future. A report I read said that 80 per cent of the new jobs of the future will created by these people through small- and medium-sized business start-ups. The Liberal-National government is determined that these enterprises will be given every incentive, every freedom and every opportunity to flourish and be the drivers of job opportunities for the benefit of all Australians. There it is: not only do they discriminate on the basis of age but they are now proposing to take from older generations and transfer that to the younger. Age is not an issue; it is just a number. Let us today reverse this ageist sentiment and redraw the line in the sand to benefit us all. In passing, I have to say the government will pay employers $10,000 if they employ an older person. It's time we gave older Australians a fair go. 18:03 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen It's always interesting to note when those opposite talk about hard work. They neglect to tell you there are three MPs over there who, in between the three of them, have given themselves a bigger tax rise than one pensioner earns in a whole year. When they talk about entrepreneurs, they're actually talking about lining their own pockets and not those who actually need it. They could live on $40 a day, apparently! In the latest budget, the government has shown its true colours. It's proven has once again—as we've seen time and time before—that while we on this side of this House are about giving Australians a fair go, those opposite are only here to look after the top end of town. There's not a lot to talk about when it comes to what the government has funded in my electorate compared to what it hasn't funded. It's pretty hard to talk about nothing—zip, zero, zilch. That's the funding this government has given to the community in this budget. There is not one road, not one school, not one TAFE, not one hospital and not one mobile phone blackspot tower. There is nothing. All they are doing is cutting money from workers and pensioners and giving tax cuts to their big banker mates. We've said it all before, and we'll say it again: this budget does not pass the fairness test. The budget was an opportunity for the government to show the nation what they believed in, and they did that. In his last speech, Hubert H Humphrey said: The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. The morals of this government are clearly on display with this budget. There's no secrecy. There are no hidden agendas. We see their priorities front and centre. They believe in backing big banks and big business over children, pensioners and working Australians, whereas we believe in a fair go. I represent one of the fastest-growing regions in our nation, with Whittlesea, Mitchell and Hume shires all being among the fastest-growing local government areas in the country. This growth brings with it pressures. Pressures that can only be relieved by proper funding of infrastructure, school and health care. We know that this government doesn't listen to anyone because one in five businesses have said outright they don't need a company tax cut to secure their business future—that's businesses telling the government they don't need this tax cut—and four in five businesses are saying they won't pass on the extra profits to increase employment or increase wages. So why is the government arrogantly pushing ahead with tax cuts for multinationals and overseas investors? This isn't ideological position. It's not a nation-building or an economy-building position. It's just their values to look after the top end of town. These cuts will be done at a time when inequity is higher than it's ever been before; stagnant wages and insecure work in this country are only getting worse. And not only that, the so-called tax cuts they want to give to workers won't be fully effective for about another 25 years. The Treasurer points to the 1.1 million underemployed Australians in his budget. He says himself, despite global growth being the best in six years, underemployment will still remain elevated. So, Treasurer, after five years of Liberal-National government, when global growth is at its best, why is unemployment at the same rate it was when you came in? Why is wage theft and wage stagnation so high when you're telling us the economic situation is better than it was six years ago? Why is it you would rather fork out $80 billion to tax-dodging big businesses, including overseas investors, than fund pensioners $14 a week for a winter energy supplement? Not only did this budget not deliver a single dollar to McEwen or the rest of Australia in infrastructure, it also admitted the government failed delivery on any infrastructure funding promised in the last budget. Down in Victoria, we've been working hard to get our fair share of funding. There's a much longer list of what hasn't been done than what has. We've been asking for the Wallan interchange, we've been asking for the E6 and we've been asking for safer and better access to our outer suburbs. We've had three infrastructure ministers this year alone, and not one of them can answer a call. Instead we are left to deal with the mess of single-lane roads and dangerous intersections while this government commits nothing to the communities in McEwen. Even the flailing PM finally seems to understand the need to get on with the North East Link so that we can give local roads back to local residents. This was a project that Labor championed at the last election and, boy, wouldn't it be nice if the government did just one thing right by McEwen's residents? In the latest Infrastructure Priority List compiled by Infrastructure Australia, only 13 projects out of 96 were in Victoria, and only two of those benefit McEwen. And yet both of those have again received no actual funding. Two out of 96 is simply not good enough. Unlike those opposite who came to the last election with no funding for vital roads in our communities, Labor committed $120 million to the Bridge Inn Road complete duplication, and funding for the O'Herns Road interchange. Why? Because we understand that growing communities need this access, and we know how to deliver it. The government talks big on its plan, but in five years it hasn't delivered a thing. It's like the Blackadder comedy. 'We have a cunning plan. A plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel!' But Treasurer Baldrick is delivering nothing that actually helps our communities. That means each and every year they deliver nothing; it gets worse and worse and worse. We have mobile phone blackspots. Much of Australia has had a small taste this week of what happens when your mobile phone doesn't work—it's been front-page news for days—but it's all too common an occurrence in our communities. It's what we face each and every day. This government put not one cent in the budget towards a mobile phone blackspot program. In fact, what it did do in the last round was mislead Australians in round 3 in delivering towers. By its own criteria, it failed to deliver. But it ensured that the money it had put aside for round 3 was put into a pork-barrelling exercise for marginal Liberal and National seats. We meet every single criterion listed by the government, yet we've received two in three rounds. You need to ask why. Why did the government take taxpayer funds and fund this pork-barrelling exercise at the expense of communities who can't get phone reception? Instead, 75 per cent of the mobile phone black spot towers have been in Liberal and National seats. This means for the next four years this government is not putting one cent towards improving coverages across Victoria. The message to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is: the jig is up. Victorians are tired of the lack of transparency and consultation in this government's delayed black spot program. While the government turns a blind eye to the fact that McEwen residents are being left off the grid, fortunately the Victorian Andrews Labor government is committing where the Turnbull government refuses to do so. The attacks don't stop there. The Turnbull government has had it out for young Australians from child care all the way through to university and TAFE. Those opposite don't seem to know or don't seem to care if kids start off on the wrong foot for their very first day of child care, cutting $6 million over the next three years from childcare early learning projects. Instead of putting that money into fixing the budget, they're giving that to the banks in the form of tax cuts. As if child care isn't bad enough, the government good is cutting $17 billion from our schools as well. McEwen is one of the top 10 electorates nationwide for students attending government schools. We know firsthand how many kids and parents will be affected by these brutal cuts. We know how devastating these cuts will be to schools squeezing every dollar to deliver excellent learning outcomes for our kids. While those opposite think mummy and daddy should pay more for schools, when people can't, they're still entitled to a good quality education. That's why we will restore fair needs based funding to all schools and put back that $17 billion the government is robbing from our kids' future. The choice is clear: Liberal government, $17 billion to the big banks; Labor government, $17 billion into education. Our TAFEs are under attack, with out-of-touch ministers who have never worked a day outside of a cushy office. It's an utterly bizarre attack on TAFE. The Minister for Education and Training said that funding the TAFE system is like funding basket-weaving. With comments like that, no wonder the government feels so comfortable cutting $270 million from TAFEs, on top of the $3 billion they've already cut from TAFEs and apprenticeships. Australian tradies— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 18:12 to 18 : 28 18:29 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Australian trades are facing massive skills shortages, from carpenters, to bricklayers, to bakers, to pastry cooks. Despite high unemployment, this government's cuts mean workers can't learn the skills industries are calling out for. I wonder if the Prime Minister has ever thought about who will build his fifth, sixth or seventh investment property. That's why we are committed to putting $100 million into modernising TAFE facilities around the country and to the scrapping of up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students. We will also reverse the cuts and uncap the student places in universities. This will open up around 1,500 more places for McEwen residents to head off to university. We won't stand for the $80 billion being handed to the top end of town when our universities' and TAFEs' budgets are brutally slashed. We understand that education is the key to securing our economy and creating opportunities. For our pensioners, this government's trademark of consistently being out of touch has not left retirees unscathed. You can always rely on this government to take from the needy and give to the rich—that's their trademark. In what world does increasing the pension age while also cutting the pension energy supplement make sense? Instead of rewarding those who have worked hard for our nation, the government is ripping $14 per fortnight out of their pockets and telling them they just have to keep working until they're 70. In McEwen, there are 17,000 residents over the age of 70, who will no doubt be affected by the government's tax cuts—that's 17,000 nation-builders in my community alone who are worse off under this government. Australians who have worked hard to enjoy their retirement shouldn't be made to continue to slave way because of the Prime Minister turning his back on them. The health care system is no different. Under this government, average waiting times for elective surgery are the longest on record, the number of hospital beds available for elderly Australians is the lowest on record and the number of people arriving in emergency departments is the highest on record. Instead of fixing this and making health care more accessible to Australians, this government has locked in further cuts to hospitals from 2020, joining the ludicrous $715 million cruel cuts they already have in place. If you make huge cuts to health care and health care outcomes are getting worse, what possible argument can be made to double down and cut even more? They are keeping the Medicare rebate freeze in place. Many families in Mernda, Wallan, Sunbury and Kilmore are going to be forking out their savings just to see a specialist. Seeing a GP is costing families in Romsey and Whittlesea 20 per cent more than it did a couple of years ago. Under Labor's Better Hospitals Fund we will invest an extra $764 million over the forward estimates to fix our public hospitals. That means that over the next six years we'll be committing an extra $2.8 billion in funding for more beds and shorter waiting times. We'll invest in every single public hospital across the country. I was in Whittlesea just last week talking to Luscombe Automotive about Labor's plan to give all mechanics access to the technical information they need to service modern cars. This will expand opportunities for people in our communities to shop locally, supporting local businesses, local people and local jobs. It's so important that we do this in rural and regional areas in order to make sure our economies grow and that we end the scourge of high unemployment, something this government has totally ignored. We have communities with 42 per cent unemployment for young people. There is not one cent in this budget to actually help them find work or to improve services to allow them to get to work. In conclusion, while the Prime Minister sits in his harbourside mansion, content with the havoc he has wreaked on the working middle class, sussing out the latest happenings at Ugland House, Australians like the ones I have in my community are out there working hard, struggling to make ends meet, week in week out. By now, hardworking Australians know that the economy is not working for them. The only way to fix this is to remove this Prime Minister, this greedy Treasurer and this government at the next election. Back in May 2011, Sid Maher and Jared Owens wrote in The Australian: Senior Liberals have declared that Malcolm Turnbull will never again lead the party … They were right. This Prime Minister does not lead. As I said earlier, the moral test of government is how the government treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children, those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly, and those in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. On every moral test this government and this budget are absolute failures. 18:34 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 and related bills, and I'm delighted to commend the Turnbull government's 2018-19 budget. In this budget we saw that, under the leadership of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Treasurer Scott Morrison and the entire coalition team, our strong economic plan is working for all hardworking Australians. The Turnbull government's budget outlines our government's clear plan to ensure that the benefits of stronger economic growth can continue to be secured and shared. It is a plan that will provide tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians, back businesses to invest and create more jobs, guarantee the essential services that Australians rely upon, and keep Australians safe, all while ensuring the government lives within its means. The Turnbull government is on track to deliver a modest balance in 2019-20 and, outstandingly, a projected surplus of $11 billion in 2020-21. The budget delivers tangible outcomes for residents in my electorate of Chisholm. A strong economy guarantees the essentials the people of Chisholm and across Australia rely upon. The Turnbull government knows that the security of your job, the quality of your health care, your business and your retirement all depend upon a strong economy. That is why I have strongly advocated for the people of Chisholm. In response this budget is providing responsible tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking Australians such as the good people of Chisholm. Starting in this budget year for low and middle-income earners, the Turnbull government is ensuring Australians keep more of their hard-earned income. We are also lifting tax brackets over time to ensure wages aren't eaten up by higher taxes. That's why I'm proud to be part of the Turnbull government, which is delivering tax relief with a focus on low and middle-income earners and responsibly returning the budget to balance. Under the Turnbull government's economic plan outlined in the recent budget, jobs are being created, investment is rising and the budget is strengthening. Our plan will deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes to encourage and reward working Australians. It will back businesses to invest and create more jobs, building upon our legislated tax cuts for small and medium enterprises. It will guarantee the essential services that Australians rely upon, including record funding for hospitals and schools, a comprehensive approach to aged care so that older Australians can live to the full, and guaranteed funding for disability services. The plan will keep Australians safe by strengthening security at airports and investing more in our intelligence and security services. It'll ensure that we live within our means, with a forecast return to a modest budget balance in 2019-20, with the lowest average real growth in payments of any government in the last 50 years. Our tax relief plan will encourage and reward hardworking Australians. More than 63,000 taxpayers in Chisholm will receive a new offset of up to $530 a year under our plan to reduce cost pressures on household budgets. There's also great news for the over 19,000 local businesses in Chisholm, with the $20,000 instant asset write-off continuing for another year, helping small businesses invest in new equipment. Over a thousand local businesses in Chisholm have already benefited from this measure which supports small and medium business. This is on top of legislated tax cuts for small and medium businesses that are helping them grow, create more jobs and pay higher wages. For example, a hairdresser in Chisholm earning $50,000 a year is set to have an extra $575 in their pocket from the budget year onwards, meaning an $4,055 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. Put simply, our tax relief plan is encouraging and rewarding hardworking Chisholm residents and Australians nationally. While the economy is continuing to strengthen and the budget position is improving, many Australians are experiencing cost-of-living pressures. Tax relief for low and middle-income earners is the first priority of the Turnbull government's seven-year plan to make personal income tax in Australia lower, fairer and simpler. By 2024-25 around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32½ per cent or less, compared with 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged. Tackling this tax bracket creep is essential. It is something that those on the other side have no idea about and ignore. It is essential in ensuring that Chisholm residents are able to keep more of their own money. It is their money. I'm committed to delivering for the good people of Chisholm, and know that providing such tax relief will encourage and reward working Australians. The 2018-19 federal budget is building a stronger economy that guarantees essential services like Medicare, schools, hospitals, disability services and aged care that people across Chisholm rely upon every day. The government will continue to ensure that all Australians have access to high-quality, affordable essential services at every stage of their lives. I have advocated on behalf of Chisholm residents, and this budget includes record funding for hospitals and schools, a comprehensive approach to aged care so that older Australians are encouraged to live life to the full, and guaranteed funding for disability services. In this budget, the government have continued our absolute rock-solid commitment to Medicare, with an additional $4.8 billion investment, building on the Medicare Guarantee Fund, which we established last year. Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign is absolutely unfounded and built on the premise of their fraudulent misrepresentations to the local community. Medicare spending is guaranteed by the Turnbull government and is increasing every year, from $24 billion in 2017 to $28.8 billion in 2021-22, to support health care for all Chisholm residents and Australians. Furthermore, indexation of the Medicare Benefit Schedule, which the government reintroduced in last year's budget, will deliver an additional $1.5 billion for Medicare services through 2021-22. The 2018-19 budget will also deliver more choices for a longer life package, which will support older Australians to live longer and be better prepared, healthier, more independent, and connected to their communities. The government is supporting 26,337 people aged over 65 and their families in the electorate of Chisholm to live longer, happier and healthier lives. I have worked hard to deliver for older Australians across Chisholm, and I'm proud that the package gives older Australians more choice and greater flexibility, including an additional 14,000 high-level home care packages so older Australians can stay in their homes longer if they want to; allowing pensioners to earn more without reducing their pension; and providing greater flexibility to use home equity to increase retirement incomes. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Proceedings suspended from 18 : 41 to 18 : 54 Ms BANKS 18661 Since the last budget, the Turnbull government has delivered an extra 20,000 high-level home care packages to support people to live at home for longer. Now we are providing 13,500 new residential aged-care places and 775 short-term restorative places to be made available where they are most needed, plus $16 million for capital investment. The government will also establish an Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to ensure that older Australians receive the best possible care, with an additional $50 million to assist providers to implement the new standards. We will invest $32.8 million to improve palliative care for older Australians living in residential aged care, filling current gaps in support services and with $5.3 million committed for innovations in managing dementia. The care of older Australians across Chisholm, from Mount Waverley to Burwood and from Blackburn South to Box Hill and everywhere in-between is a priority. I'm proud to be a member of the Turnbull government, which is ensuring best practice and better outcomes for our local seniors. Further, the government is helping Chisholm residents to work for as long as they want, laying the foundations for a secure retirement. We'll provide up to $10,000 in Restart wage subsidies for employing Australians aged over 50, and the Skills and Training Incentive will also provide up to $2,000 to fund upskilling opportunities for mature-age workers. Indeed, the 2018-19 budget delivers measures to boost living standards and to expand retirement income options to give retirees confidence in their financial security. The Turnbull government is increasing the pension work bonus to allow aged pensioners to earn an extra $50 per fortnight without reducing their pension. The Pension Loan Scheme will be expanded, giving greater flexibility to use home equity to boost retirement incomes—for example, by up to $17,787 a year. These measures will significantly benefit Chisholm residents, placing important downwards pressure on the cost of living for ageing Australians. More broadly across the health sector, the Turnbull government has committed record Commonwealth funding for public hospitals. The government will deliver more than $30 billion in additional public hospital funding under a five-year national health agreement, with funding increasing across Victoria every year. From 2021 to 2024 to 2025, the new agreement will deliver a record $130.2 billion in public hospital funding, which represents a more than doubling of public hospital funding under the coalition government, rising from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 to $28.7 billion in 2024-25. The Turnbull government is also investing $2.4 billion on new medicines to build on our commitment to guarantee those essential services that Australians rely on. This includes a new $1 billion provision to maintain our commitment to listing all new medicines recommended by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Unlike Labor, we list, and we will continue to list, every single drug recommended by the medical experts—the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee—with approximately $9 billion of investment in new life-changing drug listings since coming into government, helping unwell Australians. As the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health, I'm particularly delighted that the Turnbull government will provide $703.6 million for the listing of KISQALI on the PBS to support women with breast cancer. Without subsidies, patients would pay $71,820 per year. This is a life-changing measure that will directly affect women across Chisholm and beyond, and these measures can only happen when you know how to manage the economy. Then you can put the funding and money towards life-changing medicines that help to save lives. Mental health is also a priority of our government, and we are delivering $338.1 million in new mental health funding, focusing on suicide prevention, research and older Australians. Additionally, 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. The government has outlined a clear plan from the high chair to higher education, to ensure that every student in Chisholm and across Australia can choose the best education path to help them reach their potential. Australia's education system needs to be better than it is today. Students, employers, families and the Turnbull government all recognise the challenges we face, and how a stronger economy enables us to invest more in education and child care. That's why our budget outlines investment worth $43.7 billion in 2018-19 to support the coalition's reform plans for Australia's education system, including an extra $1 billion for schools this year alone, tied to evidence based initiatives that boost student outcomes. The government is delivering a 50 per cent average increase per student in fair, real needs-based school funding over the decade. Across Chisholm, the Turnbull government and I are ensuring that 2,206 children will be able to access 15 hours of quality early learning in the year before school and that 4,985 local families will benefit from more accessible and affordable child care. The Turnbull government is focused on building the roads, rail and other vital infrastructure that grow the economy and make life better for Chisholm residents. We're significantly investing in Chisholm's roads, rail and other vital infrastructure and will directly affect the daily commute and travel of thousands of local residents. We are busting congestion through a dedicated fund outlined in the budget, which will help Chisholm residents. The benefits of our infrastructure investment for the communities of Chisholm include a $5 billion commitment 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 $140 million for the Victorian Congestion Package. The budget is providing much needed funds to improve and enrich our infrastructure. As a born and bred Melburnian, I know that projects such as the Melbourne Airport rail link are essential in busting congestion, creating jobs and helping to maintain Melbourne's livability. Only the coalition can truly deliver for the people of Chisholm. Unlike Labor, we are securing the economy so that the government can provide for our local community while living within our means. The 2018-19 budget is a budget that truly delivers for the people of Chisholm. I'm proud to be a member of the Turnbull government, a government that is ensuring strong economic growth, reducing cost-of-living pressures, guaranteeing essential services and keeping Australians safe and secure whilst ensuring the government lives within its means. I commend these bills and the Turnbull government's budget. 19:01 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I'm not sure how many big multinational companies are based in the seat of Chisholm. They certainly will benefit from this government's budget, but average Australians—Australians who rely on public hospitals, Australians who rely on decent investment in education and Australians who are doing it tough and haven't seen a significant wage rise for some time—will certainly not be doing better under the Turnbull government. This budget has been disappointing, at best, and unfair and sneaky, at worst. I think many Australians were hoping to see Turnbull 3.0 or 4.0, but what this budget has given is exactly what the Liberal Party and the National Party have given since they've been in government—a budget that fails the fairness test. It fails ordinary Australians and it fails people who rely on investment in services. What is the trade-off for that? The government thinks that big multinational businesses deserve support in this budget. Out of the $80 billion tax handout in this budget that goes to big business, $17 billion goes to the banks. If you could find a situation more perverse then this is it. At the same time we've got a government cutting from hospitals and cutting from schools. We heard the previous speaker talk about how this budget will help older Australians work while they can. Of course, they're going to have to work, because in this budget there is still the sneaky proposal to increase the pension age to 70. I've spoken about this many times in this place. It is clear that members of the Turnbull government have not spoken to older Australians who have worked physical jobs. They haven't spoken to people who have had jobs in factories for a long time, people who have worked on building sites or people who have been tradies. They have put their body on the line for their work. Nurses have very physical jobs. Of course, their bodies can't work those same jobs until they are 70. It's just not feasible. Of course, this government, by increasing the pension age to 70, wants to make you work until you're 70. We hear the Prime Minister talk a lot about older Australians—waxing lyrical about how he's the Prime Minister for older Australians. Well, he's also still got in his budget the axing of the energy supplement, which really makes a big difference to pensioners. It might not make a big difference to our Prime Minister—who doesn't need an energy supplement—but it certainly makes a big difference to the pensioners, including those on the disability pension, that rely significantly on this supplement. But, no, this is going to be cut. We saw some pretty serious trickery in this budget as well, with a big announcement about home care packages. Of course, this was money that was already budgeted for. There is not one new home care package—money for our older Australians—in this budget. It's merely repackaged, rebadged and put out there. It's not only in aged care that we saw pretty sneaky reannouncements. Despite the government spruiking additional investment in infrastructure over the next four years, their budget did not include a single new dollar for rail or road funding in South Australia. The budget was all about spin when it came to South Australia, and the evidence—on page 141 of Budget Paper No. 2—clearly reveals that this year's allocation for South Australian infrastructure projects was zero. Next year, it's also zero, and in the subsequent years. The truth is that all of this money comes from unallocated funds set aside previously. So, despite the government talking up its infrastructure investment, we are seeing South Australia being seriously left behind. What became really clear is that, by 2021, South Australia will receive just $135 million in Commonwealth infrastructure investment. That is three per cent of the budget for a state that has seven per cent of the national population. In a joint statement, the state's leading industry lobby groups—the South Australian Chamber of Mines & Energy, the South Australian Freight Council, the Royal Automobile Association and Civil Contractors Federation South Australia—described the budget as misleading and untimely, and an inauspicious deal for South Australia. For my electorate of Kingston, once again, there is no infrastructure, no investment in infrastructure. It is disappointing that we didn't see any move towards the extension of the rail to Aldinga. They are just some of the highlights of disappointments for South Australia. In my portfolio areas, there were also significant disappointments. Of course, this budget has failed Australian children. Despite what the government says when it talks about putting more money into schools, members on this side of the House were here when the budget papers clearly said that there was money being cut from schools. It was clearly outlined that $30 billion would be cut from schools in 2014. So, if the government actually think that they can make significant cuts—$30 billion worth of cuts—and then put a little bit of that back and that we should be cheering for them, that is just absolutely perverse. It is time government members stopped pretending that they are putting more money into schools—sure, compared to the massive cuts, they're putting a little bit more in—when they are not restoring the funding that they promised they would match dollar for dollar. In early education, we see the budget express the government's values. It shows that it does not care or value early education. The government had an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment by providing long-term funding for our nation's preschools. But, after the calendar year of 2019, there is zero money in the forward estimates for universal access to preschool for four-year-olds. There is no new funding, and this will mean that potentially 350,000 preschoolers and their families will be in limbo when the funding runs out next year. Next year, families will have to start planning for their children to start preschool. Centres will have to start planning for enrolling children into kindy—for how many hours, for how many children? Of course, they can't plan for this, because the government refuses to commit. There was another sneaky cut when it came to early education. That was the cut to the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care. The quality agenda in early education is a success story. This is a success story that Labor initiated in government, and it requires that all early learning centres meet strict safety and quality standards that are assessed in terms of performance. Since Labor established the quality agenda in 2009, the Commonwealth has provided funding to the states and territories to employ staff to conduct safety and quality checks. We know that that has been driving improvement in quality right around the country. We also know that there are improvements that come when a centre has been checked and found to need improvement in some areas, and that those centres, when reassessed, have improved. This money was driving quality. This financial year, the Commonwealth provided $20 million for this vital work. But the funding runs out on 30 June, and this sneaky government has now torn up the agreement and has provided no money when it comes to quality. Last week, I met with the Victorian early education minister, who told me this means 50 monitoring and compliance staff in the department are now on the chopping block. There are more than 18,400 licensed early learning centres in Australia. How will the government now monitor the quality of early learning centres? What assurances can the government give Australian families and their children that they will not be educated in either dodgy or unsafe centres? This is a short-sighted measure. This is a reckless measure that does not put equality of early education—and, importantly, our children—at the centre of their policy. Instead, it is ducking and weaving about how the government can shirk its responsibility. Of course, the budget also locks in the new unfair childcare system from 2 July. We know one in four families are going to be worse off as a result of these changes. Most of them will be vulnerable families. Families with irregular, casual or seasonal work will also suffer. Families with a parent at home with a child who may also be caring for an older family member or an older sibling with a disability may get nothing. From July, these families will start losing their childcare subsidy and will have to make a terrible choice: pay more out of pocket for early learning, reduce hours, or pull their kids out of care. Families may have many reasons for not working, but this government believes that if you aren't working, and if both parents aren't working, you're bludging and your child shouldn't get early education. This is not good enough, and it's time the government seriously reconsidered this unfair proposal. Finally, I'd like to turn to the Veterans' Affairs budget. The budget has been a mixed bag for veterans, and there have been some welcome changes, such as the expansion of non-liability of mental health treatment for reservists. Side by side, though, there are cuts to allied health—$40 million worth of cuts in this budget. And that is very, very disappointing. These savings will be made by trialling a new treatment model, which will require veterans to return to their GP every 12 sessions to seek another referral. Veterans have raised with me—particularly those that have stable, chronic conditions—the question of why they have to jump through these hoops. It's pretty clear why: it saves the government $40 million. That is a significant amount of veterans who are going to miss out on allied healthcare appointments, and these are savings for the government. The government needs to be up-front with veterans. We're hearing a number of stories about why this change was made. First it was to pay for the IT system. The next story that comes out is that it's been forced on the Department of Veterans' Affairs by the Department of Health. My guess is that these cuts were made to save money, and I think it needs to be made really clear what the impacts will be if this continues. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:14