On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's report No. 17, Budget estimates 2019-20.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I have to report that the order of the day relating to the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the Christchurch attacks has been debated in the Federation Chamber and is returned to the House. I present a certified copy of the motion. I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the matter immediately. The question is:
That the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I present a revised explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 to strengthen the transparency and accountability of super funds and improve outcomes for members. The government believes Australia's compulsory superannuation system must be transparent, accountable and well regulated, prioritising outcomes for members, not shareholders, directors or employees, or trade unions. I'm confident the measures in this bill will achieve these outcomes.
Super is an important financial asset—for most Australian households, their largest financial asset and their second-biggest asset after the family home. That's why we need to make sure we've got the foundations right. The powers of the regulators and the obligations of trustees and directors must measure up to contemporary standards. That's why the measures in the bill are essential and why they need to be passed.
Many of the measures in the bill have been on the policy agenda for several years and have been recommended by past reviews into super, including most recently by the Productivity Commission, which labelled them a policy must-have. The bill contains new measures to modernise the super system and reintroduces the portfolio handling disclosure measures. It implements two of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry relating to super. It will improve the quality of super products by introducing a new requirement for trustees to consider the appropriateness of their MySuper and choice products via a new outcome assessment.
The bill strengthens the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's powers in a number of key areas. The enhanced directions power will ensure that the regulator has the ability to quickly intervene to protect the interests of members, including by directing trustees to take specific actions, such as transferring, merging or winding up a fund. The bill also strengthens the powers of the regulator by requiring approval to be obtained before a change in ownership or control of a trustee takes place by introducing civil and criminal penalties for trustees and directors who break their obligations and by enhancing the authorisation process for MySuper products.
The government expects the regulator to use these powers to safeguard the interests of members, including to more effectively address fund underperformance. Finally, it will improve transparency by introducing a requirement for trustees to hold annual members' meetings by enabling the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority to obtain more detailed data on super fund expenses and by introducing workable arrangements for portfolio holding disclosures. The performance of the super system has a direct bearing on the retirement incomes of each and every Australian. Confidence in the system is obtained by ensuring members can see where their funds are being invested and see super trustees who are complying with the law.
It's also important to recognise that, in passing this bill, we are legislating two recommendations of the royal commission. This is within nine weeks of the government receiving the final report. It's only this government, frankly, that can be trusted to take action on all 76 recommendations, and the passing of this bill is yet another example of the government continuing to reform the financial sector in a way that delivers better outcomes for members of superannuation funds. It's only this government that is putting members' interest first and it's focusing on ensuring Australia's super system delivers outcomes for all Australians first and foremost, not for any self-interest in the industry—that is, a system that encourages people to participate actively; that ensures transparency to facilitate informed decisions; that gives people the confidence to invest; that is a strong regulator; and that is equipped to protect members interests and, when required, to hold funds to account. I'm confident the measures in the bill will achieve these outcomes. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I present a signed, revised explanatory memorandum.
It's a great pleasure to speak on behalf of Labor members in parliament about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. It's a bit of a dry name for the bill, but it's a bill that does something that's actually incredibly important and which is going to make big improvements to the superannuation savings of Australians. I'm particularly pleased to speak on this bill because Labor was able to take the opportunity in the other place to make enormous improvements to this bill. The bill as it was originally drafted was actually going to leave very large segments of the Australian superannuation market out of these additional accountability measures. Labor has been pleased to fix that problem.
Before I get into the content of the bill though, I need to respond to a little bit of the rhetoric that was coming at us from the minister on the other side of the House. To now hear the government saying that they're the ones that can be trusted to implement the royal commission recommendation is laughable. That is laughable. It was April Fools' Day on Monday. It's Thursday today, and we can't take jokes like that in the House of Representatives. The idea that this government has any moral authority over financial services reform in this country is a complete and utter joke. They did everything they could to avoid calling a royal commission into the big banks. They did everything they could to protect them from proper laws and proper accountability. Indeed, while Labor spent almost two years arguing for that royal commission, the government put its political capital into trying to give $17 billion to the big banks, who we now know were anything but deserving of a big tax cut. So to have the minister come into the chamber and say that they can be trusted on banking—come on, that's just ridiculous!
It's not just up to the point of the royal commission but in the response to the royal commission that we see the government doing everything they can to use weasel words and clever political language to try to get out of implementing the recommendations. In fact they're using this in what they probably think is a clever way, saying that they're going to take action on the 76 recommendations of the royal commission. The reason they're using that language is they're not going to implement them; they're just going to do something, a little bit, about some of those problems. In fact, in large part, the government has said that they'll think about the things that Commissioner Hayne recommended later—they'll do a review in a few years; they might go one-tenth of the way towards doing what Commissioner Hayne recommended. Can I say that I'm so disappointed to hear the minister come in here and put forward the very false premise that the government has any authority to talk about these issues in that way.
The bill before the House is a very good example. In fact, it's the second day in a row in this parliament where I've got up on a bill where Labor has been behind pushing the government further to make those laws good laws and where it's Labor that's been behind bringing in the royal commission recommendations into the laws, which the government's been saying that it can't implement. The minister's right: we've had nine weeks since the royal commission reported. If the parliament had actually been sitting during that time, we could have made real headway on putting some of those recommendations into law. But, instead, here we are with the government flapping around. It doesn't want the parliament to sit because it knows it has to have terrible things called 'Liberal Party caucus meetings' where all they do is yell at each other rather than address the problems facing the country. It's a bit of a joke, but I don't think I really need to point that out.
Returning to the subject of the discussion today, which is about the member outcomes test, I mentioned that the original bill didn't actually do what we thought it needed to do, which is apply more accountability to a broad range of superannuation funds and accounts that Australians are in. The major feature of this bill is the member outcomes test, which would require trustees to assess on an annual basis whether the outcomes that have been delivered by their products are promoting the financial interests of the members. It's a pretty straightforward thing. In fact, I think it's interesting that we weren't already doing it. It's a significant reform, and it's one that Labor in principle would always have supported.
There were very significant issues, though, with the way that this bill was originally drafted. The biggest issue was that it applied only to MySuper products. Superannuation's quite complicated but anyone who is paying even a little bit of attention knows that the biggest issues in superannuation are actually not in MySuper; they are choice products. Here we had the government putting forward a bill that would have taken what is the best-performing part of this sector and introduced more accountability to that part, but the really troubling aspect of the sector was going to be left untouched. It's unfortunately a pretty regular narrative that we see when the government comes in and tries to make changes to superannuation. The changes, as the government had drafted them, would have largely exempted about 83 per cent of the bank-owned and other retail superannuation assets, and that is despite the fact that choice products are consistently delivering poorer returns to members than MySuper products. I should make it really clear that that's not to say that there are no issues with MySuper products—there are. But to leave the choice products out of the outcomes test was not going to fly with the Labor Party.
Labor is the architect of Australia's compulsory superannuation system, and that's why we'll always fight for stronger laws to strengthen, improve and protect this sector. There's a lot of really good debate about how we should be regulating financial services and, particularly, how much we should allow consumers to make their own decisions and, in some cases, their own mistakes. Superannuation has a number of very distinctive features which mean the parliament has to play a greater role in making sure that Australians are protected. For one thing, it's compulsory. This parliament actually legislates to force people to put aside part of their income each year for their retirement. So we're requiring people to save. We also know that people tend not to pay a great deal of attention to their superannuation. You only have to look at the number of Australians who have multiple superannuation accounts, up until even their forties and fifties, to see that people are not taking such an active interest in their super until those final years before they get into retirement. The other thing is that it's actually just very complicated. So, for those three reasons, it's really important that the parliament comes in, makes really good laws and makes sure that Australians are properly protected.
What came out of the Hayne royal commission sickened me and it sickened Labor members of parliament. It was just devastating to see the way that financial services firms and superannuation firms, in some instances, really abuse the trust that Australians put in them. It was a royal commission, as I said, that the government voted against 26 times—a royal commission that they never wanted to happen—and it's very clear that they don't actually want to implement the recommendations.
We were also very concerned about the findings that the Productivity Commission inquiry into superannuation made earlier this year. That really told us, for the first time, what the impact is of an Australian falling into a not-very-well-performing superannuation fund. The Productivity Commission showed us that, if someone comes into a fund at the top quartile—one of the highest-performing funds in Australia—at the beginning of their career, they are going to be somewhere in the order of $500,000 better off in their retirement than they would be if they'd been defaulted into a poor-performing fund. What is so outrageous is that, for a lot of people, whether they end up in a high-performing fund or a low-performing fund at the beginning of their career, it just comes down to luck. So right now this parliament has a compulsory savings scheme that allows people, really through a lottery, to end up in a high- or low-performing fund, and the impact on that person is half a million dollars when they retire—a very significant impact on the standard of living of a retiree. So it's absolutely clear that the parliament needs to take significant action on this question, and the member outcomes test is part of helping us do that.
Labor has one primary priority for superannuation, and that is protecting members' interests. What that means is that we need to get as many Australians into high-performing superannuation funds as we can. Labor's amendments to this bill in the Senate will force choice superannuation funds to report on their performance for the first time, like MySuper products. They go beyond what was in the government's initial bill and beyond the government's amendments. We were very pleased to see them get crossbench support in the other place.
This bill, as amended, will shine a light on underperformance and ensure that we have tough benchmarking of high and low performance. We don't want to let under-performers continue to be left alone in the dark with our money, as we saw in the royal commission. Labor's amendments successfully passed the Senate. They will also allow us to crack down on dodgy directors of super funds and trustees by significantly increasing penalties for misconduct to more than $500,000.
Labor also moved amendments to schedule 5 to strengthen APRA's directions power so that it can extend it to related parties. Many superannuation fund trustees delegate the operation of the fund to related parties. That's why that was such an important measure. If the directions power did not apply to related parties, APRA would need to rely on contractual rights—which, in some instances, wouldn't have even existed—to ensure that actions that the related party needs to take, in APRA's view, would be done. Those amendments are important additions to APRA's powers.
The biggest problem facing Australian superannuation today is poor-performing funds and the many millions who are defaulted into them each year or who are stuck in them. If elected, Labor will act to address this issue. We can't stand by while millions of Australians have their savings eaten up by poor performance or fee-gouging. Labor is proud to have strengthened this bill to crack down on these funds and hopefully ensure a better retirement for the many Australians stuck in them. There are big issues in our superannuation system. The government has had almost six years to address them but has failed to take action. There is unpaid superannuation, which the best evidence we have tells us is actually a bigger problem in this country than wage theft. There is the superannuation gender gap. Australian women are retiring with roughly half as much in their retirement accounts as men. We just can't continue like that. There are chronic under-performing funds and dodgy funds that are misusing workers' money and ripping off people in retirement.
We want to make sure that superannuation is working better for all Australians. And that's why, if elected, Labor will introduce a raft of measures that will work towards closing the superannuation gender pay gap. This includes paying superannuation for the first time on Commonwealth paid parental leave and dad and partner payments, because it's just wrong that someone who takes time out of work to look after children essentially pays this enormous financial penalty later in their life for doing so.
Labor also has a plan to address the enormous issue of unpaid superannuation. That includes placing the right to superannuation within the National Employment Standards, strengthening the ATO compliance regime and increasing penalties for employers for underpayment or non-payment of superannuation. And Labor will take significant steps to lift the performance of funds. Standing up for ordinary people is the core mission of our political party. We're very proud to have created superannuation with our friends in the union movement. And we're very proud of what it's come to today—almost $3 trillion in savings, which provides huge economic benefits to us more broadly and, most importantly, provides a more comfortable retirement for millions of Australians. But this system relies on public trust, and we need to do a bit of work, I think, to restore that public trust so that we can make sure that millions more people benefit from it in the future. Thank you.
I rise to speak in support of this bill. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 includes eight changes to superannuation governance arrangements, including transparency measures, new powers for APRA to regulate superannuation licensees, and new penalties for directors. As the shadow minister has just outlined, Labor was successful in moving some amendments to this bill in the Senate which improved the operation of the bill and, most importantly, extend its coverage. Those amendments were drafted by the shadow minister, importantly in consultation with the industry. We listened to the feedback that we'd got from people who work within this industry about the shortcomings of this bill and we moved to rectify those. In doing so, we've been able to improve the coverage of the bill.
In terms of the government's amendments requiring registrable superannuation entity licensees to look through pooled superannuation trusts to meet their obligations to make information about their portfolio holdings publicly available, that's a reform that Labor certainly supports and that will improve transparency and governance of super funds, and clarifying that the obligations on RSE licensees apply equally in respect of all choice products and MySuper products is of course something that Labor supports and wants included in this reform.
The issues that Labor has been concerned about predominantly relate to ensuring that choice products that contain multiple investment options are required to disclose portfolio holdings. This is because the disclosure requirements only extended to investment options held or issued by the RSE or related entities, so retail funds which offer their investment options via custodial arrangements may not have met the requirements. Labor, in consultation with the industry, raised these concerns that the changes didn't apply to choice products and were largely exempting around 83 per cent of bank-owned and other retail superannuation assets, and Labor's amendments have ensured that the annual MySuper outcomes assessment gives priority to net return to members, that provisions of the bill cover choice products as well as MySuper products, that APRA is given the same powers in granting and cancelling an RSE licence as it will have for MySuper authority, that APRA's direction powers extend to connected entities, and that it's clear in the bill that the portfolio holdings disclosure requirements cover choice products with multiple investment options.
Unfortunately, the government's original amendments basically implied that bad member outcomes were confined to MySuper products. We all know that's not the case. Regular surveys and assessments of the performance of funds across the industry, retail and self-managed sectors indicate that some of the best-performing funds, in terms of not only the investment outcomes for members but also the transparency associated with fees and charges, are delivered by industry funds, and many of those are MySuper products. Our amendments force choice superannuation funds to report their performance, like those MySuper products do.
We all know, unfortunately, that millions of Australians are being ripped off by underperforming accounts. It's critical that they are forced to report their performance and lift their game. We've seen, not only through the banking royal commission but also through the recent Productivity Commission report, just what a difference an underperforming account can make to a member's balance when they retire. The shadow minister pointed out earlier that, if someone, through no fault of their own, is defaulted into a badly performing fund, as compared to a high-performing fund, the difference at the end of their working life can literally be close to millions of dollars. When most people enter into the superannuation regime, they're defaulted into a particular product, because—let's face it—they're not aware of how the superannuation system operates. When you're talking about teenagers and people in their early 20s, they don't have the financial literacy to understand how the system works, and a lot of the time they start in a particular occupation and are defaulted into a particular fund.
It's important to ensure, when that does occur, that those that are in that situation can have trust in the operation of that fund—that the trustees are operating in the best interests of their members and ultimately trying to maximise the performance of the fund. Labor's technical amendments will significantly strengthen that outcomes test. We need to see penalties for dodgy directors increased to more than $500,000 to make the penalties effective but also to ensure that they're retrospective to October 2015. Labor will also seek to strengthen APRA's directions power and increase super funds' portfolio-holding obligations.
We all know that Labor built the superannuation system—it's something that we're very, very proud of—and we're always working and consulting with the industry to improve it. Where sensible amendments are offered by the government we will seek to support them, but in this case we've also been able to improve the regime and the amendments that have been put forward by the government. The financial services royal commission demonstrated that there needs to be much more scrutiny, much more accountability and much more transparency when it comes to the provision of financial services in this country. That not only applies to the advice industry, it not only applies to the insurance industry or the banking industry—particularly in areas associated with mortgages and loans—but it also applies to superannuation. Progress in improving transparency, accountability and better outcomes, including in superannuation, is something that Labor wholeheartedly supports.
There are serious issues in superannuation that still need to be dealt with. The government have had six years to try and deal with some of those issues and they've abjectly failed. The notion that people can have unpaid superannuation in this day and age is simply criminal and it amounts to wages theft. Given the technical nature of payments platforms for people and the fact that everyone in the workforce has a tax file number, we should be able to make sure that, if someone is working in a particular industry, in a particular occupation, they are paid superannuation in accordance with the legislation and on time, yet it's not the case. It's something that this government have been woefully inadequate in dealing with.
The superannuation gender pay gap is a serious issue that still results in a major disadvantage, predominantly for women in Australia, as a result of them taking breaks from the workforce. It's an issue on which Labor has sought the advice of experts who work in this industry and is acting on it. If Labor is elected, we will seek to rectify the gender pay gap that exists in superannuation in this country through reforms such as ensuring that superannuation continues to be paid when someone goes onto paid parental leave or dad and partner pay. Underperforming funds are a serious issue. We know the outcomes of underperforming funds for people during their life cycle can be rather detrimental and put people at a severe disadvantage compared to those in more superior-performing funds. This reform goes some of the way, but there will be more work to do, and Labor stands ready to do that work if we're elected at the next election.
Labor are very proud that we forced this government into agreeing to a royal commission, despite the fact that they voted against it 26 times and despite the fact that they did not want to shine a light on what's been going on in financial services and banking in this country over the last decade. Labor are extremely proud that we were able to achieve that outcome and force this government into a royal commission. Labor have been vindicated. The findings of that royal commission and the shocking evidence that was given through that process vindicated Labor's call for a royal commission. Labor have stood ready to implement the recommendations from that royal commission as quickly as possible. We even offered for the parliament to sit an additional two weeks in March this year to ensure that we had the time to implement the more urgent recommendations that related to issues like grandfathered commissions, which have been the root cause of a lot of the problems in this industry. Unfortunately, the government again delayed, obfuscated and wouldn't deal with the issue. It perfectly highlights their approach to financial services, to superannuation, to advice and to what's been going on in banking and financial services over the course of the last decade, and it's a great shame. If Labor is elected at the next election we will make sure that we as quickly as possible get on with the job of implementing those royal commission recommendations through our implementation taskforce, in consultation with the industry, to improve the regulation that exists in this area and, importantly, to improve outcomes for people in financial services in this country, including superannuation.
Today we are debating legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, to tighten up the administration and regulation of our superannuation industry. This stands in contrast to decisions that have been made by this government. A year or so ago we had a decision that reduced the penalty rates payable to workers on Sundays and public holidays. It reduced the take-home pay for many of our lowest-paid working Australians. Labor said to the government and to the Australian people, 'We can fix this.' We proposed legislation to resolve this issue, and the government said no. The government said no because it said, 'Well, that was the decision of an independent tribunal. We should not legislate around that problem.' In doing that, the government not only showed its hypocrisy—hypocrisy because it was exactly the opposite of what it said when it came to the issue of safe rates, an issue that it was so opposed to that not only did it reverse the decision of the tribunal in that matter but it abolished the entire tribunal—but it's also entirely contrary to the way in which we saw the superannuation system develop in this country. In the case of our superannuation system, we saw a case brought in the commission to expand superannuation so that it applied to all working Australians. The commission declined to make that decision and the parliament, as the sovereign body of this nation, said, 'We can resolve this through legislation.' The parliament went and legislated to create a compulsory superannuation system in this country. In that regard it stands in stark contrast to the position adopted by this government when it comes to the issue of penalty rates. The issue is wholly competent and wholly possible for this parliament to resolve, and indeed it should do so. If there is a Bill Shorten government after the next election this parliament will legislate to fix the penalty rates issue.
Today, in highlighting that stark contrast, we are dealing with legislation to further tighten up and improve our superannuation system in Australia. This bill, which deals with the accountability and outcomes of superannuation, is vitally important, because, through the creation of our universal superannuation system here in this country, we have created and developed one of the largest bodies of savings in the world. It is important for every working Australian that their money, the money that is looked after by superannuation trustees, is properly governed and that they can have confidence that the money they are contributing to superannuation, whether through the superannuation guarantee or through a voluntary contribution, will not only be there in the future for them to rely on but will be protected against bad governance and bad investment decisions. It also provides an opportunity for Australians to be in a fund that will actually provide good returns for them.
The way in which this legislation was introduced into this parliament highlights the way in which the coalition government really isn't committed to superannuation for ordinary working Australians. I say that because when you look at what this bill is targeted at, in a sense what it is doing is making life harder for trustees administering the MySuper-style accounts of most ordinary Australians, but it is not imposing those regulations on many of the retail funds and choice funds out there. The curiousness of that is this: who does that then provide a benefit for? It certainly doesn't protect the people who have put their money into types of superannuation accounts other than MySuper. What it does is to make life easier for the banks and other superannuation funds to make a profit from the money that is being put into those superannuation accounts. It lets them off the hook while trying to apply proper scrutiny of MySuper. There is no criticism of that. Why on earth would you let those others off the hook?
It reflects the priorities of this government. It is the priorities of this government that have delivered proposed massive tax cuts for the big end of town but then they don't look after ordinary working Australians. It is these perverse priorities from this government that led to the initial bill that we saw here.
Fortunately, the government has seen the light, because of the pressure applied by our shadow minister for financial services, in seeing that this legislation had to be amended. The Senate facilitated that occurring through a range of government and opposition supported amendments going through the Senate. What the bill, as a whole, was trying to do is very important. It is very important to make sure that we see that APRA, as the prudential regulator overseeing one of the biggest bodies of savings in the world, it not at risk, because, when you create a body of savings like that it is a honey pot. People see that as an opportunity to make their own money. We need to make sure that that money is available for the people who need to rely on it in their retirement.
We have now made sure that a lot of the additional regulation that was going to apply just to MySuper accounts or just to trustees managing MySuper products will now apply more generally to retail funds across the board so that we have these protections protecting all superannuation accounts. There are also the protections around outcomes and reporting on those things and making sure that the technical amendments mean that the outcome tests that will be applied will actually be appropriate and will actually deliver on the outcomes. We've made sure that there will be good penalties applied to the directors of these trustees, so that they have to take responsibility for the things that they do as directors of trustees of superannuation funds. They are placed with a huge burden of responsibility.
When we look at what's happened, in particular, in retail funds—the returns that are being provided, the lack of transparency that has existed in relation to those returns and the fees that are baked into those lower returns—it is quite clear that people have effectively been ripped off in Australia in relation to some of these superannuation funds. That, fundamentally, is unfair on them. It is unfair on them but it is also unfair on the Australian taxpayer. When people are getting lower returns, when people end up having up to $100,000 less in their retirement savings because of being gauged on fees or having substantially lower returns because of the fees baked into those funds, it means that they are more likely to end up on the pension scheme sooner and it means that they are then going to have to draw on taxpayer funds in that regard. It is good that we have a pension scheme that operates there as a safety net—absolutely—but it shouldn't have to kick in because of bad management and bad investment decisions by retail funds. So, having those outcome tests, making sure that directors are responsible for meeting the best interests of superannuants and holding those directors to account for that, is very, very important.
It will join with a suite of other matters that Labor wishes to introduce when it comes to superannuation. I have been having a long-running correspondence discussion, we might call it, with the Commissioner of Taxation. It results from a constituent of mine whose employer had not been paying his superannuation. His employer closed up business and left his superannuation account deficient of funds. The ATO has been pursuing this person, the employer, for a whole range of unpaid taxes, including the superannuation guarantee payments. It is good that the ATO does that. Interestingly, there is nothing that my constituent can do to try and force those funds out of his former employer. Also, there is nothing that my constituent can do to find out when he can expect those superannuation funds to be paid, even though the former employer has entered into a payment arrangement with the ATO. I raised this with the commissioner and said, 'Why can't you tell him?' and I was told that it is because of the privacy provisions in the tax act. I said, 'That's curious because the privacy provisions in the tax act say that you can't disclose matters that don't relate to the person seeking the information.' But obviously it is his money. It is his superannuation account that the money is going into. Those matters directly relate to him.
My beef fundamentally may well be with the operation of those privacy provisions, but what it also points out is that there is a fundamental lacking in the way in which ordinary working Australians can go about enforcing what is effectively an employment right, which is to be paid their full remuneration when they get their weekly, fortnightly or monthly pay packet and for that money to end up in their superannuation account. That's why it is so crucial to—and this is why Labor has adopted this policy going into this election—make those superannuation guarantee payments part of the National Employment Standards, something that can be enforced directly against the employer, something that can make sure that employees can get the funds to which they are entitled. It is about creating savings for taxpayers. It is about that way which we have created in Australia where people can look after their own retirement better by having superannuation accessible and available at their disposal.
With that I bring it back to the fundamental point that I raised at the beginning—Labor were the architect of our superannuation system here in Australia. We were the architect of it because, despite the Industrial Relations Commission saying, 'We're not going to make an order; we are not going to create an award that puts this into our employment system,' Labor in government said: 'We hear what you are saying, Commission, but we are going to legislate it anyway. We are going to introduce a system that will create one of the largest bodies of savings in the world and put Australians in a better place to manage and fund their own retirement.' We made those decisions and do you know what? Every time we have taken a decision like that to the benefit of working Australians in this country, the Liberal Party and the National Party, the members of the coalition, have opposed it. The only time they ever do anything that might even look vaguely like it is going to be in support of that system, it is a mechanism to avoid the superannuation system. It is a mechanism of making sure that a body of people that already are clearly wealthy enough to look after themselves can save even more tax dollars through the system, creating another loophole. They've never been about making sure that this system works for the vast majority of Australians.
You can see it in the way this bill was drafted originally. Yes, they went after MySuper—good. That's excellent. But they left open the minefield when it came to all the other superannuation funds—not because they saw that the highest risk was in MySuper but because it would benefit their friends at the top end of town in the banks that were managing all of these superannuation accounts. Why should extra scrutiny be applied to them? Well, I can't think! Have there been any other criticisms of the banks and the managers of these retail funds over the last year or so? Let me have a think about that. Oh, there was that royal commission that they opposed 26 times! Twenty-six times they opposed a royal commission. The royal commission made recommendations of things that should be changed. If it weren't for the pressure that was applied by Labor to make sure that these sorts of changes were applied across the board and we had those amendments made in the Senate, we wouldn't be able to stand here today and provide the support for this legislation in the way that we do now.
It is good that we have this legislation before us. As I say, we support it. But, fundamentally, what we on the Labor side of this parliament do here is support the superannuation system providing better retirement incomes and support for ordinary working Australians. We want to make sure—and that's why it was important that the scope of this legislation was expanded and why we will take this further in government if we are successful at the next election—there are the proper administration and regulatory supports around this huge body of savings. As I said before, it acts as a honey pot. It acts as a way in which people can say: 'I can make a fee out of that. I can make a profit out of that. I can get an aspect of that.' We have seen it with property developers trying to get people to put their superannuation funds into apartments. We have seen it with the fees being gouged out of certain retail funds. We have seen it in the low returns over many superannuation accounts that are available to people in Australia. Clearly there is a problem when it comes to the nature of competition in this sector if we have so many different accounts returning so many suboptimal returns for Australia's future retirees. That bodes a fundamental problem.
That's why it is important that we have this legislation apply in a much broader way. It is good that the government got around to seeing these amendments come to fruition through the Senate. As I say, Labor will make sure that people's retirement incomes are protected by making sure that their right to their superannuation guarantee payment is part of the National Employment Standards. I look forward to the day, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I suspect you do too, that a Labor government, hopefully in just a few months, will be able to start bringing about those changes as well.
I thank all those who have made a contribution to the debate. The super industry is a $2.7 trillion industry and it is critical that the system is modern and solely focused on delivering outcomes for members. A modern super system empowers members and provides for transparency around fund activities and performance. Many of the measures in the bill will be on the policy agenda for several years and have been recommended by past reviews into super—including, most recently, by the Productivity Commission, which labelled them 'a policy must-have'.
The bill implements two critical recommendations into the royal commission into misconduct in the banking and financial services industry. The measures in this bill will strengthen the regulator's power and improve accountability, transparency and, ultimately, member outcomes. This will boost members' confidence that their money is being managed in their best interests. The government wants a super system that delivers outcomes for the benefits of members—not shareholders, directors, employers or trade unions. I am confident the measures in the bill will achieve these outcomes.
Schedule 1 creates a requirement for both MySuper and choice products to consider the appropriateness of their product on an annual process via the new outcomes test. It also creates an obligation on all trustees to promote the financial interests of members. This will boost the accountability of trustees and ensure that the outcomes delivered to members are in their best interests.
Schedule 2 gives APRA more scope to cancel an application or cancel a MySuper application where it believes the trustee will not comply with the obligations. This will improve the quality of default MySuper products by allowing APRA to refuse or cancel an authority to offer a MySuper product if it has a reason to believe the trustee may fail to comply with its obligations.
Schedule 3 of the bill delivers on both a recommendation of the financial system inquiry the government accepted in 2015 and a recommendation of the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, super and financial services industry. It will strengthen the accountability of trustees and directors by making them subject to civil and criminal penalties for breaches of their duties.
Schedule 4 gives APRA the power to reject a change in the ownership of a corporate trustee. Given the potentially detrimental outcomes that may arise from the mismanagement of funds, we believe that no-one should be able to own or control a super fund without APRA's approval.
A strong regulator is crucial for ensuring confidence in the super system, and schedule 5 of the bill will ensure this. The new directions power will harmonise APRA's directions powers across credit unions, friendly societies and the banking, insurance and super industries. This will enable APRA to intervene at an early stage to address prudential concerns in a manner that ensures the required actions are in the best interests of members. It will enhance APRA's powers to issue directions to a trustee, or its connected entity, to take, or refrain from taking, specific action.
Schedule 6 of the bill introduces a workable arrangement for portfolio holding disclosures. It will boost transparency for members and will also ensure that Australia's system is consistent with international best practice. The approach in the bill will significantly reduce the complexity of the current law, which was introduced in 2012 but has never commenced operation.
Schedule 7 improves transparency by introducing a requirement for super funds to hold annual members' meetings. This will give members the ability to hold trustees accountable for the operation and performance of their funds.
Schedule 8 enables APRA and fund members to gain a more complete understanding of how funds are spending members' moneys, and whether this is in the best interest of members, via a new reporting standard.
Importantly, schedule 9 includes a measures to implement another recommendation of the royal commission around incentivising employers. The measure will strengthen the effectiveness of the prohibition of inducements to employers by trustees and allow civil and criminal penalties to be imposed on trustees that use goods or services to induce employers.
We consulted with stakeholders in the development of this legislation. Dozens of written submissions were received from industry and individuals on the draft legislation, and over 20 organisations participated in multiple roundtables. There was strong support for the policy intent of the bill. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the design of the bill. Once again, we make it very clear that the government is focused on ensuring Australia's super system delivers outcomes for all Australians first and foremost, not for any self-interest in the industry. I am confident the measures in this bill will achieve these outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I apologise for getting up to speak too early, but I am very keen because of course the amendments that are returned to this House are amendments that have been suggested to the government by the opposition, and I want to thank the government for supporting the amendments. I think they make it a better bill.
I think the intent behind the bill is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we don't have corporations gaming the arrangements for providing protection for workers who are unfortunately victims of corporate collapse or bankruptcy. We do have circumstances where we have had corporations gaming arrangements where they have literally deliberately forced their own company to receivership and then have expected the taxpayers to underwrite all the costs, and I think the government has quite rightly sought to remedy that.
Not all of the amendments that we have suggested to the government have been accepted, but predominantly they have been. We thank the government for that. We thank the minister for that.
The reforms in this bill are sensible and, in some cases, adopt, as I say, announced Labor policy. Labor is pleased to see that this bill has come back to the House with amendments. Labor thanks the government for their cooperation, for example, in moving amendments to give unions standing to represent workers to assist them in obtaining compensation for loss of entitlements.
In fact, on Christmas Eve last year I had the misfortune of having to speak to 200 workers in my electorate who had been sacked by a company that had closed down. Some of those workers are now working for a company that has a family relationship with the company that was closed down. They have not been provided with all their entitlements. That company's under investigation for seeking the FEG to provide the money for these workers. There are some real questions around that. I addressed over 100 workers on Christmas Eve, some of whom had worked for that company for 20 years. They have not received the annual leave that was owed to them. They have not received redundancy. They have had their superannuation ripped off. At the same time, that same company was seeking to have the Commonwealth—this current government—pay for those workers' liabilities.
Rightly, of course, the FEG is there to look after those workers, but we have to ensure that if there are companies that are doing the wrong thing they are brought to account. This bill helps that. The government moved the amendments in the Senate. I thank the government and the minister for that. We didn't agree on all the matters—there was one amendment that the minister and the government chose not to support—but I think the amendments strengthen the bill. This is a good bill. This is the way the parliament should operate. The government has come up with a good idea. We'd hoped to make it better. The government has been gracious enough to support the amendments, which I think strengthen the bill. The intent behind the bill was always good. It's just better now because of the passing of these amendments by the Senate and, hopefully, by this House.
Since my colleague opposite has decided to speak on this, I might just thank him and the opposition for agreeing to the government's bill. It is very important that workers' entitlements are protected. That is what the government is doing. It's quite wrong when the Australian taxpayer is asked to pick up the tab because of a deliberate structural decision made by unscrupulous employers who are seeking to shift their responsibilities to someone else. We will not stand for that. We have noticed that there has been an explosion in claims under the FEG scheme. We will not stand for it. We will not see the Australian taxpayer ripped off and we will not see workers ripped off.
I'd like to thank those opposite for the constructive manner in which they have looked at this bill. Where the amendments of the opposition will do no harm, we will not stand in the way of those amendments. We have made some improvements to the bill, and I thank those opposite for their cooperation in relation to those matters. As a result, we can come together, stand together and say that this is indeed a bill that will improve the lives of many millions of Australians.
Question agreed to.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I might commence by starting this speech by paying tribute to all those who suffered and lost their lives and lost loved ones as a result of the Christchurch terrorist attack on Friday, 15 March 2019. The victims, their families and their loved ones, the Muslim community in New Zealand and Australia and around the world, and New Zealanders who have been shocked and saddened by that vile act know, of course, that Australia stands with them. The horror of that act was brought to the world in real time and the platforms that were used to connect with the world were turned against us to amplify the shooter's message of hate and intolerance.
The relevant footage was broadcast for 17 minutes without interruption and it was another 12 minutes after that point in time that the first user report on the original video was received by Facebook. The material was live-streamed on Facebook and available on that platform for almost an hour and 10 minutes until the first attempts were made to take it down. Simply put, we find that unacceptable.
The Australian government expects that internet platforms should take responsibility for preventing the spread of abhorrent violent material online. The internet is not an ungoverned space. Together, we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purposes of spreading their violent and extreme fanatical propaganda. These platforms should not be weaponised for evil purposes.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill represents an important step in this process. It will ensure that hosting and content services expeditiously remove abhorrent violent material and notify the Australian Federal Police when it appears on their platforms. Internet platforms must take the risks posed by the spread of abhorrent violent material online seriously. The new offences will therefore be accompanied by criminal penalties.
With respect to the removal of abhorrent violent material, it is clear that live-streaming and other video platforms can and will continue to be abused to spread messages of hate and terror, and this cannot be allowed to continue. The bill addresses this risk by requiring the providers of online content and hosting services, whose services can be used to access abhorrent violent material, to ensure the expeditious removal of that material. This will apply when the material is reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia, regardless of whether the content or hosting service is providing from within or outside of Australia. It is important to ensure that this offence is limited to the worst types of material that can be shared online.
Platforms will only be required to ensure the expeditious removal of audiovisual or audiovisual material that is recorded by the perpetrator or an accomplice and that depicts specified abhorrent acts and violent conduct. This is defined to mean acts of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape or kidnapping.
The bill does include defences to the offence in certain circumstances, including for law enforcement purposes where the material relates to a news or current affairs report that is in the public interest, for court and tribunal proceedings where the accessibility of the material is for lawful advocacy purposes and where the accessibility of the material relates to research or artistic works created in good faith.
These offences will attract penalties of up to $2.1 million or three years imprisonment, or both, for individuals, and bodies corporate will face penalties of up to $10.5 million or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the body corporate. There should be no mistake made. These very serious penalties are warranted.
Internet platforms provide immense value to the Australian community, but recent events have shown that they can also be used for great harm and as a platform to spread violent and dangerous ideologies. These penalties will send a clear message that the Australian government expects the providers of online content and hosting services to take responsibility for the use of their platforms to share abhorrent violent material.
Notably, proceedings for an offence against these provisions would require the written consent of the Attorney-General, which acts as an important safeguard against inappropriate prosecutions and allows a wide range of circumstances to be taken into account before proceeding to any prosecution.
With respect to the eSafety Commissioner's new notice power, the new offence will be supported by a new power by the eSafety Commissioner to issue a notice advising that a content or hosting service is being used to host abhorrent violent material. This will put the service on notice that it is being used to disseminate the relevant material. Once a notice has been given, that service will have no excuse for failing to comply with its obligation to remove that material as expeditiously as possible. As such, the effect of the notice will be to create presumptions that the operator of the service was reckless as to whether the abhorrent violent material could be accessed on their service and that the material in question was abhorrent violent material. Both of these presumptions can be rebutted if the operator of the service is able to produce evidence to the contrary.
Finally, it is critical that Australian law enforcement agencies are able to promptly investigate conduct depicted in abhorrent violent material that may be occurring in Australia and is being shared online. The bill, therefore, introduces a new offence of supplying to the providers of internet hosting or content services who fail to refer details of abhorrent violent material that records or streams conduct that has occurred or is occurring in Australia to the AFP. This referral must take place within a reasonable time after the provider has become aware of the existence of the material.
The providers of internet hosting and content services are uniquely placed to bring this material to the attention of law enforcement authorities. Prompt referrals will assist the AFP not only to investigate past incidents but also to track events that are unfolding in real-time and potentially minimise the harm generated from ongoing access to this material. In practice, it is likely that providers will become aware of a vast array of abhorrent violent material that is already in the public domain. It would serve no practical purpose to refer such material to the AFP and would create a significant administrative burden on all parties. It is, therefore, a defence to this obligation if the provider reasonably believes that the details of the material are already known to the AFP. The referral of material involving serious violent criminal conduct is very important. Failure to comply will be a serious matter and will attract penalties of up to $168,000 for an individual and $840,000 for a body corporate.
In conclusion, the events of Christchurch have shown us that internet platforms can be used to spread messages of hate and terror, and this bill forms an important part of the Australian government's response to these events. Internet platforms have the means to prevent the spread of abhorrent violent material and will face criminal sanction if they do not work expeditiously to remove such material. Separately, the government has announced a task force that includes industry stakeholders to examine immediate and longer-term actions with a focus on prevention, transparency and response times.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
The terrorist atrocity committed in New Zealand on 15 March was on unspeakable act of violence committed by a coward against a defenceless group of worshippers at prayer. I take this opportunity to once again condemn, on behalf of Labor and all Australians, that act of terrorism that has brought so much death and so much pain to the people of New Zealand—and to so many people and to so many communities beyond New Zealand. I say again that an attack on any religion is an attack on all religions; it is an assault on our common humanity. We feel a national shame that an Australian was the perpetrator of this act of hate-fuelled violence in which 50 innocents were murdered. But his extreme right wing ideology manifested last month in his act of cowardice of evil does not represent Australia or our values and beliefs.
The attacker's aim was to spread terror and to divide our community, and it was this goal—a common thread in terrorist atrocities, whatever their particular ideology—that led the perpetrator to record his atrocity and to seek to circulate it online. At the time, we called on all Australians not to share that awful footage, not to watch it and not to do anything that might in any way serve the objectives of the terrorist who committed this inhuman act of evil. But there is more we can do, as members of the Australian parliament, to stop the spread of terrorist materials produced by the perpetrators of these atrocities.
That brings me now to the bill before the House—the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019. This bill represents the Morrison government's attempt to respond to the problem of terrorists seeking to spread recordings of their crimes through social media and other online platforms. Labor believes that the social media companies must do more in preventing the dissemination of material produced by terrorists showing off their crimes. For that reason, Labor will—despite reservations I will explain shortly—be supporting the passage of this bill.
But I must be clear: this bill is clumsy and flawed in many respects. And that is in par, because the government has been too cowardly to hold an adequate number of parliamentary sitting days before the election this year, so the parliament is being forced to deal with this bill on a ridiculous timetable. And it is in part because the government has been too inept to properly consult with the Australian technology industry and media companies, and the community, about the impacts of this bill on them.
When the Morrison government realised just how difficult it was for them when this parliament sits—in large part because of how many of their failures and scandals come to light through the scrutiny the parliament of Australia provides—they shamefully cut the number of days this parliament would sit before the election. In November last year, this government decided that the parliament would only sit for 10 days in 2019 prior to the election being called. Today is only the 10th sitting day of this House in 2019.
The member for Sturt declared that the sitting calendar issue was an example of 'inside-the-bubble issues'. What arrogance to believe that the government could predict with confidence that no events would occur over some six months before the election that might require this parliament's attention. What arrogance to suggest that laws that are supposedly urgent, like this one, are just 'bubble issues' the Liberal Party can't be bothered taking the time to deal with properly. What a self-serving and irresponsible dereliction of their responsibilities to act as the government of this nation. One of the consequences of that reckless and cowardly decision of the Morrison government to drastically shorten the parliament's time this year is that important and difficult laws such as this bill have to be rushed to such an extent that they cannot be properly drafted, consulted on or debated in this place.
Labor always seeks to work in a constructive and bipartisan manner on matters of national security. We have the track record to prove it through our constructive engagement on some 20 national security bills introduced by this government over the last 5½ years. In particular, in the last 5½ years, government and opposition members of the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security have worked together to make well over 300 bipartisan recommendations to change, improve and strengthen those 20 national security bills. On each occasion, the bill presented to the parliament required amendments to improve its operation and to deal with unintended consequences the government had not foreseen. This important process in which national security bills are reviewed by the intelligence committee has not occurred with this bill.
I say again: Labor always seeks to work in a constructive and bipartisan manner on matters of national security. But we are not bipartisan on the trashing of the proper processes that are needed to get our national security laws right. Labor received this bill just after 5.00 pm on Monday this week. It was rushed through the other place last night without any debate. If it is to become law, it must pass this House by the end of the day. This is no way to approach lawmaking in this country, and the precedent this government has set, not just on this bill, is atrocious. Not even New Zealand, where the Christchurch atrocity occurred, has attempted to make this change in such a short time frame. However, because Labor agrees that the streaming of the Christchurch terror attack has shown that there is a need for measures to prevent such conduct occurring in the future, Labor will not stand in the way of the Morrison government's clumsy attempt to deal with this issue, as set out in this bill.
But I do want to briefly outline some of the key problems that have come to light regarding these laws that will need to be addressed through an urgent committee process. I emphasise that these are just some of the problems that we've been able to identify in the short time we've had this bill. The bill could potentially undermine Australia's important security cooperation with the United States by requiring US internet providers to share content data with the Australian Federal Police in breach of US law. The bill may encourage proactive surveillance of internet users by social media platforms and of the vast volumes of user-generated content being uploaded at any given minute. So, at the same time we're worried about service providers like Facebook intruding on the privacy of users, this bill calls on those same platforms to constantly be analysing the content of every communications user across their platforms.
The bill could have an adverse impact on legitimate whistleblowing activity. The bill draws a seemingly arbitrary distinction between a television station that broadcasts terrorist content on the one hand and a website hosting terrorist content on the other. A television network could broadcast abhorrent violent material over the airwaves and not be captured by this bill, whereas Twitter could be prosecuted if a user tweeted the same video. Poor and inconsistent drafting is likely to have other negative implications for the effective operation of these laws.
Finally, despite the government announcing that a key purpose of this legislation was to enable the jailing of executives of multinational social media giants who breach its provisions, the bill does not do this. The framework in this bill represents a fundamental shift for online companies which are, generally speaking, platforms geared towards facilitating the sharing of content rather than being structured around monitoring for the removal of content or proactive notification to third-party law enforcement agencies. The lack of consultation on this bill has meant that the government has not even considered the practical difficulties and significant compliance costs that these new laws will impose on a large number of companies.
While Labor agrees that the tech giants like Facebook must do more to stop the use of their platforms to spread abhorrent terrorist materials, hundreds of much smaller companies are also caught by this bill, many of which may not have the resources or technical capabilities required to comply with the onerous new regulation imposed by this bill. It is also unclear what additional resources either the AFP or the eSafety Commissioner have been provided in order to manage the potential influx of notifications from online companies. The government has not said.
All these problems have been clearly explained to the government, but these explanations have apparently fallen on deaf ears. This is no way to govern. But, in the few days we've had this bill, Labor have been listening and, if elected, a Shorten Labor government will immediately move to address these and other problems identified with this bill as a matter of priority. Specifically, in order to provide this bill with the scrutiny it should have had and in order to ensure that the problems I've just outlined are dealt with, if a Shorten Labor government is elected in May, we will refer this law to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for consultation and comprehensive review. Neither proper consultation nor proper review has occurred as this chaotic and desperate government careens towards the election. There needs to be proper consultation with not just the social media sector but also traditional media, who are also caught up by this bill and whose legitimate journalism and online news sites will also be impacted on by these laws.
Finally, we need to consult with our allies and other like-minded nations across the world because there is little point in Australia taking unilateral actions that do not mesh properly with existing regulatory frameworks around the world. For example, there is scope to adopt the approach taken by the European Union in response to the 2016 Brussels terrorist attack. In response to that atrocity, in May 2016, the EU agreed with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube a code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. This code facilitates users to notify of illegal hate speech on social platforms, provides support to civil society in combating online hate speech and strengthens coordination with national authorities. Reviews of the code have indicated its success in helping to counter online hate speech and, recently, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion and Jeuxvideo.com also announced their intention to join the code.
I want to close with one additional matter. The terrorist atrocity committed in New Zealand last month was clearly driven by an ideology of hatred founded in racial and religious bigotry. The sharing of the footage the gunman recorded was appalling, and we need to take steps to prevent it happening again. But the fundamental evil we are seeking to eradicate is not the sharing of recordings of murderous violence; it is the violence itself. All Australians know well the seeds of this violence lie in racist ideology, in racist hate speech and in the hate and fear that bigots, left unchecked, will spread.
For over 20 years, since it was enacted by the Labor government of Paul Keating, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has drawn the line against racial vilification and protected our citizens and our society from the poisonous effects of racist hate speech. Yet, in the last five years, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has launched two separate attacks on section 18C, which former Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared to the Senate was a Liberal government priority because 'people have a right to be bigots, you know'. It is astonishing that any Australian government would work to give a green light to racist hate speech in support of an imagined right to be bigots rather than working to defend the right of all Australians to dignity and to safety.
Labor was appalled by the actions of the Liberals in attacking section 18C, and we stood with thousands of individuals, legal experts and organisations as well as community groups from across our nation to successfully defend section 18C from these reckless ideological attacks by the Liberals. Labor believes that this Liberal government should accept that Australians do not want more racism and more bigotry in our community and commit to never seeking to water down our race-hate protections again. The Prime Minister should likewise insist that his coalition partners, the Nationals, put One Nation last. He cannot distance himself from the party he's in government with. It's not hard. He's the Prime Minister, and he should try to lead for a change.
In contrast to the Morrison government's glaring weakness on the issue of racism, it is Labor's unequivocal view that racism has no place in modern Australia. Labor believes that the Australian government should be setting an example by standing up against bigotry rather than fighting for the rights of bigots and doing dirty deals with racist parties like One Nation, as the Liberals have been doing.
We all grieve with New Zealand in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, and that's been no more so the case than in Melbourne where the significant Muslim community has been devastated by the events at Christchurch and the tragedy, as has our broader community. The community has come together to express its solidarity with our Muslim sisters and brothers and with New Zealand. I take the opportunity to place that on the record here, again, on behalf of myself, the Melbourne community and the Greens.
In the wake of the Christchurch massacre, it's clear that social media must no longer be an unregulated and lawless place where degrading and horrifying content can be posted and shared, spreading like a poison that harms whoever it touches. Graphic and horrifying footage of innocent people being murdered caused untold harm and furthered the terrorists' evil aims for every second that it remained online, and Facebook took over an hour to respond. The Greens have called for a comprehensive response and review of how our media deals with terrorist acts, violent acts and acts of white supremacy like we saw in Christchurch.
Today's abhorrent material bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019, was Australia's opportunity to comprehensively address the issue. As I said, the Greens were one of the first voices calling for new laws to protect our multicultural communities and hold the mainstream media and social media giants to standards that reflect their role in a modern democracy. I think it would be fair to say that certainly in this place, in this chamber, there would probably be unanimous agreement that the broadcasting in the way that we saw during the Christchurch massacre was abhorrent and should have been stopped and needs to be stopped in the future. The question is: how do we do that in a way that we make sure it does not have unintended consequences? This bill, and this way of doing it, is not the way to ensure that we strike the right balance, because we don't know whether or not this bill in fact does the job the Attorney-General tells us that it's doing and we do not know whether or not it goes far enough in stopping that kind of hate speech from being broadcast. But we also don't know if it goes too far in the other direction and captures forms of speech or reporting that most people would not want to be criminalised, because this is being rushed through.
If you have a look at the Senate Hansard, you will find that this bill was introduced into the Senate at 9.13 last night and passed at 9.13 last night. From the Greens' perspective, the Labor opposition may say they've had a version of this since Monday, but we haven't. And the parliament hasn't. When we are dealing with something that could potentially—as the front pages of various papers today suggest—criminalise journalism, that should have significant scrutiny. Does it do that? I don't know. The parliament probably doesn't know. We've got a very significant bill that is being rushed through before this parliament rises, and Labor is going along with it. That should not occur. When something as significant and important to the Australian people as responding to the abhorrent material that we saw, but also regulating future journalism, comes before this parliament, we should be very loath to make decisions about that without putting it to scrutiny. As I said, the Senate had a few minutes to debate this last night. It got pushed through. We didn't get a chance to look through it, and other senators probably didn't get a chance to look through it. When we read on the front pages of the papers today that this bill might have a series of unintended consequences, we should pause to make sure that we're doing our job properly.
The Labor opposition and the shadow Attorney-General—and this isn't a personal comment about the shadow Attorney-General at all; this is about the opposition's position—just got up and called the bill 'clumsy and flawed' and called the process 'appalling'. You would think that what they would then do is say, 'We're going to refer the bill to an inquiry.' The shadow Attorney-General just gave a good and eloquent speech about why this bill deserves further scrutiny but then said that Labor and the government are going to side together to ram this through without us having had the opportunity to consult with stakeholders to determine whether there are unintended consequences. That is not the way that parliament should function. And now we're here in the House being asked to put through a bill that's only been introduced into the House today on the same day. That is not right. As I said, I expect you would get 100 per cent unanimous agreement across this chamber for the prohibition of broadcasting abhorrent material, but everyone would also be alarmed if we were about to pass something that had unintended consequences.
I, for one, am not prepared to take the government on face value that a bill that they didn't even have the courtesy to show to us until yesterday evening in the Senate and is being introduced in the House today is all completely fine and has no unintended consequences. That is not a way to run a government. When we have the opportunity to say, 'We're not going to say no to the bill; we're just going to ask for it to go to inquiry,' that is something the opposition should grab with both hands. I heard the opposition say that if they win government they will send the bill to an inquiry. But, firstly, what if they don't? And, secondly, what if One Nation has control of the Senate after the next election and there are some proposed sensible changes that can't get through, because they can't get through the Senate? That is why we need to give this bill scrutiny now, before we pass it. It's not right that, as often happens on the last day of parliament, we're asked to pass through really important legislation without even the chance to read it or go and talk to our stakeholders about it. When we see things on the front page of the paper that say, 'Hang on; parliament should pause for a moment, because there might be unintended consequences,' and we're not given the chance to do that, that is not right. And the problem with rushing something through is that it potentially undermines the legitimacy of the bill further down the track. Who knows if there are errors in this bill that might stop truly abhorrent content from being broadcast? We just don't know.
So I come back to where I started. Of course—apart from myself, the Greens and, I suspect, many others—we want to see a proper approach to regulating social media and we want to ensure that that kind of horror and terror that we saw is not allowed to be broadcast. No-one would quibble with that, but we want to make sure we're doing it properly and that we don't catch legitimate journalists in its wake.
That is why I move:
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 refers the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report no later than 1 August 2019".
That is an eminently sensible timetable. We could still have this legislation pass expeditiously, if that's what the parliament wants to do. The shadow Attorney-General just stood up and identified three or four big problems with the bill. Well, this would give us a chance to go and fix those. The bill could still be passed, if that was parliament's will, but we would be a bit more confident that it has no unintended consequences—and who knows? We might even close loopholes that might be there in the first place, because this government has actually rushed it. We could actually strengthen it and ensure that this kind of terrible material doesn't find its way onto Facebook or into social media in the future.
This committee is not necessarily our committee of choice—there's no Greens representative on this committee—but it's one that, as a joint committee, could continue to operate and could sit soon after the election. We could be back here within a very short period of time, within what is effectively a matter of weeks, and pass the bill, if that's what we wanted to do. I do hope that this amendment gets support, and especially gets the support of the opposition, because it's an opportunity to say, 'Yes, the bill can pass, but let's make sure we're doing our job right.'
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. I'd firstly like to convey my sincere condolences to the people of New Zealand for the tragedy in Christchurch, which has been the catalyst for the Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019. The live streaming of this atrocity is abhorrent to us all. However, the proposed amendments to criminal legislation to deal with the live streaming of violent material on social media could have serious unintended consequences, as we've heard here today, and, in the interest of responsible governance, should not be rushed through the parliament. The bill was announced as a reaction to the horrific Christchurch terrorist attacks, which were streamed live across social media. There is no question in my mind about the intent of this bill.
The Law Council has said that, while steps should be taken to ensure social media is not weaponised to promote hatred and violence, proper consultation must occur to ensure fair and effective legislation. Social media companies must do more to avoid this form of violent content being uploaded and viewed, but making social media companies and their executives criminally liable for the live streaming of criminal content is a serious step which requires careful consideration.
The legislation clearly defines relevant offensive content. The problem is regarding notification. The IT industry is deeply concerned about issues around notification. There are processes already in place to act on notifications, and algorithms are currently being developed to find offensive content so that IT companies can act to remove it. Anyone can upload anything online, and the IT companies don't have to be notified that it is there. Moreover, what does 'expeditious' mean? There is no clear definition of this time line imposed on an IT company, which may not have received a notification of the abhorrent content. Considering that the executors of social media platforms who do not remove the abhorrent material expeditiously can be punished by three years imprisonment or fines equating up to 10 per cent of a platform's annual turnover, the repercussions are great. What does 'expeditiously' mean? Is it five minutes? Is it 15 minutes? Is it an hour? Is it a day? The legislation does not define the meaning of expeditious.
Despite its best intentions, laws formulated as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event do not necessarily equate to good legislation and can have myriad unintended consequences. One such unintended consequence is that global IT platforms will bypass Australia to avoid being exposed to this risk.
A key concern with the bill as drafted is that whistleblowers may no longer be able to deploy social media to shine a light on atrocities committed around the world, because social media companies will be required to remove that content for fear of being charged with a crime. Social media can and has been used, including by media organisations and whistleblowers to draw attention to violent atrocities occurring overseas or criminal conduct by a foreign government, such as injuring or killing its own citizens. The legislation may have a chilling effect on the potential for social media users and media organisations who use social media providers to perform this important public service function. Whistleblowers may unfortunately be prevented from being able to tell these important stories through such providers. Similarly, this may influence the social media platforms and methods that media organisations are able to use to communicate important public interest pieces. If people on social media seek to shine a light on an atrocity or criminality, this is where the bill bites, as there is no defence for social media providers who choose not to remove violent content because the provider believes the material is in the public interest. So the bill could, in effect, lead to censorship of the media, which could undermine the very potential of the fourth estate to hold governments to account.
The Law Council has called for this legislation to be referred to a parliamentary committee for review and consultation. The shadow Attorney-General also said this morning that this should happen, and this is, indeed, the intent of this amendment. We need to consider how to provide a public interest defence for those who may be captured by the proposed offences but honestly believe on reasonable grounds that they are acting in the public interest in not removing particular material from social media in order to expose criminal content that should be brought to the public attention. Consideration could be had to modelling such a public interest defence of similar defences that already exist in other legislation, such as Commonwealth whistleblowing legislation or the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 New South Wales, which provides protection to public officials who report public sector wrongdoing in particular circumstances.
Any government or, indeed, any major party seeking to govern should be mindful of passing rushed legislation without consulting stakeholders, including the affected industry, or considering the broader implications. It is much better to get this legislation right than to pass flawed laws that will lead to unintended consequences. This bill should be referred to committee for consideration.
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.
The question before the chair now is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I first stood in this chamber on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 to deliver my first speech. I was the 40th Member of Parliament under age 30 since Federation. Now, some 17 years, one month and 22 days later, it's my privilege to rise for the final time in this chamber.
I posed the question in my first speech: what is our purpose? It was my intention to outline a road map for my period in this place, a charter to which both I and others could hold me to account, to anchor my decisions and actions in this building to the service of my electors in the pursuit of good government. I spoke of Edmund Burke's observation:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
And, although I said at the time I was not a starry-eyed idealist, I think it's fair to say I have always struggled more with the pragmatic side of politics, preferring instead to stay the course on the idealistic. For me, I always preferred the warmth of the roaring philosophical fire to the early-morning flicker of the pragmatic.
Much has changed in the 17½ years I have been entrusted with the privilege of serving in this place. The Gold Coast's population has nearly doubled in the past two decades. We have seen the rise and rise of China. Innovation, smartphones, the digital economy, social media and automation have all advanced with extraordinary pace. There was no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram, no Snapchat in 2001, but many other things have not changed.
In 2001, I joined the Howard government in the task of paying down Labor's debt binge through prudent economic management. For nearly six years, I was a member of a coalition government that weathered Labor's attacks as they labelled us callous, inequitable, unfair and hard-hearted because we refused to leave the tax-and-spend taps open. I then watched Labor inflict economic damage for six years as they spent and spent and spent, all justified by necessity in their mind because of the GFC. Of course, there was little intellectual honesty, that our major trading partners were driving their economies and powering our economy. And, of course, there was the wastefulness of Labor's spending, from pink batts to cash for clunkers to cash handouts, and school halls for every school, even if they didn't want them. It is little wonder we witnessed our nation's finances deteriorate through tens of billions of dollars of deficit while, at the same time, Labor held that they were delivering year after year of surpluses.
Then, thanks to Tony Abbott and the united team, the coalition was re-elected and the economic and fiscal discipline began again. It culminated earlier this week when the coalition, led by the Treasurer—my friend of two decades, the member for Kooyong—delivered the first budget surplus since the last one delivered by the coalition in 2007. And again Labor snipes that we are callous, inequitable, unfair and hard-hearted. I've seen all of this before. I am confident that if Labor is elected we will sadly find our country mired again in deficit, with Labor finding excuse after excuse to justify it. Australia simply cannot afford Labor's big-taxing, big-spending agenda. Labor talks about equity constantly but they deliver shocking generational inequity as they lumber Australia's next generation with the responsibility of paying for Labor's sweeping gesture policies.
Campaigning back in 2001 was very different. I think it's fair to say that my first campaign was a little bumpy. The outgoing member for Moncrieff was suing me for $200,000 for defamation and left me with the princely sum of around $1,300 in the campaign account. And in a city where the main industry and employer is the tourism industry, Ansett Airlines collapsed the day after the September 11 terrorist attack. But we prevailed, through a dedicated team of volunteers and a small band of donors, wonderful party loyalists and supporters like Graham Ward, Jack and Fay Doherty, Winifred, Leer and Marion, many of them now deceased. They were there at the beginning and the I don't forget their contributions and support.
Those who have followed my political career—which I guess is mainly confined to my family members—would have seen some early evidence of my special gift of successfully always picking the person who had come second in any political contest. As a new MP, at 27, my choice to strongly back Peter Costello over John Howard in some of the leadership tensions made sense. After all, John Howard had been Prime Minister for six years—it was only a matter of time! With that strong start, the world was my oyster. With only a couple of exceptions, it was a record of success that for most of the past 17 or 18 years I was always able to pick and back the person who had come second—the stuff of legend. As my good mates, the members for Stirling and Dickson, the former members for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, and North Sydney, Joe Hockey, would all shift uncomfortably and find fascinating patterns on their shoes to look at whenever they found themselves backing the same aspirant as me in a contest. It was like a reverse Sleeping Beauty fairytale. My kiss would put a person to political sleep for 100 years.
Notwithstanding this talent, I can reflect on the past 17½ years and feel a real sense of pride in what I feel I've been able to achieve and to be a part of. In the early 2000s, I was pleased to run with the rebadged 'ginger group', together with Senator Fifield and the former member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, to agitate for substantial personal income tax relief and the passage of voluntary student unionism. One of my proudest was the campaign I ran, at some personal political cost, against the government's plan for the access card—little more than a national ID card with more costs to personal liberties and the individual-state relationship than any purported benefits. I've been pleased to drive some of the very first calls for the revocation of dual citizenship of terrorists and their supporters, as well as the cashless welfare card in the early 2000s.
Over the past six years, as a frontbencher I've had the extraordinary privilege of helping to shape our nation's engagement with the world. I particularly want to thank former Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull, as well as Prime Minister Morrison, for their faith and trust in me to steward the various portfolios that I've held. As Joe Hockey's parliamentary secretary in the Treasury portfolio, we worked so well together and executed a flawless G20 finance ministers' stream. I quickly learnt of the relationship between a junior minister and a senior minister when it came to work dispersal and announcements, and I'm able to say I was able to carry that early lesson and put it into good effect in my most recent role in the Defence portfolio!
As alternative governor to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it was heartening to see the world work together to focus on development issues, especially the provision of infrastructure across our region, to help improve the lives of millions of people. I was pleased that we strongly backed the initiative to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB—again, not without some robust internal discussion. As parliamentary secretary to both Julie, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Andrew, the Minister for Trade and Investment, I was exposed to the critical interplay between our development and engagement initiatives and our trade and investment relationships. This, too, held me in good stead for subsequent roles.
As Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the first for our nation, I was able to steward our relationship with our near South Pacific neighbours. I remember running my eye over the rather lengthy list of recommended inoculations and the subsequent injections I had before commencing sojourns in the Pacific. That said, on each trip, accompanied as I was by the members for Forrest and Ryan and my Labor shadow, the important work Australia performs together with New Zealand in the Pacific region was evident. I firmly believed Australia's national interest was best served by presenting a strong show of bipartisanship in the region. For that reason, I always insisted on having the shadow minister present for most of the engagements.
The highlight of my period in this place though was the extraordinary honour afforded to me to serve as Australia's Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor in that regard, the former member for Goldstein Andrew Robb, who was a strong advocate for me to replace him in the role. We still catch up semi-regularly, and it's fair to say we share a similar view of how Australia should engage with the world.
Following in Andrew's footsteps was no easy feat. He had finalised critical trade deals with China, Japan and Korea, and the economic impact of those deals will be felt for decades. But I was determined to control the narrative, so I highlighted that Andrew had picked the low-hanging fruit and left the hard ones for me! I launched myself into the role, drawing on my experience as Minister for International Development and the Pacific. I was pleased to successfully conclude negotiations on the Pacific area close economic relations, or PACER Plus agreement. This was followed shortly thereafter by launching and concluding a comprehensive FTA with Peru. Without divulging any cabinet secrets, as I tabled those agreements before cabinet, it caused my good friend the then Attorney-General former Senator Brandis to note, 'Ciobo's more of a small-country specialist.'
In the years that followed in the role, I was pleased to pursue a number of other critical agreements. The work that was done over a number of years—and carried, I think it's very fair to say, by the relationship between the former Prime Minister Turnbull and myself, together with President Widodo and my counterpart Minister Lukita—saw, most recently in August-September last year, the successful conclusion of negotiations around the IA-CEPA, or the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
I pursued this agreement with the most vigour of all, because I know that this agreement, the FTA with Indonesia, will be an absolute game changer for this nation. It will ensure that one of our closest neighbours, one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and a country with which Australia will have a very strong and important strategic future, will be brought to bear as a consequence of putting in place this high-quality agreement. I implore Labor to put aside any concerns that they have, in particular around ISDS clauses in that agreement, to recognise that to focus on that, which more than anything else protects Australian businesses, would be to lose sight of the much bigger picture about the value of this agreement in our bilateral agreement.
Likewise, I was very focused on making sure that we concluded a deal with Hong Kong. Goods into Hong Kong were tariff-free, but we were able to lock that at zero going forward. But the key with the Hong Kong deal was to focus on the access that we could have around services. In that respect, opening up that market and all that flows from that, particularly with respect to mainland China, was also critical. I was so pleased to see Senator Birmingham conclude and sign that deal only a matter of a week or two ago in Sydney.
I pushed throughout Latin America, recognising the real potential of Latin America with respect to Australia diversifying its economic interests. We know our major trading partners lie in this region, but that just reinforces why we need to ensure the continued diversification of our export markets, and in that respect Latin America is critical.
Commencing a free trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance—the countries of Colombia, Mexico, Chile and Peru—was absolutely critical. That agreement too, I'm pleased to say, is very, very near conclusion and very possibly will be concluded before the end of this year. I was pleased with my counterpart Liam Fox to commence and put in place the very first working group for a comprehensive FTA post-Brexit with the UK. This, of course, would represent a return in many respects to not only a critical market for Australia but also a market of tremendous potential, especially for our high-quality agricultural products and, in particular, wine. The UK—once they find their pathway forward from Brexit—will represent a crucial market for Australia. I was pleased that I was able to position Australia to be at the very front of the queue when it comes to concluding that FTA, likewise putting in place the necessary requirements around the scoping document and feasibility study to commence negotiations for an FTA with the European Union. This will take some time. Any negotiation with the European Union takes time, as the Brits will attest. But, that notwithstanding, the opportunity with what is our single biggest export market, aside from China, will be a very important agreement and one that will hold, again, this nation's diversified export potential at its very core for decades to come.
Another critical aspect that I was very pleased to be able to conclude successfully was the CPTPP, or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement came off the back of the then defunct TPP, delivered by my predecessor, Andrew Robb, but thwarted by the decision that President Trump made with respect to the United States. To have been able to pull it together—notwithstanding the odd curveball from the Canadians—meant that we were able to cement in place one of the most comprehensive, far-reaching and ambitious trade agreements, through the CPTPP, that Australia will ever face. I spent years working on pulling that back together. Again, I want to acknowledge the incredible work that was done by all leaders which we, as trade ministers, had the good fortune to lock into place.
On the tourism front, I was pleased to see incredible inbound numbers and spend by tourists. I was pleased to launch, for the very first time, a nation brand working group, headed by Andrew Forrest, to drive a brand for this country that we know can make sure that Australia represents itself under one banner globally. The conclusion of that nation brand will help to ensure that our country is recognised not only for its high quality agricultural exports but also for its services exports and the attractiveness of the tourism industry. I note as well that we were able to do so recognising that we wanted to grow not just numbers but spend, and spend into this country has been growing at more than nine per cent per annum for the past several years.
We took some risks. Of course, the launch of the 'son of Dundee' campaign in the US around Super Bowl was a big political risk. I think it's fair to say that a number of tourism ministers before me had less success when it came to new tourism marketing campaigns for this country, and I learned some lessons from their experiences. But I'm pleased to say that we have seen, now, the fruit from that investment, with growth from the United States in particular being incredibly strong. It's a crucial industry, in particular, for my city of the Gold Coast.
I want to thank the party supporters who put me in this place. I've made the comment at numerous party events that, but for the support of the party membership, their faith in me and their privilege of pre-selecting me, I wouldn't have been able to stand in this chamber for the past 17½ years.
I want to, in particular, thank Lynda Woods, my FDC chairman. Lynda has been an absolute staple for me and for the party in Moncrieff for well over a decade, and I want to thank her in particular for the support that she has provided me—likewise, Viv and Di Grayson, and the now deceased Mike Milosevic and his wife, Donna. I want to thank all of those who worked on pre-polls, standing there for weeks on end providing support, and of course those who were there from the very beginning, Lee Benjamin and Arthur Chrenkoff, who played such a critical role from their time in the Young Liberals supporting me in my very first preselection.
I want to acknowledge the Young Liberals as well. I've always believed they are such a critical foundation stone for our party's future. The Gold Coast Young Liberals have been a part of my life since I was 18 years old and will continue to be. I thank each and every one of them for the incredible effort they went to and the support they provided me.
On my staff: we all know in this place we couldn't do anything without our staff. They have been terrific. My longest-serving staff member, Alistair Mitchell, tells me that over the past 17½ years I've had 86 staff who have moved through the various offices that I've occupied. But I particularly want to thank Kathy, Kylie, Karen, Bec, James, Kristian, Ben, Jackson, and ministerial staff Brendan Berne, Gisele, Doug, Drew and Britney. All of them have played a critical role in me achieving what it was that I was able to achieve.
I want to thank Karly for her support and work, and I wish her the very best of luck. Karly will be running on Saturday for preselection for my seat, and I think she would make a terrific member in this place—but ultimately it's a decision, of course, for the Moncrieff preselectors.
Alistair Mitchell, who's in the advisers box, has been with me for 13½ years. Alistair has always been someone of impeccable and prudent political advice. He's shaved off some of my excesses—not nearly enough, I think he would say. But he is someone who has been absolutely fundamental to all that I've achieved in this place, and I thank Alistair sincerely and from the bottom of my heart for the incredible working relationship that we've had over 13 years. I think it's fair to say that my strengths are your weaknesses and your weaknesses are my strengths, and I think that's a terrific political result.
I thank early supporters Stuart Bruce, Darryl Gregor and Tony and Thea Cochrane. They were there from the outset and they've supported me every step of the journey.
In this place, I've always focused on relationships. Relationships, I believe, are what make this building. They're what get political deals done. They're what get policy outcomes. In particular, the former member for North Sydney Joe Hockey, the Attorney-General Christian Porter, the member for Aston, the member for Wannon, Senator Fifield, Senators Brandis and Mason, the member for Leichhardt and, of course, previous Senator Santoro—all of these people—have been such wonderful friends and mates, and it's been a privilege to work alongside them.
I want to thank the member for Curtin, Julie Bishop, with whom I had a terrific working relationship in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. I also want to thank the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt. I said the other day that the member for Flinders had delivered me my happiest day in this place, and I think he recognises the importance of it. In the gallery today I have a number of family members and colleagues. But, in particular, I've got my son Asher, who's sitting up there. Asher is a heart kid, as many of you know. His experience was a tough one for Astra and me—not so tough for him. But I am so profoundly proud of the support that Greg has given me when it comes to Heartkids, and I was so touched that the member for Kooyong was able to refer to the first initiative that we've made around Heartkids as part of a research mission. This is not about Asher; this is about the families that will follow in our footsteps. We—and Asher, in particular, with his experience—have been so incredibly blessed, but there are so many parents for whom heart kids become heart angels. For those parents, the $26 million that the government is investing into HeartKids—into congenital heart defects in children—is just so critical. That would not have happened without the support of the member for Flinders, and I am exceptionally grateful to him for that.
I acknowledge my mum and dad. Mum and Dad aren't here today, but they have backed me and supported me every step of the journey in this place. They are wonderful parents. My father came to this country from Italy as a refugee. I think it's fair to say—as I said to Minister Canavan, one Italian to another—I'm not an Italian citizen. We ran through that comprehensively, and I'm pleased to say that there were no problems there. But, notwithstanding that, my parents instilled in me from a very early age the importance of a sound foundation in family and a work ethos, and I'm so incredibly grateful to them.
I will conclude on this: my decision to not recontest the forthcoming federal election is based on many things, and I've thought about it for some time. But, in particular, it's also to show my sons, Asher and Tennyson, that, in life, you need to get out of your comfort zone. Getting out of your comfort zone and doing something different is just so important after you feel you've made a contribution. I've never wanted to be a time server in this place and I leave knowing that I've been able to achieve an extraordinary amount in this role.
Relations are critical and, in that sense, I particularly want to acknowledge, in the member for Sterling and the member for Dickson, some of the best friendships that I've made here. Those two have been a fundamental part of the last 17½ years—or, in the member for Sterling's case, the last 15 years—together. They are political brothers of mine and it will be a very different place without us all being able to come together. I thank them for that.
Finally, there is my wife, Astra. Astra has been rock-solid with me on every step of this journey. I don't say 'behind me'. I don't say she 'supported me'. We've stood beside each other. We were starry-eyed idealists, I think, when I first started in this role. Now we're more prudent and, I guess, a little weathered and we're both realistic. But, through it all, we know that the bond of love and friendship that we have together has meant that this has been an extraordinary journey. I can truly say that none of it would have been possible without the love and support of my wife, Astra. So to her, Asher and Tennyson: thank you so much for the privilege of serving in this place. And to all of my colleagues here: it has been an honour and a joy. I cannot thank the chamber enough.
on indulgence: hello, everybody, and thank you for coming. Six years ago, when I rose to make my first speech, the gallery was full. My community was engaged, supportive and present. Today, as I rise to make my last speech, it's much the same. Back then, I quoted Margaret Mead: 'Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.' And how true that is. To the people of Indi in this parliament, thank you for enabling us to be the change we want to see. There is so much more to do. Beginning with the end in mind, my call to action is: our work is not yet done—don't get mad, get elected!
Just a short summary: since that first speech, what have I done? I've delivered 525 speeches and 15 private member's bills, asked 74 questions without notice, moved 35 motions and made 18 amendments to legislation. Over 4,600 schoolchildren from my electorate have come to this place, 225 volunteers and four ANIP interns have worked in my office and, on average, 15,000 constituents a year have sought help, support and advice from the Indi office. Community members, more than I possibly could count, have offered support and advice and have shared their wisdom, and I have grown in confidence and courage.
At the beginning, after agreeing to stand as a candidate, I was so nervous, worried and anxious. Then we won by a magic 439 votes, and I was really nervous, worried and very anxious! But I was determined to deliver. I really did want to prove that my community had done a good thing and the right thing in backing me. It was deeply personal. There had been a fierce competition for me to get here and to stay here. It required enormous emotional courage, strategy, skill, and a huge community effort. The expectations were enormous and heavy, and I took the responsibility of truly representing my community very seriously. So I am so proud to stand here today and say we have survived the ordeal and have hopefully set a benchmark in the process.
My community has grown in confidence and courage, and we have delivered. I use that pronoun 'we' very deliberately. We have delivered confidence in democracy. We have delivered engagement in democracy. We've delivered better governance. We've delivered pride in community. And our voice has been heard. To the major parties, to my colleagues here, I have a short message: Independents do get things done. And every time any one of you says the opposite, the people of rural and regional Australia will remember these words: 'Tony, Independents deliver. Marginal seats matter. Just look at what happened in Indi. We have one-third of the vote. Let's use it.'
Today our community's more confident, and this is important for investment, for jobs and for regional growth. Confidence is important for our young people and our families who, in ever-increasing numbers, are making the decision to return home to north-east Victoria. Engagement across all levels of the community has grown, with more and more people stepping up to leadership positions. I'm delighted that the community, and especially our young people, are now more engaged. They are signing up, turning up, and speaking up in far greater numbers. This active participation in democracy is paying dividends in our community. Right across the electorate, things are also getting done and we have significant investment: over $235 million for the North East Rail Line; 52 mobile phone towers; numerous regional infrastructure projects; the regional deal for Albury-Wodonga; Wodonga Junction Plan; Tallangatta redevelopment; Wangaratta Aquatic Centre; Alpine landscapes; the controversial Wangaratta Hospital, $20 million—and a special thank you goes to Dan Andrews and the Victorian government for coming to the party on that one; infrastructure jobs in Benalla; Mansfield Stadium; the heavy truck bypass; Kinglake Streetscape; Corryong Memorial Hall and Pool, and many, many more other things.
But to my work in this place: the commitment I gave was to strive for good governance, and I think it is evidenced in the parliamentary work we have been involved in and which I mentioned briefly at the start of my speech. I'm particularly proud of the efforts in changing the rules for vulnerable witnesses and the rules governing gender dysphoria. Other highlights include the private member's legislation for the National Integrity Commission, and a code of conduct for all members of the parliament, recognising that our community expects more of us, its elected representatives. I was so proud to work with Griffith University, Transparency International Australia and the Accountability Round Table to introduce that legislation. A Senate committee is due to report on those bills tomorrow, and today in Melbourne, Transparency International released an assessment of Australia's national integrity systems. I call on all sides, everybody, to give the required resources to do this well. It's unfinished business.
A private member's bill for an office for regional Australia made sense. Working with the member for Mayo for a minister for young people made sense. Representing my communities on refugees made sense. Giving my support for the refugee medivac bill was the right thing to do—but it's unfinished business. I'm proud of the inquiry into regional development and decentralisation, and I note Senator McKenzie is in the House. I'm looking forward to that report, Senator. I am also proud of the inquiry into regional higher education, and I note that the minister for higher education is in the House. I'm looking forward to that report, Minister.
So am I, Cathy.
Yes, the work is unfinished. On climate change, we haven't been able to do as much as we wanted in this space, but we did manage to save the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and we did manage to save the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—that infrastructure that was so important and was going to be done away with. But climate change and its mitigation remain serious issues in my electorate, and I know in Indi it's going to be a climate change election.
So many bits of this work had been seconded by my colleagues on the crossbench, so a special call-out to the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie; to the member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie; and to the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt—and occasionally Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, has also seconded my amendments. I'll come back to the opposition a little bit later because you haven't done so much seconding!
An opposition member interjecting—
Yes, there's a hierarchy! In my first speech, I committed to making a public statement in this place to recognise and acknowledge past mistreatment of our Indigenous community, and I'm proud to say that I did it in my first year, in my first term. I also committed to improving public transport infrastructure and access to telecommunications and health services and I worked to reduce the red tape that hinders the growth of business in our cross-border regions. There has been significant progress in all those areas. I committed to bringing the voices of the community of Indi to Canberra, and what greater example of success have we got than in the gallery today? I committed to a vision for a prosperous and caring community where businesses grow, agriculture flourishes and everyone can reach their potential. We have made great progress.
Now I turn my words to comments of acknowledgement, honouring and thanks. Clearly, words are inadequate for some things that we know are so deep and lasting. You know who you are and you know what you've done. To my colleagues in this parliament, members and your staff: I do appreciate the warmth of the welcome that you extended to me when I first arrived. It was beyond all expectations. I have received your friendship and professional support and I want to say thank you very, very much. Everybody in this House has added value to the work that we have done. I want to make a special mention of the many ministers, some here today, who have visited Indi. We have noticed and we appreciate it. Thank you. To all the other wonderful people—the staff and the ones who make this place function, too many to name—I want to say thank you for making our jobs here so much easier. I can't name you all, but you're there.
And now to my special friends on the crossbench: we have all worked together—long nights, big days—and together we've reflected the diversity of Australia. We've worked with great respect and generosity together. Talking to the crossbench and of the crossbench, I want to make a special call-out to the people of Australia to pay attention to these extraordinary people and the work done here. Thank you. Clearly, our work is not yet done. In giving you my blessing: may you grow and multiply; may you all win your seats with increased margins; and may you continue to be the voice of reason, the voice of the marginalised and the voice of the forgotten.
To my staff past and present, many of whom are here today and, I have to say, looking resplendent: I acknowledge your dedication, your persistence, your tolerance, your loyalty, your tact, your diplomacy and your courage. You have been my and Indi's arms, legs, eyes, ears, heart and soul. We thank you very, very much.
At this stage, can my family please raise their hands. To my family: it is a truism to say I need you and I'm better because of you. Thanks to each and every one of you for your personal support, the phone calls and the debriefs on the long drive home from Canberra after a huge week. Can the niblings raise their hands. I thank them for their special help and advice, particularly during the marriage equality debate. I really appreciated your wisdom. Thank you for turning up today, because I know you have travelled great distances.
I turn to the communities of Indi, those here today and those listening to the broadcast. You heard the call and you rallied. We could do better. A huge thank you to you. Your belief, your trust and your courage has made this crazy, brave experiment possible. Thank you so much.
Thank you to the media. In particular, I would like to do a callout to media of rural and regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Indi. Without fail, you turned up. Those post-parliamentary Friday presses in Wodonga have become such an important part of our routine. We had regular catch-ups, and your desire for accuracy continues to make Indi a much, much better place.
Now let me turn to the future. The community took a huge risk in voting for me not once but twice. However, today it feels less risky to vote for an Independent and more like a sane, sensible alternative for the one-third of the population that lives outside the metropolitan areas and for those who live in metropolitan areas. I say to the people of Indi: we have called the government to account and we, all of us, need to continue to hold the next government to account. It is important that parliament join the dots on regional and rural Australia. Regional communities are ready to work with government and the government needs to take the time to listen to us. That's why, through the Regions at the Ready report, I have been advocating for a new approach to regional policy, strategic planning and a strengthening regional Australia development network. We need a white paper on regional Australia, one that is developed with communities and with regional Australia.
I make a special callout now to the young people of regional Australia. It was the young people of my electorate who got me here. They nagged, they plodded and they harassed me. But they also saw the potential. They dragged me into the digital age of social media and they provided me with the constant inspiration to be my best self. I say to the young people of regional Australia, to the young people of Australia, on behalf of this parliament: we love you. We want you to be part of our democracy. We want you to be part of what we do here. And, sadly, you're not here in any way, shape or form in the numbers we need you. We know you've got wonderful lives. We know you do creative, innovative and amazing things. But we want to see you in government. My call to the young people of rural and regional Australia, of all Australia, is: don't get mad; get elected. For every organisation in Indi, I say: look at your leadership. Where are the young people? Are you passing on the baton?
Talking of getting elected, I extend an invitation post this speech to all of us to attend the launch of my sister Ruth's book. It's called Get Elected and it is a step-by-step campaign guide to winning public office. It is at one o'clock at Queen's Terrace. It's a great gift to extended family and friends who complain. You can just say, 'Don't get mad; get elected—here's the book!' There is a special discount for Indi people, I think—Ruth, is that right?
For me, it is time for the succession plan to be implemented. I am really looking forward to Sunday when Helen Haines launches her campaign in Wodonga to be the new Independent candidate for Indi. I wish her well. Helen is a nurse. We love nurses. Helen is a midwife, and we know they deliver! Helen has a PhD in public health, and we know how much we need good input into public health. She is an exemplary candidate and I ask my colleagues here to extend to her the same warmth and collegiality you have given to me, assuming she wins. Helen is the change we want to see. Respectful, engaged and clear in her motivation, she is a community grassroots candidate—we say we are different horses but from the same stable.
And now to the end. The single and most important lesson for me is that political and community engagement is to be part of a team—it is to turn up, to sign up for a job and to speak up, to put your hand out to others and give them a leg up. In closing, I have run one leg of this relay, and the independent banner carries a precious legacy for our future. And I'm not going away; I'm merely taking a step back as I pass the baton on and allowing others to step forward. I leave you with this quote from the back of the toilet door at Mittagundi. 'The future is not some place we are going to but one we are creating. The paths to it are not found but made, and the making of these pathways changes both the maker and the destination.' Thank you.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Mutual Reforms) Bill 2019 amends the Corporations Act to enable mutual and cooperative firms—in particular, mutually owned financial institutions—to raise the capital they need to compete with investment owned banks, insurers and other competitors. Cooperatives, mutuals and member-owned firms have a proud history across the country of providing generations of Australians with customer and community focused alternatives to profit-driven business. The oldest member-owned firms even predate the Commonwealth, with some tracing histories that extend back to decades before Federation. Over 14 billion people, or nearly two in three Australians, were members of these organisations in 2017.
Yet despite their value to customers and the community, mutuals and cooperatives in Australia have long been under appreciated and ignored by our federal laws. They face a number of barriers preventing them from growing to their full potential, placing them at a disadvantage. Recognising that our federal laws were effectively forcing mutuals and cooperatives to compete with one arm tied behind them, in 2017 the then Treasurer—now Prime Minister—Scott Morrison commissioned Greg Hammond to advise the government on regulatory and legislative changes that could remove the barriers facing the sector. The government accepted all 11 of the Hammond report recommendations and we have been working with the mutuals, the legal community and regulators to develop the bill. The government has consulted with the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations in relation to the bill, which has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. It is an immense credit to the Prime Minister, who, as Treasurer, pushed these reforms forward. Frankly, he deserves to be acknowledged as these reforms now come before the parliament.
This bill will introduce a definition of 'mutual entity' into the Corporations Act for the first time. It will remove the uncertainty around demutualised provisions in disclosure requirements that have prevented mutual authorised deposit taking institutions, otherwise known as mutual banks, from raising capital in the past. And it will create a new bespoke instrument called a 'mutual capital instrument', which allows mutuals to raise equity through a specialised capital instrument. The bill also provides a simple standardised process for mutuals to amend their constitutions to take advantage of the introduction of mutual capital instruments should they wish to do so.
With this legislation the government will finally ensure that cooperatives and mutuals are recognised in our federal laws. Our reforms will mean more opportunities for mutual organisations by allowing them to raise the funds they need to make long-term investments for the benefit of their members and to compete effectively with shareholder owned companies to the benefit of all Australians. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mutual Reforms) Bill 2019. The idea of mutualism is vital to communities. Mutuals build trust and reciprocity. They are an essential part of an inclusive society helping to foster empathy for our fellow human beings. Cooperatives and mutuals, as member-owned enterprises, exist and operate in the same market as investor owned enterprises. They are voluntary associations of people, democratically run for their members, for the pursuit of a common social, cultural or economic goal. Eight out of 10 Australian adults are members of at least one cooperative or mutual. They account for some seven or eight per cent of GDP and 54,000 direct jobs. Mutuals such as HCF, Capricorn Society, ME Bank, Australian Unity, Sun Super and roadside organisations, including the NRMA, the RACQ and the RACV are cooperatives and mutuals that are essential to Australian society.
Mutualism is also well placed to play a role in the digital economy. Internationally we have driver owned apps competing with Uber and Lyft. Coopify is an app connecting a childcare cooperative with clients in New York. Stocksy sells stock photographs supplied by its members online. In my own electorate of Fenner I have seen firsthand the benefits of the cooperative sector, with the national health co-op now expanding from its original location in Charnwood to set up more than half a dozen locations across Canberra and rural New South Wales.
Labor supports this bill. And why wouldn't we? This is a Labor idea. This is a bill enacting Labor policy and we are delighted to see it finally coming to the House. The bill amends the Corporations Act in relation to mutual entities such as customer owned banks and credit unions and customer owned insurance service providers. They were originally announced as Labor policy in November 2016 in a speech I gave at Old Parliament House announcing Labor's 'Inclusive Ownership, Inclusive Growth' package. That was a policy that drew heavily from Labor senator Chris Ketter's Senate Economics Committee inquiry. I pay particular tribute to Senator Ketter for his work in shaping Labor's cooperatives and mutuals agenda. In 2016 the government launched the Hammond review and eventually agreed to its recommendations in 2017. It took the coalition a full 12 months to adopt Labor's reforms and then another 12 months to draft the required legislation. But we are here now and Labor is very pleased to have gotten to this point.
The bill introduces a definition of a mutual entity into the Corporations Act. It removes the uncertainty for transferring financial institutions and friendly societies in respect of the demutualisation provisions in part 5 of schedule 4 of the Corporations Act and it expressly permits mutual entities registered under the Corporations Act to issue equity capital without risking their mutual structure or status.
There are many stakeholders supporting the bill but one to whom I want to pay particular tribute is the Business Council of Cooperatives and Mutuals CEO Melina Morrison. She has been a driving force behind the creation of the Parliamentary Friends of Mutuals and Co-operatives and Mutuals, co-chaired by myself and Senator McKenzie. The Customer Owned Banking Association has been a strong advocate for this reform, and their work has been important, too, in shaping Labor's policy.
Labor's cooperatives and mutual reforms promote ethical competition and productivity. They encourage social investment and the wellbeing of workers and small businesses. Since we first announced the reform that is in today's bill as Labor policy at the end of 2016, the coalition cycled through multiple Prime Ministers, multiple Treasurers and multiple assistant ministers, but there has been one unchanging fact, which is Labor's support for the cooperatives and mutuals sector. If only the coalition had been as cooperative as the sector, we perhaps could have done this quicker but we are here now. It has only taken us 2½ years to get here.
But this isn't the end of what we need to do to assist cooperatives and mutuals playing a bigger role in the Australian economy. As I said before, they account for seven per cent to eight per cent of GDP. We believe they could account for even more, with their important role of shaking up sectors, providing strong ethical leadership and ensuring that there are customer-owned alternatives to investor-owned business models. One such reform would be to ensure that cooperatives and mutuals have equal access to government grants, particularly under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.
It is particularly apposite that we are debating this legislation just a couple of months after the royal commission into the banking sector came down. Labor called for that royal commission in 2016, some months before we announced our cooperatives and mutuals policy. At the time, the member for Cook said that the royal commission was just a 'populist whinge'. The government in announcing the royal commission only did so after the big four banks had called for a royal commission. The member for Cook said it was regrettable that we had to have a royal commission into the banks. But no-one now looking at Commissioner Haynes' report would argue that was a regrettable report. I think there is broad recognition in the finance sector that this was the royal commission we had to have. We've seen the chair and the CEO of AMP step down. We have seen a range of referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have seen scandals involving fees paid for advice not received and fees charged to dead people. We have seen allegations of envelopes stuffed with money, of breaches of AUSTRAC notification procedures and of collusion to fix the bank bill swap rate. The royal commission has been a litany of scandals and has again reinforced the simple fact that, when it comes to ethical competition within the economy, there is only one side of this parliament, Labor, that makes the right calls.
The Customer Owned Banking Association has made a strong argument for the role of cooperatives and mutuals in providing real competition in the banking sector. So one of the important things that we get from this bill is additional competition in a sector which is highly concentrated, even by global standards. It's important that we have a strong banking sector but it's also important that we have a competitive one, because it's that competition between our banks that places downward pressure on the margins and ensures that Australians get proper choice when they're taking out a mortgage or looking to get a good return on their savings.
With customer owned banks, there is an alternative to the investor owned opportunities which, again, have a long tradition in economics. The cooperatives and mutual sector is a sector which harks back to the words of one of the founders of economics Adam Smith, who said, 'Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely; or to be that thing which is the natural and proper object of love.' When you speak to people in the cooperatives and mutual sector, those words of Adam Smith's, written more than two centuries ago, resonate with them as well. The choice is not between economy and society, as Margaret Thatcher so falsely posited. It is possible to have organisations operating ethically within our economy. Indeed, free markets depend on trust, morality and decency. It is the role of mutualism which can ensure that the best spirits of Smith are able to be found in our economy. This notion from theory of moral sentiments is absolutely critical to the reforms that we're advocating today.
Labor knows that these reforms will promote ethical competition and productivity, that they'll encourage social investment and the wellbeing of workers and small businesses. It is Labor's advocacy for this sector which has brought these reforms to the House today.
No, it's not!
It is Labor's advocacy which has ensured we are here today. I hear the Assistant Treasurer interject, 'No, it's not.' Well, we simply have to look at the range of reforms that have been led by Labor during this term of parliament. We had, just back in February, the example of Labor's laws on access to justice, which were introduced by Labor into the Senate, passed the Senate on the voices when the coalition decided that they were going to lose the vote on the floor and then were passed through the House—another Labor reform passed through this parliament. This reform today would not be being debated were it not for Labor's strong advocacy and for the catch-up politics in which the coalition are engaged.
The Hammond review simply ensured that the ideas in the Ketter review were brought to this parliament. But Chris Ketter's work as chair of that Senate Economics Committee laid the foundations for Labor's reforms and ensured that Labor was able to get to this point.
You care about competition in the energy companies?
It's extraordinary to hear the Minister for Energy, the Don Quixote of the parliament, when he's not out tilting at windmills, arguing that Labor is not the party for competition. Labor is the party of competition and will remain the party of competition. Labor is going to the next election advocating that we should give more resources to the ACCC, that we should do postmerger reviews, that we should ban unfair contract terms. But, when it comes to the big stick, this is a policy which the minister has been forced to abandon. He has had to take his big stick and stick it under the table because his big stick is so unloved anywhere he attempts to bring it out.
It's loved by you and your crony capitalists!
I'll take that interjection, Minister. The fact is that, if there is one party that supports crony capitalism, it's the party on the other side. That is why neither a single serious economist nor a single serious business leader supports the idea of divestiture powers in a single sector. Of course some countries have divestiture powers, and we'll periodically have debates over this, but the notion that you would have divestiture powers in a single sector is utter anathema to serious economics.
It's crony capitalism!
The fact is that the Minister for Energy is now hyperventilating over a policy killed not by Labor but by his own party room. His own party room killed the big stick.
Mr Taylor interjecting—
So, Minister, don't go shouting at me. Turn around and start shouting at the people behind you, because the people behind you are the ones who've rejected your big stick, along with the Australian people.
The notion that the Liberals are a party of competition rather than a party of crony capitalism flies in the face of the traditions of the Liberal Party in supporting every single monopoly and tax loophole it can find. The Liberal Party is the party of the big end of town, and no—I feel as though the Assistant Treasurer wants to say something, but I'm happy to keep on speaking. The minister has no credibility when it comes to arguing for competition. Labor's competition policies—the Deputy Speaker may give the Assistant Treasurer the call or she may not, but I'll keep on speaking until she chooses to do that. The fact is that if you want to understand crony capitalism you need look no further than the Fadden Forum, an outfit which was given a donation by a firm that then went into liquidation owing money to the Australian taxpayer.
Say it outside! Walk out right now with me, big fella, and say that outside.
Excuse me! A bit of order, please.
If the Assistant Treasurer wants to take on The Gold Coast Bulletin, he is welcome to do so. I'm very happy to go through the details of the Fadden Forum in here.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. We're talking about mutuals and cooperatives. The shadow Assistant Treasurer would do well to stick to that or sit himself down.
I don't need the advice of the minister at this point. Thank you, though. Member for Kingsford-Smith, are you seeking a point of order?
The Assistant Treasurer referred to the member for Fenner using an unparliamentary term. I ask that he withdraw it.
I wasn't in the room, perhaps.
He should refer to members by their correct titles.
Everyone's been offering a lot of advice as I assumed the chair right now. I remind everybody at the table that, yes, it is correct parliamentary procedure to refer to each other by the parliamentary titles. I ask you all to try and do so. I'm giving the call back to the member for Fenner.
Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Claydon. In conclusion, Labor is the party of competition. Labor supports the cooperatives and mutuals sector. We are pleased to see that the government is bringing these reforms, 2½ years late, to the parliament. We would be delighted to support the bill and delighted to see a reform championed by Australia's great cooperatives and mutuals sector finally become reality.
I thank those members who've contributed to the debate and I thank the shadow minister. This bill demonstrates the government's support for cooperatives, mutuals and member owned firms by enabling these institutions to raise the funds they need to grow and compete. The sector is diverse and represents an alternative model for delivering important customer and community focused services across many industries, including agriculture, banking, finance, housing, insurance and retail. The government is committed to removing the impediments facing the mutual sector, and this bill delivers on that commitment. These changes will not only result in better outcomes for members of cooperatives and mutuals but also improve the capacity of member owned firms to innovate, grow and compete, delivering better outcomes for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill is to protect sponsorship and licensing revenue from the International Cricket Council T20 World Cup, to be held in 2020, from being undermined by ambush marketing, which is the unauthorised commercial use of event indicia—or expressions—and images. This will be achieved by including the T20 World Cup as a recognised major sporting event under the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act. The bill also takes the opportunity to remove schedules relating to historical sporting events that are no longer providing protections under the act, being the Asian Football Confederation Asian Cup of 2015 and the ICC Cricket World Cup of 2015.
The bill is consistent with the approach the Australian government took when it legislated to protect the indicia and images of the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, the Asian Football Confederation Asian Cup of 2015, the ICC World Cup in 2015, the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games and the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. It also meets a commitment by the Australian government to provide such intellectual property rights protection for the T20 World Cup.
Hosting the T20 World Cup in Australia provides a unique opportunity to showcase our country to the world from a tourism, trade and event-delivery perspective. Event owners and organisers like those for the T20 World Cup rely heavily on revenue generated by television rights, ticket sales, sponsorship and licensing to ensure their event can be delivered and continues to be an attractive and viable financial proposition to future host countries. It's this profile and these commercial realities that necessitate the sorts of protections that are proposed for the T20 World Cup in this bill.
The bill will protect the use of a range of expressions and images associated with the T20 World Cup in the aim to prevent an unauthorised user from applying those indicia and images to suggest a formal association with the T20 World Cup. The act, known as 'ambush marketing by association', has the capacity to diminish the value of sponsorship, reduce the incentive for organisations to enter into commercial arrangements with events, and reduce the overall event revenue. In turn, this has the ability to increase the financial impact on government to support such events.
While it's important to protect the T20 World Cup sponsors from ambush marketing, the rights of the community to freedom of expression must also be respected, particularly in relation to words that have passed into common usage. A pragmatic approach has been taken, with generic words and references excluded from the list of protected expressions. In line with the Australian government's deregulation agenda, the bill is not intended to increase the burden on businesses or affect their everyday operations. The bill fully protects the rights of the existing holders to use T20 World Cup indicia and images to carry out their business functions.
The T20 World Cup schedule proposed in the bill will cease to have effect after 30 November 2021, approximately one year after the completion of the event. This is consistent with other major sporting events protected by the act. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.
I take this opportunity to speak on the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018. Can I say from the outset that I'm somewhat surprised that it has taken this long to get this legislation into the House, given that there is some urgency to it. We have to have the legislation in place and then, in turn, rely on many of the state governments to enact complementary legislation to achieve the objectives of the bill. Given that the legislation was first brought into the Senate, I believe, in December 2018, I would have thought that the legislation would be before us a little earlier. Nevertheless, here we are, on possibly the very last day of sitting of this parliament, dealing with this legislation. It's important that we get it through the House today.
Labor supports this bill, which, as the Minister for Energy said a moment ago, amends the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014. That act is out of date and refers to past events; therefore, if we want the act to be relevant to future events, it has to be appropriately amended. This amendment bill updates the act so that it refers to upcoming major sporting events; specifically, the International Cricket Council T20 World Cup cricket tournament, which includes both the men's and the women's tournaments. It's to be held in Australia in 2020. The amendments in the bill will make the ICC T20 World Cup 2020 a major sporting event under the act. They also insert information required to protect related intellectual property, such as the event's name, logo, branding and similar things. Furthermore, the amendments set the period of protection—again, as the minister said a moment ago—to end on 30 November 2021.
The protections provided by these amendments are standard and necessary for major sporting events hosted in Australia and mirror protections provided under the act for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 and the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games only last year. The ICC T20 World Cup 2020 Local Organising Committee hopes this bill can pass the parliament as soon as possible. As I said at the outset, that's because we want to ensure the amendments to the act become effective at least one year prior to the ICC Women's T20 World Cup, which will be held in February and March of next year. That, effectively, is just under a year away.
Labor understands that these protections will be complemented by equivalent protections against ambush marketing—which the minister alluded to in his opening remarks—that will be introduced by the governments of states and territories that will be hosting the matches in the year 2020. It's important for those pieces of legislation also to go through the parliaments of the state jurisdictions.
National and international sport is big business. It generates big dollars for a lot of entities. However, it is costly to stage, and sponsors rely on exclusive rights to the use of logos and images for the products which they then market in order to recoup their sponsorship costs. Those rights need to be protected, and they need to be protected by law. That is the purpose of this bill—to endeavour to do that. I'm aware that in past events where there have been products sold and logos used there have been those who have sought to capitalise on those products by providing counterfeit products. Having legislation such as this provides certainty to the organisers and sponsors and, in turn, ensures that the event will proceed. Of course, if the event proceeds then that is good for Australia's cricket fans—in this case—who have the opportunity to see the world's best cricketers in action here in Australia. It's also good for Australia, because the Australian economy will benefit from both the tourism generated and the turnover of products that are made and sold.
International events provide Australia with international exposure to the rest of the world through the television screening of those events, and that in itself is one of the best ways we can promote Australia as a tourism destination. I'm aware that, through many such events, tourism to Australia has increased. Earlier this year we had, as we have now had for many years, the Tour Down Under in South Australia. It's considered an international event. It not only brings people into Australia—and into South Australia in particular—from around the world; over the week of the tournament it also is televised in so many countries across the world, which in turn provides South Australia with a wonderful opportunity to promote itself on the world stage. And, indeed, we have much in Australia to promote. So, whilst we have our tourism industry doing that each and every day, I see international sporting events as one of the ways of doing that in an indirect but very effective manner.
Australia is a sporting nation, and I think the fact that Australia is a sporting nation is one of our strengths. Over the years we have not only produced some of the best sportspeople in the world in this country; more importantly, this has also done two things that I just want to briefly touch on. International sports provide inspiration and opportunity for young people in this country in a way that few other things do. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, from your own work as a member of parliament, you would be aware of the sporting people in your community and the grants that are provided to them to enable them to compete in state, national and international events. It is through those grants that I see so many young people having the opportunity to pursue something that they want to do. In many cases, I have seen young people from my own community going the whole way and ending up representing Australia. I believe that that all starts when those young people get to see an international event in progress. They, too, can dream of one day being the person out there on the field playing the sport. Continuing to support our children through those grants and also providing them with the opportunity to see the best in the world in front of them is, I think, one of the most inspiring things we can do for them. For many of them, that would not be possible if the events were not held here in Australia, and that would not be possible if the promoters and organisers of those events were not protected through legislation such as this.
The other matter that I want to address is particularly relevant, given what happened in New Zealand in recent times. It is that sport in this country has brought people together in a way that nothing else has. I have seen people come together on the sporting field and support one another regardless of their race, their colour, their nationality or their religion, even when they are playing on opposing teams. I believe it has been one of the terrific ways that the barriers for people in this country have broken down. It's a prime example of why it makes sense to support our sporting communities out there.
In my own electorate I regularly visit sporting communities and sporting events of all persuasions. I'm sure that my electorate simply reflects what is happening right around the country. There is a terrific effort being made by all the volunteers, supporters and parents who make all of that possible. Quite often they do so week in, week out on a purely voluntary basis with very little financial support from anywhere else. I'll be attending a sporting presentation this coming Saturday night for a local cricket team, as I will be in two weeks time for another cricket team. That just highlights the importance of sports within our community. It also highlights, in my mind, that cricket, which this particular legislation is focusing on, is one of the sports that, in this country, has now become a national sport. In our summer months particularly, I rarely go anywhere without seeing a TV screen showing international cricket, or I am a cricket match myself. Cricket and Australian Rules football are, respectively, perhaps the two most dominant sports in winter and summer. This country can be proud of what it has managed to do because of its support for those sports.
The last thing I want to mention is that on the weekend just passed the Australian national women's football league, the AFL Women's, played its grand final in Adelaide. The match was between the women's Crows team and the women's Carlton team. The Crows won and I take this opportunity to congratulate them, and in particular the captain, Erin Phillips, who led the side and has been a magnificent player for them throughout. Unfortunately, Erin was injured in the game, but nevertheless was able to come back at the end of the game to at least acknowledge the win. I congratulate not only the women's Crows team for their splendid effort on Sunday but also Erin for her leadership of the team. My commiserations to Carlton, who I believe put up a really good effort in competing on the day, but obviously only one team can win. The last thing I will say about that game is this: women's football has sometimes not been supported in the same way as men's football, and it's suggested that women's football is perhaps not of a standard and not equivalent to men's football. To anyone who believes that, can I say that they ought to go along to watch a women's league game. It was a spectacular game. To the people around Australia I say this also: it was absolutely wonderful to see Adelaide Oval absolutely full to the rim with followers and spectators. I think it surprised most people that we would get a capacity crowd, but we did. I think that is testament to the quality of the football being played and also, again, to the sporting culture we have in this country, which is something that I'm proud of and something that we should try to protect for as long as we can, because I think it is one of the great assets of Australian life.
I congratulate the member for Makin and wholly concur with his comments regarding women's AFL. It's a fantastic sport—very competitive—and it is wonderful to see the athleticism and talent of so many young women throughout Australia. It is now being mirrored in the great sport of rugby league, as well, which is fantastic to see. Australians love their sport. We love playing sport, we love watching sport and we love reliving it often. The Monday morning coaches and stories about how a team fared on the weekend—what went wrong, how you would have done better—are folklore in Australian workplaces and homes throughout the country. Increasingly, like all aspects of society, with social media and new digital platforms developing we're seeing more and more chances for images and photographs of people participating in sport to spread throughout not only the internet but other platforms as well. We have a recent example of this with the controversy—highly unwarranted—that was created in respect of the image of Tayla Harris kicking that fantastic goal during the AFLW season. What a photograph! It captured one of Australian sport's most iconic moments. It was a tribute to her and her teammates' athleticism, a tribute to the AFL and to that particular sport and to the promotion of women's involvement in sport. We all know, unfortunately, the controversy that surrounded it. But I think the important thing to remember is that at the end of the day Channel Seven put that photo back up on their website because of the public reaction—because of the reaction of the Australian people about their love for that image and all that it purveyed about women's sport and athleticism. It highlights the importance of ensuring that we're protecting major sporting events' indicia and images, including certain photographs, in the future.
This is a bill which amends the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014. This act is out of date and refers to past events, so this is really about updating that particular act. This amendment bill updates the act so that it refers to upcoming major sporting events, specifically the ICC T20 World Cup 2020 cricket tournament, comprising both the men's and the women's tournaments, to be held in Australia in 2020. The amendments make the ICC T20 World Cup a major sporting event under the act, insert information required to protect related intellectual property such as the event's name, the logo, the branding and similar things, and set the period of protection. The protections provided by these amendments are standard and necessary for major sporting events hosted in Australia and mirror the major protections provided under the act for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 and the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games last year, both of which were sensational sporting events. They brought a lot of tourism and benefit for the Australian economy and Australian society.
The ICC T20 World Cup 2020 Local Organising Committee hopes that this bill can pass the parliament as soon as possible to ensure the amendments to the act become effective at least one year prior to the women's T20 World Cup, which will be held from February next year. Labor understands that these protections will be complemented by equivalent protections against ambush marketing, to be introduced by the government of various states and territories that will be hosting the matches in 2020.
This is a reform that is required. It's certainly something that the industry has requested. It's good to see that the government has acted on this. Labor certainly supports this reform. I'm sure that, when these events are held in Australia, we're going to see, both in the men's and the women's categories, some exceptional sporting achievements, and it's appropriate that the images, logos and indicia that are associated with these sporting events are protected, and that is what this bill will do.
It would be no surprise to the member for Newcastle, sitting in the chair this afternoon, that word went around the building that there was an opportunity to speak on sport, and Joanne Ryan, the member for Lalor, raced to the chamber to prepare some notes and talk about sport, and particularly women's sport. We're talking about the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018 which has, as the member for Makin pointed out, been brought into the chamber at the last minute. I feel it is important to note the tardiness of putting this bill in place, with the extrapolated risks for the international event, the ICC T20 World Cup cricket tournament, to be held in Australia in 2020. Obviously, getting the bill passed today is fairly important to ensure that the indicia and images are protected during this event. There are 12 months leading up to this event, which is why this bill's before us today.
I concur with the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Makin on the importance of sport in Australian culture—the pleasure and joy it brings to us, and also the way it builds into us our competitive nature, our push to want to be the best that we can be in all aspects of life, which is often learned on our local sporting fields or courts around the nation when we are very young children. We need to note that Australia has been successful in bringing the ICC T20 World Cup to Australia for 2020 and celebrate the fact that this is now a major international event that includes not just men's cricket but, of course, women's cricket. I want to give a big shout-out to Meg Lanning, the current Australian captain. Hopefully, Meg will be fit and firing and leading the Australian T20 team.
I seek to make an intervention under standing order 66A.
I give the call to the member for Bruce.
I was just listening to the member for Lalor's remarks and was wondering if she could expand on her views in relation to women's sport, outline some of her favourite sporting images which she would be hoping would be protected by this bill and, finally, if she could, explain to the House the difference between indicia and images. A quick Google search suggests that there is some disagreement as to whether indicia is in fact a plural or singular word and what the difference between the two may mean.
Member for Lalor, are you happy to take that intervention?
I am happy to take that intervention. As the member for Bruce outlined, we were doing some research here on the word 'indicia'. As a former English teacher I found it a shock that I had never seen this word before. For those listening at home, in one section of a definition we found that it was a formal singular noun and in another section we found that it was a formal plural noun—which of course fascinated us both. For those playing along at home, it means signs, indications or distinguishing marks, and therefore requires images to be attached, because it is also, obviously, about logos, branding and those sorts of things.
The reason that the legislation is before us today is to ensure that 12 months out from an event the event can give a guarantee to those private businesses that might be joining the entity in promoting the event and in attracting large crowds—which shouldn't be difficult in Australia. I do hope, as the member for Bruce said in his intervention, that we get some great-quality images used under the protection of this bill of female sporting heroes. I would hope that we can get some fabulous images of Australian female cricketers in their most recent successes. They are, of course, the pride of Australian cricket at the moment, and I'm sure the International Cricket Council would agree with me that it would probably be appropriate to ensure that images of some women holding up a bat or making that lunging stride and sliding that bat in to make an extra run would be important to share.
There are many members of the House that would like to see that.
Yes, there are many members of the House who would like to see that. It is important that this bill be passed today. Labor supports this bill being passed today. I would hope that, if given the opportunity of government, a Labor government into the future would ensure that the legislation required for the Matildas FIFA Women's World Cup soccer, which we are hoping to attract to the country in 2022, and the Netball World Cup, which we are hoping to attract to Australia in 2027, will have the legislation passed in a more timely manner to ensure that images of our great female athletes in this country and around the world are able to be protected under legislation of this kind.
I agree with those opposite that this legislation is necessary. Labor supports this legislation. We want to see this legislation passed in a timely way to allow that 12-month protection before the tournament arrives. We want to ensure that the tournament attracts the kind of investment that it requires. We want to ensure that we get a top-quality event happening in Australia to further enhance our reputation worldwide as being the sporting capital of the world. That reputation is broadening from sport to sport but, most importantly, that reputation is now going around the world and is not just limited to men's sport but includes women's team sports as well, which is also so critical. It is an absolute pleasure to be in the chamber today to hear the word 'sport' being said so regularly by various members in the chamber.
Do people in your electorate play sport?
The people in my electorate are incredibly passionate about their sport. The member for Makin mentioned the AFLW final. I was fortunate enough to be at the Werribee Football Club Avalon oval to watch the Adelaide Crows women's team play North Melbourne in the conference rounds, and to be up close and personal to those girls playing our great game of football was amazing—to see the progression over two years, in terms of the talent, the play and the speed at which they moved the ball was incredibly impressive. I was not surprised to see the Adelaide team come out victorious on the weekend.
I had the pleasure, as I tweeted on the day, of watching a plethora of women's sport in my lounge room as I sat and took a couple of hours out. On my television, on the big screen, I had the AFLW final, but of course Bendigo on the weekend was home to a four-way netball preseason tournament where the Vixens were playing the Magpies at the same time as the AFLW grand final, so I had both happening. On my iPad I had the Vixens playing the Magpies—and of course it would be terrible if I forgot to mention that the Vixens beat the Magpies on the weekend in Bendigo!—and on the large screen I had the AFLW.
It was wonderful to hear so many female voices coming from both my iPad and the television. As a woman who lives with four blokes—three sons and a partner—it was terrific to be in my lounge room surrounded by female commentators, commentating both sports, and watching women, our elite athletes, at their very, very best, in intense competition for balls of both shapes. We had the round ball happening, obviously, on the netball court, and of course we had the oval ball being chased around Adelaide Oval.
So I look forward to the T20 World Cup. I can't promise I'll watch any of the men's cricket in that tournament, but I'll be glued to my television set, or watching live somewhere around the country, watching our great Australian women's cricketers compete on the world stage. Of course, Australia will be hoping that we'll take out both crowns, as is our usual prediction—we always predict we're going to win. We push our teams into a corner so that they have to deliver on our wish. And hopefully the T20 2020 major sporting event, as it will be now known under the act, will see Australia successful again.
I'm pleased to stand to speak on the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018. As someone who grew up playing sport, a lot of it at Baker Park in Wyong, I'm very pleased to speak on this today, as a netballer and as someone who knows what grassroots sport really means to local communities.
I'm so pleased to be the patron of the Wyong District Netball Association. The association will have their march-past this Saturday. The march-past is the annual event where all of the clubs in the Wyong District Netball Association come together to launch our season. I'm very pleased, as patron, to be able to be joining that event on Saturday.
In terms of regional sport, I would also like to mention the Central Coast Heart. The Central Coast Heart are the only regional netball team in the Netball New South Wales Premier League. The Netball New South Wales Premier League is a very competitive competition, and it's a pathway for our athletes to be able to then compete at elite levels of netball, nationally and hopefully internationally. I'm pleased to let the house know that the Central Coast Heart last year won the Netball New South Wales Premier League, and our captain, Amy Wild, was announced player of the series, and one of our coaches, Amber, is now a coach at a New South Wales level. I think what this demonstrates is that, if we have pathways to sports in regional communities, we have the opportunity for young women to be able to go on to represent us at a state, national and international level.
I thank all speakers for their contributions. The purpose of the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2018 is to protect sponsorship and licensing revenue from the International Cricket Council T20 World Cup 2020 from being undermined and ambushed in its marketing campaign. The T20 World Cup will be recognised as a major sporting event under the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
I'll make some very brief comments in relation to this bill. I'm pleased that the Senate has agreed to the amendments that were put forward and that the government has agreed as well. Labor has consistently expressed serious concerns about the cashless debit card, and we have consistently opposed its national rollout.
It is encouraging to see the government exhibit some acknowledgement that there are serious concerns to be had about this card. There simply is no evidence that this card works, and the government botched its own assessment of the card. We know that in many instances participants are unable to purchase essential items at more-affordable prices. Labor's amendments will mitigate the arbitrary impacts that this card has on participants. Why should someone who can demonstrate responsible management of their finances be subjected to this card? Why should someone making an effort to look for a job to get back into the workforce be subjected to this card? Why should someone at risk of homelessness be subjected to this card? Children should be protected from the impacts of this card, too. Labor's amendments provide an opportunity for people who do the right thing or are vulnerable to the impacts of the card to opt out.
Finally, as we have reiterated time and time again, Labor has serious concerns about the impacts of this card. This bill, as amended, mitigates against those impacts but also ensures continuity of support in these communities.
I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management and Cashless Welfare) Bill 2019, which has been amended and returned from the Senate. We saw in the Senate last night the government accept Labor's amendments to let people get off this card. They have finally admitted that the way they have rolled out the bill is unfair and unreasonable. Labor has consistently expressed serious concerns about the cashless debit card, and we have consistently opposed its roll out nationally. It's encouraging to see the government recognise that there are serious concerns to be had about the card. There is simply no evidence that this card works, and the government has botched its own assessment of the card.
We know that in many instances participants are unable to purchase essential items at more affordable prices. Labor's amendments will mitigate the arbitrary impacts that this card has on participants. Why should someone who can demonstrate responsible management of finances be subjected to this card? Why should someone who is making an effort to look for a job, to seek work and to get back into the workforce be subjected to this card? As it has been rolled out, it is unreasonable and unfair. Why should someone who is at risk of homelessness—vulnerable people—be put in this precarious situation? Children should also be protected from the impacts of this card. Labor's amendments provide an opportunity for people who do the right thing or people vulnerable to the impacts of this card to opt out. As we have reiterated time and time again, Labor has serious concerns about the impact of this card. This bill, as amended, both mitigates against those impacts and ensures continuity of support for these communities.
Looking forward, as I've mentioned, Labor has never supported the rollout of the cashless debit card nationally, and now the government has finally recognised that there are serious problems with the rollout, serious problems with the way it has been implemented and serious problems with the evaluation. Labor does not support the expansion of the cashless debit card and this form of income management to new communities unless the community wants the card and there is informed community consent.
I had the chance to speak about this when the bill came to the House earlier. As I said at the time, we don't believe in a blanket approach to income management. We do not support the rollout of a national cashless debit card. We believe that most recipients of income support are more than capable of managing their own finances. Labor has said all along that we will talk to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. I am pleased to see that the amendments that the member for Barton has put have been accepted by the government. There are so many flaws in this unreasonable and unfair rollout. There are so many vulnerable individuals and communities that are unfairly impacted by this.
Hopefully, what we will see in the future is a much more reasonable and fair approach as most recipients of income support are more than capable of managing their own finances and more than capable of making decisions on behalf of their household and on behalf of their communities. What we need to see is proper consultation. What we need to see is an evidence based approach that works in the interests of people living within those communities. What we really need to see is community control—that any decisions are community led. I come from a background in health and mental health. I come from an area where there are many people within our Indigenous community who are making great strides forward, particularly in Aboriginal community-controlled health. There are excellent examples in my community and elsewhere across Australia where we have seen evidence-based, community-controlled, community-led approaches, and I think that's what we need to see.
I thank the member for Barton for putting these amendments, and I look forward to them being accepted by the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia has one of the best health systems in the world; however, it's under intense pressure from an ageing population, increasing chronic disease, spiralling health costs, technological changes and rising consumer expectations. It is critical for the Australian government to tackle these pressures head on by reforming key parts of the system to build a long-term national health plan.
Essential to the success of a long-term health plan is ensuring Australians have the health workforce to deliver it: the right people with the right mix of skills providing quality services at the right time right around the country. The 2018-19 federal budget commits $550 million to the government's Stronger Rural Health Strategy. This strategy will help improve the health of people living in regional, rural and remote Australia through better training, recruitment and retention of health workforce.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Bonded Medical Programs Reform) Bill 2019 is one of the targeted strategic responses under the Stronger Rural Health Strategy which responds to national challenge of ensuring primary health care is accessible and available to all Australians no matter where they live. Under the strategy a total of $20.2 million was committed to reform the bonded medical program.
The bonded medical programs are long-term investments in the health workforce by the Australian government. These programs were introduced back in 2001 as the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme and was expanded to include the Bonded Medical Places Scheme in 2004. These schemes are designed to address the doctor shortages across regional and remote Australia and in areas with workforce shortages. Participants receive a place in a medical course at an Australian university in return for commitment to work in unserviced areas.
This commitment to work in unserviced areas is referred to as return-of-service obligation, known as ROSO. Under current agreements the ROSO can be as much as six years of continuous service in a regional and rural/remote area and in areas with a workforce shortage after obtaining qualifications as a specialist medical practitioner. Each year, government provides up to 850 bonded Commonwealth support places in Australia—medical courses. As the program matures, increasing numbers of doctors are due to commence their return of service. Up to 700 doctors are expected to commence their return of service each year over the next five to seven years.
Today a total of 10,062 participants are actively participating in the bonded medical program, 9,452 participants are completing their medical degree or training and a further 610 are undertaking their ROSO by working in regional and remote locations, including areas of workforce shortage. It can take up to 22 years for a bonded doctor from a first-year medical student to complete their obligation to the Australian public under the bonded medical program. I commend and acknowledge the significant impact this value sector of the medical workforce is starting to have on reducing the gaps in medical services outside metropolitan areas.
The bill is part of a broader reform to the bonded medical programs. Reforms will create a modern, flexible administrative system with greater capacity for the programs to support and target voluntary, recognised, Australian-trained doctors to work and stay in regional and rural/remote areas of Australia. It will enable participants to enter, if not already, an existing participant to opt into a statutory scheme without the need for individuals to contract. It will make it easier, significantly, for the bonded doctors to complete their ROSO by reducing and streamlining administrative requirements, giving more options as to when, where and how ROSO can be completed and providing earlier and stronger links with professional support agencies for doctors.
These improvements will encourage doctors to stay working in places where they are undertaking their return-of-service obligations beyond their obligations. These improvements will help ensure more fully qualified Australian trained doctors work in regional, rural and remote Australia in areas of workforce shortage. More importantly, the reforms will also better target future bonded workforce locations of need as demographic and workforce demands change over time.
The bill introduces a statutory scheme known as the bonded medical program to come into effect as of 1 January 2020. The statutory regulation scheme consolidates the existing BMP and the MRBS schemes under a single legislative framework to progress government's long-term view to move towards a single bonded medical scheme. The statutory scheme is clearer about the conditions of sanctions applied under the program, including the application for a medical ban for breaches of conditions under the MRBS scheme. Participants of the statutory scheme continue to have the right of an internal review and they'll be able to seek review for administrative decisions through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
From 1 January 2020 new participants will enter the program under a new statutory scheme and existing participants will be able to opt in. Existing administrative arrangements are significantly onerous and outdated, with the different contractual provisions both within and across existing schemes. Contractual agreements are complex and unwieldy to administer and are unable to be modernised efficiently and effectively to ensure the program responds to the government's future workforce needs and offers modern and flexible arrangements are needed to support the future rural medical workforce.
The statutory arrangements will eventually replace the myriad and complex contractual arrangements currently in place with individual participants. Statutory provisions will ensure that existing participants and future participants will have access to the same suite of options and opportunities moving forward.
Managing obligations over the 20-year period can be frustrating at times and resource intensive. The statutory scheme will enable participants to flexibly self-manage these obligations through a program-specific web portal and phone application. Participants, no matter where they are, will be able to log on and update their information and be able to plan, track and record their RoSO.
The statutory scheme will enable collection of data for reporting and effective evaluation of programs. At this stage, it is too early to evaluate the program's success; However, it is critical that government and medical professionals in the Australian public have access to robust evaluation of the program outcomes to inform policy decisions into the future. It is the government's long-term view to rationalise the bonded medical program to a single bonded medical scheme once all the existing schemes have expired. It is envisaged that this will occur in around 2035 when all participants under the existing scheme have either completed their obligations under that program or have chosen to opt into the new statutory scheme. The government is committed to implementing progressive and responsive administrative arrangements which support both current and future bonded doctors keen to make substantial contributions to better access medical services across Australia.
Debate adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.
A truly devastating decision was made yesterday by Kimberly-Clark, an American company, to close its Ingleburn mill. The site employs countless local Macarthur residents and this decision will result in over 220 job losses at the site. Many workers had worked there for decades since its opening in 1988. This is devastating to my community and devastating to the countless local Macarthur families who will now be left in limbo as a result of this terrible decision. There will be 220 jobs lost as a result of Kimberly-Clark shifting their operations to Asia. I cannot even begin to imagine the hurt and anger that so many Macarthur families are feeling as a result of this decision.
News of this closure came to my office in the form of a communication from Kimberly-Clark the very same day that employees at the Ingleburn mill were informed of the impending closure of the site. I will be meeting with representatives of the firm next week when I return to my electorate and have been in communication with the union since I heard from the decision.
While further discussions will be had on this subject, I wish to inform the House of my complete and utter opposition to this decision by Kimberly-Clark. The firm is a profitable enterprise. It's working well and making high-quality products. Please help me save the Ingleburn mill of Kimberly-Clark.
The northern beaches of Coffs Harbour are blessed in many ways, not least because of the significant Sikh population that lives there. Two significant events are happening soon. One is this Sunday. The First Sikh gurdwara will be holding an opening ceremony of its new building. It has been honour of being the first Sikh temple in Australia, and I want to congratulate the committee who have organised this new building: to Nirmal Singh Kandola, to Joginder Singh Garcha, to Ashley Dilbar Singh More, to Balhar Singh Maan, to Amardeep Singh, to Hardeep Singh Aujala, to Paramjit Singh Sandhu, to Manjinder Singh Bajwa, to Swaran Singh Dhaliwal and to Ricky Singh Bajwa.
Members of the second temple, Guru Nanak Sikh Temple, opened in 1970, will soon open the Sikh Heritage Museum of Australia. It will share the history and the beliefs and customs of the Sikh religion to the many tourists who visit our region. I want to congratulate the committee of the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple for this achievement: to the President, Jinderpal Singh Rai; and to the members Bhupinder Singh Lalli, Malkit Singh Husna, Sulakhan Singh Shetra, Jaspal Singh Ghuman and Gurtake Singh Bhorla. I want to congratulate the whole Sikh community, and I am looking forward to Sunday's event.
It's with great disappointment that I rise to join with the member for Macarthur to advise the House of the closure of the Ingleburn mill, as it is a dreadful loss for the manufacturing industry in Australia. On Tuesday night, the Treasurer had the gall to stand in this place and claim the economy was working for everyday Australians. I would like to see him say that to the 220 workers who have just lost their jobs on this government's watch. Yesterday the textiles manufacturer Kimberly-Clark laid off its entire Western Sydney workforce. Their jobs will go to overseas workers in Asia. In just 12 weeks these 220 workers will no longer have jobs to go to, no longer have the security, stability and satisfaction of a hard day's work. We are seeing another example, under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, of hundreds of Australians losing secure, decent jobs. I stand with the CFMMEU when they say that this is a devastating blow for workers across Australia. How will Australian mums and dads know that essential products like nappies are made to Australian safety standards when these jobs are marching offshore on the government's watch?
I will look forward to meeting with representatives from Kimberly-Clark next week to discuss the decision. In the meantime, my thoughts are with the Kimberly-Clark employees and their families who have given so much to this company.
I rise to acknowledge and thank the outgoing Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Graham Quirk, for 34 years of great service to our city of Brisbane. Graham Quirk was one of the first elected representatives I ever met and he's proven himself over decades to be one of the best retail politicians right across Australia. He recorded huge popular votes across Brisbane, averaging 59 per cent and 68 per cent of the two-party vote for him as lord mayor, and his administration swept the board twice, winning 18 of 26 wards in 2012 and then 19 in 2016. His greatest legacies as Lord Mayor will include his stewardship and custodianship of Brisbane as it became a larger, more global and more confident city, as well as the landmark infrastructure projects that he's delivered, like the Legacy Way tunnel, the Kingsford Smith Drive upgrade and construction of Howard Smith Wharves and the fruits of the recent city deal agreement for South-East Queensland.
Working closely with Lord Mayor Graham Quirk on the now fully funded Brisbane Metro project has been a highlight of my time in office so far. It's a project that will revolutionise the city's public transport offering and truly change the face of our great city. I want to give Graham and his wife, Anne, and his family my very best wishes for the future and their next adventures. Thank you, Lord Mayor, for your service to the people of Brisbane.
I'm here with the member for Longman to talk about something that's not in either of our electorates—it's actually taking place in the electorate of Gippsland—and that's a strike that has been going on since 20 June 2017. We were at an AMWU dinner the other night and we heard from Troy Carter and Steve about the many other people who have been on this picket line who were basically sacked and then offered their jobs back with a 30 per cent pay cut and a cruel antifamily roster. We have workers who are keen to get in there and do their jobs, but, obviously, with those sorts of conditions, there's no way that any decent Australian could accept such a turnaround. We heard from Troy Carter at the dinner about what it's like to be on that picket line, to be trying to make sure that you have enough food on the table for your family while profits are going to the top end of town.
I join the member for Longman in saying that we need the company to step up. For too long, for over a year, these families in Longford, Victoria have been suffering because of this short-sighted approach to industrial relations. We believe in an Australia that is fair, an Australia that is egalitarian. I'd ask the company to take a kinder heart to Troy Carter, Steve and all those who are on that picket line.
I rise this afternoon to highlight a success story in my electorate. The Cairns Airport recently topped the on-time performance for all airports across Australia and New Zealand. They have also ranked globally amongst small airports with an on-time performance of 83.7 per cent. Cairns Airport CEO, Norris Carter, was asked at the time what the secret to the airport's success was and he said, 'This extraordinary achievement is only possible thanks to the dedication and commitment of our entire airport community.' No truer words have been spoken. The entire Far North Queensland community is extremely proud of our airport and the critical role it plays. It is the heartbeat of our local economy. The Cairns Airport is currently undergoing a $55 million domestic terminal upgrade that will significantly improve the customers' experience. The 10,000 square metre expansion will see the departures hall receiving additional seating and an improved layout, simplifying navigation of the terminal for passengers. An additional 2,000 square metres for dining and retail options will also be devoted to showcasing the best of tropical North Queensland to the world. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the management and the staff of the airport for the wonderful work that they do on a daily basis and congratulate CEO Norris Carter on a job well done in connecting Far North Queenslanders to Australia and the world. (Time expired)
I stand here against this antiworker government and their agenda. As the member for Moreton said previously, him and I sat with a couple members of the metalworkers' union recently and heard about this Esso dispute. For more than 652 days—in fact, 652 days, 12 hours and 31 minutes—these workers have been on a picket line. They had a new enterprise agreement, signed by five people who weren't offshore workers at that time, which has now bound up these members on the picket line. They have had their agreement slashed by 30 per cent, annual leave reduced and conditions reduced. Let's call it out for what it is: this is a sham contract.
But this government doesn't just stop at supporting sham contracting. Let's talk about penalty rates: 11,000 people in the Moreton Bay region had their penalty rates cut. What about labour hire? What are they doing about labour hire? They are standing by. This is an antiworker government standing by, letting labour hire rip apart the wages and income of working people in this country and ripping apart families. This is unacceptable—652 days for these Esso workers! Guess what their parent company, Exxon Mobile, are paying in tax. It is zero dollars.
Today I rise to inform the parliament of the inspirational program Bush to Beach, founded by Jack Cannon AM, president of Variety, the international children's charity. The Bush to Beach program connects the northern beaches of Sydney with young people from remote community of north-west New South Wales. It was borne from a simple call for help in 1992. Aunty Joyce Doole, a Brewarrina elder, reached out to Jack Cannon and Variety: one hundred children in her community had no Christmas presents—could he help? The issues these young people faced went far beyond this, of course. Importantly, they faced challenges in attending school. So Jack, in collaboration with Joyce, founded a program that would improve school attendance and social outcomes and give these children an experience unlike any other.
Many Australians have the great privilege of living on the doorstep of our renown beaches. But the bus from Brewarrina to Narrabeen takes 12 hours—a 24-hour round trip. Each year, young people aged six to 16 take this journey—a reward for good behaviour and excellent attendance. They learn surf and water safety so that they can look after themselves and others. They learn vital skills. I am proud to support Jack and the remarkable opportunities that the Bush to Beach program provides, and I urge others to do so.
In my electorate of Richmond, locals know that Tuesday night's budget was a desperate act by a desperate government. Here we are just six weeks before an election, and the Liberals and Nationals will say and do anything to try to cover up for years of harmful cuts. But locals know that this budget con can't cover up those six years of their inaction on the New South Wales North Coast. After six long years of the Liberals' and Nationals' cuts, chaos and dysfunction my community has had enough.
This is a budget from a government that has just given up governing. That is what's happened. The budget has no plans for wages, no plans to tackle power prices, no plans to address climate change and no plans for the future. Also, the budget has failed to reverse those harmful cuts to schools and hospitals and failed to reverse those cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. Of course, they were promising a surplus, but subsidised by short-changing people with a disability through a massive underspend in the NDIS—truly shameful. Budgets are all about priorities. For six years the Liberals and Nationals have prioritised an $80 billion tax handout for the top end of town over Medicare, schools and hospitals.
A Shorten Labor government will have different priorities. Our Fair Go Action Plan will put people first by fixing our schools and hospitals, easing the pressure on family budgets, standing up for workers, investing in cheaper and cleaner energy and, really importantly, building a strong economy that works for all of us. The fact is: only Bill Shorten and Labor will deliver a fair go for all Australian, not just the top end of town.
The Morrison government is busting congestion in Boothby. This week the Treasurer announced another fantastic congestion-busting project for my community, with $85.5 million to fix Hove rail crossing. The Hove rail crossing on Brighton Road is one of the biggest concerns that local residents raise with me. The crossing causes congestion and delays for motorists on a daily basis, especially during peak hour and the school drop-off and pick-up. That's why I've been work hard, together with my state colleagues, David Speirs MP and Corey Wingard MP, to fix Hove crossing once and for all.
Our government's record of delivering on congestion-busting projects in my community speaks for itself, with the nearby Oaklands Crossing grade separation project almost complete. Working together with our community, David Speirs and Corey Wingard, I fought for and secured a $95 million federal funding contribution to deliver Oaklands Crossing, which, combined with our $2.7 billion investment to fix the north-south corridor—and particularly South Road—will improve travel times along the entire coastal corridor.
But that's not all we are doing. We are also busting congestion at the intersection of Fullarton Road and Cross Road, with a $30.5 million investment, and at Springbank, Daws and Goodwood roads, with a $17½ million federal funding commitment. We are doing this because we want to make it safer and easier for people to get to work, to get their kids to school and to get around our community.
The government has decided to put the money in to do the engineering work on the Hells Gate Dam. It will arguably be the biggest irrigation project in the nation's history by itself, but it is also Bradfield's stage 1. It will produce seven per cent of Australia's petrol which is clean—ethanol, of course. The former American Vice-President Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth said the first solution to the CO2 problem in the world is ethanol. It will produce 1½ per cent of Australia's electricity and almost all of North Queensland's electricity and will feed nearly a million head of cattle as well.
With NQBE at Ingham and Austcane at Ayr, they will collectively produce clean energy forever—800 megawatts, which is how much we need in North Queensland. They will also both produce ethanol. The Tully realignment will produce a further 600 megawatts. That is all of our peak load for North Queensland and all of our base— (Time expired)
I rise to record that 40 new memberships have commenced across the beautiful Lyne electorate, helped in part by the Australian apprenticeship wage subsidy trial across regional Australia. There are 1,630 that have commenced because of this trial. I would like to compliment, though, the employers who have been training apprentices for many years—in particular: Donna Carrier of Bent On Food in Wingham, who has appointed Hannah Niksic to her first job as a chef apprentice, and Scott Kelly at Wingham Gourmet Meat, who has taken on Stephen Buttle as an apprentice butcher. I would like to thank Kathy Palmer from the Wingham newsagency next door who trained him in retail when he was at school. I would also like to thank Jarrah and Kristy Anchor, who have taken on James Eppingstall as apprentice mechanic in Taree, and Gary Byrne of Camden Haven Plumbing, who has appointed Rohan Davis as a plumber apprentice.
In the budget we have announced another incentive for additional identified skills. There is another $8,000 incentive for both the employer and the apprentice combined if you are on the skills list of carpenter, joiner, plumber, hairdresser, bricklayer, stonemason, plasterer, baker, pastry cook, wall or floor tiler, vehicle painter and arborist. For those who are looking to start an apprenticeship, this is extra on top of it. It is across Australia because we realise we have a skills shortage— (Time expired)
On the day before Anzac Day at the Gardens Cemetery in Darwin we will dedicate the newly installed headstone of the grave of Territorian Cecil Ernest Northover MC. Cecil Northover served Australia in both world wars. He enlisted in Perth and fought in Gallipoli. He then he fought in the trenches of France and Belgium. He was awarded the Military Cross in May of 1918 for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty and for setting a magnificent example to his men.
Lieutenant Northover returned to Australia as a war hero but wounded in both body and mind. He suffered from his injuries and so did his family—his wife, Mable, and daughter, Betty. Cecil re-enlisted as a private soldier in 1941 when World War II came to Australia's shores and was posted to Darwin. He died in 1949 in Darwin, aged 54, and was buried in a grave that was only marked '1084'.
The lesson of Cecil Northover's life is that we must care for our serving and ex-serving military personnel and their families. I want to thank Mr Gary Gallagher and Mr Shaun Johnston for their advocacy to get this done and also Jack Hamilton and Lance Johnson for driving this initiative and the City of Darwin for their support. (Time expired)
With the budget moving into surplus, our government is now paying down debt to secure the future of our next generation. The Morrison government is on track to eliminate net debt by 2029-30. Our Liberal coalition government is also keeping taxes as a share of GDP within the 23.9 per cent cap, limiting the tax burden on Australians. For residents in my electorate of Moore with mortgages, it is important to keep inflation under control through responsible spending to ensure less upward pressure on interest rates and to keep housing affordable for young families in our northern suburbs.
Under our plan to reduce taxes by 2025, 94 per cent of all taxpayers will pay a marginal tax rate of no more than 30 per cent. Immediate tax relief will flow to low- and middle-income earners of up to $1,080 for singles or up to $2,160 for families. Around 4.5 million individuals will see the full benefit for the 2018-19 income year. The budget is back in the black and Australia is back on track!
This budget promises a surplus that is subsidised by short-changing people with disability, through a massive underspend in the NDIS. So, each time the Prime Minister boasts about his budget surplus, my community need to know that $1.6 billion of that is because people with a disability are being forced to wait longer for support. My office has already helped almost 300 NDIS participants and their families, struggling with delays and setbacks. This underspend will cause more delays to more families in my community.
This budget fails to reverse cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. In the past six years, the Liberals have cut $3 billion from TAFEs and skills and cut 150,000 apprenticeship places. Locally, in Dobell, between 2013-16, this has seen a 33 per cent drop in the number of apprentices and trainees. This means 1,027 fewer apprentices and trainees on job sites, taking up a trade, learning skills and boosting our local economy.
This budget does nothing to help the 128,000 older Australians already waiting for a home care package. This budget does not deliver one new home care package that the government has not already announced. On the Central Coast, the number of people on the waitlist who have no package increased from 1,178 in September to 1,286 by the end of December 2018. Most of these people are high-needs and waiting for level 3 or 4 packages.
We are here on the last sitting of the 45th Parliament and the people of Cowper will have an important decision to make at the next election. They can choose a very fine National Party candidate in Pat Conaghan, a local man who grew up Kempsey, who was a policeman in Kempsey and who became a police prosecutor and, ultimately, a criminal lawyer. He is a person who knows the needs of our local area. But in the field for the next election we have a pretender, and that pretender is the former member for Lyne. He masquerades as an Independent, but we all know on the North Coast that he is Labor—Labor in Independent's clothing. So when the people move forward and come to the ballot box they will know that, if they choose the former member for Lyne, they will be voting for a retiree tax, they will be voting for a carbon tax, they will be voting to put Bill Shorten into the Lodge.
I know that the people of the North Coast don't want Labor. So, my advice to them is clear: don't vote for the sham Independent, the former member for Lyne. Vote for Pat Conaghan, the National Party candidate, a great local champion. He is someone who will stand up for the needs of the electorate of Cowper. He is someone who will ensure that the voice of Cowper is heard. The former member for Lyne propped up a government that did not spend one cent on mobile phone communications.
In less than 72 hours, the Prime Minister will call an election and Australians are going to be relieved, I can tell you. After five years of underperformance, chaos and division, the Australian people will get the opportunity to cast a verdict on this lacklustre Prime Minister and his second-rate ministry. Nothing highlights the division and the ramshackle incompetence of this government than its inability to make a decision on a how-to-vote card. Last week the Prime Minister, after exhausting absolutely every other alternative, did the right thing after witnessing the expose of One Nation in a sting, trying to take NRA money and take it to Australia to corrupt our politics. The Prime Minister did the right thing and instructed the Liberal Party to put One Nation last. It should have been a unifying moment in Australian politics, but the National Party were having none of it, because in Dawson, in Capricornia and in Flynn they have been cuddling up to One Nation, because they want their preferences. Those members should do the right thing: they should put One Nation last and they should explain to their electorates. We can't go overseas and say: 'We want you to buy our beef, our wheat, our sugar, our coal and our iron ore, but we don't like ya. We don't want you near our country. We don't like the look of you and we don't like your religion.' If you can't agree on how to vote— (Time expired)
This has been a fruitful 45th Parliament for the people of Canning. We have had many wins over the past three years. We have delivered funding of $25 million for Peel Health Campus. We have funded the Peel Business Park. We have expanded aged care in Pinjarra and Waroona. We have funded the Roleystone Karragullen Cricket Club pavilion. And we've had numerous other budgets funded, especially this week in the budget.—projects like the Tonkin Highway upgrade and expansion, including $404 million to extend the highway south past Mundijong Road connecting it to the South Western Highway, getting big trucks out of residential areas. We have $22 million to construct the Pinjarra heavy haulage deviation, which the town voted 84 per cent in favour of at a local referendum in 2017. It will stop more than 690 trucks passing through that historic town every day and activate that township as a tourist destination for many Australians and international visitors. There is $16 million to expand the Mandurah Train Station car park, getting people to and from home more quickly. There is $10 million towards the construction of the Lakelands Train Station. The People of North Mandurah overwhelmingly want this station, but WA Labor calls it 'the station that no-one needs'. Labor is openly ignoring our community, but I won't stop fighting for it. Finally, there is $10 million to upgrade the intersection of Thomas and Nicholson roads, one of the most dangerous intersections in the state of Western Australia, to make it safer— (Time expired)
If you look at this chamber, you could assume 57 is the average age of male politicians or the year that some of them were born. You might assume 57 is the number of times the Prime Minister mentioned Labor yesterday in question time or the Opposition Leader's name. It is actually a lot more cynical. On budget night, the government announced a very small tax cut for people earning less than $40,000—and 57 per cent of those workers are women. It says a lot about this government that they would rather give a banker, in a predominantly male industry, a tax cut of $11,000 a week tax but a woman working in retail a tax cut of about $250 a year. That is the kind of government that we've got. This is a government that will prioritise their own mates and themselves. And is it any wonder, given who is on the government benches? Take a look. Whether it be the economic team, the frontbench or the backbench, they are dominated by men. They govern for men. They are not governing for Australian women. Bring on this election so we can elect a government that will show gender equality and fair opportunity for everybody regardless of whether they are a man or a woman. (Time expired)
I want to talk about mental health. I rise to thank the locals and organisations in my electorate who selflessly support some of the most vulnerable people in our community. Last week I caught up with the Way Back Support Service in Redcliffe, based at Encircle, who do an incredible job locally through their suicide prevention program. I was able to secure $1.2 million for the organisation, over four years, to support and expand their services over the next few years. For people living with a mental illness, life is incredibly hard. And this hardship doesn't just affect the person; it also affects their family, their friends and our community as a whole. Madeleine, from the Lakes College in North Lakes, wrote to me. She said: 'I have witnessed firsthand the devastating and debilitating impacts of mental health both in respect to personal experience and in witnessing the collective effect it has had on those around me. Plans must be put in place to work towards creating an environment that allows students to succeed academically without having to neglect their own mental health. Mental health issues do not have to be part of life. Anxiety and depression are not part of growing up. This is something that needs to change and will only change with your help.' Madeleine is right, and that is why this government is acting—with millions of dollars invested for more services for people living with mental health, millions of dollars to trial eight adult mental health centres, 30 new headspaces and $54 million over six years to establish four specialist residential facilities for eating disorders. (Time expired)
The member's time has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today is the last question time before the election. Given that the Prime Minister's budget still continues with $14 billion of cuts to public schools, including over $15 million from schools in Corangamite, and still continues with cuts to hospitals, including a $4 million cut to Concord Hospital in Reid, will the Prime Minister finally tell the Australian people why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
I thank the member for his question. The Leader of the Opposition is incapable of telling the truth. He's completely incapable of telling the truth. That's what I suspect we will hear tonight when he comes to this despatch box and continues to tell these untruths.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
What he won't tell you tonight is that under our government, over the last five years, funding from the Commonwealth for hospitals has increased by 63.2 per cent. In New South Wales that's up by 56.4 per cent. In Victoria it's up by 54.8 per cent. In Queensland it's up by 95.6 per cent. In Tasmania it's up by over 40 per cent. Here in the ACT it's up by over 100 per cent. Under our government we have been increasing investment in hospitals all around the country, and the same is true of schools. Under our government, when it comes to public schools and state schools, those funded over the last five years, funding is up by 62 per cent. Funding for preschools has also gone up by 87 per cent. This is the record of our government. Investing in the essential services: that's what a strong economy does, and that's what managing a budget does. It enables you to invest in these essential services.
The Labor Party will go to the Australian people and won't tell them the truth about what the government has done. I'll tell you what they will do: they'll tax Australians and they'll tax them hard. They'll tax them when they're old, they'll tax them when they're young and they'll tax them at all stages. That's what they'll do, because that's what the Labor Party always do. When they run out of their own money, they come running after the hard-earned savings and the earnings of Australians.
At the next election, the choice will be all about the future when it comes to who the Prime Minister of this country is. The choice will be very clear. On this side of the House, if I'm elected again at the next election—I was elected as the member for Cook at the last election. At the next election there is a clear choice between myself as Prime Minister of this country leading the Liberal and the National team and the Leader of the Labor Party leading his team. It will be between myself as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. But the election will be all about Australians and the choices that they want for themselves, and a stronger economy— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how our government's plan for a stronger economy creates more opportunity for all Australians through more jobs, lower taxes and record funding for essential services?
I thank the member for his question. What underpins this budget that we handed down this week is a fundamental principle that Liberals and Nationals feel passionately about; that is, in this country, there should be a fair go for those who have a go. There should be reward for working hard. There should be the opportunity to keep more of what you earn. If you're starting a business, if you're employing people, if you're investing, if you're taking risks—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The member for Macarthur is warned!
if you're doing all of those things, you should be rewarded for that effort. That is what the budget this week has delivered yet again: a budget that ensures that Australians will be able to keep more of what they earn and that, if you're running a small family business—when you are the last person to take a wage, not the first; you pay your staff first and you take your own wage last—we will be there, as we have been over the last 5½ years. As this budget has demonstrated yet again, we will continue to invest in the hard work and enterprise of Australians, because that is the underpinning of our budget. Our budget is not underpinned by the $200 billion of higher taxes which will be part of a Labor government. That has no place in the plan of the Liberal and National parties to actually take the country forward. But it is central to the plan that the Labor Party are putting forward.
I doubt you'll hear tonight about the $200 billion of higher taxes from the Labor Party. I doubt you'll hear about the $5 billion every single year they want to take out of the pockets of retirees. You won't hear about the housing tax that is going to put extreme pressure on and drive up rents for young families saving for a first home or undermine the value of the homes of those who've gone out and are paying their mortgages for and working hard every week. You won't hear about that. You won't hear about the extra taxes that people will pay on their superannuation. You won't hear about the fact that the Labor Party refused to support the government's policy to abolish an entire 37c tax bracket. You won't hear that they want to change and oppose the policy that says we want people on $50,000 a year to pay no more than 30c in the dollar in tax. The Labor Party want them to pay 32½c. The Labor Party want to tax you more and tell untruths about the government. As we go into tonight's budget response from the Leader of the Opposition, all I suspect we'll hear, once again, is what I suspect will be put out there at the next election: more Labor lies and more Labor taxes.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the deputy secretary of economics in his own department told Senate estimates he did not find out about the government's $80 million backflip on energy payments until a colleague told him he'd heard it on the radio? Just six weeks out from an election, and with a budget that fell apart on the night it was delivered, does the Prime Minister seriously expect he can con the Australian people into forgetting the last six years of cuts and chaos?
Once again, another member of the Labor Party, this time the shadow Treasurer, can't come to the dispatch box and tell the truth. He can't tell the truth about the fact that, under our government, funding for hospitals and public schools has increased by more than 60 per cent. The funding for Medicare has been increased by 27 per cent.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order.
The question was about evidence at Senate estimates about the energy payment. It wasn't about the matters the Prime Minister is referring to. It is a matter of direct relevance.
I think the problem the member for McMahon has got, if I can say it as politely as I can, is that the last tagline of the question opens it right up. The Prime Minister has the call.
Medicare funding is up by 27 per cent. Bulk-billing is at an all-time high as a result of the strong economy and the strong budget management that we have been running as a government for the last 5½ years. That strong budget management meant—from the time when I delivered last year's budget up until now—we ended the year estimated to be $10 billion better off than what we said in last year's budget. As a result, we took the decision to repeat a measure we put in place a couple of years ago which said that we would provide a one-off payment to support people on pensions—that is, the permanent welfare benefits of pensions. And that's what we decided to do. We've done it before, because we're used to actually outperforming budgets.
We took that measure forward and we then decided that we wanted to have that legislated as quickly as possible to ensure that that measure would get to those pension recipients. There was clearly a mood within this chamber that they wanted to see that extended to other benefits, and we took the practical decision, the honest decision, to do the right thing and not engage in the argy-bargy of partisanship and politics but make a practical decision to get the money to the people we wanted to get it to. We took that decision, and the entire chamber voted for it. So I thank the Leader of the Opposition, I thank my own members and I thank the crossbench for supporting the government's decision to extend that payment to all of those members who will now receive it.
My question is to the Treasurer, who's securing the nation's prosperity with budget surpluses that actually happen. Will the Treasurer update the House on how families will benefit from lower taxes as a result of the government's strong economic management, including in my Redlands electorate of Bowman?
An opposition member: It's from 1989, that shirt.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Speaker, I thank the member—
An opposition member: It went with a mullet!
The Treasurer will pause for a second. Members on my left! I understand the issue. I've recovered now. I think you should have as well.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for Bowman for his question and I'm glad he's wearing a shirt from 1989—the year that Labor last delivered a surplus. It was 30 years ago. The Berlin Wall was still standing, The Simpsons had their first episode, and I had a mullet! They were the days!
As I said on budget night, the budget is back in the black and Australia is back on track with a surplus of $7.1 billion in 2019-20, a surplus of $11 billion the next year, a surplus of $17.8 billion the year after and a surplus of $9.2 billion in the year after that—surpluses of $45 billion over the forward estimates. We on this side of the House know how to balance budgets. The Labor Party always deliver you bigger and bigger deficits and higher and higher taxes.
In the member for Bowman's electorate, more than 16,000 small businesses will benefit from the instant asset write-off that's now been extended to $30,000 and to companies with turnover of up to $50 million. In the member for Bowman's electorate, more than 68,000 income earners will benefit from the tax cuts we have announced, which will go to 13.3 million Australians, as a result of our sound fiscal management.
At the end of the day, we believe there needs to be a discipline with tax and there need to be limits to the amount that the Australian people are taxed, because, at the end of the day, it's not the government's money; it's the people's money. We want to return more money to the people of Australia at every opportunity. But, every step of the way, we're blocked by those opposite, because the Labor Party do not believe in lower taxes.
Tonight the Leader of the Opposition will give his budget reply speech. But whenever he opens his wallet the Australian people need to check theirs, because he's coming after their money. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition makes a promise, the Australian people need to ask a simple question: what taxes is the Leader of the Opposition increasing to pay for his promises? We are spending record amounts—on hospitals, on schools, on roads and on infrastructure linking our regions to our cities—without increasing taxes. That's our record and that's what's in our budget. Only the coalition will deliver more jobs, higher growth and lower taxes.
My question is for the Prime Minister. This government has forecast an election surplus by starving the National Disability Insurance Scheme of money.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The member for Barton will pause for a second. The member for Barker will cease interjecting. The member for Barton is entitled to ask her question, and the minister responsible can then deal with any aspects in the answer without a wall of interjections. I need to hear the question. The member for Barton will begin her question again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This government has forecast an election surplus by starving the National Disability Insurance Scheme of money, leaving Australians with a disability without the services they so desperately need. Why should Australians living with a disability pay the price for the Prime Minister's con-job budget?
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social changes that we have seen in this country. It has enjoyed the support of both sides of this House. There is not, I suspect, a member of this House who does not have either a direct or an indirect association with someone who lives with a disability or the family of someone with a disability. For the National Disability Insurance Scheme to be used today, as it was yesterday, by the Labor Party as a political plaything to try to score cheap points in this chamber is shameful. It is absolutely shameful.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded under the budget. It's fully funded, and if the estimates of demand contained in that budget are increased and there is greater demand then every single claim, every single package and every single payment will be made to support that program. If the estimates of the demand for that program are greater than what is in the budget then there will be a variation to reflect that and the funding will flow. There is no impediment whatsoever to the additional flow of funds to the NDIS for this program, and for the opposition to cause needless anxiety amongst people and the families of people with disabilities shows just how low they are prepared to go at this election. This should be a matter of bipartisanship.
In our budget we have put in place half a billion dollars—$527.1 million—to support the royal commission into people with disabilities.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I hear the Leader of the Opposition interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition thought a royal commission of this size would cost $26 million and would not even require the cooperation of the states and territories. Now, when you want a job done properly, you get the Liberal and National parties to do it because the half-baked ideas and the faux empathy that come from this callous Leader of the Opposition are something to behold.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that I believe in. It is something that our party strongly believes in. It is fully funded, and we will not stand by and see it used as the political plaything that the members opposite seek to use it as. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
My question is to the Treasurer. There are 128,000 elderly Australians who are waiting for a home care package, with delays of up to two years. The waiting list grows by 20,000 every six months. I have many elderly constituents desperately waiting for help with showering and with keeping their homes clean. As 93-year-old Jack said to me, 'If we can't get help at this age, how bad does it have to get?' Treasurer, why did you fund just 10,000 new home care packages in your budget? Why are you treating our most vulnerable older Australians this way?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question. I can inform her that we've actually funded 40,000 new additional home care packages since the 2017-18 MYEFO and that in 2019-20 the government, led by the minister, is providing $21.6 billion to fund better services for aged care. This is an increase of more than 50 per cent for aged care funding, since 2013-14. And in this budget we are providing $282 million for an additional 10,000 home care packages, to support older Australians who wish to stay at home. As of 30 September 2018, 74 per cent more people had access to a high-level package than at 30 June 2017. The government is also providing $5.9 billion, over two years from 2020-21, to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program, providing access to essential services and home support services like Meals on Wheels. The government is also providing $320 million in a general subsidy boost this year—in 2018-19—for residential aged care, and 13,500 new residential care places.
There's also money in this budget for carers, because they're the unsung heroes. We've provided $84 million to ensure they can get some respite and leave their loved one getting the proper care while they do so. We also have a number of other measures in this budget to support aged care and to support residential care. We believe in helping those Australians who need our help and we are funding it in record amounts.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the benefits of a stronger economy for regional Australians, including for communities in North Queensland? How would a different approach to the economy affect jobs and investment?
The age of infrastructure is now. The age of infrastructure is here. The age of infrastructure is upon us. They're very noisy over there, Mr Speaker. There are more 'red coats' over there than there were at the Battle of Bunker Hill, and that was about taxes, too. But I'll tell you what: they like red over there, because usually it's at the bottom of their budgets. They like red, because usually their budgets are in the red—they are in a loss. No matter where you live, The Liberals and The Nationals are investing to get you home sooner and safer. That's what it is all about. It's about part of our $100 billion investment—yes, a one hundred thousand million dollar investment—in infrastructure over the next ten years, supporting the member for Dawson's electorate and supporting all of our electorates. Whether you're Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens or crossbench, the age of infrastructure is going to benefit your electorate. The Liberals and The Nationals have committed $144 million towards stage 5 of the Townsville Ring Road. This will complete the ring road and make the movement of freight, passenger, tourism traffic along the Bruce Highway corridor better than ever. Townsville Chamber of Commerce CEO, Marie-Claude Brown, said, 'It's certainly one of these projects which is creating work and creating economic stimulus.' She continued, 'It links key areas like the Burdekin, to the south of Townsville, through the northern beaches, very quickly, and is also an important link for Lavarack Barracks, Annandale and the Townsville hospital.' Yes, that's what she said. Stage 5 of the ring road will complete the entire 22 kilometres of the route to four lanes, easing congestion. That's what we're doing. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities is helping to bust through urban congestion with that $4 billion fund—up fourfold. It is something that Herbert LNP candidate Phillip Thompson fought for, and we are delivering. It comes on the back of the Mackay Ring Road, the investment the member for Dawson fought for and we delivered. He fought for it in a rather novel way—he did a Borat, but we won't subject the parliament to that picture! It comes on the back of the Rockhampton Ring Road, which the member for Capricornia fought for and we delivered. It comes on the back of our investment in the Cairns Ring Road, which the member for Leichhardt fought for and we delivered.
That's what Liberals and Nationals do: we deliver. We deliver in every corner of Queensland—jobs, opportunities, safer, better roads. It's a budget for the bush, a budget for regional Australia, a budget for infrastructure—a surplus budget. Have you heard about that? A surplus budget—that's right. That's what the Liberals and Nationals are good at. It's what we delivered. Those opposite do not support the regions—unfortunately, they do not. They want to take Queensland's ridiculous land-clearing laws and nationalise them. They want to put a carbon tax on all of our farmers once again. They want to close down small business and put on more taxes. Shame on them. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it a moral failure for the Prime Minister to pay for his forecast election surplus by starving the NDIS of money, leaving Australians with a disability without the services they need—like the young family in Victoria whose daughter has an intellectual disability? She waited 10 months for her NDIS funding to be processed, which delayed her getting the speech therapy she needs to learn to engage at school.
Why doesn't Shorten ask a question?
The minister will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms Keay interjecting—
The member for Braddon is warned.
I refer the member to my earlier answer. The NDIS is one of the biggest social projects we've been engaged in and to ever come out of this chamber. There is multipartisan support, with the crossbench and others supporting this program. All of our attention is needed to continue to improve its delivery, whether it's the case that the member referred to or any of the many other cases that we are all aware of as we implement this very difficult program that requires tailored programs and packages of support to each and every single individual. Our government is committed to that.
I'll tell you what's shameful. It's shameful for the member to seek to exploit the disabilities of Australians and to cause fear and anxiety amongst Australians who are living with disabilities. That is what's shameful. That is what is morally shameful. We will stand here ready to support every dollar that the NDIS needs every single day. We will do it as we did when we were in opposition and we will do it as we have done in government. It has our full attention and it has our full support. It will get every single dollar it needs. I appeal to the Labor Party not to engage in these dark, political, shameful questions that reflect not on the morality of the government but on the morality of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is now warned.
If he wants these questions asked, perhaps he should ask them himself.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's strong economic plan has ensured that we pay back Labor's debt and repair the budget? Are there any alternatives to this approach?
I thank the member for Forrest for reminding this House that when the Labor Party last came to government they inherited a pristine balance sheet with no government debt.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is now warned.
It took John Howard and Peter Costello years to pay back Labor's debt. Now it has been left to the Morrison government to do it again. On budget night we put the first payment back on Labor's debt, with a surplus of $7.1 billion and $45 billion of surpluses over the forward estimates and a $55 billion turnaround on the fiscal mess that we inherited from the Labor Party. We have brought spending under control. Growth in government spending is now the lowest of any government in 50 years. The proportion of working-age Australians on welfare is the lowest of any government in 30 years. We have funded hospitals, schools and roads in record amounts. We have done all of that without increasing taxes. That is what we've done.
The Labor Party are going to take to the Australian people at the next election a plan for at least $200 billion of new taxes. There is a new booklet out about Labor's taxes.
The Treasurer knows the rules on props.
I want to table the booklet, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Labor's tax bill—$200 billion of new taxes: a housing tax, with a 50 per cent increase in capital gains that could come at the worst possible time for the housing market; a shameful retirees tax on more than one million Australians who have done nothing wrong; a new tax on superannuation that's going to prevent catch-up contributions for mothers who have been out of the workforce having children; and a tax on family businesses, which is going to make their lives that much more difficult.
When it comes to the housing tax, whatever the Leader of the Opposition says, for lower income earners, what he needs to tell the people of Australia tonight is how he's going to increase their rents, because, if you live in Brisbane, your rent will go up by up to $90 a week. If you're in Melbourne, your rent will go up by up to $65 a week. If you're in Adelaide or if you're in Perth, your rent will go up by up to $60 a week. And if you're in Sydney, under Labor's plan, your rent will go up by up to $50 a week.
So the Labor Party has a plan for higher taxes. Any promise they make tonight, the Australian people will know, is only funded by higher taxes.
My question is to the environment minister. Senate estimates has revealed that the member for Dunkley announced tens of thousands of dollars' worth of grants in his seat under the Communities Environment Program, before the applications had even opened. Can the minister explain how it was appropriate for a government member to be giving away tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money when applications hadn't opened, guidelines had not been published, and the department was completely unaware?
Thank you for the question—a good opportunity to talk about our fabulous Communities Environment Program which was in our budget! This is an excellent example of the work that we've done on this side, intended to help communities to be able to conserve good environment projects. This project will provide over $22 million to ensure each federal electorate—including all of those on this side and all of those there, and all of those on this side—except we'll still be here! Once the program opens in mid 2019—
Opposition members interjecting—
Could the minister just pause for a second. If members on my left—
Have you got the right email address?
The member for Shortland is preventing me hearing the answer. The minister will continue.
Once the program opens in mid-2019, as I said, each member of parliament will have the opportunity to put forward their projects—good community environment projects. In fact, only yesterday I wrote to every member of the House outlining to them the details of the program. And of course this is in addition to the program announcement I made with the Prime Minister on 4 March. Ahead of the program, I encourage—
Mr Hart interjecting—
The minister will pause for a second. The member for Bass will leave under 94(a), and whoever interjects next might as well just walk behind him.
The member for Bass then left the chamber.
Ahead of the program opening, I encourage all local members to consult with community groups in their electorates about the potential projects they may wish to nominate. The government has not awarded any funding under this program because the program is not open. And it's no surprise that the members opposite have not been out there engaging with their communities, because their spokesperson for the environment has said that, should they occupy these benches—which they're not going to—he will abolish the $22 million Communities Environment Program. So we know what the threat is to the Communities Environment Program—and it is not us sitting on this side. That's right: under Labor, local communities will not have the opportunity to contribute, in a $22 million fund. What a disgrace!
My question is to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House on the government's investment in congestion-busting projects, including fast rail, and the benefits this is delivering for my constituents and for residents on the Central Coast? And what are the alternatives to this approach?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. It is great to be busting congestion in her electorate, with $35 million going into new commuter car parks at Gosford and at Woy Woy, taking hundreds of cars off the streets in that area. Of course, the member for Robertson is also a very strong supporter of the NorthConnex project, another fantastic project, which will make it easier for people on the Central Coast to be able to get down and work in Sydney, if they do that on a regular basis.
These congestion-busting projects are just part of a $100 billion infrastructure plan which the Treasurer announced just a couple of nights ago. This is for massive congestion-busting in every single capital city. It includes national rail and road projects which the Deputy Prime Minister has been talking about, and of course it includes making our roads safer as well. Part of our $100 billion plan includes a fast rail plan. Our plan is to connect the satellite cities to the large capital cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane respectively. That would include, for example, connecting Newcastle to Sydney so that residents of the Central Coast would be included. It would also include, for example, connecting the Gold Coast to Brisbane as well as connecting places like Wodonga and Shepparton to Melbourne. The very first one which we are getting going on our fast rail plan is the Geelong to Melbourne fast rail. We've put $2 billion into the budget to get it going, and it will start in a couple of years time. It will enable a 32-minute journey from Geelong to Melbourne, and the member for Corangamite is one of the strongest supporters of this.
I can tell you, Mr Speaker, they're laughing on the other side, but we on this side of the table are united in relation to getting on board the ScoMo Express. It's going to be starting in two years time. It will make a real difference for the people of Geelong. The people of Geelong are on board the ScoMo Express as well, and I know the people of Gosford equally want to see their fast rail done. The challenge tonight for the Leader of the Opposition is to change his mind and join us in jumping on board the ScoMo Express.
Opposition members interjecting—
Here's your opportunity, Leader of the Opposition.
Members on my left!
Don't stand with your Labor union mates campaigning against us on our fast rail plan. Join our fast rail plan. Join the people of Geelong. Join the people of Gosford. Back our fast rail plan so that people can get to their capital cities sooner and faster. Tonight is the night for the Leader of the Opposition to let us know what his plan is.
My question is to the environment minister. Given the minister just said the government has not awarded any money, how does the minister explain the member for Dunkley's public statement: 'I was very happy to announce with the environment minister, Melissa Price, that the applicant would be receiving an additional $10,000 as part of the federal Liberal government's Communities Environment Program'? How does the minister explain personally appearing in a video with the member and the community group at the exact same time that Labor members were being told by the department that no information on the program was available?
The Communities Environment Program is not open. Information has been out for some time. On 4 March, I stood with the Prime Minister and we announced—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon!
What a good local member is the member for Dunkley. He invited me to speak to a number of really good local community environment projects, and we should be supporting that. In fact, I encourage all those opposite to get out there and start talking about what the expressions of interest are that you might be open to. It's a good opportunity for you also to be talking about our $100 million restoration fund for really good environment projects—those projects where you can help the waterways and clean up those rivers, or good waste projects and other good environment projects. While you're there you might talk about our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Fund and the $2 billion more for the Emissions Reduction Fund.
What do we get from those opposite? I don't know that we'll hear tonight about how much the 45 per cent emissions reduction target's going to cost the Australian people. I think people would be very interested to know that—their reckless carbon policies that we've heard uncosted. What we would like to know tonight is: what is a reckless 45 per cent emissions target going to cost the Australian public? Can you also tell us how you're going to bridge that $1.3 billion turnaround? Perhaps you can tell the Australian public while you're at it.
The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to table documents, by the look of it.
Yes, a number of documents. I seek leave to table the announcements of $20,000, of $10,000 and of $7½ thousand and the full media release from the member with quotes in it from the Minister for the Environment.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the government is delivering the essential services Australians rely on in health? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to delivering the essential services Australians rely upon?
I thank the member for Bonner, who knows that it is absolutely essential to have a strong economy to deliver the very essential services to which he refers. He knows this because of history—because in 2011 a previous government stopped listing the medicines. And who was the Assistant Treasurer in that year at that time? The hand that was on the budget papers was the now Leader of the Opposition, the person who's going to deliver a budget-in-reply speech tonight. He was the person who stopped listing the medicine. By contrast, we have a Prime Minister whose proudest claim is to have helped list—within the cabinet as Treasurer and as Prime Minister—2,000 new medicines during the course of this government.
So this election there will be a choice when it comes to managing health—a choice between the man who stopped the medicines and the man who has delivered the medicines. This might be the night when the Leader of the Opposition, if wants to say anything on health, might apologise for stopping the listing of new medicines when he was the Assistant Treasurer. And it wasn't just a casual phase; it was there in the budget of their day. Let me quote what that budget said:
… given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit.
What that means is they ran out of money and they stopped listing medicines. That's what happened. That means severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, endometriosis, in vitro fertilisation and chronic schizophrenia.
By contrast, we have been able to lift Medicare spending from $19 billion to, in the coming year, $26 billion and to $27 billion, $29 billion and $31 billion over the forward estimates and to lift hospital spending from $13 billion to $23 billion, to $24 billion, to $25 billion and to $26 billion. Perhaps, most importantly of all, we've brought new medicines onto the PBS, such as Orkambi and Spinraza—for which the Prime Minister played such an important role—for spinal muscular atrophy; and new medicines this week, such as Ibrance for breast cancer, Besponsa and Bavencio for Merkel cell carcinoma. So, when it comes to this election, there will be a choice in health. It will be a choice between the 'Medifrauds' in Labor and the 'Medifriends' in the coalition.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. If no announcements under the program had been made, why does the minister appear with quotes in the media release and in videos with the announcement of $10,000 in Frankston, $7½ thousand in Boggy Creek and $10,000 at Downs Estate? Each of these announcements is accompanied by a video with the minister present. How can it be that she claims none of it ever happened when she's quoted in the media release and is personally in the video?
The good member for Dunkley took me to identify four very, very good environmental projects that he proposes be put forward for expressions of interest—nothing more and nothing less—just like everyone on that side, everyone over there, could do. Thank you.
My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government is delivering essential services that Australians rely on in education? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I'd like to thank the member for his question. I know he is absolutely passionate about education and making sure that the schools in his electorate are looked after. I'd like to inform the House that when it comes to the Education portfolio there are two words that are worth remembering: record funding. We are providing record funding for child care—$8.6 billion in 2019 alone. When it comes to preschool, we are providing record funding for preschool—$451 million next year. And we are funding preschool in exactly the same way the Labor Party did, through national partnership agreements. But we also want to make sure that all children are attending preschool. That is why we are engaging The Smith Family to develop a strategy on attendance.
When it comes to schools, we are providing record funding for all schools—for public schools, for Catholic schools and for independent schools. Our $310 billion Quality Schools Package will deliver needs based funding for the first time, with an increase of 62 per cent per student. Every year we have spent more on schools and we have worked to deliver the reforms teachers and parents want for students. Funding for state schools—and this is a really important point—under the coalition has increased three times faster than funding from state governments. That is our record. When it comes to higher education, we are providing record funding for higher education, with $17.7 billion this year.
I was also asked about the choice—what will those on the other side do? What will they do? What they will do is provide record funding when it comes to taxation. They want to tax the Australian people at record levels. They want to absolutely smother the Australian economy, so they won't be able to afford the essential services. That will be their record. As other ministers have said at the despatch box today, what we won't hear from the Leader of the Opposition is about the $200 billion of new taxes that he wants to put on the Australian people and the devastating impact that will have on the Australian economy.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Given that in the previous answer the Minister for the Environment said she was only seeking expressions of interest, how was she doing this for a program that, at the time, did not exist and had no guidelines? Does the minister stand by her earlier answer, or, when the media release went out announcing successful projects, did the member for Dunkley mislead his electorate?
Thank you for the question. The date that we announced this program was 4 March. There was significant information out and available in the public, which is what the member for Dunkley relied upon in the three or four very good projects that he announced.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I did, but there was enough information out in the public on 4 March. What we do know is that he has very good projects that he has identified for the Communities Environment Program. What have you got against Animalia Wildlife Shelter in Frankston? What's wrong with it? That's a very good project. We went there to talk about an expression of interest. What do you have against Friends of Langwarrin Outdoors and Waterways? Again, it's a very good group of committed environmentalists. And the South Eastern Centre for Sustainability—again, very good, committed local people.
My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing additional support for carers and their families without raising taxes? Is the minister aware of any higher taxing alternatives?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. He's a strong advocate for carers. Carers do so much important work. There are nearly a thousand people on carer payment in his electorate of Bennelong. He was very pleased, I know, as will be the carers in his electorate and all around Australia, at the fact that in this year's budget our government has announced an $84.3 million funding boost for new carer services being progressively rolled out to Australia's 2.7 million carers in 2019. I emphasise to the House that this is new money. It builds on the additional $85.6 million we announced in March 2018 to fund new supports for carers through the new integrated carer support service model. Indeed, our total funding commitment for the new integrated carer support services will be over $550 million over the next four years. What that means is that it will provide over 300,000 instances of support to carers, compared to the 130,000 currently provided. It is one of the biggest reforms to carer services in a decade. We're going to see new digital-counselling, coaching and peer support services for carers, which are currently being designed and tested. They'll be rolled out nationally later this year through Carer Gateway, the Morrison government's national website and phone service for carers.
I'm asked whether there are alternative approaches which would involve raising taxes on hardworking Australians. It turns out that there are. It turns out that those on the other side of the House seem to think that the only way to competently deliver the services that Australians expect is to raise taxes—$200 billion of new taxes is what Labor is proposing. What we delivered in this budget, what the Treasurer has delivered, what our Liberal-National government has delivered is improved services without increasing taxes. This government understands how to manage money, but Labor cannot manage money. They are so fiscally clueless that they produced under the member for Lilley deficit after deficit; we've announced the first surplus for 12 years. They are so fiscally clueless, they are so inept that they do not understand that, on the NDIS, we are delivering an increase in funding of $4.5 billion from 2018-19 through to 2019-20. That lot are managerially hopeless. They are fiscally incompetent. They are utterly unable even to read the budget papers. The thought of them being responsible for delivering the budget papers should terrify every Australian.
The member for Dunkley has said that environmental grants were approved. The Minister for the Environment says that the grants were not approved. Prime Minister, your minister is saying one thing and the member for Dunkley is saying another. Who do you believe?
I believe both members are passionate about the environment. I believe they're both passionate about the environment. I think the members on this side of the House want to do the right thing about the environment. I'll tell you another thing about the environment: we don't believe that you have to choose between having a clean environment and a strong economy. We don't believe you have to do that. We believe you can have responsible emissions reduction targets, meet the commitments that you've made internationally and have a strong economy. We believe both of those can be achieved, but the Leader of the Opposition doesn't. The Leader of the Opposition wants to put in place a wrecking ball on the Australian economy to implement a 45 per cent emissions reduction target which will put up the price of everything. He wants to tell Australians what sort of car they have to drive and what they have to put in their kids' lunchbox—so far does this Leader of the Opposition want to intrude into the lives of all Australians. He wants to put up their taxes. It doesn't matter whether they're a retiree or just someone out there working hard, he wants to put more taxes and more burdens on the Australian people.
On this side of the House, we have a plan, a clear plan, to continue to deliver the economic strength that we have delivered over the last 5½ years and we have a clear plan to meet the commitments we've made on reducing emissions in a way that continues to see our economy grow and our environmental standards maintained. Our plan is there for all to see. Our commitments on emissions reductions have been demonstrated in turning around a more than 700 million tonne deficit to our Kyoto 2020 commitments, which was left to us by the previous government, into a 369 million tonne overachievement. So, on this side of the House, we are delivering on our commitments to the environment.
In this budget itself there is not only the program that has been referred to, which ensures every single part of this country can benefit from the local environmental programs and grants that will support them in their local communities, but also a further $100 million environment fund that will support larger projects in regional areas as well as in metropolitan areas. That's what we're doing. What the Labor Party is going to do with their reckless emissions reduction target is going to cost Australian wages some $9,000 per person. That is the price, and I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to come clean tonight on the real cost to the economy of his reckless emissions target.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the government is helping to grow our industry and science sectors through smart investments and a strong economy? What are the alternatives to this approach?
I thank the member for his question. It gives me a wonderful opportunity to speak about this Liberal-National government's economic management and the fact that, because we have grown such a strong economy, we are in a good position to be able to invest in industry, science, innovation and technology. We are already investing $9.6 billion in science, research and technology, and we are building on that with the announcement that was in the budget earlier this week. We are going to make sure that we are able to grow the economy, that we are going to be able to continue to invest in science, research and technology, and that we are delivering for the jobs of the future.
We announced this week a further $166 million for some smart investments in our industry and science sectors. Let me start with the $15.1 million that we have committed to fund for Questacon. We will be expanding their education outreach, because we understand how important it is for our young children, particularly those who are in regional Australia, to have access to science education. Of course Questacon is one Australia's icons in the work that it has done over many years to inspire our young Australians. We need that, because we know that 75 per cent of the jobs of the future are going to require skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. We know that currently there are not enough students in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 studying those subjects to equip them for the jobs of the future. So that is a $15.1 million investment in Questacon to enable them to continue their outreach in science education.
We are investing $3.6 million in the Innovation Games, to make sure that university students and graduates have the chance to apply their skills to real-world problems and to solve challenges for small businesses. We are providing $3.4 million for STEM gender equity in Australia, because we know that women are underrepresented in the STEM fields. And, of course, this is the government that has committed to the space sector here in Australia. We have committed over $300 million to the space sector. We have built on that in this year's budget. We're committing more funding to a space infrastructure fund and we're establishing a space discovery centre because we know that we can grow the space sector. We can triple it in size by 2030. There will be $12 billion and an extra 20,000 jobs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why didn't the Prime Minister use his budget to reverse his government's billion dollar cuts to hospitals, including the $1 million cut to Bega's South East Regional Hospital in Eden-Monaro, the $1 million cut to the Gladstone Hospital in Flynn, the $1.7 million cut to the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital in Gilmore, the $2 million cut to the Launceston General Hospital in Bass, the $2.8 million cut to the St John of God Midland Public Hospital in Hasluck, the $2.9 million cut to the Caboolture Hospital in Longman, the $7.9 million cut— (Time expired)
The Prime Minister has the call.
An honourable member interjecting—
No, there was a question at the start. The Minister for Health.
I'm delighted that in this budget the government has set out record funding for hospitals. Do you know what, Mr Speaker? That funding is up from less than $13½ billion—it was $13.3 billion—under Labor to $23 billion, $24 billion, $25 billion and $26 billion in this budget. Over the course of this budget, that is a near-doubling of the funding that Labor provided.
In essence, Labor cannot tell the truth. That is because they're ashamed of their own record. We have the man in the red tie, the Leader of the Opposition, over there. What was his greatest health achievement? He stopped the medicines. That is something for which he should apologise tonight. This is his time to shine. This is his time to fess up. This is his time to apologise for stopping the medicines. Around Australia, we will see record funding for hospitals each and every year, which can only come about when you have a strong economy—an economy built on well over a million new jobs, an economy built on paying down the government's budget and bringing it back to surplus, an economy which comes from the hard work of Australians who have been empowered by a lower tax regime. That allows us to do things such as setting out record funding for Medicare, record funding for hospitals and record numbers of new listings.
In particular, I just happened to have come into my hands a statement from the 2011 budget, which stated:
Vital lifesaving medicines are being shelved by the Federal Government …
This was the federal government of the day and that was from the Consumer Health Forum. What did they say about the 2011 budget? They said:
Affordable medicines and vaccines that save and prolong lives are being denied to some of the most vulnerable chronically ill Australians by a short-sighted decision by the Government to disregard the recommendations of PBAC. Consumers fear a backlog of medicines caught in the Cabinet process as more and more necessary medicines face indefinite deferral.
In the end, Labor are health frauds. Labor are medi-frauds, and we are medi-friends that list the new medicines.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Could the minister update the House on how a strong economy—
Honourable members interjecting—
The call alternates. If any arrangements have been made, I'll just say that the call goes from one side to the other. The member for Ballarat asked a question; the call now goes to the government side. The member for McKellar will begin his question again.
My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Can the minister update the House on how a stronger economy helps Australia's law enforcement agencies keep Australians safe? Is he aware of the risks of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member very much for his question. As we pointed out yesterday, we've made a record investment into the Australian Federal Police. We support very much the work of the Australian Federal Police and all of the agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio because they do work to keep Australians safe. My strongest passion has been the protection of children and women against sexual assault, and we've done a significant amount in cancelling visas to kick out of our country people who have assaulted children and women, and we'll continue to do that. We've also made a significant investment into the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. We've done that because we've been able to manage the economy.
When Labor were in government they ran every year at a loss. What happened was that they ran out of money, and the Australian Federal Police and the other agencies weren't able to undertake the additional work that they wanted, whether it was investigations into drug offences, whether it was investigations into outlaw motorcycle gangs, whether it was investigations in relation to paedophiles—whatever it might have been. They cannot do it without the funding. Labor ran out of money. As the health minister pointed out before, when they ran out of money they stopped listing medicines. But they also cut money from the Federal Police. They cut $128 million between the 2010-11 and 2013-14 financial years, they cut $30 million and 88 staff from the ACC between 2007-08 and 2013-14, they cut $27 million and 56 staff from AUSTRAC between 2009-10 and 2013-14, and they cut $735 million and 700 staff from Customs.
Their period in government, as people recall, was a disaster at every level. Fifty thousand people came on 800 boats; 1,200 people, including women and children, drowned at sea; and they put 8,000 children in detention. Did that come at no cost? It came at a cost of $16 billion. If you're spending $16 billion because you've opened up our borders to people smugglers to be in control, you take money away from other areas of expenditure, including health and education and, obviously, policing. In managing the budget and getting it back into a profit this year, we have been able to invest in very important areas like this. Keeping children and women safe is a fundamental responsibility for a federal government, and we have done it in a way that the Labor Party never could. They waste money. They tax and spend but they waste money across government. The fact is that we will do whatever it takes to support Australian families, to support children and women, in particular, right across the community, and we'll do it because we manage the economy and the budget so well.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Minister, I refer to the proposed AGL project for a floating gas import terminal at Crib Point, Western Port Bay, and a 55-kilometre pipeline through marine wetlands in the seat of Flinders. The current member for Flinders has stated that he opposes the project. Does the minister agree with the member for Flinders, and has the member for Flinders made any representations to the minister to stop this AGL project and save Western Port?
I thank the member for her question. The Crib Point gas port projects are intended to provide a cost-effective, secure supply of natural gas to south-eastern Australia by importing LNG from Australian and international markets. The current proposals are being thoroughly assessed for impacts to matters protected under the national environment law, such as the Western Port Ramsar wetland threatened and migratory species. Once the assessment is finalised, separate decisions on whether or not to approve the proposals will be made by the Victorian and Commonwealth governments. Thank you for your question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you please advise the House how this government has delivered on its promises to the Australian people?
I thank the member for Ryan for her question and for her service to the Australian people as the member for Ryan.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left!
When our government came to office in 2013, the pledge was very straightforward: we said we would stop the boats; we said we would abolish the carbon tax; we said we would build the infrastructure of the 21st century; and we said we would bring the budget back to surplus.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned.
On all these counts we have been successful in meeting our commitments to the Australian people. That is in stark contrast to what happened back in 2007 when the people of Australia chose to go on a different path and elect a Labor government. And I can tell you that the decision they made in 2007 they have paid for for a decade because of the fiscal recklessness of the former Labor Party. We have stopped the boats and we have ensured they have remained stopped. But the Labor Party have still learnt none of the lessons of their failures in border protection when they were in office. Only a few months ago they came into this place and voted to weaken our borders.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will put their props down.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Hill then left the chamber.
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The member for Batman will leave under 94(a).
The member for Batman then left the chamber.
It was a carbon tax that the Labor Party said they would never introduce when they went to an election. They then did exactly the opposite thing, and it took this government to abolish that carbon tax.
But what do we learn now? The Leader of the Opposition wants to bring the carbon tax back in the form of his reckless emission targets that will put up the price of everything. Under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister, we are building the infrastructure of the 21st century, managing our population growth into the future, and ensuring that our rural centres are connected with our major centres and that people can get home sooner and safer through our congestion-busting fund.
On Tuesday night, for the first time in 12 years, we were able to bring the budget back into a surplus, back in the black. Labor is still in the red. That's what we're seeing, and that's what you'll see tonight. Our budget is back into the black. The last time the Labor Party saw a budget surplus, as we know, was in 1989. The Leader of the Opposition—I don't know what his hairstyle was like back then, but he was running around, I know, at those Labor vanguard conferences at the time, whipping it up with his friends at parties and goodness knows what. That was the last time that we saw a budget surplus delivered by the Labor Party. But under this government that surplus has been achieved, the boats have been stopped, the carbon tax has been abolished and we're building the infrastructure of the 21st century.
The Prime Minister's time has expired.
On that note I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
A document is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the document will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I table the Australian government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report No. 183, Aspects of the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement revisited.
The document read as follows—
Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report 183:
Aspects of the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Revisited
April 2019
The Government thanks the Committee for its time and energy in undertaking this second review of the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement (PAFTA). The Government welcomed and supported the Committee's first review of PAFTA, and its recommendation in its August 2018 report that binding treaty action be taken to implement PAFTA. As part of securing support to deliver on the Committee's recommendation and in the spirit of bipartisanship the Government agreed to the Labor Opposition request for a second JSCOT review of PAFTA.
The Government welcomes and supports the Committee's final recommendation that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the PAFTA. The Government has tabled the necessary legislation to deliver on this recommendation in Parliament, and looks forward to Parliament supporting the JSCOT recommendation.
Labor's Additional Comments
Recommendation 1:
That the Australian government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission, or equivalent organisation, and provided to the Committee alongside the National Interest Assessment (NIA) to improve assessment of the agreement, and, further, that the projected benefits be subsequently assessed and reported on at appropriate intervals.
The Government notes the recommendation.
Economic modelling of trade agreements is only one tool to assess whether an agreement is in the national interest. The Government commissions economic modelling of trade agreements on a case-by-case basis.
Statistical and methodological limitations of current economic models make it difficult to estimate the total impact of an FTA on the economy. For example, it is difficult to model accurately the impact of changes to non-tariff barriers, trade facilitation, and increased regulatory certainty. PAFTA, and other FTAs, have in-built work programs and review arrangements that, depending on outcomes, and enable Australia to gain greater benefits over time.
It is self-evident that the new market access achieved in PAFTA is of significant benefit for Australian suppliers, particularly given the barriers that, without PAFTA, apply applied for certain commodities and services. For example, PAFTA provides Australian exporters with access to Peru's highly protected market for dairy, sugar, sorghum and rice, and secures Peruvian recognition for Australian university degrees.
In some instances, Australia has achieved market access beyond what Peru has provided in trade agreements with other countries. However, the competitive advantage which Australia has achieved for some products will diminish with the delay in ratification of PAFTA as the tariff phasing rates were negotiated to keep pace with the tariff rates to competitors.
Over the course of two inquiries into PAFTA, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) received 19 submissions from industry and industry organisations outlining the benefits of the agreement to them, including for the sugar, meat, education and mining industries.
Recommendation 2:
That the Australian government negotiate with the Peruvian Government to withdraw the proposed ISDS arrangements in the PAFTA as there is no clear benefit to such mechanisms, they bring well established and serious risks, and in any case there is no justification for having a second and different ISDS mechanism between Australia and Peru.
The Government does not accept the recommendation.
The Government decides on the inclusion of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in trade agreements on a case-by-case basis in light of the national interest, including the protection of Australian investors overseas.
Investment is a major feature of the Australia-Peru economic relationship. Australian companies are amongst the largest foreign investors in Peru's mining sector, with an estimated $5 billion worth of investment.
The PAFTA investment chapter contains robust procedural and substantive safeguards in relation to ISDS. PAFTA protects the Australian Government's right to regulate in the public interest, such as in relation to protecting public health and the environment.
Australia and Peru concluded a bilateral investment treaty in 1995 which contains an ISDS mechanism. Upon entry into force of either PAFTA, or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11) for Peru and Australia, this existing older-style bilateral investment treaty will be replaced with a modern FTA investment chapter that includes robust procedural and substantive safeguards.
The ISDS safeguards in PAFTA are among the strongest Australia has negotiated. They include all the safeguards of TPP-11 as well as additional safeguards, including on public health. In addition, the scope of investment obligations covered by ISDS in PAFTA is narrower than TPP-11.
The recommendation to withdraw the ISDS mechanism in PAFTA would not result in removing ISDS between Australia and Peru, as the existing mechanism signed in 1995 will continue to operate until either PAFTA or the TPP-11 enter into force for Australia and Peru.
During consultations on PAFTA, a range of stakeholders supported the inclusion of ISDS, including the Minerals Council of Australia, Rio Tinto and ITS Global. The Government of Peru submitted to JSCOT that ISDS is an important mechanism for Peru to attract investment. Additionally, the Peruvian Minister for Trade and Tourism, Edgar Vasquez, has stated publicly that Peru would not renegotiate the Agreement.
Dissenting Report – Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the Australian Greens
Recommendation 1:
That the Peru Australia Free Trade Agreement not be ratified.
Response:
The Government does not accept the recommendation.
The Government notes that taking binding treaty action in relation to PAFTA is in the national interest, and that the Committee has twice recommended this.
Recommendation 2:
That the process for signing and ratifying trade deals and treaty agreements be radically overhauled to ensure genuine transparency and community consultation. The current system is opaque, outdated and no longer serves the public interest.
Response:
The Government does not accept the recommendation.
Australia's existing treaty-making system is working well and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the different approaches needed for the wide variety of treaties to which Australia becomes a party. The existing system allows for extensive consultations and enables briefing of stakeholders where appropriate. In the course of PAFTA negotiations, DFAT ran an open consultation process and met directly with 37 stakeholders.
The Government keeps its consultation practices in relation to trade negotiations under active review, regularly considering whether there is scope for improvement. The Government will continue to explore new options for securing input from stakeholders and disseminating information on FTAs.
Recommendation 3:
A legislated ban on current and future Governments negotiating or signing any trade agreement or treaty that includes ISDS provisions.
The Government does not accept the recommendation.
For the reasons outlined earlier, the Government decides on the inclusion of ISDS clauses in FTAs on a case-by-case basis in light of the national interest.
The PAFTA investment chapter contains robust procedural and substantive safeguards in relation to ISDS. PAFTA protects the Australian Government's right to regulate in the public interest, such as in relation to public health and the environment.
Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on my impending retirement.
The Leader of the House may proceed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the chagrin of a few and the joy of many, maybe even some in this place, I'm retiring from the Australian parliament. On 28 April 1992, I was preselected for Sturt. The opening lines of my speech were: 'In 1966, after 17 years, Sir Keith Wilson handed Sturt over to his son Ian. Now, 26 years later, it's time to change again.' Of course, I went on to win that preselection. After almost 27 years, it's time for renewal in Sturt again.
I'd like to thank the Liberal Party in South Australia and in Sturt for giving me the opportunity to carry the Liberal banner in this seat for nine elections, for over a quarter of a century. They're a wonderful group of people. The Liberal Party in South Australia and nationally can be a rambunctious group of people at times, but I believe in the party and I always will. Like the member for Grayndler, I'm a team man. I just happened to go for the team that is the election-winning machine!
I'd also like to thank the electors of Sturt: thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve you and the privilege of representing you. I'm confident that I leave my seat and the great state of South Australia in good shape. I'm sure that the Liberal Party's candidate—and my good friend—James Stephens will retain Sturt at the coming election, and I have every confidence that the Prime Minister will lead the coalition to victory in the election in May.
I would also like to thank my dozen of staff over the years. We all know in this place that they are like a second family to us. They allow us to shine and they help pick up the pieces when we crumble a little. I'd also like to thank my family—my wife, Carolyn, and my children, Eleanor, Barnaby, Felix and Aurelia—as well as my extended family. We are a tight-knit group. My family have been with me every step of my political career. I volunteered but they were conscripted, yet they supported me willingly and graciously.
Since 1993 I have been a backbencher for 10 years and a frontbencher for 16, in cabinet for six years and in the leadership group for 10, in government for 17 and in opposition for nine—which is a good balance! That places me as the longest-serving non-Labor member of the House of Representatives for South Australia since Federation. Four prime ministers have appointed me to their executives, and prime ministers Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison chose me to be their Leader of the House. I am going to miss the stage of the dispatch box, which gives you some amateur thespianism. Some of my favourites include: 'a bloodied dagger masquerading as a speech' from the member for Grayndler'; 'I'd back the member for Corio in a fast-moving butterknife fight anytime'—I assume he won that butterknife fight; and 'I fixed it'. I thank Skye for giving me a moniker that I have not been able to shake!
As Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Industry, I have been responsible for delivering the $200 billion build-up of Australia's military capability, the largest in Australia's peace time history, which, at the same time, we have used to fundamentally reshape our strategic industrial base. These are the largest Navy, Air Force, Army and cyberprojects in 75 years. And, with the other members of the National Security Committee, I created the Pacific step-up to support Australia's strategic position in the South Pacific. Whomever follows me in this role will be the luckiest person in the government. To be a Minister for Defence in the Defence portfolio is to see Australians at their best. Our Australian Defence Force, and all who enable them to use their capability, are one of the greatest attributes of our country's history and our national character.
Beyond the Defence portfolio, I am proud to have delivered the National Innovation and Science Agenda, to have reformed the national curriculum, to have introduced compulsory literacy and numeracy testing for Australian teaching graduates and to have expanded phonics teaching in remote schools in northern Australia with Noel Pearson. But I am particularly grateful that the youth mental health initiative that I created in 2006, headspace, has gone on to thrive and become a fixture in the mental health sector.
In a few weeks my political career comes to an end. Franklin Roosevelt said a long time ago:
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
I have tried to keep that creed as my lodestar throughout my career because I have had a fortunate life. I don't have a log-cabin story like so many people in this place—although I did once have to get my own lemon for a gin and tonic! That may or may not qualify, Mr Speaker! As the psalms say: of those to whom much is given, much is expected. I have always believed that those who have had great opportunities have a responsibility to work to give others the same opportunities.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House. I once described the House of Representatives as being my natural habitat; you are all my fellow species in this unnatural place! This place brings out the best in us and it brings out the worst in us. I have seen some truly dreadful people come through here over the last quarter of a century. But I have seen some many more outstanding people, including my current colleagues. Something drives us all to get here. In most cases, it is a fierce competition internally within our parties and then in the campaign. But we are driven on nonetheless because, my friends, we know, each one of us, that to get the chance to influence the society in which we live, to make a difference in the lives of our fellow citizens, is worth the sacrifices. To be part of politics is to be part of history, and no-one can take that away from any one of us.
For decades I have carried a little card around in my wallet that has written on it these lines that Plutarch once wrote about Pericles and the lives of the Athenians:
Virtue in action immediately takes such hold of a man that he no sooner admires a deed than he sets out to follow in the steps of the doer.
We've all followed in the footsteps of great deed doers, men and women who have assisted Australians to build a great nation. As the member for Warringah is fond of saying, you win the lottery of life when you are born in Australia and everyone around the world knows it. That didn't happen by accident; it happened because of good governments and good men and women trying to do their best. I've relished the opportunity to attempt great deeds in the one forum that in our democracy allows every Australian the chance to do so, the House of Representatives. Thank you; goodbye and good luck.
On indulgence: for years at every election a conversation that goes through the Labor Party has been, 'Can we stop Pyne from winning Sturt?' This was not the preferred method, I have to say. The Leader of the House is someone who has always loved the parliament. There will be times when, for all of us, the debate gets vicious because the issues we are dealing with are real. But I think the Leader of the House has probably been better than almost any of us at having moments where a bit of grace and a bit of levity is thrown in. He referred to the 'stage' of this parliament. I don't think anyone sees it as a stage quite the way the Leader of the House does and I don't think anyone uses it that way. I should, quite as effectively. I should let the Leader of the House know that I had organised today—and they are still up there—the scriptwriter and cast of the play How to Rule the World, which is actually set here. I thought they could treat this as an audition. There are a couple of roles for your next career that would be spot on—absolutely spot on.
Because of our roles on the front-line you get people who don't know the other being deeply critical. I always respond to the Leader of the House by quoting the Shawshank Redemption, where someone is critical of a character called Brooks and Morgan Freeman responds, 'Brooks ain't no bug; he's just institutionalised.' There is also a point about the walls around us: 'First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them.' I wish you well. We really wish you well, whatever the next part of your career involves.
I remember when Albo's book came out, Bob Hawke took great delight in quoting the Leader of the House saying, 'My only friend in the Labor Party is Albo.'
An opposition member: In the parliament.
In the parliament. Now that you are leaving it will be easier to have a whole lot more. Whatever you go to next, with Albo on the show you shared with him on Todayor the high-rating and potentially Logie-winning show of Pyne and Marlesit will be a disaster for Sky for you not to be appearing on that—and wherever your career takes you, particularly if you are there at an awards night receiving a Logie or some award for a future theatrical performance, please remember that we were all there with you at the beginning. Good luck.
I'll just make a couple of remarks. I don't want to detain the House. Christopher and I have been friends for a long, long time. Before we met, I was told that I needed to hate him. I obviously found that impossible. We became friends. We've shared a lot together over the years—the ups and downs of politics and the challenges that all of us face in here. The Manager of Opposition Business made a very important point: through that, the member for Sturt has never lost his grace and he has certainly never lost his sense of humour, even under the most incredible pressure.
You referred to Labor trying to win Sturt. In 2007, they probably had their best chance. In fact, Channel 9 shredded you on election night, didn't they? They'd put you through the shredder. The count was occurring. It was very late in the evening, after Prime Minister Howard had conceded. There were obviously mixed feelings in my electorate. My supporters were thrilled that we'd retained the seat with a strong margin but were obviously disappointed with the overall result. I think probably because of the time difference, Christopher, you rang me quite late. There were about four or five people left and we were cleaning up. I saw your name come up on the phone and I hit the speaker button and all we heard was, 'I'm alive!' I think it was about five minutes to 12. I thought, in those circumstances, that really summed it up. Congratulations. We won't be seeing you here, but your friends will see you around. We really do wish you the best in the next chapter of your life.
Under standing order 103, I have a question that relates to the administration of the House. On Tuesday, I understand that members of the coalition held events in Parliament House, the peoples' house, of up to $800 a seat for the purpose of political fundraising. May I ask that you please inform the House whether there are any rules, guidelines or restrictions on using the peoples' house as a venue to raise funds for political parties?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question. There is an events policy that sets out the rules. It's on the members and senators portal. On page 6—I'll table a copy for the benefit of the member—it specifically sets out that political and other fundraising events are indeed allowed, and all of the costs associated with them are obviously met with by the people holding the events. That's been in the policy for a long time. These events have occurred in the House the whole time I've been here, which is long time.
I have received letters from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46, I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important, and that is that proposed by the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:
The Government's failure to provide a plan for Australia's future.
I therefore call upon those honourable 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—
Mr Speaker, can I thank you for selecting this matter of public importance and can I congratulate you on your excellent judgement, which you have exhibited once again in making this selection. I was listening to the radio this morning, and there was a bit of commentary about the fact that this week in Australia, this budget week, really treats the Australian budget in a way that you don't often see overseas. There are many other countries with similar sorts of democracies that don't stop for the week to see what's going to be in the budget, with the speculation, the reveal, the speculation about the budget reply, the reveal and the follow-up for days to come.
I think that, during this fiscal festival, it's worth going through a few other numbers. We've seen the budget numbers from the government, but there are a few numbers that they didn't want to share with Australians. They didn't want to remind people of the six years of cuts and chaos, of 2,034 days of a government that cares only about itself—one that's happy to appoint its mates to jobs as they rush out the door, without thinking about the jobs and working conditions and pay of ordinary Australians. They didn't want to remind you of the seven ministers or former ministers who are jumping ship at this election.
They didn't want to remind you of the fact that 30 per cent of Liberal women have complained about bullying in the Liberal Party. They didn't want to remind you that 80 per cent of the coalition party room are blokes. In fact, I found one number particularly interesting: After the next election, it is very possible that there will be more men named Andrew in the House of Representatives than there will be Liberal women.
Eleven—that's the number of votes the member for Curtin got in the leadership contest. Three—that's the number of votes by which the member for Dickson missed out on becoming Prime Minister. Three votes! Imagine the country! Twelve hours, or about 12 hours—that's how long the budget lasted before they were releasing version 2 with the updated figures in it.
Three hundred and seventy-three and a half billion dollars—$373½ billion! That's net debt—the net debt that has doubled under those opposite. Isn't it phenomenal to have a Prime Minister who gets up to the despatch box, day after day, talking about debt! He was the Treasurer when net debt doubled. Gross debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars, to $560 billion—also more than double—under the watch of those opposite.
One point six billion dollars—that's a number that we are familiar with. That's the underspend in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And how stomach-turning is it to have the Prime Minister telling us today that the reason for this underspend is because there isn't demand—'This is a demand-driven system; there's no demand'! Seventy-seven thousand people have missed out on a National Disability Insurance Scheme package in this year alone because of the delays in processing packages. And this underspend of $1.6 billion comes on top of last year's underspend of $3.4 billion. That's about $6 billion of underspend in the National Disability Insurance Scheme to date. And do you know why? It's because they capped the number of staff at the National Disability Insurance Agency. It's because they've been underpaying for services in this sector, causing many disability service providers to threaten to leave the sector—to shut up shop.
Here's a number that contrasts with that: $80 billion; $80 billion is what they tried to give away to the top end of town in tax cuts—the tax cuts to multinationals and the big banks that those opposite voted for 12 times. Well, 12 times plays 26 times; 26 times is the number of times that those opposite voted against a banking royal commission, including the Prime Minister, including the Treasurer, including all of those on the front bench and including all of those on the backbench. Twenty-six times they voted against a banking royal commission. In the face of all the evidence from all of the victims about all of the problems, they kept voting against it.
Seventy-seven dollars: $77 is what people who rely on Sunday and public holiday penalty rates are losing from their pay packets. So, here we have those opposite boasting about a $5 a week tax cut when people are losing $77 a week from their penalty rates, with the support and complicity of those opposite and their enthusiastic applause. In fact, we've had those opposite saying low wages are a deliberate part of their economic strategy. They've confessed—700,000 workers are having their penalty rate cuts. Eight times, those opposite voted for those penalty rate cuts. We've got the slowest wage growth on record and every single prediction that those opposite have made for a faster rate of wages growth has been proved wrong. Twenty-seven times they have forecast faster wage growth and 27 times they have failed to deliver that faster wage growth—1.8 million Australians unemployed or underemployed.
We've seen the cuts. We've seen the chaos from those opposite. We've seen the fact that hospitals have been cut, universities have been cut, schools have been cut, TAFE has been cut, vocational education has been cut and aged care has been cut. We've seen 1.3 million Australians say that they skip getting basic health care, because they can't afford it. When it comes to energy policy—the cost of power, power bills, pollution—we've seen 13 energy policies from those opposite, and we still don't have one that works. We've seen 128,000 older Australians waiting for a home care package.
That's a pretty bad set of numbers in anybody's books. But there is an alternative. You'll hear an alternative tonight from the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who has for six years led a united and disciplined team focused on delivering for ordinary Australians—stronger wages, better working conditions, better hospitals and schools, TAFEs and universities and an economy that works for everyone. You've seen already the commitments that we've made in education, and you'll see more—$14 billion extra for our public schools. Those opposite have confessed to the cuts by restoring funding to Catholic and independent schools—and good luck; we support that. But they haven't funded our public schools. Two out of three of all Australian children go to public schools—$14 billion difference between their proposal and our proposal. Every Australian parent can look at our Fair Go for Schools website and see how much extra their school gets—hundreds of thousands, and more than a million in some cases, over the next three years alone. There will be universal access to preschool for three and four year olds, because we know that the best education systems in the world invest early. That's when brain development is happening—we know that. From those opposite: one more year of preschool.
When it comes to TAFE and universities, from those opposite: 150,000 fewer apprentices and trainees today than when they came to office. We'll invest—more apprentices and more investment in TAFE. An extra 200,000 young Australians will get the opportunity to go to university. So, yes, there's a very grim set of numbers from those opposite. But there is an alternative—an optimistic, uplifting alternative that you'll hear more about tonight and in the coming weeks as we head to the polls. I ask Australians to consider these two alternatives: a chaotic, dysfunctional, divided coalition or a united, strong and determined Labor Party.
I rise to speak on today's MPI. When the Prime Minister answered his last questions in question time, he talked about when the Liberals and Nationals came to government in 2013. We said we'd stop the boats, we'd get rid of the carbon tax, we'd spend on infrastructure that would drive the Australian economy, and we would also bring the budget back to surplus, which we have done.
I want to briefly touch on and acknowledge the Leader of the House's time in parliament. One of the first things that happened to me when I arrived in parliament in 2007 with some of my colleagues, who I see are still stubbornly here—
We certainly are!
On a percentage ratio, we've got more of us here. Anyway, what I'd like to say about Mr Pyne is that he gave me some great advice when I first arrived and at times during the course of my parliamentary life. He's also given me other titbits that have been helpful, as I am sure he has given many people in the Liberal-National coalition. Hats off to him, and I wish him all the best in his future.
The coalition does have a plan. It's right there for everyone to see. It's a public document. Everyone knows about it. We have a plan. Australia is one of the best countries in the world to live, work and raise a family. The Prime Minister is right: in Australia, if you have a go, you'll get a go under a Liberal-National government. The Morrison government is working to keep our economy strong, keep Australians safe and keep Australians together without increasing taxes. We have a plan for Australia—one that will build a stronger economy and ensure we continue delivering for Australia. Those opposite might not have learnt to read our budget, as we saw in question time following the budget, but our plan was shown in our budget. It's a surplus budget with heavy investment in ensuring that Australians are safe, that our economy remains strong and that we continue to build in Australia.
Our plan for a stronger economy includes tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians. People deserve to keep in their pockets more of the money that they earn. In my electorate of Swan, our plan to lower taxation will benefit more than 75,000 people, thanks to the tax relief we have legislated. Our plan for lower taxes for working Australians will benefit over 10 million Australians, with more than 4.5 million individuals estimated to receive the maximum benefit for the 2018-19 income year. Our little book that we've got here talks about Labor's tax bill. I'll just quote to you from it.
Ms Collins interjecting—
I can hear the member for Franklin dying to hear what we've got to say about their taxes.
No, we're not.
Clip art!
Yes, well done! Labor wants higher income tax. Once our full plan comes to effect, 94 per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 30c in the dollar. Income taxes under Labor would be higher. Labor has said it would cut our legislated tax relief in half, increasing income taxes by $70 million. Further, in the 2018-19 budget, we have announced $158 million of additional personal income tax relief. Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating has described the Shorten tax hike as 'too punitive a level where the state is confiscating almost half of people’s income over $180,000'.
Our plan is to continue backing small businesses every step of the way, as they are the engine room of our economy. I know this as I was a small-businessman for 25 years. Without small business, there would be no Australia for any government to have a plan. Those opposite don't have a plan for Australian businesses. They instead want the CFMEU and their union mates to come in and take control. They even oppose the fast rail link to Geelong. They demonise business owners at every step. They think of them as being big, fat, greedy cats when, at the end of the day, what almost all of them do is risk their own assets and their own family lives and always they paid at the end. As someone who's spent 25 years in business, I understand that, and many of my colleagues on my side of the chamber have been through those experiences as well.
I was also told that we should always leave things better than how we found them. This is an important value for not only me but all Australians. How can we ensure that Australia continues to be the great country it is? We do that by fixing the budget, because fiscal responsibility means we can ensure that we can provide funding for all essential services without putting at risk services and without future generations having to pay back debt. Those opposite have no plan for fiscal responsibility. At every election, they go, 'You can trust us on the budget,' like the Leader of the Opposition's on-again, off-again friend Kevin Rudd—who described himself as a fiscal conservative—did before the 2007 election.
The fact is that, after six years of chaos, Labor left Australia with a broken budget, a damaged economy and a serious mess to fix. The key facts are that, between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. Labor left additional projected deficits of $123 billion over the next four years. The Treasury projected that the budget would be in deficit for the next 10 years. This would mean 16 unbroken years of deficits if Labor had stayed in power. As we heard from the Prime Minister, if you vote for Labor once, you pay for it for a decade. That is a very true story.
In practice, what have Labor done? They have done nothing—nothing but deficits for 12 years, which they created, and they haven't been in government since 1990. The last time they delivered a surplus was when Allan Border was the captain of the Australian cricket team, my 26-year-old son wasn't alive yet, and the West Coast Eagles hadn't won an AFL premiership. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you're from a different state, but it resonates for a lot of people. People can put a time line through that.
Keeping Australians safe is something that this government has as an absolute priority. For any government, it is front and centre in our future plan for Australia. Those opposite talk a big game, but they're beholden to the Greens and the Labor Left on this. They slashed our defence budget when last in government to rates lower than 1939. And they couldn't stop the boats, and they told us we couldn't stop the boats, so they turned their failed minister for immigration into their shadow Treasurer. If you couldn't secure Australia's borders, how can we put you in charge of Australia's economy? Stopping the boats is more important than just ensuring Australia's border security is in the hands of our agencies. In fact, it allows us to spend more on the services all Australians rely on. As we know, $16 billion was blown by those opposite on border protection. That is just $2 billion shy of the amount in drugs we have listed on the PBS since coming to government. And we can't forget the fact that over 1,200 lives were lost at sea under their border protection policy.
In our budget, we are providing more than half a billion dollars of new funding for our Australian Federal Police to keep Australians safe. This includes funding to enhance our ability in counter-terrorism in all forms and it will help ensure that Australians, anywhere in Australia, are actually safe. Since being in government, we've cancelled the visas of over 4,150 foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. That reminds me: this government introduced a bill for mandatory sentencing of paedophiles, rapists and child sex offenders. Guess who voted against it. Can anyone guess who voted against it?
Yes, the Labor Party. Disgusting.
That side. That side of the chamber voted against it. They are protectors of these people.
With a stronger economy, the government are delivering more funding for schools—an extra $37.6 billion over a decade, to 2029, which is a 62 per cent funding increase per student. In my electorate, schools received an average increase of 70 per cent of their funding. Our government are embarking on an infrastructure spend that has not been seen in the lifetime of anyone in this House. They have played the game for health—they would like to own that area—but here I have an article, which I will table. It says, 'Bentley Hospital loses $10m upgrade funds'. The WA state Labor government took it out of their operating budget. It's all here in the Canning Times, in September 2017. What happened? Recently, the Leader of the Opposition and his candidate turned up at Bentley Hospital and announced $10 million of funding for the Bentley Hospital, just to replace the money that WA state Labor had taken out. The hypocrisy of that is well known to everyone in the electorate. They'll see through that, as they will see through the Labor Party having no plan for our economy and no plan for the future of Australia, as the coalition does. I will table that now for you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Billions of dollars you ripped out.
I can hear the member for Franklin cheering me on. There's a stark contrast between the choice of either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition at the next poll. I'm sure that all Australians know that they want to see Scott Morrison on their TVs in their rooms for the next three years and not the Leader of the Opposition. The coalition has a plan for the future of Australia.
A whole heap of more election cons and a whole heap of stuff locking in Liberal cuts from their budget. Their budget was one of the biggest cons I've seen in this place in 11 years: a whole heap of smoke and mirrors that talks about how they have doubled the debt. They absolutely have doubled the debt, and they try to come in here and blame others for their mismanagement of the budget and the economy. What they have done in their budget is actually lock in their cuts to hospitals and to schools. That is what they've done. You absolutely have locked in your cuts to hospitals and to schools in this budget. There are schools in Tasmania who know about this cut. There is $52 million cut from schools and students in Tasmania and $11 million cut from our hospital systems in my home state.
And then of course we've seen this alleged surplus. We know this is built on the underspend in the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme—$1.6 billion. We had the Prime Minister try to convince everybody that this is a demand-driven system and that, if the demand was there, it would all be okay. I'm going to quote Senator Eric Abetz in the Sunday Tasmanian. Senator Abetz and I normally don't agree on very much, let me assure you of that, but he is one of my constituents, and I do represent him in this place. Senator Abetz raised some questions about the NDIS in our local paper because he was so concerned about it. There are some participants in Tasmania who cannot get the services they need because of this government's bungled implementation of the NDIS. We have a builder in Tasmania who said:
Since July 2015 we have been quoting and providing services for the NDIA. Nearly four years later, we have not seen one NDIS project go ahead.
Let me tell you about the people we're talking about here. As Senator Abetz identified, we're talking about a teenager who's six foot seven and who needs to be lifted and carried to get inside their home. We're talking about a participant in Kingston, in our electorate, who is a teenage child—an NDIS participant of three years—who still has to be carried up stairs to the living area. These are people living with disability and their families who need services that they can't get, and you have an underspend that's propping up the alleged surplus that you're claiming you're going to get in a years time. For the Prime Minister to say there's no demand when his own senator knows that there's a demand is just appalling, quite frankly.
And then of course we have the situation with TAFEs and apprenticeships. I had another Tasmanian senator on the radio earlier in the week talking about how great it is—'Employment is going terrifically; a lot of great jobs are going on in Tasmania.' There have been 2,900 full-time jobs lost in Tasmania since June last year. Tasmania currently has almost 2,000 fewer apprentices than it did just a few years ago. That's because of this government and the $3 billion that they took out of apprenticeships and TAFE; $3 billion taken out of apprenticeships and TAFE is the reason there are fewer apprentices in Australia today than there were. You have to take some responsibility for where we are today with those apprenticeships and young people not being able to get into TAFEs and into apprenticeships.
I have teenage sons. They have a lot of mates. All of them are struggling to get into TAFE and into apprenticeships. Those positions are simply not there because of what you on that side of House have done, because of this government, and it is not okay. And yet they want to come into this place and they want to go on radio and on TV to talk about how wonderful everything is. Well, it's not wonderful for some people. It might be for their mates at the big end of town, but it is not wonderful for a lot of Australians out there today. Your hubris and the way you're going on about what a wonderful budget it is and what a great set of numbers it is shows that you are not listening and talking to people on the ground in your electorates. That's what it says.
In my shadow portfolio of ageing, to have people come and say there are another 10,000 aged-care packages in the budget when there is not one new home care package in the budget is actually outrageous because what you're doing is telling all of those 128,000 people currently waiting on a home care waitlist that, somehow or another, some package is going to miraculously appear for them and they won't have to wait that 12 months to 18 months to two years that some of them are having to wait. You are giving false hope, and that is not okay. We heard today in question time about a 93-year-old who has been waiting. I'm getting stories of a lot of people in their 90s who have been waiting more than a year for a home care package that they have been approved for. You have done nothing about that waitlist in this budget. Everybody knows that this is just smoke and mirrors. Everybody knows that this budget is a con. (Time expired)
On indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker: before I talk about our outline for our plan for the future and how it contrasts against those who sit opposite and seek to run our country, I'd first like to associate myself with the words of the member for Sturt. I have learnt a lot from the member for Sturt in his time. His comment that there are some appalling people in this place is apt. Do you know what? We learn from those people. We learn from those people on how we don't want to conduct ourselves. The member for Sturt's understanding and knowledge of the standing orders is nothing short of inspirational. He is a 26-year veteran of this place. He has maintained his humour, his sharp edge, his 'lovable larrikin' persona. He has cut through with virtually every demographic of the Australian public. I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do. His contribution to this place is noteworthy.
I now come to the upcoming election and the MPI before us today around changing Australia. Who do we trust to run the budget as we move into the future? Someone who can produce a $7.1 billion surplus. We've heard other speakers talk about the last time Labor produced a surplus—and it's been some time. The bleeding-heart excuses come out: 'Oh, there was a GFC.' But the reality is that you need to have fiscal discipline to be able to bring about surpluses. The Australian public know that the best side of this House to manage future surpluses is the coalition side. We are renowned for coming in after Labor and fixing up their mess and getting us back into place. I want to address this as briefly as I can for those in the gallery. You'll hear rhetoric from the other side that we've come in and doubled the deficit.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Doubled the debt. I thank the member for Griffith. When you take the Treasury books, there are contracts that the privilege of government will sign into, and they'll be contracts for up to four years. We took office in 2013. When you come into government—whichever side it is—there is expenditure that is committed to, so you are locked in. In 2013 we were committed to that expenditure because we inherited those poor mistakes from those on the other side. During this campaign, you will hear those on the other side say that we have doubled the deficit. I want you to understand why that came about. The member for Swan was an electrician before he came here. Another bloke here has got country in western New South Wales. That bloke up there, the member for Moore, is a land developer. They're all businesspeople. They run balance sheets. They know what it's like to lie awake in bed at night knowing they've got a wages bill to meet the next morning.
So you're trying to contrast who's got the best plan for Australia—those with the skill set on this side or those on the other side. Those on the other side are openly not necessarily business oriented people, so they'll play the big game. I take you back to the last election: those on the other side said that we were going to sell Medicare. There will be other claims made by those on the other side as we go in to the upcoming election. It'll be scare campaigns. They will absolutely come, and they will be thick and they will be fast.
The Australian public, when we go into this election, will have a very clear choice to trust a government that has a proven economic benefit. We have a plan for Australia, we have a plan for infrastructure, we have a plan for families. You'll hear those on the other side talk about cuts to hospitals. When those on the other side left office in 2013, they were spending $69 million on Moreton Bay District Hospital in my area. Today, we spend $140 million—just on double that amount of money—and it is forecasted to go to $210 million. (Time expired)
The matter of public importance today is the government's failure to provide a plan for Australia's future. We have had six years of cuts and chaos. We have had three Prime Ministers, two Deputy Prime Ministers and no plan—no plan delivered, no plan for the future; just cuts, cuts, cuts. It is absolutely disappointing that we in this place have had six wasted years when there are hospitals and schools that are facing further cuts. We've had a range of different programs. They attempted to cut the pension. They attempted to cut a whole range of different services that we had to spend our time here stopping. And, of course, when it comes to families, we've had so many cuts and disappointments as a result of this government.
We hear the government talking about franking credits a lot. In fact, the member for Goldstein is here; he loves to talk about franking credits. What we don't hear about is Australia's future and the plans they have for families. We don't hear much about families from this government, and it's no wonder because, when we look at the early years, this government has abandoned families. They have let families down, and this continues in the budget in front of us today.
There are many failures, including the one in four families worse off as a result of the childcare changes. It is a system that has made providers become debt collectors. They now have to wear costs if families are found to not have the right amount of entitlement to child care. Not only do they have to wear costs; they have to recover that money on behalf of the Commonwealth.
They've made it harder for regional and remote early learning services to stay open. It is very interesting that the National Party stood by while the budget based funded services that were in their electorates were demolished by this government. It has been a very disappointing time, especially given what we're seeing for the future of Australia's preschoolers. There was an opportunity for the government to actually commit to Australian preschool, to recognise that the two years before school were really important and to invest in them. Labor has been very clear about its plans. We plan to give two years of before-school funding—universal access to both three- and four-year-olds—when it comes to preschool.
This is a very, very important measure that is supported universally by experts across this area and is actually being implemented right around the world. Labor has a clear plan, and there was an opportunity for the government to fund preschool in this budget. If they didn't want to support our three-year-olds' preschool, they could at least have supported permanent funding for four-year-olds. But they failed to do that. They provided a one-year extension for preschools and nothing in the forward estimates, and they've cloaked it with excuses about participation rates. Well, we've heard from the Department of Education in Queensland, which said the Commonwealth never tried to seriously address participation rates. They've been using this for the last three years as an excuse why they couldn't provide permanent funding, but they've have done nothing about it. It is just a ploy, because they've never been committed to funding universal access to preschool, and that is clear to see in the budget.
But, of course, this has an impact in the real world. There's news for the coalition here. It provides families with uncertainty about access to early education. It provide uncertainty for centres. It provides uncertainty for those educators and teachers wanting a career. Year-by-year funding is not the way to run a system. But it is not surprising from this government, which has been completely chaotic, completely obsessed by itself, completely uninterested in the Australian people, uninterested in Australian families and more ambitious for itself than it is for the rest of Australia. So there is going to be a clear decision— (Time expired)
I was hoping to finish this parliamentary year in the spirit of the member for Sturt's remarks, a spirit in which we come together and celebrate the achievements of our great country and what we seek to do as a nation to recognise it. I don't dispute that whoever is in government aspires, hopes and wishes to do the best for the Australian people. We can disagree on the policy and the detail, but always there is the aspiration to do the right thing. Sadly, this has been denied us by the opposition, who have put forward this patently ridiculous matter of public importance.
This matter of public importance goes to the heart of why I'm a Liberal. It goes to the foundations of our values and, yes, a modern Liberal vision for this country. It is one where we understand the importance of intergenerational equity and the social contract, one where we understand that we can give no greater gift to future generations than the stewardship and inheritance of a sound economy and a society that's united in an environment that cares for them so that they can live out their lives freely. That's the core and the focus of what this government has sought to do. It's why we have made getting the budget back into black so important, because every dollar of debt that is incurred means taxes for future generations to pay. Every dollar of debt incurred by the Labor Party and their agenda denies future generations their freedom. That's why we have made it such a priority, because it enables future generations to live their lives freely and makes sure they don't pay more than their fair share of tax.
We made sure that we put the budget into surplus so that in the Goldstein electorate alone 24,077 people are receiving the low- and medium-income tax offset. Getting the budget into surplus means that 11,000 age pensioners in Goldstein are going to see support through the energy supplement and, of course, the regular indexation of pensions. Getting the budget into surplus is so critical because we're then able to fund essential services at record levels. I know that in Goldstein alone we have seen significant increases in hospital funding. Of course, public hospital funding in Victoria has increased by 80 per cent under this government. We've seen an increase in the GP bulk-billing rate to 66 per cent in Goldstein. And, of course, we've seen massive funding increases for public schools across the entire electorate as well as seeing many people enjoy things like the childcare package. This is complemented by tax reform to diminish the obligation, the tax burden, that future generations will have, so that they can be successful and support themselves and their families, buy their own home and secure their future.
Thinking about the future is core to everything that we stand for on this side of the chamber, and it is everything that is disregarded—for the indulgence of today, without any sense of probity or responsibility—by those who sit on the opposition benches. It is one of the reasons this country is always better off when I am sitting over here and you are sitting over there. What we are able to do is make sure that we have a situation where we can support those people who have a go—who stand up, who want to employ people, who create a small business and the opportunities for others—because the greatest contribution that anybody can make in this country is to stand on their own two feet so they can help others do the same and help those who are unable to do so.
What we're doing with the small and medium businesses in Goldstein, the 24,435 who are going to get tax relief under this budget, is backing them every single step of the way. If you had the honesty and decency to repeal this matter of public importance, you would acknowledge that there are thousands of businesses in your electorates that would enjoy those benefits as well. There are 24,500 small and medium businesses in Goldstein who will benefit from the government's instant asset write-off. That will flow through the whole economy. It will flow through the whole of society and make this country a better place.
It is such a pleasure to follow the member for Goldstein. I do hold him in high regard, though obviously not as high as the regard in which he holds himself. He is a fine member of the Australian parliament but one that is sadly quite wrong about most of the things he addresses in this place. It has also been a pleasure of course to listen to the other coalition speakers in this MPI debate—again, quite wrong, but somewhat entertaining.
What we have today is a genuine matter of public importance about this government's failure to have a real plan for the future of this nation. Nowhere has that been more evident than in this week's budget—the greatest con job of a budget in many, many years; a con job of a budget that seeks to tell the Australian people that this coalition government will be delivering for them, when in reality only a Labor government will deliver an economy that works for everyone.
The young people of Australia have been rightly complaining about the fact that there is very little in this budget for them. The youth unemployment rate remains in double digits, including in my own electorate. Yet, there is nothing from this government in terms of a vision for the future of work for young Australians. There is nothing in this budget that talks about what they're going to do in relation to this unemployment rate. Of course they have tried to suggest that they will be promoting more apprenticeships, but the number of apprenticeships they have raised in this budget, that they have said that they will promote, isn't even enough to cover the shortfall in apprenticeships that have occurred since this coalition government took office. Young Australians want to know what the government is going to do for them.
Never has the lack of a youth minister been so evident as in this week's budget. The government is forgetting young people. Young people aren't even featuring on this government's radar, and I think the young people of Australia are going to make very clear that, if the government doesn't care about them, come election day they will certainly not care about this coalition government. I certainly look forward to young Australians en masse standing up and speaking out and raising the issues that matter to them come this federal election.
Another example of the failure for young people is that there was nothing said this week in the budget about the government's failed Youth Jobs PaTH program, a program that has had fewer than 4,000 young Australians since its inception actually go through an internship and get a job. That is 4,000 across the country. I'm not talking about in a single electorate; this is across the country. When there is 50,000 long-term unemployed young people in this country, they have every right to be disappointed in this government's failure when it comes to youth unemployment.
I wanted to say in relation to this budget and this week's demonstration of a failure of a plan, that it is incredibly disappointing to see the failure to even admit the ongoing, locked-in cuts to public funding for public schools—$14 billion in cuts. That is $14 billion across this country. It is an absolute disgrace that the government is failing to reverse these cuts to public school funding. In my own electorate, no matter what school I go to, they want to see better funding for public schools. Whether it is the biggest of the public schools in my electorate, State High, or the smallest, they want to see much better support for schools funding, because our kids deserve a world-class education no matter what school they go to.
I am also gravely concerned about the failure of this government to address their cuts to hospital funding. In my own electorate alone, there's $26.7 million in cuts to hospitals, including Princess Alexandra, the Mater Hospital and the Queensland Children's Hospital. It's not good enough. People in Queensland deserve to have hospitals funded properly. It will take a Labor government to restore the funding that the LNP has cut.
For me, the most disappointing thing out of this budget—and it is a crowded field—was the failure to commit real funding to congestion-busting infrastructure in my electorate of Griffith. There is no federal money for Cross River Rail. Yet again there is no federal money for this transformative project that is absolutely necessary to bust traffic congestion in Queensland. Labor has committed $2.2 billion of federal money to go to this project if we form government. The Deputy Premier has called for it, the Premier has called for it and we will deliver it if we are elected come May.
I'm also gravely disappointed by the failure to commit funding to the Coorparoo-Cavendish Road level crossing removal project. They know it's important, we know it's important; why has the coalition, once again, failed to deal with this major south side traffic snarl? There must be a change come May.
Only the Morrison government has a plan for a strong economy. It's a plan that busts congestion, lowers taxes and eases cost-of-living pressures on Australians and their families. And only the Morrison government will guarantee the essential services that all Australians rely on, like hospitals and Medicare, because of our plan for a strong economy. And it is a plan that is working.
My local residents in the electorate of Boothby are seeing this firsthand at the Repatriation General Hospital site in Daw Park, in the heart of my electorate. This is a very significant hospital precinct for my local community. It is a place that was closed down by the former state Labor government. All of those opposite—and there are no South Australians in the chamber—every single federal member of the Labor opposition from South Australia stood by and let this happen. It was a disgraceful decision and it was yet another broken Labor promise.
Former Premier Mike Rann said that the Repat hospital would never, ever be closed under a Labor government, and yet that's what they did. It devastated my veterans' community—in fact, it devastated the entire veterans' community in South Australia—and it devastated my local community, because not only was it an iconic hospital for our veterans but it was also a general community hospital. So many of my local residents had used it or had family members who had been nursed there as well.
Under the Morrison government and the Marshall government, we are revitalising the Repat; reactivating the Repat for my local community and returning health services to the precinct. This is a project that I've been working on for years, and I'm so proud to be delivering this for my community. I cannot thank the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, enough for his support, and also the Minister for Health and Wellbeing in South Australia, Stephen Wade.
Thanks to our strong economic management, the federal government will deliver $30 million in funding for a brain and spinal injury unit at the Repat hospital. This will be state-of-the-art. We will care for people who most need our support in our community there. The federal government will also fund a specialist dementia care unit, and the state government is providing additional funding to make sure that some of the most vulnerable people in our community receive the care and careful attention that they need. Unfortunately, under the previous Labor government in South Australia, we had the Oakden disaster—a scandal that cost people their lives and saw people mistreated terribly by the healthcare system. A lot of these people had dementia, or they had very severe mental health issues. They were all senior Australians. This will not happen at the Repat; we are investing in the very best dementia care on the Repat site, and our most vulnerable residents will never again be out of sight or out of mind. That's what they were under the previous state Labor government.
So I'm incredibly proud of what we're doing in the health space, and I'm just going to run through some of the record funding that we're providing for health in our nation. We're investing a record $104 billion in 2019-20, up from $75 billion in 2012-13. That will guarantee Medicare and it will make life-saving medicines and services more accessible and more affordable. It will reduce out-of-pocket costs and strengthen primary care. And we will invest in breakthrough medical research.
Only our government is increasing Medicare funding by $6 billion to $30.7 billion in 2022-23. We are also making sure that our hospitals are funded; we are increasing hospital funding by $5 billion, up from $21.7 billion in 2018-19 to $26.2 billion in 2022-23. These are big numbers; we are investing record amounts of money in our hospital system and in our healthcare system.
In my part of the world, by investing in crucial local roads we are making sure people can actually get to hospital and do so on time and as safely as possible. We are investing in the North-South Corridor, in the Flinders Link rail project, in the Fullarton Road and Cross Road intersection, in the Springbank, Daws, Goodwood roads intersection, and we are fixing Oaklands crossing. I am so proud of our strong economic plan and the things we are delivering for the nation, but particularly for South Australia.
It is somewhat alarming that here we are on the eve of an election and the matter of public importance before the House is on the government's failure to have any plan for the nation, Indeed, we see there was barely a plan to deliver speakers for the matter of public importance today, so that's a worrying start. But when I listened with great care to the budget coming down on Tuesday night I was also questioning what new measures for Australian women were to be found anywhere in it. I was listening very carefully—and nothing. And you ask: 'Really? Seriously? What kind of government thinks it is okay to bring down their last budget, especially one on the eve of the election—one that they are taking to the Australian people—that ignores 50 per cent of the Australian population, and they think they will get away it?' I have news for this government. How do you think you are going to be returned to government when you have no plan to address the gender pay gap, for example, and no plan to address the gross inequities that continue to exist in superannuation? We know that for the minister here they don't have many women to consult with in the party room, let's face it. There are not many women for you to chat to about these issues and clearly there is no-one in your party room who is capable of standing up and bringing up these issues so as to make sure they are on the table for you to address in government. You have had six years to think about how you might tackle the fact that there's a massive gender pay gap still in Australia, six years to think about how you might address inequities in superannuation, six years to think about how you might deliver paid domestic violence leave for the women of Australia and six years to think about how you might go about restoring penalty rates—penalties rates that affect the lowest paid workers in Australia. And who are the lowest paid workers in Australia? Australian women. You've had six years to think about how you might invest in and bring us into line with the rest of the OECD on early childhood education. We got—what was it?—a 12-month reprieve for four-year-olds to have early childhood education in the budget. There was nothing beyond a year for that and no mention at all for three-year-olds. This is a government that thinks it is still okay for all Australian kids to be lagging way behind the rest of the OECD when it comes to developing young people.
I know the member for Griffith raised a number of issues impacting on young people, but I'll tell you what: the Australian school children who came to see me during the climate change strikes that took place around the nation are onto you guys. Gosh! They know you have no plan for their future. They know you have no plan to deal with climate change and no plan for energy. Actually, you have had 13 plans; it's just that you can't settle on a plan for energy. No-one in the party room can actually agree on how we tackle things like a national energy policy.
Importantly, the issue of trust was raised earlier. I thought: that's right, no plan for delivering integrity into the Commonwealth government any more—no plan for a national integrity system. Well, not one with any teeth that can actually do anything, that's for sure. What is it that this government is going to the new election with? We all know there are endless scare campaigns in store, banking on the fact that Australian people have very short memories, I think—that somehow the Australian people might forget that you have had six years to stand up and do some serious reform in this country. But, no, you didn't take the opportunity to do that. You had a budget last Tuesday night that professed to be a plan for infrastructure in Australia. I understand most of it is Albo's plan for infrastructure, now funded by you, which is not bad. But in my electorate: a big zip
There's no money on the table for the Bascawen Street bridge, which I'd written to the Deputy Prime Minister about. I've got a suburb, Wallsend, that gets inundated when it rains. It has had a flood mitigation plan on the table. We sought some money—$3 million to $4 million—from this government to build a plan so the people of Wallsend could have the flood mitigation plan implemented, but there was nothing, absolutely nothing in the plan for the Bascawen Street bridge. I'm devastated about that. The people of Wallsend will be devastated about that. It's time this government came to grips with the fact that they have nothing. (Time expired)
As we see the scare campaign for 2019 barely igniting, this is a Labor Party that has scurried around the known horizon of social policy, unable, like a political arsonist, to ignite any kind of scare campaign on health. Nothing is lighting with hospitals. They had this crack at schools but nothing's burning. Then of course we heard it was a referendum on wages. We were going to have a referendum in 2019 on wages, with a Labor government promising to increase everyone's wages and life would be easier, when anyone who has studied—what?—five minutes of school economics knows that if you could raise wages and improve living standards it would have been done decades ago. There are consequences to artificially raising wages. It causes inflation, and then the wage increases rapidly disappear again. But when you're designing policy intentionally for people who can't tell the difference between truth and lie, you're going to have more and more of these scare campaigns.
Let's be honest. It's been a decade and no Labor opposition has ever come to government without a scare campaign. They've tried one at every frontier on social policy. They enter what is a likely election campaign with absolutely no momentum at all on any scare campaign, which is why each one of the speakers today has jumped up with a different topic, hoping they would get lucky, hoping they would strike that lucky seam where a few agnostic, apathetic or disinterested voters will say, 'Ooh, cuts. Cuts to something I'm worried about. I'd better vote Labor.' Do you know what? Australians are increasingly waking up to this. They are increasingly waking up to the fact that the best evidence of commitment to education is funding in the forward estimates. We learnt from Prime Minister Julia Gillard that you simply move your funding promises out beyond the four-year forward estimates and you can talk about billions of dollars but never budget for it and never provide for it, and when you slip into opposition weeks later you can say, 'We promised way more than they ever delivered.' It's like a fool catching up with you, offering to double your salary and then vanishing, and then you go and beat up your boss and say, 'Thanks for halving my wage.' This is a Labor government that never follows up with these magnificent numbers. It's a government on the Labor side that mentions these massive figures only weeks before it loses government and then trades on it throughout opposition.
We've had it on health and hospitals and schools and now we have it in early education. It is exactly and precisely the same circumstance. We've had a measly $200 million committed to three-year-old preschool, but everyone in the early education sector knows you can't deliver three-year-old preschool for less than a billion dollars. Where is the other $800 million? They'll try and strongarm the states, and when they don't get that money the promise will vanish. It's all about being elected and then worrying about the unfulfilled promises once, and if, you're elected.
The Minister for Education today can proudly commit to $310 billion, to annual increases of over six per cent for state schools and over five per cent for the independent sector each and every year through to 2016. The best evidence for what this Labor government will do is what their kooky cousins in Queensland Labor do with schools. There is only party cutting education in Queensland. It's the state Labor government cutting classrooms from Ormiston State School. How do you educate a child when you take away their classroom? How do you deliver STEM and advanced subjects when you're taking away classrooms at the same time? The only party doing that is Queensland Labor. When Queensland Labor had to build classrooms, back under Anna Bligh, they went to wealthy corporations and did dirty deals—that's right. It's not a comfortable narrative. Anna Bligh said, 'How much would it cost the private sector to build me seven schools, two of them high schools?' It should have been $340 million off the bottom line. Instead we got a $1.08 billion deal with corporations. Two-thirds of that money is interest to be paid over the next 25 years to wealthy corporations, direct from Labor policy. That's money that should be spent on children, money that should be spent on the curriculum. But—alas!—we cannot, in this great place, debate education policy so long as there is one side of politics, called the Labor Party, utterly fixated on the quantum, utterly oblivious and blinded, with a massive scotoma, unable to talk about quality in education because they're fixated on the fictitious numbers that they invent just weeks before they lose government.
This nation deserves better than a Labor government that can't deliver on quality schools. It has, in the coalition, secured the future—back in black, back on track and delivering for Australian parents and their children.
Order! The discussion has concluded.
I seek leave to vary the order of business, to deal with the message from the Senate in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin at the conclusion of the member for Reid's valedictory.
Is leave granted?
Yes. The Leader of the House has spoken to the opposition about that, and I've spoken to the crossbench as well, and leave is granted.
I thank the honourable member.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Sport is an important part of Australian culture. It has shaped the Australian national identity through events such as the Ashes, the Melbourne Cup and the Australian Open. Australians have come to expect that the sports they watch and participate in are protected from threats, and while Australia has always taken a strong stance against doping, cheating and misconduct in sport, it must be acknowledged that there is more that can be done to prepare for future threats and challenges.
It is essential that the millions of Australians who participate in sport at every level—from grassroots to the elite—have full confidence their sports are better protected from external threats such as doping, drug use, match-fixing and criminal exploitation of athletes and events. Australians should be confident that they can enjoy sports environments free of abuse, discrimination and harassment.
The nature of sports corruption is evolving at an unprecedented rate due to the immense commercialisation of sport and sporting organisations and accelerating technological advancement.
Sports integrity matters are now beyond the control of any single stakeholder.
They are complex, globalised and connected, forming a complicated threat matrix exposing vulnerabilities that require a robust and nationally-coordinated response across sports, governments, regulators, the wagering industry, law enforcement and other stakeholders.
In August 2017, the government commissioned the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements, as part of the government's ongoing development of the National Sports Plan—Sport 2030. The review panel, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO QC, delivered the Report of the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements (the Wood review) in early 2018.
The Wood review warns that 'without the presence of a comprehensive, effective and nationally coordinated response capability, the hard earned reputation of sport in this country risks being tarnished' and that beyond the immediate impact of corrupt conduct of the kind identified, a public loss of confidence in the sporting contest has direct consequences for the health, economic, social and cultural benefits that sport generates, and undermines significant investment in sport.
The Wood review also identified a critical leadership role for the Commonwealth government by supporting the integrity efforts of sporting organisations in the evolving threat environment, particularly those sports with fewer resources.
To achieve this outcome, the centrepiece of the Wood review recommendations is the formation of a new agency—a single body to address sports integrity matters at a national level and ensure that Australia is positioned to effectively respond to escalating integrity risks.
This new body will be called Sport Integrity Australia.
Currently in Australia, sports integrity functions are shared between the National Integrity of Sport Unit, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and Sport Australia. As a result, stakeholders are often required to interact with multiple agencies on matters across the sport integrity spectrum, creating undue regulatory burden.
Initially, Sport Integrity Australia will be established to unite the nationally focused sport integrity functions of the NISU, ASADA, and Sport Australia, establishing a single point of responsibility for all sport integrity matters and a single point of reference for all stakeholders, working in close cooperation with states and territories and across the sports sector.
The government remains committed to developing and implementing additional and enhanced capabilities recommended by the Wood review, including: enhanced anti-match-fixing intelligence capabilities; a new regulatory scheme referred to in the Wood review as the Australian Sports Wagering Scheme; and a protected disclosure (whistleblower) framework for sport. This will be implemented in stage 2, as outlined in the government response to the Wood review.
However, the early establishment of Sport Integrity Australia absent of these additional functions will improve the coordination of Australia's sports integrity response and reduce the regulatory burden on sport, athletes and others who are currently required to interact with multiple agencies across the spectrum of sports integrity issues.
This government is intent on protecting the integrity of the sports that make up this great sporting nation, the sports Australians enjoy and have come to expect as being safe, fair and inclusive—sports that deserve to be enjoyed by all, for generations to come.
Debate adjourned and the resumption of debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the House require all Members to provide statements in relation to disqualification under sections 44 or 45 of the Constitution in the following terms:
Members ' qualifications
Register of Members ' qualifications relating to sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution
(1) The Registrar of Members' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests (the committee), maintain a Register of Members' qualifications, comprising material:
(a) tabled on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission in accordance with s. 181B of Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in respect of Members; and
(b) provided by Members in accordance with the obligation to provide an attestation or supplementary information under paragraphs (5), (6) or (7) of this resolution.
(2) Other than as provided for in this resolution, the committee has the same powers and functions in relation to the Register as it does in relation to the Register of Members' Interests.
(3) The Registrar shall publish the Register and any supplementary information as soon as practicable after a Member has provided documents to the Registrar, or after tabling of documents on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission.
(4) The Registrar shall remove information from the published copy of the Register when a Member ceases to hold office as a Member of the House of Representatives.
Requirement to provide statements and supplementary information
(5) Within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Member of the House of Representatives in accordance with section 42 of the Constitution, each Member shall provide to the Registrar a statement attesting to the House of Representatives the accuracy and completeness of the material provided to, and tabled on behalf of, the Australian Electoral Commission in respect of the Member's last nomination for election in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
(6) In making an attestation in accordance with paragraph Error! Reference source not found., a Member may provide supplementary material. Supplementary material may augment, explain, or correct earlier information contained in the material provided to, and tabled on behalf of, the Australian Electoral Commission, but must not result in removal from the Register of material that was previously entered on the Register.
(7) If a Member becomes aware that information they have attested to in accordance with paragraph Error! Reference source not found., or have subsequently provided in accordance with paragraph Error! Reference source not found., can no longer be regarded as accurate, the Member shall provide supplementary material to the Registrar as soon as practicable, but no later than 28 days, after the Member becomes aware of the inaccuracy. Such supplementary material does not cause earlier material to be removed from the Register.
(8) The committee shall prescribe a form or forms for the purposes of paragraphs (5), Error! Reference source not found. or Error! Reference source not found., which shall be consistent with the disclosure requirements in Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Consideration of possible disqualification matters
(9) The House of Representatives will deal with any question concerning a Member's qualification under the Constitution only in accordance with the following procedures, and not otherwise.
(10) If a Member becomes aware of circumstances that give rise to a possible disqualification under sections 44 or 45, arising from facts not disclosed in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the Member may provide a statement of those circumstances to the Speaker. Any material redacted from the material entered onto the Register, including redactions from documents tabled on behalf of the Australian Electoral Commission is taken not to have been disclosed.
(11) If, and only if, a matter satisfies the conditions in paragraph Error! Reference source not found., the Speaker shall, as soon as practicable, report the matter to the House, and the Member who raised the matter may move, without notice, a motion referring the matter to the committee for inquiry and report.
(12) Before reporting on such a matter, the committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity for a Member affected by the reference to respond to the allegations, to the evidence before the committee, and to any recommendation the committee proposes to make.
(13) If, on the evidence before it, the committee considers that there is sufficient doubt about a Member's qualifications, then the committee may recommend that the matter be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act; however, the committee shall not make such a recommendation unless it determines that the question arises from facts not disclosed in accordance with Part XIV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
(14) When a question respecting a Member's qualification turns solely upon the interpretation or application of foreign citizenship law, the committee shall not recommend that the question be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns unless the committee has taken evidence from experts in the relevant foreign law and the committee considers there is a sufficient possibility that the Member was a foreign citizen under the relevant foreign law at the relevant time.
Referral to Court of Disputed Returns
(15) Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders or any other resolution, no Member may move a motion to refer any question to the Court of Disputed Returns under section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act unless the committee has considered whether the matter be so referred and reported to the House of Representatives. After the committee has made such a report, a Member may, without notice, move to refer the matter to the Court of Disputed Returns.
False statements or omissions regarded as contempt
(16) Any Member who:
(a) knowingly fails to provide the material required by this resolution to the Registrar within the required timeframe; or
(b) knowingly fails to correct an inaccuracy in any material within the required timeframe; or
(c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar;
shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly.
(17) A question of whether any Member has committed such a serious contempt shall first be referred to the committee for inquiry and report.
This motion was developed in response to a proposal from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in their 2018 report titled Excluded: the impact of section 44 on Australian democracy. I want to thank, from the outset, the opposition, the parliament, members of the government and members of the committee who worked on this report to ensure that we had a bipartisan arrangement in relation to improvements in the law and improvements to our standing orders here and in the Senate in relation to the administration of section 44 under the Constitution and in the requirements of the electoral processes to ensure that we get a better outcome for the Australian people.
The joint standing committee proposed that, in addition to legislative changes to require federal election candidates to disclose information about their eligibility to hold office under the Constitution, the House and the Senate also needed to adopt complementary parliamentary processes related to the issues of constitutional qualifications. I think any member that reflected on the passage of events in the last parliament that we've had would agree that there would be a need for improvement related to the issues of constitutional qualification procedures within our chambers.
Although interim motions were adopted to deal with these issues in each chamber, this replacement motion that I'm proposing today on behalf of the government was developed with the benefit of greater time. It deals more comprehensively with the eligibility issues and ensures greater alignment between the practices of both the House and the Senate to ensure fairness of treatment to all members and senators. A parallel motion, I note, was adopted in the Senate yesterday.
This motion does two things. The motion establishes a process to require public disclosure following discovery of new information after an election. Given that the electoral requirements for nominations now, as the parliament's laws have made clear, require disclosure of section 44 information up-front and transparently on the AEC's website, any new information will be required to be brought forward under this motion to the parliament in an orderly process with the cooperation of members and the Speaker. It's also fair and proposes a fair and orderly process for making referrals to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Members will note that, given the lack of clarity about the procedures for making referrals to the High Court from this chamber, this motion will adopt a standing order change which will allow us to make an orderly referral and ensure there is clarity in future situations.
The Senate motion differs from the House motion in one regard: to provide procedures for disclosures by senators who are appointed to fill casual vacancies. Obviously, this is not relevant for members elected via by-elections as they can make their initial disclosures about their qualifications via the Australian Electoral Commission. As per the procedure with a general election, in a by-election candidates will be required to lodge the same information that a lower house candidate will have to nominate at a general election. The motions have bipartisan support, as I've stated. They've been shared with the chairs of the parliamentary committees. They would have roles in administering these motions. They include the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
I commend the motion to the House and simply record again thanks to the opposition, the parliament, the Senate, the chairs and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It is important that, at this juncture, we provide clarity to members, with an upcoming election at an imminent time, that we understand and know the procedures. We listened to the outcomes of the High Court cases that have made clear the High Court's view on section 44, and I can say confidently to the Australian people, to the gallery and to the parliament that this government has listened very carefully and has moved to adopt modern and relevant changes to the law surrounding nominations regarding section 44, and the motions that change standing orders in our House will also provide clarity to members in future parliaments.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 27th Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Siem Reap, Cambodia, from 13 January to 18 January 2019. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I had the honour of participating in the delegation, which was led by the President of the Senate, and also included the members for Lalor and the member for Perth. The APPF is an assembly of members of national parliaments in the Asia-Pacific region and has met each year since 1993 to discuss matters of mutual concern. The forum draws together parliamentarians from countries in Asia and those in and bordering the Pacific Ocean on both the western and eastern sides. Those countries include Australia's major trading and strategic partners and those with which we have strong social and cultural ties. It remains in Australia's interests to build and sustain relationships with parliamentarians from these countries and to maintain institutional links between our parliaments. Each conference is structured around a number of plenary sessions and working groups and a drafting committee that considers a range of resolutions arising from the discussions. Participating countries submit draft resolutions that form the basis of the discussion sessions, and subsequent conference resolutions are finalised through a consensus. The sessions were under the recurring themes of political and security matters, economic and trade matters, and regional cooperation.
The four draft resolutions forwarded by the Australian delegation reflected the interests of delegation members. Senator Ryan spoke on combating terrorism and transnational crime in the region. The member for Lalor spoke on the importance of men and women having equal access to education and technical training in order to achieve sustainable growth; the member for Perth spoke about the need for parliaments of the region to work together to address the impacts of climate change; and I spoke on the need for the region to have strong institutions that can promote trade and investment growth. In particular, I noted the potential of e-commerce to allow microbusinesses in rural areas to market directly into major centres.
The President of the Senate was also co-chair of the drafting committee that reviewed the consensus resolutions and placed its imprimatur on their final form. The Australian delegation was relatively small in comparison with delegations from some countries. Nonetheless, we submitted draft resolutions on all themes, spoke in each plenary session and were active participants in all the working groups and on the drafting committee.
APPF meetings provide an ideal opportunity for Australian parliamentarians to meet their colleagues from around the region and to develop strong networks while discussing matters of mutual concern. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for assistance with briefing papers for the forum meeting and for the support provided in Cambodia.
Of course we must all thank our very generous hosts, the Senate and National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia. The forum organisers went to great lengths to ensure that the forum progressed smoothly and was a success. Members will be interested to know that the Presiding Officers have agreed that Australia will host the next annual APPF meeting, in January next year, here at Parliament House. This cements Australia's long involvement with the APPF, the parliament having hosted the forum in the year 2000.
Australia participation in the APPF has enjoyed ongoing bipartisan support and the active involvement of both members and senators over the decades. We look forward to senators and members of all parties coming together again to represent the Australian parliament at the 28th APPF, here in Canberra in January 2020. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, I present the following reports, together with the minutes of proceedings: Bedtime reading: inquiry into sleep health awareness in Australia, and the report on the inquiry into the 2017-18 annual reports of the Department of Health and Australian Hearing.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I'm pleased to be able to table the health committee's report, Bedtime reading: inquiry into sleep health awareness in Australia. While there are many committee reports tabled in this place that might inadvertently provoke a good night's sleep, this is one report where it's actually our objective!
Sleep is a fundamental human need and, along with nutrition and physical exercise, it is one of the pillars of good health. And yet currently four in every 10 Australians are not getting adequate sleep. While many people use limited sleep as a badge of honour, the reality is that very few people can operate optimally on little sleep. As a result of not prioritising sleep, many people are placing their health at risk, as well as reducing their productivity at work. In 2016 and 2017, inadequate sleep was estimated to contribute to 3,017 deaths in Australia and to cost the economy $66.3 billion annually, mostly due to decreased productivity and reduced health and wellbeing.
An emerging issue is the potential for sleep to be affected by smartphones and internet usage. In particular, many children are having their sleep continually disrupted by their smartphones and that can have negative impacts on childhood development, behaviour and performance during the day and at school. There is a strong message for parents in this report.
Some people experience inadequate sleep due to the presence of a sleep disorder, with obstructive sleep apnoea, or OSA, being one of the most prevalent. Without treatment, OSA can have serious health impacts, including weight gain, increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. In addition, the committee also found that, while not as prevalent as OSA, narcolepsy can have a debilitating impact on a person's quality of life. The committee heard some heart-wrenching testimony from people with narcolepsy and their parents. There is a need to improve the awareness of this condition, along with other rarer sleep disorders, and for further consideration of how treatment for people with narcolepsy is supported by government and the community.
This report makes a number of recommendations to government, which we hope will be a road map for health agencies, both state and federal. First and foremost, sleep health needs national prioritisation. It is as important as health messages about fitness, nutrition and smoking, and must be treated as one of the pillars of preventive health.
The committee makes other recommendations which are designed to improve support for those with sleep problems—from access to diagnosis to better education for primary health practitioners.
I commend the report to the House.
Report on the inquiry into the 2017-18 annual reports of the Department of Health and Australian Hearing
The inquiry into the 2017-18 annual reports of the Department of Health and Australian Hearing focused on hearing services and follows the committee's own 2017 inquiry into the hearing health and wellbeing of Australians.
The 2017 hearing health report was well received by those in the hearing health sectors and has been a catalyst for the Roadmap for Hearing Health, recently released by the federal government and COAG. Given the significant commitment and contributions by hearing health stakeholders that informed that 2017 hearing health inquiry, the committee was keen to examine the government's progress relating to its previous recommendations. The committee also looked at developments in hearing health policy and programs more broadly as contained in the annual reports of the Department of Health and Australian Hearing.
The committee's report has highlighted a range of areas where the government has acted, or intends to act, on the hearing health report recommendations, and these are very welcome. These features include additional funding to target the hearing health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; the funding of Sound Scouts, an online hearing assessments for school-age children, which was recommended by the committee; and the Roadmap for Hearing Health itself, which presents an overarching direction for hearing health services and priorities and represents a new commitment by state and federal governments to addressing many of the issues outlined in our report.
While these are all positive steps, a number of hearing health stakeholders expressed their disappointment that some of the hearing health report's recommendations are yet to be actioned. The committee has therefore reiterated many of its hearing health report recommendations that remain relevant today.
The committee also put forward six additional recommendations relating to hearing services and the NDIS, mandatory hearing screening for children, a pilot hearing and screening program for adults accessing the aged-care system, and research into balance disorders.
The Roadmap for Hearing Health should be supported by a clear delineation of jurisdictional responsibilities, time lines for implementation and funding.
I want to thank the stakeholders, individuals and government agencies who participated in both inquiries with such keen interest. I also particularly, as we come to the end of the 45th Parliament, thank my committee colleagues for their continued commitment to sleep health, hearing health and health policy more broadly. It has been a committee that's worked exceptionally well, and I pay particular tribute to my deputy chair, the member for Hindmarsh.
Finally, as these are the last reports we will be tabling in this parliament, I want to place on record the committee's thanks for the work of the committee staff, which has been exceptional during the course of this parliament, and we are in their debt. I commend both of these reports to the parliament.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports:Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2016-17—Report, April 2019; Examination of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual report 2016-17—Report, April 2019; Impact of new and emerging information and communications technology—Report, April 2019; and Theft and export of motor vehicles and parts—Report, April 2019.
Reports made Parliamentary Papers in accordance with standing order 39(e) .
by leave—Firstly, I would like to thank all the committee members on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, especially those members who sit on the opposite side of the chamber. It is not often that we get to sit and work together and discuss issues in a bipartisan way. I congratulate the members of the opposition on their conduct throughout all committee meetings. I would also like to thank the secretariat for the excellent work that they did throughout the term of this parliament.
On the export and theft of motor vehicles, it's interesting to note that, last year, there were over 1,000 cars a week stolen across Australia, but that is down 60 per cent from 2001. In fact, in 2001, we had 145,000 motor vehicles stolen in this country. Thankfully, that was reduced to 53,000 last year. But a thousand a week is still far, far too many. And those that have had their motor vehicles stolen know that the cost of the inconvenience, with the things that you have in your car, is often difficult to put an economic value on and often far exceeds the value of the car.
There are certainly things that can be done in this space to continue to drive that number down, especially where it involves the federal government and law enforcement agencies. I think one of the most important recommendations that we made was that we amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 to make it a specific offence to export stolen goods, including motor vehicles and motor parts. Surprisingly, that is not in there. There is no prohibition under those acts about exporting stolen motor vehicles. I think that would be a very good step that could be done from the recommendation of this report, and I hope that in the next parliament this is taken up.
I'd also like to quickly comment on the committee's work on the illegal tobacco inquiry. This is becoming a more prevalent problem in our society. Although, again, we want to drive down the rate of smoking in this nation—and price is definitely one of the triggers that we have to drive that rate of smoking down—we must acknowledge that, as we do that, we are increasing the opportunity for smugglers. Cigarettes can be purchased legally overseas—legally made and manufactured in the country of origin, unlike illegal goods—and shipped to Australia for less than $2 a packet. Where we are trying to push the retail price up to $40 and $50 a packet, we are creating an enormous opportunity for smugglers and illegal activity. So, if we continue to go down the pricing-prohibitions path, we need to ensure that we give our law enforcement agencies the adequate resources that they need to tackle this growing problem. I thank the House.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I present the 35th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
by leave—Today I present the 35th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 25 petitions and 35 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. It is an absolute privilege to serve as Chair of the Petitions Committee, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the members of the committee for their hard work and their diligence. Particular thanks go to the committee secretariat, who have served with such distinction. Thank you.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following: Report 477, Commonwealth financial statements—second report, and foreign investment in real estate; Report 478, Issuing of a certificate under section 37 of the Auditor-General's Act 1997; and Report 479, Australian government security arrangements, with two components, 'personnel security' and 'domestic passenger screening'.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I looked at the blue on the way in and I was scared this would happen—that I'd end up making a fascinating tabling statement just before the member for Reid's valedictory. Because of course he had to sit through that highlight of budget night, the budget statement about the Auditor-General's budget, previously.
An honourable member interjecting—
I'll wait for people to arrive; I'll do you a favour. That's fine. We can make it long or short.
An honourable member interjecting—
As long as I like? All right; this is the instruction. I'll humour those opposite. I was going to skip this bit as a gift, but let's talk for a moment about report No. 477, which discusses the committee's findings on Audit report No. 24 2017-18.
An honourable member interjecting—
I'm doing a favour here! That concerns the financial statements of Commonwealth entities for the period ended 30 June 2017 and Audit report No. 48 2017-18, concerning compliance with foreign investment obligations for residential real estate. In the first part of its report, the committee made several recommendations reflecting the critical role that the Commonwealth financial statements play in providing accountability to the parliament and the public for the expenditure of public funds. In the second part of the report, the committee made recommendations to improve processes around management of the foreign investment regime for residential real estate.
I want to make some remarks on report No. 478, which discusses the committee's findings on Audit Report No. 6 of 2016-17 concerning the issuing of a certificate under section 37 of the Auditor-General Act. To sort of decode that and try and put it in English, section 37 of the Auditor-General Act provides a rarely used power—in fact, a never before used power—to the executive to gag the Auditor-General. It's only been used once in the history of the Commonwealth—in 1987, in the predecessor act, where the then-Attorney-General, Gareth Evans, required the then-Auditor-General to delete a small amount of information on the grounds of national security in relation to aircraft explosive ordinances. This is, in fact, the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that an Auditor-General has been gagged by the executive to prevent him from expressing a value-for-money conclusion—in this case, on a multibillion-dollar Defence Force acquisition.
It was a serious inquiry and has been explored also through Senate estimates because the precedent, of course, could be quite concerning if this in any way set a pattern to prevent the parliament's scrutiny and understanding of the expenditure of vast sums of public money. In its report, the committee recommended that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit undertake an inquiry on any future occasion that a certificate is issued. We also considered a number of quite practical suggestions made by the Auditor-General, given this was the first time the provision had been used, that may improve the act in the future and have referred them to the next periodic review of the Auditor-General Act, which we expect will happen in the next term of parliament.
Importantly, I suppose, to be balanced, the inquiry did find that the Attorney-General had not exceeded his powers under the act to issue the certificate, although the extent of the use of that power to gag the Auditor-General from expressing a value-for-money conclusion was not as had been anticipated when the act was put in place. In conclusion, I would highly recommend that you also read Audit Report No. 478. It's a fascinating read!
Well, it seems like only yesterday, although it was six years ago, that I stood right there and made my first speech in this place. Time flies when you're having fun—and when you're having a horrible time. It's been a hell of a journey. I'd only been to Canberra once before being elected as a federal member of parliament. That was in 1982 for my year 6 school excursion from St Pat's at Strathfield. To say I didn't have a political background is probably the understatement of anyone sitting in this place. It was a very, very steep learning curve. I remember walking into my office and the first thing I looked for was a fridge. After all, I am the son of a publican and the grandson of a publican. I found the bar fridge there. You could, deadset, only fit six stubbies in it, and I thought, 'This isn't going to be good enough.' So I jumped in the car and headed off to Harvey Norman, locally here in Canberra, and I bought a massive fridge.
I was standing at the checkout, and the lady said, 'Would you like it delivered?' I said, 'Yes, please.' She said, 'Where to?' and I said, 'Parliament House.' She said, 'Whereabouts in Parliament House?' I said, 'That's a very good question.' So I Googled how to ring Parliament House. I rang the switch and I said, 'If I were to have a fridge delivered there, where would I get it delivered to?' She said, 'The loading dock.' I said, 'Okay. How do I get to the loading dock?' and she said, 'I can put you through.' So I spoke to the gentleman at the loading dock and said, 'Mate, I'm going to have a fridge delivered there this afternoon. I'm in RG-83. How do I arrange to get it moved to that office?' He said, 'Mate, I take the deliveries here but, once it lands on the loading dock, it's your responsibility.' I said, 'Well, have you got something I can put it on?' He said, 'We've got a trolley.' If I had a dollar for every fridge I've moved around in my life, I could retire tomorrow.
The first time I ran into Canberra staff—the amazing staff in Parliament House—was in the basement. I don't know if any of you've been down in the basement. It is a citadel. There are thousands of people running around the place. I went down to the loading dock, got a trolley, put the fridge on the trolley, manoeuvred down the corridor, put it in the lift, came upstairs, and I ran into Alan. Alan said to me: 'What are you doing?' I said, 'Mate, these fridges here, they're crap. I need a fridge that can handle some grog.' He said, 'Right you are. Are you okay? Can I give you a hand?' I said, 'No, I'm sweet.' I moved the fridge in, and that fridge in RG 83—that office, RG 83—became—
A government member: You didn't leave it there?
I didn't leave it there. It became the social centre of that first term. For the class of 2013, it was right opposite the party room. In other words, I brought being a publican to Canberra—something I'm so, so proud of.
When elected I only owned one suit. It was charcoal, because that was a blended colour. Why? Because I could wear it to weddings and funerals. I only had a couple of ties. In 23 years of working in my family's business, I never wore a tie. Why? Because in a punch-up, they're deadly—you grab them, they pull them down, it's uppercut central. That's where I come from. It's for that reason, with that zero background, that I want to start tonight by thanking the amazing staff here at Parliament House. I was so green it ain't funny! And they have been so, so good to me. My father, my grandfather and our family business's ethos—and, touch wood, we have been successful—is that the most valuable asset we have ever had at our disposal has been our amazing staff, and nothing could be truer of the set of the staff here at Parliament House. The clerks, David and Claressa, Pete, James, Catherine, and Bronwyn; the two guys, Stephen Boyd and Jerome Brown, I dealt with in committees that I chaired; and the amazing sergeant-at-arms staff, Rod, Lynnette, Mike and Tracy; for all the assistance you have given me over six years, I will never be able to say thank you enough.
I was elected first as a local member, and I had a ball. It was obviously a great story. It was a seat that the Labor Party had held for some 91 years. I managed to pry it from their hands and at the last election, when things didn't go so great for us in New South Wales, I managed to get returned with a swing to me, which I will never forget. But as a local member the thing that has struck me—and I've been one now for three-and-a-half of the six years—is that you can actually get stuff done locally. Some of the proudest achievements I look back—I said in my maiden speech we have a real issue in this country with multicultural aged care. We don't do enough in this space. I know that at the 2013 election, the Lakemba Mosque had been promised money for an aged-care centre and the Maronite community was promised money for an aged-care centre. Both of those still have that money sitting in their bank accounts. I managed to convince Minister Fifield to get me money for the Gallipoli Mosque at Auburn, and the Gallipoli aged-care centre has now been opened. Minister Wyatt was with me when we opened it. It is the first aged-care centre in Australia that is based in the Islamic faith. What a thrill that is, not just because of the 96 bed-licences that are in there but because that joint has become a beacon for the whole community, offering out-care right next to the mosque, so people can practise their faith. This is the part of Sydney and the part of Australia that I proudly come from.
Big projects—major infrastructure like WestConnex—down to local roads and the roundabouts on Burlington Road at Homebush: it's the scale of stuff you can actually get done for the local community. The local sports grounds—Abbotsford soccer club, Burwood soccer club, West Harbour rugby club, Strathfield Park, Cintra netball—these are all things that have been delivered through hard work and advocacy. That's not peculiar to me. It's the same as we all do in this place, giving back to our local community.
I think as a local member, the highlight for me—and it was the irony of the time I was elected—was absolutely the Centenary of Anzac celebrations. In my electorate, we used that money—as I know you all did. One of my war memorials was 105 years old—sorry, centenary; wrong way!—95 years old. The footings were gone, the tuck pointing was gone and the roof was falling down. If you walked into it today, it now looks like the Ritz and will be there for another 100 years. These are the amazing things you can deliver locally.
My ministerial journey was first as the federal minister responsible for multiculturalism. I deadset enjoyed this, given the make-up and the profile of my seat. Prime Minister Turnbull entrusted me with the role at a time—and sadly we've been dragged back into it at the moment—when we were countering violent extremism. ISIS was brand-new. It was front and centre. Islamic extremism was brand-new. The Islamic community in Western Sydney and western Melbourne felt under attack, and the solution wasn't through the Attorney-General's office or policing agencies. Yes, both communities worked hand-in-hand with them for intelligence, but it needed the soft sell.
Minister Morrison at the time, now Prime Minister Morrison, was smart enough to understand through his connections with the community that that was the place that those dollars needed to be parked and that was the place where these programs needed to be developed. That was why I was so incensed recently. I spoke to Scott. I know how much Scott has done. I know the breadth and the strength of his connections in Sydney's Islamic community. I was with him the night after Tony, you and Jase—forgive me, Mr Speaker, there'll be a lot of names without seats tonight. I was at the Lakemba Mosque with the grand mufti, Sheikh Shady, Samier Dandan and all of our friends in the Islamic community. I saw them embrace the then Minister Morrison with open arms. I heard you listen to them. I heard you speak to them. I was filthy, mate, that that's what they were focusing on when I know how much you've done for that community.
I then moved on to Industry, Innovation and Science. Christopher said it this afternoon. I was responsible for finishing off implementation of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. I had a ball. I ran into Glenys Beauchamp and her staff—sorry, I should have said before Finn Pratt and his staff in multiculturalism. Glenys Beauchamp and her staff in Industry, Innovation and Science, we had a lot of fun. That space is obviously extremely important, and we need to keep investing in it.
Then I had the absolute pleasure again in my maiden speech—and you've heard me tonight make mention of family business and my passion for it. I said to Bruce Billson in my maiden speech that I thought the Minister for Small Business, at that stage for 112 years, had been misnamed. I thought that should be the minister for small and family business. Some four years later, I received a phone call from Prime Minister Turnbull and he said, 'Mate, we need you to do a couple things, but we don't know what to call it—small business, industrial relations and deregulation.' The first thing I said was, 'Can we please call it small and family business?' It's a unique thrill to not only say something in your maiden speech and see it happen but then be the first-ever minister that this country has had for small and family business. My great hope, whoever wins the next election, is that, for the history of time to come in this country, family businesses are not forgotten because, although family businesses make get big, they are still very much run through principles that were ingrained when there were small.
I would like to say, in that time, in an economic policy, it was a real buzz, because it gave me the opportunity to drive a change in culture through a department. I would argue that, since Federation—so, today, 118 years later—I reckon we have always tended to default in this place to our regulatory cap. That's how we think; how can we regulate? I would argue that we—the government of the day, irrespective of which side—are a business partner. Depending on your ownership structure, we own between 25 and 49 per cent of that business, so the more we can to get out of the way—reduce compliance costs, make it quicker and cheaper and easier—then that line item in your profit and loss statement will decrease, the profit will increase and guess what? We clip the ticket. That will give us more revenue in the economy that we can then spend on essential services.
It was that reason that one of my greatest thrills was, when I pitched to Malcolm, 'Can I use technology to simplify the way business interacts government?' he said, 'Yes, you can.' Kelly O'Dwyer gave me permission to take some of her stuff that she was doing, and we worked with Victor Dominello in New South Wales. It used to take 18 months to open a bar, restaurant or cafe in the Parramatta LGA—local government area—in New South Wales in the country of Australia. You had to fill in and comply with 59 different forms. We asked whether we could use technology—Victor was right on board, as was Parramatta Council—and it now takes you three weeks to open the same business. That's 17 months and one week that business is hopefully doing two things: making a quid—and we clip the ticket—and paying wages, and we clip the ticket. You and I have had this discussion, Ed. And you mentioned this with policing and technology use, Michael. I hope that in our economic portfolios, especially as we do our 31 business registries, for example, in the next term of government, as we modernise and move those into this century's structure, we can have business front and centre of mind.
My favourite parts of being an MP, first and foremost, are the friendships. I'm thrilled—overwhelmed, actually—to have so many people in the chamber tonight—on both sides of the aisle. And the independents! To my mates in the class of 2013, you have been an unbelievable team. We have dinners on Monday nights. Each Monday sitting night, we've been each other's confidants; we have gathered together since day one. We lost comrades at the last election—and some are in the gallery tonight. We've all kept together and kept strong. To my mates in the Nationals—they are a very, very unusual crew but I love 'em! As the son-in-law of a cattle farmer, I've always understood them.
An opposition member: That's the prickly pear farmer!
Exactly. In terms of Christmas parties singing karaoke with Matt Canavan, Jessie's Girl is something we did every year—no problems at all. You know the drama, though? This is something Australia doesn't see enough of: it's not just friendships that I've been lucky to make on this side; it's friendships I've been lucky to make on the other side. Again, I'm so thrilled to see so many here tonight. You've become great mates. Reid, at the moment, is an island of blue in a sea of red. You will all know in your own seats that the people you most interact with are your electoral neighbours. I'm surrounded by three blokes who have become real good mates: Albo, Tony Burke—who was a year ahead of me at St Pat's at Strathfield—and Jason Clare. I would see these blokes outside of here a couple of times a week. We have worked together especially at times when parts of our communities were fractured and under pressure. We have worked together, side by side, to keep people calm on both sides of the fence, as well as locally. I want to say a special thank you to those three guys for always putting party politics aside for the sake of the community—again, something that's not seen often enough.
I want to make special mention of Jase Clare. Jase is a great mate of my family. A night before I was elected—I had not met him but he was a great friend of dad's—I got a phone call late at night from Jase. He said: 'Mate, this will be a whirlwind. Are you available for a cup of tea so I can run you through what I think you should do and how you should do it?' The measure of you, Jase, is not just that you did that but that you and I have become great mates. You, Louise and your little bloke have become our great mates.
My second part of being a local member was immigration. You win some and lose some. We all know that—especially in our part of Sydney. The wins stick with you. I had a Korean family that was 24 hours away from being deported because a migration agent had stuffed up a paper 10 years ago. They had kids in selective high school and one kid playing golf with the New South Wales under-16s females squad. That family are still here. But you also lose some—which is tough. I had a Pakistani guy full of bone cancer. We tried to get his wife and kids out of a camp in North Pakistan, basically to come and say goodbye. I lobbied the minister at the time. I offered to pick them up at the airport and make sure they got on the plane when they got home. But I knew I wouldn't win. Ultimately Suzie and I ended up buying that gentleman a one-way ticket to go home, full of medication, and, sadly, die with his family.
My two biggest wins in immigration, without doubt, as far as I see it, included the increase of 12,000 additional Syrian refugees when it really got willing over there—it's still willing, but it really got willing. The photo that Soph showed me at the time of a baby on the edge of the water, drowned, prompted me to talk to the relevant ministers and we got a result. The second one was with my great mate, the member for McMillan, who's probably here somewhere. He and I went and saw you, Scott, and suggested that it might be a good idea to get the kids off Nauru. You were good enough, mate, to do that. I see that as a great win.
My third favourite part is schoolkids. Why? Because, quite simply, they are the hope of the side. If you think God doesn't have a sense of humour, my last school visiting here is Meriden School from Strathfield, where my two daughters went. I think that's fantastic. The last of my favourite parts is citizenship ceremonies. There is the look on people's faces as they become Australian citizens. Talking to them afterwards and listening to their stories, knowing full well that that day their stories become part of our story, is a thrill.
The worst part of being an MP is simply the fact that you are away from your family and you put them last. You do. Analise, as late as December, would have her end-of-year assembly. The reality is that, in a marginal seat—and I was still up in the air—her school votes for me. There are no votes there. So I went to Concord High School's assembly, which clashed at the same time. Why? Because it's in a key swing zone of the electorate. Sadly, if there's a function or whatever that you have to go to, that's often what you end up doing.
I have a list of thank yous. Firstly, I thank Mike Baird for inspiring me, challenging me and then supporting me non-stop from day one. He's the reason I'm here. I thank John Brogdon for not talking me out of it, although he took hours trying, and then supporting me through my preselection. I thank Joe Tannous and Michael Photios for helping me with my preselection when I knew nothing of the Liberal Party. I thank Neil Harley, who spent a year as my campaign director and then four years as my chief of staff, and then got poached by Gladys Berejiklian to run her campaign two years ago. I would have argued, pre two Saturdays ago, that I always thought that he has one of the sharpest political minds that I will ever met, and I think the result Saturday week ago would pay testament to that.
I thank my FEC presidents, Sandra Blackmore and Gulian Vaccari. You have been amazing supports, as has been all the rank and file in Reid for six years. They took me on trust. I came from the outside to within and they decided to take a punt on me. I hope that I haven't let them down. Gules is also the Mayor of Strathfield and I've worked closely with him. My two state members when I came into parliament were Libs. John Sidoti is still there and was promoted last week to the ministry—so well deserved; such a good mate, my Italian brother. He and his family have been a great support. Charles Casuscelli was there from 2011 to 2015 but, sadly, lost in 2015. Charles was an amazing support through that time. His replacement, Jodi McKay, was cut from the other side of the cloth, but Jodi is a wonderful local member whom I've worked closely with to come up with local solutions. Mayors John Faker and Angelo Tsirekas are, again, Labor mayors whom I've worked with closely to deliver for local communities, as well as Mayors Ronnie Oueik and Ned Addi.
I want to say a big thank you to my former industry. In the gallery tonight we have John Whelan, Steve Ferguson, Dave Currie, Anthony Ball and Anthony Tremaci, and the clubs and pubs and the hospitality industry more broadly. There are two things. Firstly, they were amazed that I was crazy enough to want to do this, but, secondly, they never stopped supporting me. Guys, thank you very much, and I thank the industry more broadly.
To all of my staff—I have two lots, obviously: my EO staff; two vintages. The first iteration was from 2013 to 2016. I've mentioned Neil Harley. Dom Mioli is up there tonight, as are John O'Boreman and Dave Tanti. Mike Morrow came on board. Alex Lucas has been a mainstay over the six years. He's here with his parents tonight. Snaher Sebreneham and Marc Snape are amazing; they became part of the family. Welcome to family business, guys, albeit politics! The second iteration included Vanessa Papastavros, Olivia Simpson, Matt Harrington and Aaron, who runs my life. Guys and girls, thank you very much for the six years of working with me and putting up with me.
To my ministerial staff—and there are a lot of them in the building tonight to watch their old boss—Jodie, Tamsin, Jen and David: you're all amazing. Melissa couldn't be here; she's overseas. Angus is interstate. They are fantastic people.
Thank you to my friends. Manning booths is a tough gig in a marginal seat, especially with an ageing conference, and I've had friends turn out in droves. The first one wasn't too bad, because the campaign was in spring. The second one was brutal, because it was eight weeks long and in winter, but friends who believed in me and wanted to support me turned up in big numbers, and I will be eternally grateful.
Thank you to my family. They've thrown me off kilter a little, because I thought only Suz was coming today and I've ended up with two of my three kids, Soph and Charlie, and my father, Arthur—he's probably more comfortable on your side over there, guys.
Opposition members: Here, here!
And so's Johnny Whelan, by the way! Also here is my father-in-law, Paul Crowe. I spoke about them all extensively when I made my maiden speech, and my children are now—what?—six years older. Charlie is now almost 21 and Soph is 20, so they were here at 14 and 13 when I made my maiden speech. I said at the time—and if you look up at them tonight you'll see that not only was it true then; it's even more true tonight—that I'm doubly blessed: they not only take after their mum but they look like her too.
Suz, my final thankyou is to you. You were crazy enough to let me turn our life on its head. We have had some good times and some bad, but we've got through. I look forward to the challenges that we will face in the future and I'm very excited about coming home.
I wanted to close by quoting the closing paragraphs in my maiden speech. I said:
We are all ultimately a product of our upbringing and education, and I have been blessed to attend three magnificent schools. The mottos of these three schools have always been a guide to the way I have lived my life. They best capture the way I will work to repay the faith that the people of Reid have shown in me. At Santa Maria Del Monte in Strathfield it was 'Veritas', which means 'truth'. At St Patrick's College in Strathfield it was 'Luceat Lux Vestra', which means 'let your light shine'. And at St Joseph's College at Hunters Hill it was 'In Meliora Contende', which means 'strive for better things'.
In representing the people of Reid I will search out and speak the truth. I will let my light shine strongly for my constituents. And I will strive for better things for all within my community.
Mr Speaker, I'd like to think I did so without fear or favour.
I wish you, Scott, and the team all the very best. I've been blessed to serve under you as Prime Minister and under Malcolm as Prime Minister. Obviously, Malcolm is an extremely close mate, and what happened in August last year was tough. To his credit, Tony Abbott worked tirelessly to get me elected in the first place. To those of you who are prepared to write him off in the seat of Warringah: I think you can think again. I absolutely respect the guy and he's a fighter from sun-up to sundown.
I wish you all the best with whatever comes. I wish everyone in this chamber all the best. I laughed with Paul Fletcher—I don't know if Fletcher's here—not long ago in question time. There's a common complaint when you leave politics that your phone stops ringing. I looked at Fletch and said, 'If only I would have that problem.' I like good people. I've been surrounded in this place, on both sides, by good people. If I can ever be of assistance to any of you moving forward—if it's on your side it will probably be through Dad—please don't hesitate to give me a yell.
You can't go to a Laundy family function and not have karaoke; it's just a given. My father's theme song is 'My Way'. Normally he's the one that sings it. Tonight I'm borrowing it. I want to finish by saying: the record shows I took the blows, and did it my way. Thank you.
I have received the following message from the Senate:
The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Murray-Darling Royal Commission recommended that future water recovery for the environment, including the 450 GL, should be purchased through buyback, which requires repeal of the 1,500 GL cap on buybacks in section 85C of the Water Act 2007; and
(ii) the future environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin relies on additional water recovery; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to support the urgent repeal of the 1,500 GL limit on Commonwealth water purchases.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
I move:
That the House of Representatives does not concur in the resolution of the Senate.
This is why the Australian public hate politicians. For the first time since Federation, we have had agreement from the basin states in the Commonwealth on the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. When I became minister 15 months ago, I wanted to take the politics out of water. It had to be about leadership. I have to acknowledge the member for Watson, who's sitting opposite, for the leadership that he showed with me. The two million Australians that live up and down the Basin Plan are fatigued. They've had a gutful. They want certainty. The water wars needed to end. And near the end of the 45th Parliament, we sit in this chamber, this great chamber, with great history and great relevance to the Australian people, and we revert back to the politicisation of this most important piece of environmental reform. This is the biggest environmental program in our nation's history.
Instead of continuing on the pathway of bipartisanship for a plan that was created in 2012, at a point when I was not even in this parliament—as a minister who lives in an electorate that's been impacted on by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and as a member of parliament who has seen the fatigue and hurt in the lives of those people who have been impacted on by this is something that I find abhorrent—we are now standing here trying to tear down the very Basin Plan that we all agreed on. It's not a perfect plan. I acknowledge that in fact the member for Watson was the architect, but I'm delivering it. That's leadership. That is what this nation wants. That is what the Australian people want. They are sick and tired of state against state. To belittle the Australian public and to bring us into conflict, state against state, brother against brother, is something I thought this parliament was above. I thought the people within this parliament were above that. For this to be politicised for cheap political gain by a political party in South Australia that has political irrelevance—it is at the fringe of relevance in South Australia—to try to pit states against state again sets this nation back.
This is an opportunity for our nation to be led by its politicians, not torn apart. I've never yelled. I've never screamed. I've always made sure we got to this point with bipartisanship. Before I became minister, let me say, the likelihood of delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was next to zero. It took leadership, and that is what I want to continue to deliver—not to let those who want to take advantage for their own political gain in their own electorates to try to tear down something that is so important to this nation, to this nation's future and to the certainty of two million Australians.
I sat in a small country town in my own electorate and I held in my arms a 68-year-old man whose town has basically been decimated by buy-backs. He owned a small business. He owned a small business that was his superannuation. After 40 years, that business was worth nothing. This man was beside himself. He told me he had nothing to live for. He had nothing left. For a South Australian senator to try to tear away that man's future, that man's certainty, to gain a political point in this place, to bring the parliament of this nation down, is something we should never be proud of. You should never be proud of that.
This isn't a perfect plan. There's been pain up and down the basin. We all acknowledge that. But let me tell you: if you tear away at this, you will have nothing. For those from South Australia, let me tell you: we've recovered approximately 2,100 gigs. If you want to tear away at this plan now, that'll be it. That's all you'll get. The reality is that, unless we have the basin states with us, we won't deliver the plan. So your motion is more about politics than reality. It would be easy for me as a Queenslander, as someone who represents nearly all of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Queensland, to sit here and say, 'No more; let's tear it apart.' I could do that. But do you know what? That's not the right thing to do. That's not the right thing to do by those people in Queensland. It's not the right thing to do by anybody. We're above this.
What you would invariably do is put at risk this fragile peace that has taken so long to achieve, with hard work and with leadership, not only from the federal level and from those on the other side but also from state ministers. For the first time we have had state ministers from all political persuasions agree with the management of this plan. That took courage. That took leadership. I said to those ministers when we got through the Northern Basin Review, the sustainable diversion limits and the 450 gigalitres of up water: 'We have to take a leap of faith with one another. We have to trust one another. For the first time since Federation, we have to take each other's hands and we have to lead.' They did. And now you want to tear it apart. That's something none of us should be proud of. I thought this place was better than that. I thought that we could continue on the pathway of a plan that's not perfect but is one that would deliver outcomes. We had leadership from the states that understood clearly that they had to look outside their state boundaries, and they have. I need to acknowledge former New South Wales water minister Niall Blair for his leadership. It was so easy for the parochialism of each state to stand tall and to call each other names so that the plan didn't progress. It took real leadership and courage for him to stand tall with Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the ACT and say, 'We've had enough.' That's what we are here to do—to lead. Niall Blair led. So did Lisa Neville. She lead and so too did David Speirs, the South Australian minister. He could easily be doing what those from the Centre Alliance are trying to do today to try to gain a cheap political point. He could walk out in front of the Adelaide media and say that he stood up for South Australia and he's going to work for South Australia at the expense of all other states. But he didn't. He showed leadership—not a cheap political stunt.
I have to say that David Speirs is one of the most courageous politicians I've seen. He didn't have to come in on any of this. He could have continued on the journey that Ian Hunter was on and was committed to, but instead he thought about the delivery of the plan. It wasn't just about getting as much water across the barrage. More importantly for him, it was also about the environmental benefits up and down the basin. The blunt instrument that we've created in everyone's mind is that to make the plan work we have to get as much water across the barrage as we possibly can. It's not. There is an enormous number of ecosystems up and down the basin that we are getting environmental outcomes on. It's not just a blunt instrument—not just a cheap political instrument to try to win some points when coming up to an election.
As the member for Murray will testify, I could have gone out only two weeks ago and stood in front of a hundred angry irrigators who were baying for blood and asking for the plan to pause. I could have gone with the pack. I could have said to them 'I'm with you. Let's pause the plan and break it up.' But I didn't. The easiest thing for me to do was to fly in there and tell them what they wanted to hear and then never see them again. Instead, I looked them in the eye and told them the truth. I didn't play games—I told them the truth. This plan hurts me; it hurts my people. That 68-year-old man is still hurting—that man who lives in Western Queensland and worries about his future. I could have done the easy thing. I could have walked away and said, 'You know what? I'm going to blow it up.' But that's not the right thing to do. That's not the right thing for any of us to do. The right thing to do is to stick the course, as ugly as it is, as hard as it is. That's our job as leaders of this nation: to lead the nation and not divide it.
What is proposed tonight will be a step back from the cliff that we were about to fall over before we came to a bipartisan approach to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, on 7 May last year. We instigated a northern review and the sustainable diversion limit—in fact, a world first in our nation's history of a $40 million Indigenous fund. I sat in St George last week with the elders. Ronnie Waters, a great mate of mine, is a great Indigenous elder in St George, a man who cares about his community and cares about his culture. He understands the economic impacts for his people in St George if we continue down the path of destroying this plan. He's had enough. His people have lost opportunities. But the member for Watson and I were able to get to a point where we brought our First Australians with us—and rightly so. They'd been forgotten in this plan.
You tear away the $40 million economic plan we have also put in place. If one state falls out of this, the whole thing dominoes. To anyone who says that doesn't happen: let me tell you, it does. I've faced those ministers. I understand the parochialism. We hold this by a thread because of the leadership that we have shown. It's important that we don't blink. As soon as we blink, as soon as we allow politics to creep back into this, we bring back uncertainty and we destroy the lives, again, of two million Australians who expect us to lead. They pay us to lead, to come into this place and work for outcomes, not for our own political glory.
The greatest achievement I think I'll ever make in my life is to get the Northern Basin Review through—the sustainable diversion limit and the 450 neutrality test—because those two million Australians expect it. No matter what else I've achieved, I've achieved that. I can go back and sit in the shop of that 68-year-old man, and look him in the eye and tell him that I led for him. There are more like him right up and down the basin. There's a whole generation that we owe it to to continue the path—not only the ones that are there now but the next ones to come.
We will continue to divide this nation if we do not use this as a defining moment to continue to come together as a nation and push away the fringe elements that want to destroy it, that want to tear away at the very fabric of what is so great about this nation. When we look down Anzac Avenue and see that memorial to what those brave men and women have fought for, we should respect it in this place. We should respect it by delivering certainty and by giving outcomes. We're a great nation. But, if we continue to tear each other apart to win a vote, then, I'm sorry, we tear away at this nation; we tear away at what we are and what we've become. I say to each and every one of you here tonight: we have an opportunity to lead or divide.
I've been clear. I've got to look my people in the eye. I've been honest with them every step of the way. You need to look them in the eye and be honest. It's not a perfect plan. I acknowledge the work the member for Watson has put into this. He's the architect. It's a legacy that he will leave. It's a legacy I want to leave because I've delivered it, as imperfect as it is to that 68-year-old man who sits out in western Queensland tonight, scared about his livelihood and his future. He's important. He's as important as any other Australian in this country. If we don't lead tonight, then we've let him and everyone else down.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words—
"the House concurs in the resolution of the Senate".
I acknowledge the member for Mayo as the seconder, which, obviously, will happen at the conclusion of my speech. This has come from the Senate and was originally moved by members of Centre Alliance, by her party.
I should, after what the minister just said, explain what the resolution actually says. The resolution, first of all, notes a finding from the royal commission that I don't agree with. This particular recommendation is one that would, in fact, undo the original agreement of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; that is, that the additional 450 gigalitres be achieved through general tender buyback. A lot of people will say that that is the most efficient way to get the water, and my original premise that I took to the negotiations when they took place was for that water to be attained through buyback. The exact people who the minister referred to as the people we need to be listening to are the people who persuaded me, including the state ministers at the time, that additional water of that nature should be obtained through on-farm infrastructure projects. That's how that water should be obtained. This resolution simply notes that recommendation. If it asked the parliament to back that recommendation, I'd be recommending that we vote against it because it would be a breach of the agreement and it would be a breach of the plan. But it doesn't ask that; it simply notes that recommendation. What the resolution before us does ask the parliament to endorse is a call on the federal government to support the urgent repeal of the cap on buyback—the 1,500 gigalitre limit on buyback.
First of all, I say this: when the minister said, 'For the first time we now have agreement between the states on how the plan should be implemented,' that was not strictly true. We had agreement when the plan was introduced. That agreement disappeared for a period while the member for New England was the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The minister at the table has worked very hard, to his great credit, to get agreement back on track with the states and across the aisle. I pay tribute to him for that. But it is untrue to say that now is the first time that we've had that sort of agreement; it's not. But it did have to be retrieved, and he's done that work. The reason I say that is not, 'Here's a bit of rhetoric; let's have an argument about it.' It's for this reason: when the original agreement for the plan was put in place, there was no cap on buyback. The cap on buyback was introduced as an election commitment designed by the member for New England, the very person who caused the whole thing to almost collapse. So I don't accept that a promise made by the person who tried so actively to undo the whole plan can be seen as something that is integral to holding the whole thing together. I can't logically accept that.
The second thing is: what does a cap on buyback mean? When the cap on buyback first went through, the government had just been elected and they had a mandate for it. We didn't oppose it in the Senate on the basis that where it was set was above where the take was expected to get to anyway, so the cap on buyback was something that had a rhetorical value but didn't in fact have any impact in substance. Since that time we've had two amendments to the plan which were within the parameters of the original agreement. It was said there would be a Northern Basin Review and it was said that there would be things called supply measures which would bring the numbers down. The Northern Basin Review came back with numbers that I didn't like, that I never expected, but they came from the independent authority and were within the parameters of the original agreement, so we agreed for them to go through a negotiation with the minister. The supply measures give a 605 gigalitre reduction in the total amount, and there is some doubt as to the extent to which those supply measures will be fully realised.
Now, here is the catch, and this is where the cap on buyback becomes a real issue that will hit the plan in the next few years. If there is a cap on buyback, the states will know they don't have to go hard on delivering the supply measures they put forward because they have this seatbelt that says, 'If you don't actually deliver, not much can happen under the plan anyway because there's a cap on buyback.' If the cap is removed, we may well find that we never needed to use it anyway because the pressure will be on the states to deliver those supply measures. That's what will happen because they will know full well that if they don't deliver, buyback becomes a live option. What incentive is there on the states other than how much Commonwealth money they get to take if they know, whether or not they deliver the supply measures, the Commonwealth has no recourse because there's a statutory limit on buyback?
All of this has a real outcome. The reason the numbers were allowed to be reduced is because supply measures provide effective ways of delivering under the plan equivalent environmental outcomes using less water. They provide the exact sort of outcomes the minister was saying we should be able to do to listen to the communities. Whether they're fully delivered or not matters. The reason we need them to be fully delivered is that they go to the health of the basin. We need to get right back to first principles here. Why did the Keating government set up a ministerial council? Why did the Howard government put the Water Act in place? Why did the Gillard government put in place a Murray-Darling Basin Plan? Why, under the Turnbull government, did this minister work so hard to keep it alive?
The reason is that the major river system on our continent is at risk of collapse. There are no jobs on dead rivers. If you have ecological collapse, the communities don't get their agriculture water and they don't get their drinking water and you get all the knock-on impacts from that. If you think ecological collapse is an exaggeration then look at the summer we've just had. The need for the plan to be fully delivered is real.
This cap now creates a disincentive for the states to deliver those supply measures. So, please, don't come in here and argue that this is an attempt to have buyback all over the place, because the plan doesn't allow that. I've ruled that out. And, with respect to the 450 gigalitres, the plan doesn't allow a drop of that 450 gigalitres to be through general tender buyback. Those supply measures will only be delivered if the states have an incentive to deliver them. If they don't deliver them and there's a cap on buyback, the river will just take the cut and the ecological collapse that we saw over summer will become an annual event. Don't think it can't happen, because we've watched the beginnings of it happen. This is no ordinary drought. The in-flows are dropping and, as the in-flows to the basin are dropping, the extent to which what once was simply an overallocation now becomes an overextraction that imperils the future of the rivers.
I won't accept the argument that somehow by keeping to the original plan we're playing a political game. I can't accept that. Ultimately, no matter how we negotiate back and forth across the aisle, the rivers have commenced negotiating back, and they are the most uncompromising of all. So I urge members to vote for the amendment that I've moved and the member for Mayo will second, even if you hope that total buyback never goes beyond where the current cap is. By removing the cap you guarantee that the supply projects will happen. I know people will go to their electorates and will want to run a different argument, but this plan was put in place to make sure that the rivers are restored to health and that it's done in a way that works with communities. The cap on buyback is the one part of this that was nothing more than an election commitment concocted by the member for New England.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment. The most economically efficient way for the federal government to help the river is to return more water to the system through water buybacks. This is more efficient than infrastructure or efficiency spends. The water buyback cap was put in place by this government. It was not part of the original plan and it should be removed. Why shouldn't a small irrigator be able to sell to whomever they want? Over here, you talk about free market all the time. That is a free market. If they want to sell their water allocation to the government and benefit the river, why should we, in this place, stand in their way? Is it because the large irrigators are saying one thing to government? Well, I think so. It does not suit their interests but it does suit the river. This government, as I think we've seen, does not care about the little guys any more. It certainly doesn't care about the end of the river, the most vulnerable part of the river.
The minister wants us to stop talking about politics. That's fine; let's talk about science. That is something we don't talk about enough in here. The Australian Academy of Science rereleased a detailed report on the Menindee fish kills—the investigation of the causes of the fish kills in the Menindee region, New South Wales, over the summer of 2018-19. I tabled this report in the House in February this year. A key recommendation of the academy's expert panel was that the government should:
Return to the intent of the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan to avoid increasing risks of more fish kills and other environmental problems for the Darling River.
Now, the minister and his government cannot cherrypick which parts of science they want to follow. You need to follow the science as it is, and this was the expert panel's position:
Repeal the cap on 1500 GL on water buybacks … from willing irrigators to recover water at the least cost to taxpayers, and fund additional infrastructure, constraint and supply projects, only where independent reviews find with high confidence that they provide required hydrological, ecological, cultural and economic benefits.
The Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission provides yet more evidence that repealing the water buybacks is an urgent and necessary step. Recommendation 8 from the royal commission says:
Future water recovery for the environment, including the 450 GL, should be purchased through buyback. This requires repeal of the 1500 GL cap on buybacks in sec 85C of the Water Act.
I remind the minister: the cap was not there in the original plan in 2012; it was part of the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources', the member for New England's, thought bubbles. It was not there in the original plan. So let's be very clear as to what was in the original plan and then what was distorted by this government.
The coalition are governing the Murray just like they govern their parties—for short-term, vested political interest, and not for the long-term benefit of this country as a whole. So I conclude with a question that I will leave hanging in the air: when will this government govern for the long-term benefit of all communities that rely on the Murray—not just the ones in their National Party seats, not just the ones in the eastern states, but actually the whole river and the most vulnerable part of the river? I call on every South Australian MP in this place—and particularly the member for Barker, who has a large section of the river, and the members for Sturt and Boothby—to vote for your state and what your state needs and not for your party. Every single South Australian will be watching how you vote today. Vote for the science, not for the politics.
The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved an amendment. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'That the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendments be agreed to.
When a piece of public policy is tolerated at best and hated at worst in the entire area of its application, that should signal to the parliament responsible for that policy that something is wrong. A perfect example is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Go anywhere in the basin, and anyone who is affected directly as to their livelihood, their business, their family or their community by this plan tolerates it at best and hates it at worst.
I don't care about some no-name senator coming up with a no-name motion about water buyback. What I care about is the media release put out by the member for Watson only five days ago and the ensuing change to Labor Party policy on what, as our minister has just enunciated, was clearly bipartisan. So the media release that Labor has put out says:
LABOR IS COMMITTED TO RESTORING THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN …
Two changes made by the coalition are going to be undone, it says. One is the cap on buybacks and the second is:
… a change to the socio-economic definition for delivering the 450GL of water for the environment.
So those two things have now been picked up by Labor as a change in their policy.
I think there was some very clever speaking just now by the member for Watson. I think what you could have said, Member for Watson, is that you are walking away from your bipartisan approach, because the two things that you have said you are changing were subject to passage through this parliament. You agreed to them. They went through this parliament in 2012.
The letter I have here was written to me by the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Many members of this House have changed, but I've been here for this journey all along. I know the history. I've lived and breathed it and my communities have hurt more than any other group of communities in the country when it comes to water policy. This letter from Tony Abbott clearly said: 'We will implement the triple bottom line'—we've always said that; we've maintained it all the way through—'of the cap on buy-backs of 1,500 gigalitres, the 450 gigs and the socioeconomic test.' The member for Flinders as environment minister then spoke about it in the House in the debate on the Water Amendment (Water for the Environment Special Account) Bill 2012. It was agreed to by Labor. It went through the parliament and actually changed the socioeconomic test. That was the only reason that we agreed to it. They were the conditions that we signed up to it, because we knew how much it would hurt farmers. We knew it was a piece of politicking by South Australia to add the 450 gigs. It's physically impossible to deliver. Everyone on the southern basin actually understands that. But we agreed to it with these careful tests. They were secured and confirmed by the minister and the ministerial council in December last year at MinCo. So everyone, all the basin states, were on board with this. Only last week, as we lead into the pre-election period, did Labor change their mind.
So I come back to the plan itself and the awful reality that my constituents now face if there's a change of government. For them, it will go back to what we all call the bad old days of buyback. That's because the buyback was completely nonstrategic. It was completely haphazard. It divided communities, it divided irrigators and, as the minister said, it divided the country. What Labor have told us they will do is go back to buyback and scrub the neutrality test on the 450 gigs. That is absolutely, totally unacceptable. I really want to appeal to the crossbench. Obviously we're locking in behind our teams here on this message from the Senate, but it's the crossbench that holds the key to this. I appeal to my colleague the member for Indi, because she knows what damage this has done and she knows how much these communities have been hurt. She's very familiar with them. She's a person who cares about farming. I understand the member for Mayo has seconded this bill and I understand the member for Melbourne will lock in behind the Greens but, for the rest of us, if this 450 gigalitres is undone in the way it's recovered, the water will come from my electorate and the member for Murray's electorate. For us to confront our communities that are on their knees right now and actually say to them that we have an opposition in Canberra, potentially the government, that will come back into our communities to recover upwards of 200 gigalitres, if you combine our two electorates, and buy that back we may as well lock the door, turn out the lights and forget about the future. We have almost turned the food bowl of Australia into a dust bowl as it is.
For the member for Watson to talk about how this is good for communities and how this will work for communities is absolute nonsense. Walk down the main street of Finley. Look at the number of shops that have closed. Go to the high school. Talk to the kids. Listen to the stories. Understand that farmers are watching what is notionally a healthy river run straight past their doorstep, taking the water past their region. Their allocation is zero. That's right—zero. We have to accept that the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder know exactly what they're doing with all this environmental water. Not one drop was able to be borrowed by irrigators through a sensible proposal I put forward last year to allow them to finish growing their winter crops and grow food to feed the rest of the country that was struggling with drought.
These rivers are flooding. It is physically impossible to deliver this water down to the bottom end of the basin. But people all over Australia think they're experts on this subject. Lots of people come in here who have no idea of the reality of life. They have no idea how we have effectively said to some of the best, youngest, smartest, most innovative and efficient farmers in the country, 'Actually, don't worry about your future in farming because it won't exist under a Labor government.' It won't exist if you, the opposition, become the government in Canberra, because turning your back on the Basin Plan at five minutes to midnight—just before an election—is absolutely pure politics.
As the minister said, this is not easy. I am just hanging in there. At one stage I said to the New South Wales minister, 'I think it might be time to exit the Basin Plan.' That was before we secured the northern basin disallowance agreement and we sorted that problem out. Before then, the states were the gatekeepers. What's Labor saying? They're creating enemies of the states in their conversation in the House today. They're saying, 'The states won't do the right thing.' The states are doing the right thing. They're looking after their people. They're standing behind their farmers. At the moment, they are the only thing between this Labor Party and decimation.
This is a piece of public policy that is tolerated at best and hated at worst all across the basin. This is so not just in my patch; it is all across the basin. Surely, that sounds an alarm in this parliament that something needs to be done differently. Where are we now? Yes, I accept the plan is a framework. Yes, I'm just hanging in there, along with most of my community. But what I do know is that it needs flexibility. It needs to have the ability to change the rules. It needs a smart assessment—an examination of water allocations and entitlements that actually proves the viability and the value of irrigated agriculture and our need to have and introduce that flexibility so those communities can say, 'Yes, we're valued by the parliament of Australia. Yes, we're valued by everyone who sits in this place.'
I cannot overstate what I see as the huge risk in the Labor Party in government owning this policy. They're not going to get there; we're going to get there. But people have to think about this very, very carefully and really consider how hard it's going to be for our farming families, their children and their future if this policy passes. This policy crept into the parliament by way of an independent senator but was seriously backed up by a release put out by Labor last week that they're not really talking about. But don't worry, it has been heard loud and clear across my electorate. It's a release that actually says they will remove the cap on buyback and restore the original socioeconomic definition for delivering the 450 gigalitres to the system. Not only that, they're moving the Murray-Darling Basin Authority compliance functions to the EPA and having an urgent review of climate change impacts on the basin, which, from my point of view and that of my community, is an excuse to get in there and suddenly say the plan's not working, we have to change it, we have to find more water and we have to do these things.
There is all this expertise but none of the hard, practical understanding of talking, listening and learning. Anyone anywhere is welcome to come and speak to my people. Understand the situation and think very, very carefully before you take the actions that it looks like you're going to take.
The original question was that the motion be agreed to. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved an amendment. The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Watson be agreed to.
The question is that the motion moved by Mr Littleproud be agreed to.
The result of the division is ayes 72, noes 72.
Honourable members interjecting—
It's not that perplexing. I didn't think I would have another casting vote. As with amendments, under the principles that members would accept, I need to leave motions in their current form, so, therefore, I cast my vote with the ayes. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business; I'm happy to.
Mr Speaker, I'm seeking for you to clarify; I'm basing this on previous public statements you've made about how you would use the casting vote. The public statements that you have made about how you would use the casting vote said that, for example, in a second reading motion you would always cast with the ayes, because the principle is to allow for further debate, but for a third reading, for example, or for a motion, you would not use the casting vote to make a final decision that the House had not otherwise made. On this occasion, we have a decision of the House as to whether or not we have concurrence with the Senate. We don't have a procedural motion. We have a formal decision of the House. I put to you, Mr Speaker, in terms of what you have previously said on how you would use your casting vote, that: this is not a moment where it allows further debate; it is not the ordinary procedural motion that you might otherwise refer to; it is, in fact, a decision of the House. It would be different from precedent and a different use of the casting vote certainly to what you had said publicly you would use it for, if the casting vote becomes the reason that the House forms a view on a policy issue.
I'll hear from the Leader of the House. Just before I do: obviously, sometimes, the principles somewhat conflict. I was obviously giving it consideration. On this occasion my understanding is that the minister had moved that the Senate message not be agreed to. We've dealt with the amendment. I'll hear from the Leader of the House. I think the Manager of Opposition Business has made a point worth considering.
On the points that have been made by the Manager of Opposition Business and by yourself, the position you've previously taken publicly and in this building was that you wouldn't use your casting vote on precedent to change anything. The difficulty with using your casting vote to vote 'no' on this occasion would be that we would actually change something, because the message from the Senate would then become a government decision, or a policy of the House of Representatives. You'd be using your casting vote to make an action occur, and you've said previously that you wouldn't do so—that you would leave things as they are. The only way to leave things as they are is to cast your vote with the ayes. Otherwise, you would be accepting a message from the Senate, which would be an action—a changing motion. Therefore, I agree with your decision to vote with the ayes and to use your casting vote with the ayes.
Mr Burke interjecting—
I think, Manager of Opposition Business, I'm reconsidering, based on—the proposition is this: there are three propositions. I don't think we need to go through them all. The final question was that the message from the Senate not be agreed to. There are a number of propositions there. One is to allow debate to continue, that's true. Having reflected on it and having listened to the Manager of Opposition Business, I do think that, on reflection, I should cast my vote with the noes, because I shouldn't vote to create a majority on an issue when a majority doesn't exist. I will cast my vote that way, having reflected on it. Where that leaves us is that the minister's motion has not been agreed to. I'll cast my vote with the noes. I think that is consistent with what I've done in the past, although I hope I have the forbearance of members, given the nature of the motion and the amendment, that my initial reaction was to cast it with the yes, but I think that is right—I think I should cast it with the noes—and at this late hour I don't want to be being inconsistent. I really don't. That's my position.
The House now suspends?
No. We've got—would you believe it?—a committee report.
I seek leave to table reports of the Standing Committee on Economics and to make a short address.
Leave granted.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the following reports together with the minutes of proceedings: Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2018 (First report); Report on the inquiry into impediments to business investment, incorporating a dissenting report; and Report on the inquiry into the implications of removing refundable franking credits, incorporating a dissenting report.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Very important.
A very important topic, thank you, Treasurer.
My mother, Pat, is 97 years old. She's housebound, frail and suffers dementia. My father's a bit younger—he's 92 years old. He's a semiretired medical practitioner, but he doesn't earn enough to contribute to the family budget.
… … …
In the 2017 financial year my mother's net return was $27,000, of which $7,500 was franking credits. Without the refund from franking credits their income would reduce to only $19,000 per annum.
Those are the words of Mr Hughes, who, from our first hearing in Sydney, set the tone of this inquiry.
On 19 September 2018, the Treasurer, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg, referred to the committee an inquiry into the removal of refundable franking credits. The Treasurer asked the committee to enquire into and report on the implications of removing refundable franking credits and, in particular, the stress and complexity it will cause Australians, including older Australians who will be impacted in their retirement. I'm proud that, despite the noise around this inquiry at every point and the attempts by many people to shut it down, the focus of this inquiry has remained where it belongs: to give voice to the people who are affected by this policy.
Despite the calls by the shadow Treasurer in January of this year that this inquiry was an abuse, this is clearly not the view of many Australians. The public response to this inquiry was extraordinary. The committee held a series of 19 public hearings across the continent to allow Australians to have a say in light of a policy proposed to be introduced on 1 July 2019. These hearings were incredibly well attended. At many other public hearings we might be lucky to have a handful of members of the public. At these hearings the number often exceeded 300 people, and sometimes nearly 500. A total of 1,770 submissions were published and many more documents were received, and we simply ran out of time and the resources to be able to process them all for publication. I want to thank every single person who contributed to this inquiry for their courage. It takes a lot of courage to go on the public record and tell your private story about your own private circumstances and your own private financial affairs. But the reality is the people who did, had to.
While the participation in the inquiry was high, worryingly, the evidence suggests that many people at risk of being impacted from a policy change are unaware of the proposal that could result in them losing a third of their income. The risk is particularly concerning when many retirees in Australia live outside of capital cities and are at a vulnerable stage of their life—people like Ms Paull, who, at the Upper Coomera hearings, said:
My husband and I are both in our 70s and we're self-funded retirees. I belong to that era when females had to resign from the workplace when they married.
… …
My annual income is so low that I do not pay tax on my dividends, and I receive the full franking credit as a cash refund.
My remember asking, as the chair: 'Does that mean that you earn less than the tax-free threshold of $18,200?' The answer was yes. She continued:
My husband is 78 years old and is in remission from cancer, and has recently developed heart issues. So those out-of-pocket health expenses are now running in the thousands. If we lose a third of my income, which will be approximately $6,000 a year, under Labor's proposal to deny cash rebates for franking credits to low-income and retired shareholders—which I am—we'll have to seriously consider giving up hospital health insurance …
While the public discussions surround the abolition of refundable franking credits has focused primarily on retirees, the committee heard evidence of others who need certainty in their lives and are at risk. These include mothers who have taken a break from employment to have children, those earning below the tax-free threshold and people with a disability with ageing parents who have share income to maintain independent living.
Sometimes people spoke for those who couldn't. In Chatswood, Ms Truelove represented her mother and said:
I'm just going to talk about my mother. I have a mother who is 101 years old. She still lives independently, and one of the reasons why is she can't afford to do otherwise. My mother was brought up on a farm; we have a family farm that was in my father's family. They first settled there in about 1870. My brother has been running the farm. Unfortunately, through drought, a fire that burnt 90 per cent of the farm and some mismanagement, there was a huge debt of $1.3 million on the farm. It was in my brother's name, which meant that the land got sold and the debt was paid. But the debt still stands in my brother's name as an asset to my mother, so she cannot get the pension. She is very talented in terms of what she does with her money. She learnt to invest in shares. Up until a few years ago, she bought and sold a few shares, and she has lived on around $120,000 worth of assets that she's bought and sold.
Her income last year was $6,600. Her franking credits were $1,900—I did her tax for her. That is about to be taken away, should the Labor Party get into power. That money pays for her private health fund. She rents an apartment that costs her $100 a week.
It's simply despicable that such a fiercely proud family would be pushed down the financial stairs by this policy. They are attacking Australians' sacrifice, they are attacking their security and they are attacking their dignity.'
It's against this evidence that the committee has completed the inquiry. The committee has considered the case for removing refundable franking credits and is of the view that the policy is inequitable and deeply flawed. Franking credits play an important role in Australia's tax dividend imputation system. Franking credits are attached to an imputed tax to the individual, to stop double taxation. They are stated on an individual's tax assessment notice as withheld tax and are used to assess an individual's taxable income at the end of the financial year and for access to other benefits, such as healthcare cards. Franking credits are only received when tax is paid, and their abolition for refundability while still being considered as part of a taxable income is poor tax policy and discriminates between taxpayers.
Those who have made their voice heard put worrying stories to the inquiry, and I've already read some. Many affected retirees spoke of anxiety from the fear of losing a third of their income. There is Karen's story of exhausting and soul-destroying stress, and we heard regularly about people for whom the simple existence of breaking apart the bipartisan consensus is causing anxiety and stress. Others raised concerns that abolishing refundable franking credits would compound the legacy of the gender pay gap. There was Margaret's story of historic sexism, and how too many people making decisions for us are totally unaware of our history and our lives.
Then there were the straight stories of financial hardship. There was Michael's story of medical challenges and how the removal of refundable franking credits would cause him considerable hardship. In particular, abolishing refundable franking credits would unfairly hit people of modest incomes who have already retired and who are unlikely to be able to return to the workforce to make up the income they will lose. In her submission, Barbara from South Australia said: 'I have been a Labor voter most of my life, however I could not vote for a Labor Party proposing these changes. Almost 10 years ago I took time off work for the South Australian government and an accident almost killed me, causing paralysis. I never worked again, and after a successful public liability lawsuit I received a settlement. If my funds were invested well, the majority of my disability expenses were covered. However, the proposed changes by the Labor Party jeopardise my ability to do this.'
The abolition of refundable franking credits will force many people who have saved throughout their whole lives to be independent onto the age pension. Of course, this undermines any stated objective that it may raise revenue and reduce the dependence on taxpayers resulting from an ageing population.
Some have argued that the intention to scrap refundable franking credits is designed to tax the wealthy. This, of course, is a deeply unfair characterisation of the 900,000-odd Australians who are going to be affected by losing up to a third of their income. It also does not take account of the introduction of the transfer balance cap in the 2017-18 financial year, which of course means there will now be, ridiculously, an effective 30 per cent tax rate for many Australian retirees unless they're uber rich—then, they get a 15 per cent tax rate.
Abolition of refundable franking credits is fundamentally regressive. Australia has a tax-free threshold of $18,200 for workers, and yet its abolition of refundable franking credits would apply an effective 30 per cent tax rate from the first dollar earned. The fact-free dehumanisation of franking credit recipients has made it easy to dismiss the concerns of those impacted. The Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System claims that in 2014-15 over half of those receiving cash refunds for their franking credits had incomes below the $18,201 tax-free threshold, and 96 per cent had taxable incomes of less than $87,000. These Australians are hardly high-income earners and yet they stand to lose up to a third of their income overnight.
Such a policy discriminates against retirees and self-managed super funds in favour of members of APRA regulated industry and retail superannuation funds, and those eligible to receive a part or full age pension before 28 March 2018. Labor has protected their union mates at the expense of those people who have done the right thing. We know this because the shadow Treasurer himself said to those who complained and raised concerns, 'Go and vote for someone else.' This policy may also reduce the value of some Australian shares and reduce investment in Australian companies. A range of submitters were concerned about the need to rearrange their investments and to reduce spending, particularly on private health insurance and charitable donations. The committee is concerned that these serious policy implications have not been addressed in any proposal that is sought to be implemented.
In consideration of the evidence received during this inquiry, the committee strongly recommends against the removal of refundable franking credits. Any policy that could reduce Australian retirees' incomes by up to a third should be considered as part of an equitable package for comprehensive tax reform. A government that seeks to steal the overpaid tax of Australians does not deserve office. A parliamentarian that looks at citizens and their overpaid tax as ATMs does not have a right in this place.
Finally, I want to conclude by thanking the secretariat. This inquiry has been extensive. We have held a number of hearings, and it has at times been quite difficult to manage. There have been many attempts to shut it down. The burden has fallen on the secretariat to act impartially and with cool heads, and they have done so. Despite the nefarious attempts, the secretariat staff have ensured the legitimacy of this report stays intact, because it simply gives voice to the Australian people impacted by the proposals considered. My particular thanks go to Stephen Boyd and John White, who spent a lot of time travelling around the country with us. This inquiry was not easy, because we had to channel the rage of thousands of Australians who simply wanted a voice about the impacts on them of losing a third of their income on 1 July if there is a policy change. I am proud to say we have given them that voice. With sorrow, I table the report.
by leave, this inquiry has been a farce from the outset. The usual role of the Economics Committee is to scrutinise government legislation and to hear the views of the Australian public and offer amendments to the House of Representatives. But, because this government is devoid of any economic policies or economic plan of their own, it decided to look into an opposition policy. That's fine, but the manner in which the government, the Treasurer and the coalition members of this committee have run this inquiry is an unprecedented abuse of parliamentary process and committee processes and undermines the standing of the Economics Committee in the community.
The procedure that the chair established when this inquiry started was for his own website to be set up to take submissions. His website had an official look; it had a coat of arms and it said that it was authorised by the Chair of the Standing Committee on Economics. But then it had articles on that website attacking the Labor Party, our policy and Kerryn Phelps. If you put a submission in to the House of Representatives Economics Committee through that website, it was a pre-filled-out submission. All you had to do was add your name, and that was a submission to the House of Representatives Economics Committee. This means that roughly a thousand of the submissions to this inquiry were written by the chair, the member for Goldstein. They weren't written by members of the Australian public; they were written by the chair! And then, as a condition of submitting your views to the inquiry, you were asked to tick a box to say that you would sign a Liberal Party petition against Labor's policy—an unprecedented abuse of parliamentary process.
Then we found out that the website was partially funded by Wilson Asset Management, a company that has a vested interest in ensuring that Labor's policy does not get up. We then found out that Geoff Wilson, the principal of Wilson Asset Management, colluded with the chair about establishing the inquiry and the dates and venues at which it occurred to make sure that they could get some of their investors, who had a vested interest in seeing this policy go down, to turn up to the hearings. And the hearings just happened to coincide with investor meetings of Wilson Asset Management. Then, after the first hearing of this inquiry and after Wilson Asset Management had appeared before the committee, we found out that the member for Goldstein, the chair of the inquiry, has shares in Wilson Asset Management. The member for Goldstein, the chair of this inquiry, has a vested interest, a financial interest, in seeing this policy go down.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Member for Goldstein!
What a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege by the member for Goldstein!
When the hearings began, they treated the hearings of the committee like a Liberal Party branch meeting. When we went to the hearings, we had Liberal Party election posters at the front of the venues. When we were in Queensland, the member for Fisher gave evidence to the committee and then encouraged members of the crowd to sign up to the Liberal-National Party. After the members of the crowd had all stopped laughing, he went around the room handing out Liberal Party membership forms. Mr Deputy Speaker, I might remind you that this was an official hearing of the House of Representatives Economics Committee.
In the ultimate insult to the integrity of the House of Representatives Economics Committee, the member for Mackellar over there held a fundraiser after one of the hearings, and guess who he invited to speak. The member for Goldstein!
On a point of order: he has misled the House. His statement is not true. I did not hold a fundraiser after a hearing. He is misleading the House and he should withdraw and apologise for that remark. It is unparliamentary and he knows better.
The member for Mackellar has made his point of order. For the smoothness of the House, I ask the member for Kingsford Smith to withdraw.
I withdraw.
Thank you.
Because of the behaviour of LNP members, naturally many members of the public were outraged. They were outraged at the conduct of the government members on the House of Representatives Economics Committee and the abuse of taxpayers' dollars. So many members of the public wrote to the committee. They sent emails and letters expressing their disgust at the procedure of the House of Representatives Economics Committee. Two of them were former members of the House of Representatives. We had a meeting of the House of Representatives Economics Committee a month ago and I moved a motion that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, the letters from members of the public be published, that the letters be put on the website of the committee. The committee voted, and the committee voted for all. Obviously, Labor and Greens members voted in support of publishing the letters and the coalition members voted against it. The chair used his casting vote to deny publication of those letters. So much for freedom, boys; so much for transparency and accountability. The chair, in one of the hearings, said:
... many of you know that I'm quite hardline on defending free speech and I won't back down ...
Hollow words.
Labor's policy is fiscally responsible. It's an approach to ensuring that you are closing tax loopholes that overwhelmingly benefit the well-off in this country, so we deal with the structural challenges that the budget is facing—namely, the ageing of the population. As the population ages, the need for health and aged-care services increases. We have 120,000 Australians on a waiting list for aged-care places in this country.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The member for Mackellar is warned!
We've had a Medicare rebate freeze for the last six years. We've had cuts to hospitals and cuts to school funding. If we're going to ensure that the budget is sustainable and that we can fund those services into the future, we need to make responsible savings. That's what Labor's policy does. When this policy was introduced by the Howard government, it cost the budget $500 million. It now costs $5.8 billion. It's more than we spend on Australian public schools, it is unsustainable, and we're giving tax handouts to people who don't pay tax in this country. Labor is saying that, if we're elected, we will end that policy.
The PBO analysis of our policy is quite illuminating because it looks at who receives cash refunds for dividend imputation in this country. Fifty per cent of all excess imputation credits refunded to SMSFs accrued to the wealthiest 10 per cent of SMSFs, by fund balance, which had in excess of $2.4 million in the balance of the fund. Eighty-two per cent of those funds had balances of more than $1.04 million. These are not people who are struggling. That is why Labor is doing this, because the claims that this policy targets the poor are not suggested and not supported by the facts. And, of course, Labor guarantees that pensioners won't be affected by this particular policy.
This policy of refunding franking credits also promotes risk and inhibits investment in Australian companies. We all know that it distorts investment decisions. We heard from many who said that they were advised by their accountant or their financial adviser not to look for where the best companies were investing, their research and innovation, their development proposals or their growth into the future; just look for the companies that have fully franked dividends and will return you a guaranteed income funded by the Australian taxpayer. It inhibits growth in the stock exchange, and it's one of the reasons why many start-up businesses in Australia have to go overseas to try and find capital, because they can't get it here in Australia because we have a lazy investment market on the back of this policy.
Many people who gave evidence at this inquiry said that they only invested in the banks and Telstra because of the fully franked dividends that they received at the end of every year. If you're in the retirement phase of your lifestyle, being fully invested in five or six different companies is not a wise investment strategy. It's certainly not encouraging diversification.
The other myth that was propelled by the government around this is that it is a tax. It's simply not a tax at all. We're asking people who don't pay any income tax in a particular year to refund those franking credit refunds that they've been receiving. It's not retrospective. It was announced last year to give people the opportunity to digest the policy and, importantly, to get financial advice from their accountants or their financial advisers. It is not a withholding tax. It's a good policy, and Labor backs it to the hilt.
I move:
That the House take note of the report on the inquiry into the implications of removing refundable franking credits.
The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 12, government business, be postponed until the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
Women and men of Australia, a budget should sketch the big picture, build for the long-term, write Australia large, be ambitious, be as bold as the Australian people. That's what a Labor government will do: strive for the best, because Australians deserve the best. But instead, on Tuesday night, we received an exercise in numerology, a recitation of numbers—no passion, no national story, no vision laid out to divine where the country is and where the country is going and no reform. They were the same promises made and broken six years running. Yes, there is a third Prime Minister and a third Treasurer but, where it mattered, the same Liberal budget—the same void where an energy policy should be, the same failure on stagnant wages and rising cost of living, the same denial on climate change, the same $14 billion cut to schools and the same $2.8 billion cut to hospitals. So tonight the first commitment I can give Australians, and one of the most important, is: if we win the next election, we will put back every single dollar that the Liberals have cut from public schools and public hospitals.
To be fair, there was one new feature in this budget, albeit troubling: the short-changing of the National Disability Insurance Scheme by $1.6 billion to prop up a flimsy budget surplus forecast. Now, it looks a lot more like dodgy accounting than good economic management. I freely acknowledge that government members sincerely care about people with disability, but the truth is in the record of the last six years. The government has made a record of poor decisions regarding the NDIS—sacking the board; delaying the signing of funding agreements with the states; capping staff numbers for the National Disability Insurance Agency, leading to an outbreak of contractors and consultants undermining the system. And then, after all these policies that hamstring delivery of services, the government shrugs and says, 'The $1.6 billion wasn't needed, because of a lack of demand.'
There are thousands of Australians who've embraced the promise of the NDIS but whose legitimate demands have simply not been met. The young man in Ballarat who waited for more than two years for a wheelchair had waited so long that he ended up in hospital with pressure sores. The family whose daughter has an intellectual disability have waited 10 months for the funding for the speech therapy she needed to learn to make friends at school. Or there is the family of the profoundly deaf young man who was denied interpreters and training in Auslan and has spent the last 2½ years appealing the decision. All these people—the carers seeking modest respite, the parents, the loved ones, filling out the forms calling time and time again for promises not fulfilled, waiting on the phones—they do not tell me that there is a lack of demand. They're talking about a desperate need.
Working with Jenny Macklin, working with people with disability, their carers and an army of advocates to help create the National Disability Insurance Scheme, is one of the most rewarding things that I've ever been part of. Tonight, I can give every Australian living with a disability, and the people who love them, this personal commitment: if we are elected as the next government of Australia we will lift the NDIA cap on staff numbers so that we can get the support out the door and keep the promises made to people with disabilities. We will put people with disability at the centre of decision-making in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We will get the NDIS back on track.
I acknowledge that our opponents have finally seen the light on supporting the bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million Australians that I put forward at my last budget reply speech. Tonight, I can confirm that, from 1 July, if you earn between $48,000 and $126,000, no matter who you vote for in May you will get the same tax refund. But the Liberal tax plan does not do enough for 2.9 million Australians who will earn less than $40,000. About 57 per cent of these are women—child care workers, classroom assistants, hairdressers, office managers, and they are parents returning to work part-time. In a lot of these cases these are the very same workers in retail, hospitals, pharmacy and fast food who've already had their penalty rates arbitrarily cut. Tonight, I am pleased to say that in Chris Bowen's first budget Labor will provide a bigger tax refund than the Liberals for 3.6 million Australians—all told, an extra $1 billion for low-income earners in this country.
There's always a lot of talk about tax from those opposite, but here's the simple truth: 6.4 million working people will pay the same amount of income tax under Labor as under the Liberals and another 3.6 million will pay less tax under Labor. But we will not be signing up to the Liberals' radical, right-wing, flat-tax experiment way off in the future, a scheme that would see a nurse on $50,000 paying the same tax rate as a surgeon on $200,000. We won't back a plan that gives a retail worker on $35,000 less than $5 a week while an investment banker pockets more than $11,000 a year. This is not a tax plan; it's a ticking debt bomb. It is neither fair nor responsible to lock in those billions of dollars in tax giveaways flowing disproportionately to a relatively few Australians, and so far into the future, especially when you consider the foreboding we see in the global environment: Brexit, trade wars, the write-downs in global growth, the massive increase in global debt and the drop in the 10-year bond yields. This is the time when Australia should be building a strong surplus, a fiscal buffer. The Liberals talk so much about being back in the black, but the budget papers reveal a much paler shade of grey. What we need is a fighting fund for the nation—a strong surplus to protect us from international shocks. Surpluses can only be built on real reform, not by cutting schools and hospitals, not by short-changing the NDIS, and not by banking on the price of ore and a blue sky environment. Tonight, I recommit that that is what Labor will take to the next election—stronger surpluses paying down national debt faster, guaranteeing everything from our commitment to defence spending at two per cent of GDP to drought relief for farmers and keeping our borders secure.
Nearly six years ago my united team and I made a choice. We decided not to be the kind of opposition who just stay quiet, cross our fingers and hope that the government would tear itself apart. We decided to lead the reform debate with a bold agenda. We believe the Australian people are hungry for a united, stable government with a real vision for the future—one that can make hard decisions. We believe that government has a responsibility to leave the place better than when we found it. That is why we are going to stop the intergenerational unfairness in our tax system.
If you're currently negatively gearing, the rules won't change. If you want to use it on new homes, you still can. But you cannot have property investors playing with loaded dice against our young people, generation Y and the millennials. Instead of patronising millions of young Australians with lectures about cutting back on smashed avo, why don't we tell them the truth? Getting together a 20 per cent deposit plus stamp duty is much, much harder than it was 20 or 25 years ago. And it is even more difficult when your government uses your taxpayer money to subsidise the property investors bidding against you. The intergenerational bias that the tax system has against young people must be called out. A government must be brave enough and decent enough to stop the bias against first home buyers and young Australians—and we will be that government.
And the same goes for dividend imputation. If the tax office pays a tax credit to someone who pays no tax, this is a gift. It is a gift that is costing taxpayers nearly $6 billion every year and it is growing so fast it will soon be more than what we spend on our public schools. It's not illegal, it's not immoral, but it's just not sustainable anymore.
Reform which delivers intergenerational fairness to our young must include real action on climate change. The climate change debate has poisoned this parliament for 10 years—and it's most certainly paralysed the current government. So tonight let's deal in simple facts. Climate change is real. It is doing real damage to our economy and to our environment. And we can measure the cost of inaction—bushfires, droughts, floods, extreme weather and damage to our farmland and our reef. For the sake of the Australia that we hand on to our children, a Labor government will not shirk the task of reform; it will take real action on climate change.
Tonight, and at this election, Labor is offering the Australian people a fully-funded, fair-go action plan: building an economy that works for everyone; investing in an education system that creates opportunity for everyone; fixing the wages system so it delivers for everyone; reforming the tax system so it is fair for everyone; and funding a health system that is there for everyone. We believe that Australia does best when working-class and middle-class Australia gets a fair go, when the economy is managed in the interests of everyone, when the people who create our national wealth get their fair share of the national wealth and when everyone has an equal chance to fulfil their personal potential. This is why investing in the future always begins with education. And this is where the difference between Labor and the government could not be more stark. Nine out of 10 new jobs created in the next four years will require either a university degree or a TAFE qualification, and only a Labor government will be prepared to properly fund both. We'll uncap university places, opening the doors of higher education to an additional 200,000 Australians. And, when it comes to vocational education, Labor is backing public TAFE all the way.
I've been fortunate to visit about 30 TAFEs around Australia since the last election. The teachers and students are inspirational. So tonight I'm pleased to announce that we're going to double the size of our rebuilding TAFE fund—up to $200 million to renovate campuses in regional and outer suburban Australia. This will mean new training facilities for training nurses in Caboolture and Devonport, new workshops in Midland and Bellevue to make sure the METRONET train carriages work goes to apprentices, new construction centres for tradies in Chadstone and Frankston and so much more. Labor will also pay the up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE places to get more Australians training in high-priority courses. Tonight, I am proud to announce that 20,000 of these places will be allocated to a new generation of aged-care workers and paid carers for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
My mother was a great teacher. She taught me that you can measure a nation's values by how much it values education. I want every child in Australia to get the one-on-one attention that they need to thrive. I want Aboriginal kids to get genuine equal opportunity and children with disability or learning difficulties to get the support they need. I want every child participating in sport, trying drama, learning music, going on camps and getting access to new technology—and not as optional extras to which parents pay increasing levies, not as luxuries that rely on the teachers raising the money themselves. I want it guaranteed—guaranteed because every school in Australia should offer every child the same world of opportunity. There is one more thing that we'll do to make Australian schools the best in the world: we'll make Tanya Plibersek the minister for education.
Experts tell us that 90 per cent of a child's brain develops before the age of five. Two years of preschool or kindergarten is the rule in countries at the top of the global education ladder: South Korea, Norway, New Zealand, France and the United Kingdom. Last year, China enrolled 46 million three-year-olds in preschool programs. But Australia's falling behind in the early-years education, and that affects our children right through their educational lives. If you vote Labor, we will guarantee universal access to preschool or kinder for every three-year-old and every four-year-old in Australia—15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year. Two years of preschool is global best practice, and it's only just good enough for our kids.
Our vision for education and training is all about putting Australia on the high road to the future—high-skilled workers, highest-quality products, high-value services and higher-wage jobs. It means backing local businesses and industries. We backed a tax cut for small and medium businesses and we will provide an extra 20 per cent tax break for every business that invests in productivity-boosting equipment above $20,000, whether that's a big manufacturer buying new technology or a tradie getting a new ute.
We will invest in industries where Australia can be the best in the world. I speak of agricultural, tourism, hydrogen energy, science and research, advanced manufacturing, mineral exploration to unearth new wealth, the defence industry and commercial shipbuilding to revive our merchant marine and see more Australian ships flying the Australian ensign.
Embracing renewables will also create thousands upon thousands of new jobs for Australia. Labor will provide a $2,000 payment to families who want to join the fight against climate change and the fight to lower their power bills by installing a battery storage system. Here's the remarkable thing: we already have every single resource to make a lithium battery right here in Australia. So, instead of the usual trope of shipping the minerals overseas and buying back the finished product at vastly inflated prices, let's make the batteries here. And let's do this with electric vehicles, charging equipment and stations too, supported by Australia's first electric vehicle policy. Rather than relying on China and India to accept our plastic and waste or to leave it choking our waterways and killing our marine life, let's recycle it here at home. When it comes to clean technology, I believe we can make three words famous right around the world—'made in Australia'.
Building an economy that works for everyone means a massive building program right across our nation. We will reinvigorate jobs in the construction sector with our build-to-rent plan, targeting negative gearing to new housing, renovating the national energy grid with new pipelines, interconnectors, hydro and storage and launching the biggest affordable housing program since the Second World War, building a quarter of a million new homes.
We will invest in safe accommodation for women fleeing violent relationships because too often, when the worst happens, people still ask, 'Why didn't she leave?' What we should ask is, 'Where would she go?'
Labor have transport plans and projects ready to go in every state and territory—the Cross River Rail in Brisbane, the Western Sydney metro, the Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne, the Bridgewater Bridge in Tassie, South Road in South Australia, METRONET in Perth, upgrading the roads around Kakadu and phase 2 of the ACT light rail. Thanks to Albo's hard work, the work is just beginning. Labor will continue to develop and support the development of northern Australia, including overdue upgrades for the beef roads and the Rocky ring road. Tonight, I can announce we will deliver $1.5 billion to upgrade the Gateway Motorway from Bracken Ridge to the Pine River and the next stage of the Bruce Highway from the northern suburbs to Caboolture.
There's another big difference between Liberal and Labor on infrastructure. In their budget, you have to vote for the current Prime Minister at this election and then you have to vote for whoever is their leader at the next election—and that's before anyone even digs a hole. Our projects are not on the never-never. They're locked into our first budget. But there's another difference that I offer the Australian people, frustrated by the constant short-termism in the infrastructure debate—if we are elected, I will invite the then opposition leader to be involved in nominating directors to Infrastructure Australia so we take the politics out and we make generational decisions in infrastructure for once and for all time.
Every time we invest Commonwealth dollars in infrastructure projects, we'll make the rule that one in 10 people employed must be an Australian apprentice. The sad news of the last six years is that, under the current government, apprenticeship numbers have fallen by 150,000. The good news is that, because of our vision in infrastructure, housing construction, the NDIS, TAFE and training, health and hospitals, early childhood education, energy and the digital economy, a Labor government can repair the damage done. Tonight I say we will help train 150,000 apprentices for the jobs of the future and we'll provide additional support for the businesses who take them on, both young people and mature-age workers looking to retrain and to learn new skills. And we will also create an apprentice advocate, because the tragic death of an 18-year-old apprentice on the Macquarie Park site last week reminds us that we've got to protect our apprentices and make sure they come home safe, just like everybody else.
The next election will be a referendum on wages. We need to get wages growth going again for workers, for the economy, for confidence and consumption, because when we boost the spending power of working people the money flows back into the tills of small business. In the last six years, three Liberal prime ministers and three Liberal treasurers have signed off on official forecasts for wages growth. They've been wrong 27 times in a row. Twenty-seven times they have promised and not delivered. On Tuesday night, to be fair, the Treasurer boldly said that he would 'like' wages growth to be high. He would like that. But, after six years of wages stagnation, liking and wishing and hoping is not a plan for working people.
For the last six years we've tried it their way, the government's way: the invisible hand; 'Leave it to the market.' We now know how that all ends. Since the last election, wages have risen by around five per cent, whilst company profits have increased nearly 40 per cent.
Only Labor has a concrete, practical plan to get wages moving again: (1) if we win the election, we'll legislate to restore the arbitrary cuts to Sunday and public penalty rates in our first 100 days; (2) we will stop companies using sham contracts and dodgy labour-hire arrangements to cut people's pay; and (3) our tradie pay guarantee means that subbies working on Commonwealth projects get paid on time every time. And we will help the 1.2 million lowest-paid Australians by creating a living wage. Of course we will consult with employers and the independent umpire, and of course we will take into account the capacity of business and the economy to sustain the wages growth. But I don't want any Australian adult who works full-time to be trapped in poverty. A sensible, overdue plan to achieve moderate but meaningful improvement in wages is what we offer Australians.
And whenever we talk about fair pay it includes equal pay and fairer conditions for the women of Australia; a new push for better pay for women and in women-dominated industries like early education; new measures to help boost the superannuation of working women; and 10 days of paid leave for people dealing with family violence. This is what you get from a political party that walks the walk on equality for women and has so many talented women in our ranks in parliament right now.
At this election we're offering a genuine alternative for regional Australia: better support for our dairy farmers to get a fair deal; working to restore the Murray-Darling to health; helping restock the cattle herd of North Queensland; new investments in eliminating mobile blackspots; and a more reliable NBN for small business. And not only will we put back the $83 million the Liberals cut from the ABC; we'll provide another $10 million to support regional news and emergency broadcasting, especially in areas affected by natural disasters such as Townsville, Tasmania and regional Victoria.
We can also give regional communities this simple, important pledge: no more privatising and outsourcing human services in the bush. If you are a pensioner or a veteran living in the regions, you shouldn't be stuck on hold for hours waiting for help; you should be able to speak to a human being face-to-face. You deserve no less.
And to my fellow Australians tonight, I want to conclude by talking to you directly in your lounge rooms about our vision for the most significant investment in Medicare in a generation. Cancer is one of the biggest killers in our nation. Not for nothing is it called the emperor of all maladies. One in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some stage in our life. One hundred and forty-five thousand of our fellow Australians are diagnosed with cancer each year and 50,000 die. One way or another, we will all witness the ordeal. I saw it with my mum and her battle with breast cancer. Chloe and I have seen it with dear friends of ours—some old, some far too young.
Cancer is frightening. It's isolating. It's exhausting. And all too often, though, it's impoverishing. For so many people, cancer makes you sick and then paying for the treatment makes you poor. I think a lot of Australians would be surprised to learn that all these vital scans and tests and consultations with specialists are not fully covered by Medicare. Instead, they cost hundreds of dollars, adding up to thousands out of your own pocket.
Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and most people pay over $5,000 for the first two years of their treatment. One in four women diagnosed with breast cancer pay over $10,000 for two years of scans and tests. Some men with prostate cancer are paying more than $18,000. And if you're in stage 4 cancer you have to quit work, so your finances are already under horrendous strain. If you live in the regions, there are the added costs of travel and accommodation. Every year, 300,000 Australians who need radiology just don't get it because they can't afford it. That's 300,000 of us. We're a smart country. We've got the best healthcare staff. We are a rich country. We're a generous country, and we are better than the statistics I read out.
If someone you love has cancer, you'd sell the roof over your head. If it would help, you'd sell the shirt off your back. But should you have to? Our fellow Australians pay their taxes to Canberra. You pay your Medicare levy. If I'm I elected Prime Minister, I'm going to make sure that the healthcare system is there for you when you need it most. So tonight I'm announcing the most important investment in Medicare since Bob Hawke created it: Labor's $2.3 billion Medicare cancer plan.
To my fellow Australians, I'll explain what that would be used for. First, if we win the election, we will invest $600 million towards eliminating all of the out-of-pocket costs for diagnostic imaging. Over four years this will mean six million free cancer scans funded by Medicare—CT scans, PET scans, mammograms, X-rays and ultrasounds—reducing the out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients from hundreds of dollars to zero, and this will apply to MRIs too. Today only half of the MRI machines—that amazing technology—in Australia are covered by Medicare. People in the bush and the regions often have to drive hours or pay thousands. If we win this election, not only will we provide new MRI machines to communities where they are needed most; we're going to change the game. We will guarantee that every single MRI machine which meets national standards is covered by Medicare for cancer scans, full stop.
The second part of our plan is to deal with the cost of seeing a specialist. As anyone knows, treating cancer relies on a marvellous team of experts: medical oncologists in charge of your diagnosis and ongoing chemotherapy and immunotherapy, surgeons performing your operations and monitoring your recovery, radiation oncologists designing targeted radiation therapy plans to destroy cancer cells. These appointments are part of your weekly routine, often for years. There are the trips, the waiting, the treatment, the recovery—thousands of dollars. A new Labor government will invest $433 million to immediately cover specialist consultations for cancer patients. What this means over the next four years is that an additional three million appointments will be bulk-billed with no out-of-pocket costs, reducing what you pay from hundreds of dollars to zero.
The third part of our plan is our affordable medicine guarantee. Every drug recommended by the independent experts will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—not just cutting the cost of your treatment; cutting the cost of your cancer medication too.
Cancer is a curse. I wish I could stand here tonight and guarantee that we'll find a cure for each cancer. No politician can give that promise. We will continue to support our scientists in their work. We'll invest in the research and the clinical trials. Until the day that we find a cure, I promise the men and women of Australia this: under Labor, if you're battling cancer, you focus on getting well without worrying about going broke. I can promise you that, if you're in the fight of your life, a Labor government will be alongside you every step of the way.
To summarise what our first four years of Labor's Medicare Cancer Plan means for Australians: up to six million free cancer scans, three million free appointments with specialists and an affordable medicine guarantee. This is our vision for the future. This is our vision to build Medicare. We can pay for it and we can deliver it because of our reform decisions. We choose our healthcare system over bigger tax loopholes.
So, in conclusion, my fellow Australians, I suspect that some in the government will spend a lot of time telling you to be afraid—afraid of change, afraid of new ideas, afraid of the future, afraid of each other. I expect we'll see more of that in the campaign ahead. I have a different view. I'm optimistic about our nation's future because this country has so much going for us: a continent to call our own, next to the fastest-growing economies in the world, and the resources to be an energy superpower. We have the skills, the science and the get-up-and-go to create new industries. Best of all, we have our people. Australians are hardworking, caring, brave, smart and generous.
We'll never be the biggest country in the world. We'll never seek to impose our ideology on other nations. But I do believe that, if we're not the biggest, we should still aim to be the best—the best in education and skills; the best in health and aged care and looking after people with dementia; and the best in fair wages and fair reward for your work. That is the real choice that our country faces at this election. It is the decision which every Australian has the right to make. Do we want the best healthcare system in the world or the biggest tax loopholes? Do we want our children to get the world's best education or the world's most generous tax subsidies? Do we want a fairer, more equal country where the economy works in the interests of everyone, or do we want another three years of drift, with the top end of town profiting much better than everybody else?
My team and I have made the reform decisions to put forward the Fair Go Action Plan for Australia, so that Australia can be the best that we should be. Labor offers stability, unity and a vision for the nation. We choose hope over fear. We choose the future over the past. We choose the best support possible for people with cancer. We choose fair wages and good jobs. We choose TAFE and apprenticeships. We choose a voice for First Australians enshrined in our constitution. We choose renewables and we choose real action on climate change. We choose the ABC. We choose equality for the women of Australia; equality for everyone.
If these things matter to you—if you believe that, when all is said and done about politics, the most important things are family and health, if you believe in handing on a better deal to your kids than the one you inherited from your parents—if you believe that's the sort of vision we should have for Australia, then, when you cast your vote in May, choose a Labor government for all Australians.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 20:11
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:00.
The people I represent in Fremantle, East Fremantle and Cockburn know that the most important things are the public goods and services we create and share together: our schools, our parks and coastal reserves and our public health system. That's why I'm so pleased that Labor is committed to providing $5 million for an urgent-care clinic at Fremantle Hospital as part of Labor's $2.8 billion better hospitals fund. It's why I've been so glad to be involved in delivering grants through the stronger community grants program to the Freo Street Doctor, the Fremantle Women's Health Centre and the oral health clinic at St Patrick's Community Support Centre. All these services are vital to providing health care and dental care to people in my community, and especially to those facing disadvantage.
The urgent-care clinic, which would be funded by a Labor government if elected, is a much needed investment in local health services. It means that people in the Fremantle area will have access to free out-of-hours health care for serious but not life-threatening illnesses or injuries, the kinds of issues for which many of us would have presented in the past to the ED at Freo hospital, needing care either for ourselves or our kids. With an urgent-care clinic at Freo hospital that service will exist again and not only will provide better, closer and more-accessible health care when accidents or illnesses flare up out of the blue but, in so doing, will also take pressure off the fantastic new ED at Fiona Stanley. For those reasons I'm very glad to make the urgent-care clinic the focus of my campaign in Fremantle.
As I've said, the people I represent in Fremantle, East Fremantle and Cockburn know that the most important things are the public goods and services we create and share together: our parks, our coastal reserves, our public health system and, of course, our education system and our local schools. The people I represent know that, unfortunately, every level of education, from early childhood through schools to TAFE and university, has been squeezed and neglected by this Liberal government. It means kids are simply not getting the chance to be their best and our schools are not set up to provide teaching resources where they're most needed. It means we're not equipping people for the jobs of the future and we're not unlocking the creativity and innovation that is critical to Australia's future as a whole. That's why Labor has an across-the-board grassroots-to-treetop plan for sustaining high-quality education in this country. We're creating 100,000 fee-free TAFE places, we're abolishing the cap on university places and we're introducing a national preschool and kindy program. In the Fremantle electorate, that means an additional $24 million in funding to schools on the basis of need. Every school in the Fremantle electorate will receive more funding. It means $1.4 million over three years for Lakeland Senior High School, $1.3 million for Fremantle College, Beeliar Primary School would get an extra $620,000 and South Coogee primary school would get $560,000.
My community knows that education is the key to opportunity and equality. It's the key to inclusive prosperity and shared wellbeing.
Today I wish to bring to the attention of the chamber the desperate need for major upgrades of sports facilities in Berwick—in particular the Berwick football and netball clubs—and also in the Pakenham area. When it comes to the Berwick football and netball clubs, the netballers currently have no change rooms or showers for training or game day. They have two small public toilet cubicles or their cars to get changed into and out of their playing gear, which is totally unacceptable. There is nowhere even to have a shower: the way they dry off is basically to stand around until their clothes are no longer wet, which is an absolute disgrace.
The great news is that I've worked with the Australian federal government, and we've been able to receive $1.5 million for the Berwick football and netball clubs. I'd really like to thank Peter Hughes for all the great work he has done. Working with me too have been Glenn Gambetta, and Mel Bradley from the netballers. I want to give special to the Casey council, to the mayor, Amanda Stapledon, and to councillor Susan Serey, as Casey council has matched the funding.
I come now to the Pakenham area, which I have just inherited under the redistribution. I visited the Pakenham Football and Netball Club, and I have been very proud to announce $1.5 million. I'd like to acknowledge Travis Hamilton for the work he has done to secure this funding, as well as Ian Shaw, Tom Dalton and Marg Jones. When I first visited the netball facility, the girls had no toilets and no change rooms. It was an absolute disgrace. That will now change into the future.
This brings me to the junior sports over in Pakenham: the Pakenham Junior Football Club, Little Athletics and the cricket and baseball clubs. Again, their facilities are totally unacceptable. Again, there are no female change rooms. They have hundreds of junior players there each week. The great news is the federal government have been able to secure $3 million in funding. This is going to make a huge difference to sports, and especially junior sports. I'd like to thank the junior football club president, Salv Mileto; at Little Athletics, Bol Woutars; at the cricket club, Phil Anning; and at the baseball club, Greg Clutterbuck. When I first visited the Little Athletics area and also the junior football club, they told me no government council has ever helped their club out before. So this is fantastic news to support needy clubs in the electorate of La Trobe. It's something I'm very proud the Morrison government is doing every day.
A generation ago, 80 per cent of Australian kids used active transport to get to school every day—walking, cycling, scooting. Today, that figure is just 20 per cent. We really need to turn this around. 22 March was National Ride2School Day, a Bicycle Network initiative where schools around the country hold special events to encourage their students to use active transport to get to school. Making Ride2School Day a carnival event opens an opportunity for schools, parents and students to talk about what our community can do to get more children to use active transport. Indeed, on Ride2School Day the national active transport participation rate amongst kids increases to 60 per cent, a threefold increase.
Across Australia, our kids need to be more active. Over 90 per cent of young Australians don't get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity a day. Health experts tell me that using active transport to get to school is best way for our kids to get that activity and the No. 1 way we can reduce Australia's chronic disease burden.
Nearly 1,000 school communities across Australia participated in Ride2School Day this year, and 10 of those schools were in my electorate in Melbourne's west. I personally sponsored five local schools to have Ride2School Day events at their schools. Point Cook P-9 College, Footscray City Primary School, Footscray Primary School, Footscray North Primary School and Altona Primary School each received a healthy breakfast of fresh fruit and baked goods and prizes for kids who rode, walked, scooted or skated to school. On the day, I went to Point Cook P-9 College and I was blown away how active their students were. Kids at Point Cook P-9 College use active transport at double the national average, and not just on ride to school day but all year round.
Point Cook P-9 College shows what possible if our schools, families and government work together. After receiving a local council grant to install active travel paths, the school has been promoting active transport for years. They hold Point Cook P-9 College events each year and monitor their progress by doing a hands up count every Wednesday. Point Cook P-9 College aren't content with 50 per cent of their students using active transport, though; they're about to relaunch their active travel paths program because they know more kids can be walking, cycling, skating or scooting to school.
Ride2School Day had a great turnout from our community in Melbourne's west, and it was great to see so many young people embracing the opportunity to be physically active and connect with one another. I want to thank Masters Fresh Fruit in Footscray Market, Bakers Delight, Ted's Cycles, the Transport Accident Commission, the City of Maribyrnong, Footscray police, Franjos Kitchen and Gerry's Bicycle Service & Repair for their generous donations to our local schools for this day. Thank you to school communities for getting behind the day, to all the teachers and parents who volunteered to help serve up breakfast and marshal participants and, most of all, to all of the kids who got active on the day. I want to thank Bicycle Network for their important advocacy on this issue for many days. As I said at the beginning, 80 per cent of kids used to ride a bike at school or use active transport. Point Cook P-9 College and Ride2School Day show that doesn't have to be our past; it can also be Australia's future.
Before I call the member for Forrest, can I just acknowledge that we have members from Rotary Adventure in Citizenship visiting here today. Welcome.
Last month saw the Bunbury Geographe Gift celebrate its second year, which brings some of the best athletes not only from around Australia but also internationally to the city of Bunbury. It is an event that combines two of my favourite things: sport and bringing people to our amazing South-West. The Bunbury Geographe Gift is a two-day athletic event attracting some of the most talented runners and sprinters to our region, similar to the Stawell Gift and the Leonora Golden Gift in the Goldfields.
The first Bunbury Geographe Gift was held last year and featured Olympic athletes and Commonwealth Games medal winners, as well as some of the most talented juniors in our great country. Athletes and their families and friends flocked to Bunbury for the inaugural Bunbury Geographe Gift, allowing these visitors to enjoy not just Bunbury itself but also the entire South-West. Volunteers and organisers worked around the clock to make it one of the best inaugural events ever held in our region, with races ranging from 90-metre sprints to longer distances across a range of age groups, culminating in the men's and women's 120-metre gift. One of Bunbury's finest athletes Dylan Panizza made the final of the major race, where he came fourth against some of the best sprinters from across Australia. This was a fantastic achievement.
This year, as an opener for the event, a pole vault competition was held in the main street of Bunbury, which saw some of the best competitors in Australia, including Commonwealth Games medallist Nina Kennedy, impress the large crowd gathered in the CBD. This year's Bunbury Geographe Gift saw a 54 per cent increase in competitors, as well as an impressive increase in sponsorship, which meant that it was free entry for all spectators. This year's women's gift winner was Perth sprinter Eliza Wilson, while the men's event was won by South Australian athlete Jesse Cordoma.
After only two years, the Bunbury Geographe Gift is one of the most anticipated events in my electorate of Forrest in the South-West and has brought a welcomed boost to local tourism and hospitality. I want to thank those who helped put this event together, some of those including Colin Piacentini, Tom Dillon, Dylan Panizza, Jo O'dea and the host of volunteers who work behind the scenes. I would also like to thank the Bunbury Runners Club for their hard work in hosting the event.
It's after only two years that the Bunbury Geographe Gift has become one of the highlights of the South-West sporting calendar, and I look forward to seeing it grow bigger and better in the future. But mostly I would like to say: thank you very, very much to all of the volunteers who work tirelessly for weeks and months in advance to make these events happen. There's always a small group; they are outstanding people and great people in my community. They do a fantastic job, and this event is the result.
April is World Autism Month. Autism effects one in 58 children. As a matter of fact, 85 per cent of Australians diagnosed with autism are under the age of 25. That's why it's important that, as a society, we better understand and certainly encourage those diagnosed with autism and give them all the help and assistance they need to reach their full potential.
My Western Sydney electorate of Fowler is, as you know, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, incredibly diverse. It's very colourful and very vibrant. However, my electorate is also over-represented with people with a disability, and, in particular, families that live with autism. As a matter of fact, more than half of all families living in New South Wales with autism live within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD.
Being one of the most multicultural communities in Australia means that families in my community often struggle to access and fully understand the services available to them. Raising a child with autism certainly requires incredible patience and persistence. Sadly, 80 per cent of families that live with autism are single-parent families. Clearly the impact of raising a child with autism undoubtedly adds incredible stress to relationships. That's why we must work towards cultivating a community founded on acceptance and understanding to better ensure that those with autism are not limited or defined by their diagnosis.
My grandson Nathaniel is on the spectrum, and I very much understand the challenges faced by these families. Nathaniel is an incredibly bright and able person, he's someone I'm extremely proud of, and it gives me reassurance that those with autism can achieve great things if they are offered the right support.
I'm proud to say that the Autism Advisory and Support Service in Liverpool is a great source of comfort to families not only in my community but across the state. It operates a 24/7 service and supports families in desperate need. Grace Fava, who only recently received the Order of Australia, founded the AASS. She often sees families who are at their wits' end and in dire need of help. She supports families struggling to access support through agencies like the NDIS and those feeling let down by the system. Like her organisation, we should all be working towards building a community that ensures that those with autism are accepted in the normal fabric of our society, without prejudice, without limitations, and can, like the rest of us, reach their full potential.
Please excuse me, colleagues, but I am fortunate to represent the best electorate in Australia. Bennelong is the home of innovation, from wi-fi to the Granny Smith apple, and is the base of dozens of the country's most innovative businesses. We are the most multicultural electorate in the country, with tens of thousands of locals who once called somewhere else home. We are a rich community of excellent schools, supportive families, hardworking small businesses, charities and volunteerism.
However, our greatest challenge is overdevelopment. Overdevelopment is the disease; congestion is the symptom. This is why I've been pushing the government for more support to bust congestion, and they have listened. We are already getting over $3 million from the Urban Congestion Fund to upgrade the bottleneck at Balaclava and Blaxland Roads. With this fund being quadrupled in this week's budget, I'm confident we will be able to secure more fixes to our infrastructure.
Overdevelopment is just development without supporting infrastructure. I've been a tireless advocate for better infrastructure. The $100 million Macquarie Park interchange will connect our high-rise developments, largest shopping hub and business park with our local bus network and the brand-new Northwest Metro. The Northwest Metro is particularly exciting, as most of our traffic is imported from the north-west. When this modern and efficient Metro line opens, in the next few weeks, we should see an enormous reduction in the number of cars on our roads.
I've also been a tireless advocate for high-speed rail, not because of the train itself but because it is the catalyst to decentralise our overburdened cities and suburbs. It's great to see both sides of parliament coming around to this thinking and the government pledging fast rail in the budget this week. We're not just funding transport infrastructure, though; we're putting $350,000 into rebuilding the old Scouts boatshed at Meadowbank, creating a new wharf for the community in the process. We're funding schools and students to record levels and we're supporting the state government in building and comprehensively upgrading over 10 schools. We're also putting our own Bennelong spin on the schools investment by repeating our table tennis in schools program and providing free table tennis tables to all schools, thanks to Hyundai.
There is much more happening locally, and I don't have the time to mention it all in detail. Our Bennelong Village Businesses initiative continues, with the help for small businesses that this week's budget sets out. Our fabulous volunteering groups are being supported like never before, through our grants program, as are our rich ethnic communities, who make our community so vibrant and diverse. It is a great honour to support this wonderful electorate in parliament. I hope to return to continue the good work in the 46th Parliament.
New South Wales has now become the only state without an environment department. Having talked a lot about environment during the election campaign, one of the first acts of Premier Berejiklian in the new parliament has been to abolish the Office of Environment and Heritage. Environment ends up in the planning department, which is exactly where it shouldn't be. The environmental problems facing the state include more than a thousand plant and animal species threatened with extinction; an 800 per cent increase in land clearing during the past three years; waterways like the Darling that are in crisis; and those in my electorate of Macquarie that are neglected. It means that, on major development projects, there is no unconflicted voice in the New South Wales government for the environment—no voice for habitat under threat by the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall, no voice for the koalas that populate the mountains when more housing is planned, no voice for the environmental impacts of major projects like a second Sydney airport.
Moving Heritage to the Arts portfolio shows how little they care. Heritage isn't just a block of sandstone in Macquarie Street. In the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, it is all around us and it is disappearing. The Aboriginal heritage that will be flooded if the Warragamba wall goes higher is part of who we all are, and deserves a strong voice to protect it. As the community who have for 2,084 days kept a 24-hour vigil in Thompson Square in Windsor know, heritage is already too easily sacrificed by this Liberal government. I pay tribute to the CAWBies, as they let the RMS take over Australia's oldest public square. New South Wales now has even less chance of anything from Aboriginal or colonial past surviving the rampaging and vandalism of the New South Wales Liberals, doing the bidding of developers with a grotesque conflict of interest embedded in their new bureaucracy. We need Labor's strong federal environmental laws more than ever.
The government continues to let down parents and educators of preschoolers. This week's budget has no long-term funding for four-year-olds—just a one-year extension. There's no guarantee that the essential subsidy which helps cover the cost of a preschool program, whether it's community preschool or a long day care centre, will continue beyond that. Now, how do you plan to expand child care or keep staff if you've only got one year of subsidy? We know that every dollar invested in early education pays huge dividends, and 15 hours of subsidy for four-year-olds is a minimum. Fantastic preschools in my electorate in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains know this, and all they've got after six years of a Liberal government is uncertainty. Labor will extend the subsidy to three-year-olds and make it permanent, fully funded and fully costed. We're the only ones who will invest in this country's future leaders.
As members in this chamber and in the other place will know, on many occasions I've spoken about the No. 1 issue for my constituents; that is, congestion of roads in the electorate of Menzies. This is in part caused by the increasing population growth of Melbourne, on track to become the largest city in Australia, but also the topography of Melbourne. One of my boundaries is the Yarra River. It stretches for dozens of kilometres, yet there are just three crossings of that river. For traffic that wants to traverse the northern and north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, Greensborough and Eltham further out, to the south-eastern suburbs, they have to cross the river at one of these three places. Equally, traffic coming off the northern ring road that wants to connect with the Eastern Freeway and EastLink has to use one of these three crossings to traverse the Yarra. The consequence of that is that, for hours every day, there are huge hold-ups and traffic jams out in suburban Menzies.
One of the things that my constituents have been saying to me for some time now, which I've reflected in remarks in this place, is that we need to improve these pinch points, and, in particular, improve the pinch point where Fitzsimons Lane crosses the Yarra River between Templestowe to the south and Eltham to the north. Fitzsimons Lane itself is not the problem. Despite being called a lane—that goes back to the 1800s, when, indeed, it was—it's now a four-lane highway. But at the end of a couple of kilometres of four-lane highway, we go back to normal state roads. At the south there's a huge traffic build-up on Williamsons Road and Porter Street, and at the northern end there's a huge traffic build-up near Eltham and Montmorency on Main Road.
I was pleased, therefore, to take the cities minister, the Hon. Alan Tudge, out to show him this build-up of traffic, which occurs every day in the morning, in the afternoon and, indeed, increasingly throughout the day, to show him what the problem was and to plead with him and urge him to provide funding from the budget in order to resolve or help to resolve this ongoing problem. Ultimately, the North East Link will deal with this, for which the Commonwealth is providing some $1.75 billion. But until that is built, which is some years away, traffic congestion will continue to be a problem. I was delighted, therefore, to announce with the minister just a few weeks ago $10 million worth of funding: $5 million for the city of Manningham and $5 million for the shire of Nillumbik—so either end of Fitzsimons Lane—to deal with this major traffic congestion. That's funding out of the 2018-19 budget; in other words, that's funding there ready to be spent on projects that will ease congestion to the benefit of my constituents, to get them to work and get them home earlier than they otherwise would.
In the wake of the New South Wales election, it's full steam ahead with the Liberals' disastrous proposal for a massive cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay. In the campaign for the state seat of Maroubra, where Yarra Bay is situated, all of the local the candidates opposed this crazy proposal. Even the unsuccessful Liberal candidate vowed to fight Gladys Berejiklian to stop the looming catastrophe in our community.
What we do know is that the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, has gone missing in action on the question of a cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay, despite the fact that his electorate is within sight of the proposed development of the terminal. We also know that it was the then Liberal Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, who made a captain's call to rule out Garden Island as the preferred location in Sydney for this new cruise ship terminal.
Former New South Wales Liberal state leader Peter Collins was appointed as the head of the Cruise Industry Reference Group. His job was to identify possible solutions to the current crush of cruise ships coming into Sydney Harbour. The preferred option for an additional cruise ship terminal was Garden Island West, with option 2 being North-East Garden Island. Further down the list of recommendations by the reference group, it clearly stated that options 3 and 4 were Molineaux Point/Botany Bay, and Yarra Bay/Botany Bay respectively. They called for consultation with Indigenous local community representatives in accordance with environmental standards. This, of course, hasn't happened, and the community may pay the price.
Politics has trumped sensible policy. Once again the Bidjigalpeople, the traditional owners of that land, whose ancestors have inhabited those shores for tens of thousands of years and have called Yarra Bay their home, have not been consulted about this disastrous plan. They say that a cruise ship terminal in their backyard will destroy local traditional fishing areas and livelihoods. There would be massive environmental damage from this proposal. Once again, Botany Bay would have to be dredged, and it's a haven for the weedy sea dragon and the pygmy pipehorse, which are protected species in Australia. And of course recreation in the bay would be severely affected, particularly for the Yarra Bay Sailing Club, which conducts its sailing events in the bay.
The numbers don't add up. The independent review shows that accommodating a cruise ship terminal at Garden Island would only be $143 million, yet taxpayers would be asked to foot the bill for over half a billion dollars if it was located at Yarra Bay. This proposal simply does not make sense. I will oppose the cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay because it is not in the best interests of the people in our community, and I call on the Prime Minister, the member for Cook, to do the same—to get on the phone to Gladys Berejiklian and rule out a cruise ship terminal for Yarra Bay.
I thank the member for his statement. If there are no objections from members in the chamber, I propose we extend members' statements to 11 am.
As the 45th Parliament draws to a conclusion, I want to put on the record the record funding that has poured into the Lyne electorate over this 45th Parliament for roads and bridges; aged care—residential and home care; communication rollout of the NBN and mobile phone black spots; apprenticeships and training incentives; and record funding to all schools, both New South Wales government schools and independent schools. There has been record funding for New South Wales government hospitals in Taree, Wauchope, Port Macquarie and Maitland, and also massive increases in funding of aged care.
When I assumed responsibility for caring for the Lyne electorate, aged-care funding was only $90 million a year—and we have one of the oldest and most ageing demographics in the nation. That funding is now above $135 million annually. We've got capital works extensions occurring in Forster at Pacific Cape, a massive 144-bed complex. There are also grants of $8 million for expansion to Bundaleer in Wauchope; in Taree; in Largs; for Banyula Village in Old Bar; at Bushland Health seniors' living complex in Taree; in Hawks Nest; and we have just turned the sod on a brand-new nursing home and seniors complex in Gloucester.
The other day, I had the honour of announcing $8½ million for Bushland Health to start work on their $28 million vertical seniors' living complex on the banks of the mighty Manning River. This grant will fund public infrastructure which will allow this development to go ahead. Bushland Health's seniors living complex is the first cab out of the rank. There is a master plan for a $455 million residential, commercial and public space development which will be catalysed by this investment. There will be 180 jobs in the Bushland Health projects alone.
The Forster civic precinct commenced work some months ago, and I was very pleased to be there at the official sod-turning. A new library, public space, retail and community spaces in Forster will result. This is a massive growth in aged care across the electorate.
In roads, we've just announced $20 million for Clarence Town Road in the Dungog Shire. As well as the $5 million in heavy vehicle and safety productivity program for The Bucketts Way, we have just announced another $20 million for The Bucketts Way. And we've delivered 40 apprenticeships in the wage subsidy trial across the Lyne electorate.
When you drive south along Clyde Road to Tooradin or north towards Berwick, depending on which part of Clyde Road you're on, you see the new Casey Hospital. It's been renovated by the Andrews state Labor government. If there is anything that symbolised the investment of the Andrews state Labor government in our region—in the state seat of Cranbourne, in particular and in Narre south and Narre north—with the huge infrastructure investment by Daniel Andrews, it's the Casey Hospital. It's the roads that have been built, it's the schools that have been built and it's the hospitals that have been built. It's the social infrastructure that's been built by the Andrews Labor government.
In that period of time, in that four years, we've had a Labor government investing in what people need in the outer south-eastern suburbs. But what we haven't had is a partner, a federal partner, that would seek to co-invest with us to ensure that the people in our region get the infrastructure that they need and they deserve, and what they pay their taxes for.
Imagine my delight when the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, came down to Thompsons Road on Sunday morning 24 March to announce an $850 million co-investment with the Andrews Labor government to invest in roads in the south-east. We were on Thompsons Road, which is a key east-west feeder road for the south-eastern region. It affects seats like Dunkley, Isaacs, La Trobe, my seat and Flinders. It's a key east-west movement point.
And so for people in the outer suburbs to see the Leader of the Opposition there sent a very powerful signal. He was standing along Dan Andrews, as I was, when we announced a co-investment: an $850 million upgrade to congested roads. It will also create new jobs and, obviously, slash travel times for residents of the south-eastern suburbs. It's a partnership.
What this means in Holt is that an extra lane will be added each way, in each direction, to the Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road in Cranbourne. And we're also going to invest $65 million towards the completion of the upgrade and duplication of the 10.7 kilometre stretch of Thompsons Road between the Dandenong-Frankston Road and the Berwick-Cranbourne Road.
We're Australia's fastest-growing city—that's Melbourne—but despite being home to a quarter of our population we've received as little as a 7c in the dollar spend on infrastructure from the federal government. This state, Victoria, needs; the country needs; and Holt needs a Shorten Labor government to co-invest with Daniel Andrews to give them the infrastructure that they need.
My vision for Moore is to see the city of Joondalup continue to grow and prosper and become a safe, vibrant regional city which provides locals with employment opportunities close to home. Over the past 5½ years I have been extremely fortunate to represent the electorate of Moore, which is home to the pristine northern coastline as well as the economic hub of the city of Joondalup.
I am committed to ensuring continued access to world-class health care at our local Joondalup hospital, which will be extended; a wide variety of professional services within the emerging central business district of Joondalup; and higher education opportunities within our innovative learning precinct at Edith Cowan University and the North Metropolitan TAFE to develop the skilled workforce of the future.
I look forward to working cooperatively with the business community to promote Joondalup as a destination for tourism and investment and to develop new business opportunities and markets for our products and services. Together we must promote the commercialisation of Australian research and development and the application of innovative and new technology into our industries to drive employment growth for our residents.
I look forward to continuing as a strong advocate for increased federal funding for roads, infrastructure and essential services such as health, education and defence to benefit my community of Moore. May I take this opportunity to thank all of my retiring colleagues and the staff at Parliament House for their dedicated service and wish them well for their future. I thank the community for placing its trust in me and respectfully seek that support to continue.
At this time of the year in my community we're all out in force celebrating the many key cultural festival activities that have now become annual events in our areas, making the federal seat of Calwell the most multicultural electorate in all of Australia. Last weekend alone we celebrated community new year festivals, and we are still celebrating International Women's Day.
Last Sunday my day began bright and early at the Highgate Recreation Reserve in Craigieburn to celebrate Sri Lankan New Year—a wonderful day for the Sri Lankan community to enjoy its cultural and sporting activities. This is organised by the North Victoria Welfare and Cultural Association. I want to thank Chandra Bamunusinghe for the tremendous work he does to make this a Sinhalese-Tamil celebration. This has been the case for many years now. For me, then it was off to Broadmeadows to the Seabrook Reserve to celebrate the Assyrian New Year. Following that, I had to dash across to Dallas to celebrate the Chaldean Babylonian New Year, otherwise known as the Akitu festival. This was organised by The Australian Chaldean Federation of Victoria.
The night before that—on Saturday night—I had the opportunity to hit the dance floor, literally, with my Chaldean women's league, who were celebrating a belated International Women's Day function. I want to thank Jonar Warda in particular for organising this wonderful event. I can tell you it's always a joy to be amongst these wonderful women. They take such great pride in their appearance, and I'm going to declare them as the most beautiful women in my electorate.
Last month I too held my annual International Women's Day celebration—a morning tea at the Newbury Child and Community Centre in Craigieburn. I want to thank, in particular, Archana Nayak, Anne Coall and all the staff from the Newbury Child and Community Centre for helping out on that day and making it a really, really successful morning tea. I want to thank my local business woman Patricia Surace of Baked Provisions, who provided the very delicious cakes, muffins and treats that we all enjoyed. And, of course, a want to give a great shout-out to our mayor, Carly Moore, and our deputy mayor, Naim Kurt, from the Hume City Council for coming along on the day and sharing in the festivities with us. Lastly, I want to thank the good Samaritan school mothers, who themselves on the day provided great entertainment for us all.
Finally, one of my favourite days in the annual calendar is Harmony Day. It's a day to reflect on and celebrate the social cohesion and inclusiveness of our communities and to show our support for the diverse cultures and backgrounds. This year Harmony Day was celebrated by the Dallas Neighbourhood House. They did a wonderful job, and I congratulate them.
Deputy Speaker Laundy, I start by acknowledging that this is your last day in the 45th parliament. Thank you for your friendship, support and wise counsel on all matters.
I want to use my last speech in this parliament to thank the people who have made my life a great joy in being here. I want to start by thanking my conference. We have the largest and most diverse Liberal Party conference in New South Wales. It's ably led by Matt Cross, Helen McNamee, Michael McAuley, Tom Green and Susan Carter. I also want to acknowledge the former office-bearers, Kate Golder and Brian Jepsen. Probably more than any other person, Brian Jepsen is responsible for me being a parliamentarian, and I owe Brian more than I will be able to repay. I want to acknowledge Pat McNamee, who ran my campaign in 2016 and who is backed up for a second stint, and also Maria Kovacic, who is assisting him.
I want to thank the staff who have served me. We are nothing as parliamentarians without our staff. I want to acknowledge Pip Englund, who headed up my office from the beginning until her family moved to Queensland at the end of last year. She did a magnificent job challenging me and encouraging me to be the best MP I could. Of Annette McHugh, who has come on board, she and I have been looking for many years for an opportunity to work together. She has great intellectual and emotional intelligence and an ability to look at old problems from new angles and never loses her enthusiasm for this place or the project we're trying to achieve. Daniel Dummer has been with me almost from the beginning. He served so many constituents. They've benefited from his advice and his hard work, and he's literally changed lives. Two Traceys have served as my EA: Tracey Shute and Tracey Barrowcliff. I pinch myself every day that such experienced, dedicated people have given up their time and choose to come and work with me. Annie Phillips has been running our media activities. She follows a long line of people that includes Dan Mumford, Gus McManus and Tom O'Brien, all of whom have gone on to bigger and better things in different fields.
I want to acknowledge other staff and interns that I've had. There are the highly talented, delightful and hardworking Anna Coote; Cain Noble Davies, who I met at Northcott disability services and who has crunched data for me week in, week out; Max Messenger; Leigh Gibbens; Carmen Maatouk; Josie Jacovac; Lucy Coote; Ashleigh Stirling—who's here in the chamber with me—Joe and Rachel Casey; Josh Bryant, who now works for the Minister for Home Affairs; Annika Reynolds; Jeremy Estrin; Bruce Watt; Joan Forno; Penny Becchio; Sylvia Pryor; Peter and Sue Reed; Sarah Nicholas; and Alexia Silver.
I want to acknowledge the policy interns I've had: Karla Nader, who was my rock during the free speech inquiry; Luca Madden, who assisted me with constitutional recognition; and Charlotte Office and Sam Hurrell, two medical students who have done wonderful work on mental health policy.
Finally, I just want to thank my family: my wife's parents, Jen and Andrew Davidson, and their mums, Jean Lindsay and Margot Davidson, for their wonderful support; my mum, Sylvia Leeser, and her husband, Allan, without whom we couldn't do this; my wonderful wife, Joanna, who allows me to do this; and James, our son, who was born during this first term. He's too young to understand what this is about, but I hope he knows that everything I do in this place is for him and his generation.
I thank the member for his comments and his kind words at the start of his comments. I call the member for Corio.
In the last few weeks we have seen the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and a number of ministers come down to Geelong to announce a $2 billion project to build a fast rail—a bullet train—between Geelong and Melbourne. In addition to that, there has been an announcement badged as 'Saving Sarah', the member for Corangamite: a $700 million promise to duplicate the rail line between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds in the southern suburbs of Geelong. 2.7 billion dollars worth of promises sounds pretty good. This has been put forward as: 'This is going to happen. It is a commitment by government.' In fact, it's a complete hoax. Of the $2.7 billion that has been talked about in respect of those two announcements, what we discovered in the federal budget on Tuesday night was $100 million. Of the $2.7 billion, there is 0.1 actually provided for in the federal budget. In respect of the fast rail, the Prime Minister was talking about construction within the next couple of years. The reality when you look at the budget is that there is a $50 million commitment towards it in the second half of the forwards, and that begins with a feasibility study, a fact which the Prime Minister has acknowledged himself, which means there is no chance that there is going to be construction within that period of time. There is no intent whatsoever on the part of the coalition to build a fast train between Geelong and Melbourne. This is nothing other than peddling false hope. This is all about a headline. It is not about substance at all. In respect of the duplication of the line from South Geelong to Waurn Ponds, what was committed in the federal budget on Tuesday night would actually represent a slowing-down of the time frame for the delivery of what is a really important piece of infrastructure that the state Labor government committed to in its election last November.
When you actually unpack these miraculous announcements, the truth is that there is very little there. There is no intention to actually do anything, and, to the extent that they have walked into the space, it is to such a modest degree that it will actually slow down the progress of what infrastructure is being built. I can tell you this: the most successful entity in terms of building infrastructure in Victoria in living memory has been this state government. If a Shorten government is elected, we will work closely with the Daniel Andrews Labor government at a state level to deliver fast transport between Melbourne and Geelong, as has been committed to by the state government. We will be more ambitious than the federal government has been in terms of its interventions here, which to this point in time have been nothing other than a hoax.
Our country communities are made up of some outstanding organisations and citizens, and Australia Day is a chance to recognise all of the wonderful things that they do and say thank you to them. I'd like to acknowledge some of the local award winners from the Calare electorate in this chamber today.
In the Mid-Western Region, Citizen of the Year went to Glenn Box, who was a driving force behind the 200 Bales drought campaign. Tayla Young was named Young Citizen of the Year. Among her many achievements, Tayla was a finalist for the New South Wales-ACT Trainee of the Year Award at the 2018 Group Training Awards, and she also participates in Anzac and Remembrance Day ceremonies with her fellow cadets.
Can Cruise is an annual car and motorbike rally hosted by the Cudgegong Cruisers. With the support of the Mudgee and Districts Can Assist branch, it was named Community Event of the Year. The 11th annual Can Cruise was recently held, and I'm told it was a huge success, with 220 cars participating and $25,000 raised. Congratulations to Cudgegong Cruisers President Gary Goodman, Vice President John Hodges, Secretary Lynda Goodman, Treasurer John Stuart and Glenn Box. They were ably assisted by the local Can Assist branch, including President James Pirie, Secretary Jan Pirie and Treasurer Cheryl Stuart.
The Glen Johnston Memorial Award was presented to Katherine Wilson, who is a music teacher and band director. Katherine was also an integral part of reviving the Mudgee Town Band. Lincoln Huia was recognised with a Sports Award for his achievements in both rugby league and touch football. The Volunteer Services Award was presented to Kevin and Jan Robson for their work in the community through the pensioners association, Legacy and the Henry Lawson Centre. The late Cameron Cox and Les Cook were fittingly recognised on the Wall of Reflections.
In Blayney, Elizabeth Russ was named Blayney Shire Australia Day Citizen of the Year. Well done, Elizabeth. Amanda Rouxel was awarded Young Citizen of the Year for her volunteering within the community, including with the SES, and serving as a youth leader. Peter Whiley received the Blayney Shire Australia Day Volunteer of the Year Award for his work with the Millthorpe and District Historical Society. Franz and Judy Belecky also received a Volunteer Award, for their involvement with and commitment to the Neville community. The Newbridge Winter Solstice, which is run by the Newbridge Progress Association, was named the Blayney Shire Community Event of the Year. It has been running for five years. The Blayney Shire Australia Day Appreciation Award went to three very deserving recipients: Karen Webster, Darrin Yates and Cheryl Rutherford. I congratulate the three of them.
Over in the Oberon Shire, Glen Stewart was named the 2019 Citizen of the Year. Bailey Armstrong was named Young Citizen of the Year. The Sportsperson of the Year went to Jess Ryan. Young Sportsperson of the Year went to Jorgia McFawn. The Sports Team of the Year was the Oberon High School under 16 rugby league team. I'd also like to mention the Oberon Community Night Volunteers, who got the Volunteer Group Award, and Meg Lowe, who received the Australia Day Committee Special Award for her commitment to the community. Congratulations to all Australia Day Awards nominees and winners in the Calare electorate.
Recently, Saint Francis of the Fields Primary School student Chelsea Breene wrote to me about her concerns on climate change, or the inaction of this place in relation to climate change. Saint Francis of the Fields is one of our Catholic schools based in Strathfieldsaye. I was invited by Chelsea to come and meet with her and her fellow students to discuss this issue. They raised a number of concerns. Particularly important to Chelsea was a crackdown on plastic, making sure that we stop plastic getting into our waterways. She wanted to see us ban the plastic bag in particular. The students raised concerns about the use of thermal coal, particularly in relation to the impact that it is having on our carbon emissions. They raised lots of ideas that they had on how we can better address and act on climate change.
This was similar to a conversation that I had with the students at Castlemaine North Primary School. I should give a shout-out to the Castlemaine North Primary School students for the conversation that we had about what they would do if they were the Prime Minister of this country. They said they would crack down on illegal dumping, particularly of rubbish. They said they wanted to see greater protection for species in danger. They also expressed their concern about climate change. There are other issues that they raised that they would address if they were Prime Minister. Some students said that we're not doing enough to support people who are homeless, that we need to make sure we help those most in need so that they have a comfortable home and enough money to buy food.
The final school I wish to really give a shout-out today is St Ambrose Parish Primary School in Woodend. They've been here this week and they had the opportunity to do the tour of Parliament House. Last Friday we held a leadership forum with the of the Macedon Ranges shire. We held a political forum and discussion—our own Q&A. In that, the students asked questions about local infrastructure. They also asked questions about women in leadership. They couldn't understand why in 2019 we don't have fifty-fifty representation of women in this parliament. They didn't buy the merit argument that's been put forward by those opposite. They really were surprised. They supported Labor's position and where we will be after the next election. They asked whether it was about the workplace, about the culture or about the way in which we support women in politics in regard to caring responsibilities. I did say, 'It's all of the above, but some of us here are working on it.' These students from across these schools are our future leaders, and we can be very proud of them.
The Liberal-National coalition's strong and responsible economic management over the last five and a half years is delivering great results for rural and regional Australia and certainly in my electorate of Murray. Since being elected to represent the people of Murray, I've had the honour to work with primary producers, local government, business owners, industry leaders, community groups and health providers, to deliver a range of productive outcomes for the whole community.
One of the most important infrastructure projects for the region that has been advocated over the last 10-20 years has been the Shepparton bypass. It was a fantastic honour to be able to announce federal funding for the first stage of the Shepparton bypass earlier this week. We've only been able to achieve this $208 million in funding because of the financially strong position that the federal government finds itself in, and because of the Nationals playing a strong part in that responsible government. I've been able to work very closely with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, over the last few years. I want to thank Minister McCormack for making the bypass funding a reality.
It is a core belief of the National Party and I'm sure of the Liberal Party that we have to at least make sure we can balance the books before we can deliver for all Australians and before we can look after all of the vulnerable people, which is our main aim. As most people would know, the poorest Australians tend to live in National Party seats. We are proud to represent them and fight for them as hard as we possibly can.
A few weeks ago, we were also able to announce a $15 million injection into the fruit industry. The fruit industry has an opportunity to bring its competitiveness forward. When it comes to the processing and the packing side of its industry. In Australia we're currently let down by our packing and sorting processes. This injection into the infrastructure around the fruit industry is much needed.
Also in relation to infrastructure, the Mitiamo pipeline project is in the throes of being funded. We've been working very closely with Minister McCormack, and that announcement is imminent. It's a fantastic project that will bring reliable, clean, high-quality water to over 200 farms that currently don't have it.
Only last week I was able to announce, with Minister Chester, a memorial to Brigadier Sir Murray Bourchier. He was a fantastic military figure from the Goulburn Valley who led the charge at the Battle of Beersheba and helped turn the course of the First World War. His great-great-niece Lucy is in the parliament as part of a delegation as well.
Today is almost certainly the last sitting day of this 45th Parliament, and under the Liberals—under Prime Minister Turnbull and under Prime Minister Scott Morrison—these last three years have been nothing short of chaotic. Of course, in the years before that, under Prime Minister Abbott, they weren't much better either. Year after year, budget after budget, our community has been attacked, disappointed and let down by the Liberals. We live in a wonderful community in the electorate of Longman. It is full of regular hardworking Australian people, but government have turned their backs on us, because their priorities simply lie with the top end of town.
On Tuesday night the Treasurer released his budget. After six years of the Liberals' cuts and chaos, and around six weeks before an election, this budget was their last chance to reverse the cuts to the essential services that everyday Australians rely upon. But again Longman residents have been let down by the same cuts to hospitals, schools, pensions, penalty rates and TAFE. While, unfortunately, that didn't come as a surprise to me, what I wasn't quite prepared for was what the government did in this budget. This time they're relying on a huge, $1.6 billion underspend on the NDIS to fund this con of a budget. It is an absolute disgrace. It is not an achievement at all.
Tonight the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, will announce Labor's positive plan for Australia. He will reaffirm the commitment that a Labor government will have different priorities to the Liberals. Labor will prioritise working people over the top end of town. We will prioritise hospitals and schools over banks. While this government has given up governing, Labor will be leading the way forward. We have a plan that will bring back a fair go for people in my community—for people at Bribie, for people in Caboolture and Woodford, Narangba, Burpengary and Wamuran. We're sticking up for local workers and standing up for what's fair.
For far too long my community has been let down by this Liberal government's misguided priorities. That's why I'm proud to be standing with Labor to reverse the Liberals' cuts—to reinvest the millions they ripped out of our local schools; to put the $2.9 million back into Caboolture Hospital; and to give back to the many, many workers who've had their take-home pay slashed under the Liberals their hard-earned penalty rates. I know that in six weeks, when the election rolls around, the people of Longman won't forget what the Liberals have done in the last six years. They won't forget the cuts and they won't forget the chaos. They want someone to stand up and fight for them, to stand up for a fair go. Tonight in Labor's budget reply we'll show them that's only possible under a Shorten Labor government. (Time expired)
Benny Muldoon is a very well known and loved identity in and around Lismore. Benny attended Wilson Park Special School during his primary years. After turning 18, he worked at Summerland House Farm, formally known as House With No Steps, and he recently received a medal for his dedication to the job after 35 years' service at the farm. From customers to staff, he greets them with a smile. He will go out of his way to help people and is very well known there.
Benny also loves his sport. He's a life member of the Marist Brothers Rams Rugby League Club, a president of the Lismore City Rugby Club and an avid Broncos' fan and Queensland supporter in State of Origin. I forgive you for that, Benny!
His dedication to the Rams earned him his nickname, Benny the Ram. He's one of the hardest workers at the club, and he's also their mascot. Before every home game he sets up the pads on the posts, he puts out the bins, he sets up the canteen and does the barbecue. At every Christmas event he plays Santa Claus, and he even has his own Santa business card. At one time, Benny was a regular on local radio station 2LM, sharing his footy tips every week with Neil Marks.
Benny's mother, Janice, worked hard to ensure that Benny would be able to live independently after she passed. She bought him a small house. After her death 11 years ago he has looked after himself ever since. He has two sisters, Mara and Jane, who are very proud of their brother. Benny, congratulations on reaching your milestone of 35 years at Summerland House Farm. Your mother would be very proud of you, and so are we.
Dakoda Walters from Angourie has just finished competing in the Key Sun Zinke Sydney Pro Junior surfing event in Manly, where he finished runner-up in his first pro junior final. This has put him in the world top 5 of junior surfers. I want to congratulate him on that. I also want to acknowledge other local surfers who are doing very well. Chris Zaffis from Angourie is ranked 110th in the men's qualifying series, Taj Watson from Moonee Beach is 13th in the junior series, Callum Robson is 96th in the men's qualifying series, Zack McMahon from Evans Head is 23rd in the junior series, and Carly Shanahan from Wooli is fifth in the junior series. They are all great role models for their peers and I congratulate them on their success.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
So much promise was invested in the budget this week. This was the budget of the Morrison government, following on from the Turnbull and Abbott governments. This would be the clean break where we would see a whole different direction and new ideas that would be potentially emerging out of this document. There was much faith and very little to show for it as a result of Tuesday night because, despite the promise that there would be a lot of difference in this budget as a result of this new Prime Minister and a new Treasurer, we pretty much saw more of the same.
I see this particularly in the portfolio that I am proud to be a shadow minister for, Human Services, where we saw not a clean break but a continuation of the same old agenda when it comes to Centrelink and Medicare. In respect of the Department of Human Services, what did we see? Over many years we have seen job cuts, we have seen worsening service and we have seen complaints soar. What we saw on Tuesday night, again, was more of the same. It can be summed up in this way: more jobs to go, more robo-debt to come.
One of the things that stood out in my mind was more job cuts at the Department of Human Services. Two hundred jobs that we have identified have been targeted to go out of the Department of Human Services. It's not enough that they've cut 2,500 jobs from the Department of Human Services in the last few years, principally covering Centrelink and Medicare; they're cutting more. Not satisfied with the jobs that have gone, they're cutting more jobs out.
The other thing that was revealed in that budget is the expected $2 billion saving on the way in which income will be treated through what is known as the Single Touch Payroll system and the automation of decision-making in there. There's no problem with applying technology to do things efficiently if you have thought ahead about the impact. We saw what happened with automated decision-making under this government through robo-debt, where people were sent notices of debts that they did not owe because the system had not been designed properly. This is a disgrace. People were sent debt notices, they paid them and they never actually owe the debt. This government is looking to potentially ratchet that up in what it's claiming will be a $2 billion saving. As I said, under this budget: more jobs to go, more robo-debt to come, no lessons learned by this government and no change in the way that they're treating the recipients who use Centrelink and Medicare services.
Our side of politics is committed to different. We have said we will invest in better jobs and better service. We have announced in the last year 1,200 jobs—permanent full-time roles in Centrelink and Medicare across the country in places where there is high need for those services or where an investment in those jobs will mean something for local economies and communities. I have been proud of the announcements that we have made through the course of the year designed to do just that. We want to see a reduction in wait times. We want to see improvements in service. We want to see permanent full-time roles where people are trained up and can provide the service required instead of always running to a contractor to provide those services, as those opposite do. Centrelink, for the coalition, is simply a target—a target to cut jobs, to cut service and to make life harder for average Australians. It's just wrong, and Labor is committed to change.
In my final moments in respect of this speech, I want to send out a huge congratulations to Yasodai Selvakumaran, a humanities teacher in her ninth year at Rooty Hill High School in my electorate of Chifley. Rooty Hill High has been doing some terrific things, thinking ahead about how to prepare young people in our area in Western Sydney for, particularly, the way that work will roll out into the future and building up their skills. Rooty Hill High has been named as one of Australia's 40 most innovative schools in 2016 and 2017, and Yasodai was recognised as one of the 30 rising stars under the age of 35 in Australian education by The Educator magazine. I want to congratulate Yas for recently being shortlisted as a top 10 candidate for the 2019 Global Teacher Prize. She travelled to Dubai to represent our community. We are extremely proud of her achievements, her dedication and what she's doing to prepare young people for jobs of the future.
It's always great to rise in this place and speak about the terrific community groups that are in our various electorates, and even better when we can stand in this place and say that we have funded and supported some of these terrific groups. One of the reasons we can fund and support some of these terrific organisations and groups is this government is managing the budget well, and we've got an economy that, as a result, is providing the resources to the government to fund these organisations. It is a dividend to our communities as a result of their hard work and enterprise that this government has encouraged.
I'd like to take this opportunity to single out a couple of groups which we have made some announcements for recently. The first one I'd like to acknowledge is Logan Basketball; I acknowledge the terrific work done by the team there. Logan Basketball look after some 3,000 players across five clubs at the Cornubia Park Sports Centre and they do an outstanding job, led by Sandra and Joshua in particular. I'm pleased to say that the government has invested $264,000 as part of the Move It AUS Community Sport Infrastructure grant—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:08 to 11:27
As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted, one of the great clubs in my electorate is Logan Basketball. We've had the pleasure of providing them with an additional $264,000 of funding under the community sport infrastructure grant program. This funding will got to building new change room facilities at Logan Basketball. This means a lot to the club because the club is continuing to grow. Funding these new change rooms will see increased participation and the club continue to grow, particularly the women's section of the club. The change rooms are currently in poor condition, particularly for the women. During this period of growth we're seeing enormous growth in women's participation. Separating the change rooms will give added incentive for women to come back and play basketball.
Logan Basketball was formed 21 years ago. It was the first basketball club formed in Logan. I'm proud to say that this government is prioritising investment in grassroots local sporting clubs because it recognises the wider health, social and community benefits that come from greater activity and participation in sport.
Another terrific community organisation in my electorate—and it also covers areas of Rankin—is the Street Doctor, which a Logan City medical service provider set up to provide further help and support to the homeless, those suffering domestic violence, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. It has been operating for over four years. The Street Doctor delivers after-hours bulk-billed and accessible care in a secure environment for those living rough on the streets. It was interesting talking to them about the services they provide and the people that they see. This terrific service fulfils a great need in our community, as, sadly, there are a number of people in our community who are disconnected and, for whatever reason, don't have the connections and support mechanisms necessary to engage more fully in society.
Last week we announced $600,000 worth of funding to Street Doctor, for them to extend their service and to better help those most disadvantaged; that's $200,000 a year over the next three years. In addition, we provided $600,000 to Pharmaceutical Rehabilitation Services in my electorate. This is a targeted program with a focus on drug and alcohol treatment, preventing primary disease, chronic disease management and mental health. PRS engages with local GPs to assist them with patients who have drug and alcohol dependency, and also to help with hep-C treatment methods.
This support to these organisations across our community is designed to help support those most in need. I'm very proud to say that this government, through its prudent budget management, has the funds to support these great local organisations, and I thank them for the work they do.
Last week the Prime Minister made the right decision in directing all Liberal Party branches to place One Nation on the very bottom of their how-to-vote cards in the forthcoming election. I congratulate him for making the decision. I will overlook the fact that he exhausted every possible alternative to that decision before reaching the right thing to do.
The xenophobic, racist and bigoted comments, and the stunts and the vaulting hypocrisy of the One Nation party deserve no place in our democracy. That last straw was drawn when it was revealed on ABC television last week that they had somehow sought to bring the poisoned, toxic and corrupt politics of the National Rifle Association into our democracy. There can be no place for this toxic, poisoned politics in Australian democracy. It corrupts our public debate, it is dangerous and we reject it utterly.
What could have been a unifying moment for the entire nation, for every respectable political party in this country, unfortunately, did not come to pass. We've expected the member for Warringa to take every possible opportunity he can to be a perverse and ridiculous figure in Australian politics. But, frankly, I would have expected more from the National Party. The member for Warringah and the member for Stirling, who is on his way out the door, said that One Nation, frankly, should be above Labor and many other parties on the how-to-vote card. But the National Party, a party which is hoping to win seats in the next election, has not taken that approach.
This is a time for leadership. It is incumbent upon every mainstream party that seeks to get elected and every serious candidate getting elected in seats to show leadership on this issue. There can be no place for racism and bigotry in the forthcoming election. It is the obligation of the National Party—and I don't care whether it's in Queensland, where they're on razor-thin margins and think that they are reliant on One Nation preferences, or throughout New South Wales, Victoria or Tasmania—to do the right thing by Australian democracy and to do the right thing by their electorates.
They should put One Nation last. But that's only the first thing they should do. They should then turn to their electors, to their citizens, and explain why. If I were the member for Dawson, for example, I would be explaining to my electors that we cannot say to the rest of the world: 'We want you to buy our wheat, we want you to buy our beef, we want you to buy our sugar and we want you to buy our coal and our iron ore, but we don't like you. We don't like you; we don't like the look of you and we don't like your religion. We don't want you to come and visit, and if you do come and visit we don't want you to stay.' This is unsustainable. It's morally wrong and it's not in the interest of those electorates. It's certainly not in the interest of any of those northern and Central Queensland electorates which rely on commodities and trade with the rest of the world for their economic wellbeing.
It is a very simple argument to make, and the challenge for all those LNP candidates in the forthcoming election is to do what I have just said: take the argument up to the bigots and take the argument up to the racists. If you can't do it on the basis that they're wrong then do it on the basis that it is poor economic policy. The challenge is there for you.
To all of those clowns in the right-wing media who have attempted to create some sort of moral equivalence between One Nation and the Greens and other parties on the Left, let me make this point. There has to be a price for entry to mainstream politics in this country. We can argue about economic policy. We can argue about environmental policy. We can argue about law and justice and all of the other issues that we are faced with in this august parliament, but there are some things which are above argument, and they are bigotry and racism. There can be no place for bigotry and racism in this parliament or in our politics. It's the price of entry to Australian politics.
So once again I put the challenge out to all of the coalition parties: do the right thing. Follow the lead of Tim Fischer and all of those other old-school conservatives. Do the right thing. Put the bigots and racists last.
I'm proud to be part of a coalition government, a government that is making real progress and delivering for all Australians, including the constituents of my electorate of Bonner. I've been speaking to locals this week, and they've told me that they are pleased that the coalition has delivered a strong budget with no additional taxes, all while delivering essential services.
As the dad of two boys, aged six and four, it is very important to me and to my constituents that we are investing in our future generations. The coalition knows how important that is and that our nation's children need the best possible start in life. That's why we're investing $453 million to extend preschool education, enabling hundreds of thousands of children to have access to 15 hours of quality early learning per week in the year before school. Kerry from Tingalpa kindy told me that this investment is great for parents and families in Bonner. She said, 'If this funding wasn't available local families would have to fork out thousands of dollars, meaning that for most children early learning education wouldn't be an option.' Kerry said, 'Local community childcare centres like Tingalpa kindy are run by the community, and without this continual funding the centres would not be viable to run.' Kerry said, 'Families in Bonner rely so heavily on this kindy funding, and if it didn't exist those who need it most would have less choice, and the children would miss out.'
Under the coalition, funding for all public, independent and Catholic schools in Bonner is at a record high, and it will continually grow substantially in the decade ahead. We are committing around $300 billion to all schools. This is a total increase of 63 per cent. We are able to do this because we are the government of fiscal responsibility. We know how to live within our means and deliver for all of Bonner without imposing any new taxes on our hardworking families. We've invested $30.2 million to establish the Local School Communities Fund to support priority projects in local schools that benefit students and their communities. This means schools in Bonner can apply project upgrades to libraries, classrooms and play equipment. The coalition knows how important investment in education is, but it's important also to improve skills, support our educators and deliver quality education. We are investing $5 million over the next three years from, 2019 to 2022, for Life Education Australia to develop a new range of free training resources to help teachers support the social and emotional needs of students.
We all know that Labor can't manage money, and that's why they come after yours. The constituents of Bonner can rest easy knowing the coalition is delivering for them. More than 71,000 constituents in Bonner will benefit from tax relief in 2018-19, thanks to the coalition's personal income tax plan, and almost 30,000 of those people will receive the full tax offset of $1,080 back into their own pockets. These are the largest personal income tax cuts since the time of the Howard government. For a family in Bonner this money means more fuel, more food on the table and more quality time to do the things that families love doing together, things like going to the movies or being able to drive to the beach for the day.
We have also increased funding to all hospitals in Queensland by 84 per cent since we came to government, and the GP bulk-billing rate in Bonner is now 79 per cent. Last year, over 739,353 GP visits in Bonner were bulk-billed. That is 179,000 more than in Labor's last year in government. Thanks to the coalition, 17,564 small and medium businesses in Bonner will benefit from our tax relief measures. More than 17,000 small and medium businesses will also benefit from the coalition's extension of the instant asset write-off scheme, enabling them to invest in machinery and equipment up to the value of $30,000. Investing in business is investing in jobs. When the coalition assumed its rightful place in government in 2013, the unemployment rate in Bonner was 5.2 per cent; it's now 4.7 per cent. Nationally, there are fewer people on welfare.
We're working hard for the hardworking people in Bonner. A strong economy means that the coalition is able to deliver and invest in vital infrastructure that communities like mine in Bonner desperately need. Just remember, Labor is the bill that you and your family cannot afford.
Every week or so I do a little video for my constituents of Cooper that updates them on what I've been up to in the electorate and what has been keeping the people of the electorate activated. I decided that I would bring that to parliament and do my 'Cooper Chronicles' update from here.
As you would know, it's budget week. I'm sure you've noticed that there is not much in the budget for the good people of Cooper. There are certainly no ideas, no great vision for this country. Laura Tingle had it right when she wrote recently for the ABC:
A tumultuous six years of declared debt and deficit crises, culture wars and internal warfare, the Coalition's sixth Budget seems to reflect a government that has collapsed, exhausted, in on itself.
Nothing that you, the good people of Cooper, care about has had a budget boost. That's including our beloved ABC, which I know the people of Cooper care very greatly about.
A couple of weeks ago, the wonderful Linda Burney visited Cooper and she met with some families and individuals struggling with the NDIS. She met parents of children with really complex care needs who cannot get their packages updated in a timely manner to deliver the rapidly changing care needs of their children. They cannot get crucial updates for their houses, like ramps, and assistance with bathing their children.
We spoke to two families in particular. I have to say they were at the very limits of managing. I could see the tension and anxiety in their eyes. I could hear the exhaustion in their voices from the frustration of inaction by the agency, and I felt the tension and pressure that this situation had put them under. To think that the delays and underspending had been by design, to think that this government has willingly put those poor people through that to save money for a fake surplus is beyond belief. You deserve better than that.
Then there are jobs. There was a major dispute in Cooper that ended just last week. Workers at the distribution centre for Chemist Warehouse went on strike. They had major concerns about casualisation, worker harassment, poor wages. They won their dispute after a long and bitter battle, and I congratulate them and their union, the NUW. I was proud to go down and support them at their protest, to support the workers and the other community members of Cooper who went down to help. Just imagine what your life is like if you have to wait for a text message at night-time to tell you that you have a shift the next day at work. The anxiety and insecurity that that creates is unbelievable.
This is a situation for so many, and if you are not in a workplace that is highly organised with your union, it is almost impossible to just go up and ask for a pay rise. You may not get that text that night; you may not get that next shift; you may not get that next pay packet. Insecure work, low wages and few rights—it's a story that I hear over and over again from people in my electorate. There is nothing from this government to help raise wages. There is nothing from this government to ensure decent jobs and a living wage.
Now, I know also for the people of Cooper that climate is a huge issue. We have many wonderful activists in my seat who come and see me almost on a daily basis. They want action. They want urgent action. They want us to be on an emergency footing to deal with climate change. Labor will address this on a large scale. We have a large plan; we have a plan that is achievable. We have a plan that will make a difference, and it is ambitious.
There's so much that can be done on a local level in Cooper. Did you know, for example, that Cooper has some of the least canopied streets in the state—yes, less trees means higher temperatures and adds to global warming. We need to do something about that. We have some wonderful creeks in Cooper—Darebin Creek, Merri Creek, Edgars Creek—and they are screaming out for care, for extra resources, to make sure that they stay clean. The management associations do a great job, but I'm pleased to say that we will commit $1 million to the waterways of Cooper to make sure they are clean.
We have committed $4 million to the Moreland Energy Foundation to help establish community-run sustainable energy providers. We will put $40 million into extending the Gilbert Road tram. We will have Indigenous rangers. We know that these things are important to the people of Cooper, and I'm proud to say that I am in the Labor Party. Should we form government, we'll provide action on all of these things and make life better for the people in my electorate.
This week we saw a great budget for Australia but an even better budget for the Sunshine Coast. Nationally, it delivers the first surplus in—how long?—12 years. Did you hear that? Twelve years! There is $100 billion in infrastructure investment. There is $300 billion for schools and help with energy bills for older Australians, and it does it all while delivering $158 billion in lower income taxes.
Locally, it's a budget that helps lower our cost of living. It allows Sunshine Coast residents to keep more of their own money, funds even more infrastructure for our community, helps local businesses to create more jobs of the future, and provides the vital services that we need.
Honourable members interjecting—
I want to help people in Fisher meet the rising cost of living by letting them keep more of their own money. Sixty thousand residents in my electorate will receive a tax cut of up to $1,080 from the end of this tax year under this budget. Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers will pay a tax rate of no more than 30c in the dollar.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! Can the member for Fisher please be heard in silence.
Thank you. I was having a little trouble hearing myself over my—
So was I. My apologies.
Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers will pay a tax rate of no more than 30c in the dollar, putting more money in their back pockets to pay for life's essentials and to save for the future. More than 20,000 businesses in my electorate will be eligible for the budget's extended and expanded instant asset write-off, with companies with a turnover of up to $50 million able to apply it to assets costing up to $30,000.
This Liberal-National government can let Fisher residents and businesses keep more of their own money, because we know how to build a strong economy. Labor want to slug the people of Fisher with $200 billion of new taxes, because their answer to everything is to spend other people's money. A strong economy means we can help people in Fisher to get home sooner and safer by building the infrastructure our community deserves. In the last two budgets this Liberal-National government invested $3.13 billion in upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast and $390 million to duplicate the North Coast railway line.
This budget commits another $91.4 million to improving the Maroochydore Road interchange on the Bruce Highway. There's $3.65 million for making Sunshine Coast roads safer and $12 million to rebuild the bridge over Mayes Canal on Brisbane Road in Mooloolaba. Locals know that this is one of the major routes into Mooloolaba, and it is a terrible congestion hotspot. I've been advocating for action to improve it, along with my friend John Connolly, the local councillor, and he has done a great job in advocating for that, so well done to John. The new bridge will allow for two lanes each way and make a very big difference to John Connolly for locals and tourists alike.
A strong economy helps to create the jobs that local people want, but it also pays for the vital services that we need. This is the why—why we have a strong economy; why we need to have budget surpluses. This budget continues the Liberal-National government's record investment in schools and hospitals. In the period to 2025, we'll see $266 million in extra funding for schools in Fisher and an estimated $261.7 million extra for our local hospitals. This budget invests a further $20 million into Fisher healthcare projects that are close to my heart and I've been fighting for on behalf of the local residents. Twelve million dollars will go to Wishlist, to build low- and no-cost accommodation for families visiting sick people at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital; $4½ million will be committed to the endED Butterfly House in Mooloolah Valley; and a further $2½ million will be committed to the Thompson institute. That's on top of the $5 million that we provided for them in the 2017 budget. That will go to dementia programs, youth mental health and suicide prevention. Only the Liberal-National government can afford to support these fantastic initiatives, and I wholly recommend the budget.
Almost three years ago I was extremely fortunate to be elected to this place by the good people of Braddon. It is remarkable that, over the last three years, the issues and challenges for my region remain the same. And those issues will remain the same unless there is a change of government. The budget handed down this week by the Prime Minister and his Treasurer has confirmed that the people of Braddon will be better off under a Shorten Labor government. In all the key priority areas for our region, Labor has a better plan—for health, education, TAFE, apprenticeships, tax cuts, jobs and economic growth, and let's not forget wages. This government has no plan to help boost the wages of people in my electorate. My local paper—The Advocate, the wonderful Fairfax daily paper in my electorate—today talks about how subdued wages have led to significant decline in retail turnover. That's not good for businesses in my electorate. But this government has forgotten those people who earn under $40,000 a year. In my electorate, the gross income for 25 per cent of people is $33,000 a year or less. This government has completely forgotten them. We've got a household median income that is $330 a week less than the Australian median income, and this government doesn't really seem to care about the people in my electorate. Let's talk about penalty rates. Because this government hasn't acted on penalty rates, it has cost businesses in my electorate $10 million.
There are so many issues that I could speak on in the time that I have, but I want to particularly focus on two: support for our farmers and support for our people when they are unwell. During the 2016 election, farmers in my electorate were devastated by a combination of flood and dairy-price clawbacks. They wanted government support, but none of that was given. The minister at the time, the member for New England, couldn't even be bothered to come down and speak to my farmers. But now, three years on, farmers are telling me they want support from government to increase their productivity, increase local jobs and grow our economy. They want government to invest in more irrigation, building upon Labor's tranche 1 and 2 Tasmanian irrigation schemes. I note the irony of those opposite who have turned up in Tasmania in recent times taking credit for the completion of tranche 2 schemes. They forget that every irrigation scheme constructed in Tasmania over the last 20 years has been either planned or funded by Labor. For the last six years, this government has done nothing—a lack of vision, a lack of leadership. So once again it's up to Labor to lead the way and roll out the next phase of Tasmanian irrigation projects. A Shorten Labor government will provide $100 million towards these projects, many of which are in my electorate of Braddon, in our wonderful dairying areas in the far north-west. But this government offers Tasmanian farmers nothing—not a cent—for irrigation.
Shortly after I was elected in 2016, I received an email from Dr John O'Sullivan from the Devonport GP Superclinic. Dr O'Sullivan was concerned that this government had axed a fund called TAZREACH that enabled visiting medical specialists to come to his practice and many areas in my region, including the west coast of Tasmania, Circular Head and King Island. His concerns at the time were shared by the West Coast Council mayor, Phil Vickers, who said that this loss was detrimental to his community. He said:
The loss of these services places more stress on unwell residents and will also place more pressure on these services in other regions as West Coasters will now have to travel to attend appointments.
Three years later these health cuts remain in place. Sick people are being forced to travel, and some are not even going to their appointments. Labor will re-establish this fund, with $4½ million, to get visiting medical specialists to regional and rural areas of Tasmania.
I would like to thank Dr John O'Sullivan and all the small businesses across the north-west for helping us collect this petition. I'm unable to table it because the Petitions Committee has not met, but over 1,000 people in my electorate have signed this petition. We've been campaigning on this for three years. But, again, the budget on Tuesday night did not fund this service. This government has no care or respect for those in regional Australia, particularly in regional Tasmania, for making sure that they get the best care outcomes possible.
Dr O'Sullivan said recently:
We had a great service, with cardiologists, physicians and psychiatrists.
They were on site to be able to look after our patients but now these patients have to travel for some of their care.
We have an elderly population and patients who are unwell. They need access to ready medical care in rural areas and should not have to travel 60kms or 100kms for that.
This government has failed again. But the choice is clear. Labor will invest in health. Labor will be there to support our farmers.
I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for delivering a budget for all Australians on Tuesday night. For the first time in 12 years the budget is back in black and Australia is back on track, and our country is far stronger than it was when we came to government six years ago.
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear the opposition cheering over there! By restoring our nation's finances and strengthening our economy, we're able to invest in a significant new skills and infrastructure agenda and continue to deliver essential services Australians rely on.
I'd like to update the House with a few of the exciting projects that will be happening in my electorate of Swan—I'm sure the member for Hunter can't wait to hear! It was a pleasure to host the Prime Minister last week in my electorate of Swan where he announced that the Morrison Liberal government 2019-20 federal budget would lock in an additional $1.6 billion investment for critical infrastructure across Perth and regional Western Australia. Of that, I secured $207.5 million for the removal of three key level crossings at Oats Street, Welshpool Road and Mint Street, and a further $13.25 million for the Abernethy Road upgrade in High Wycombe. The replacement of these three key level crossings in Swan will change the way we move around our city and benefit the entire community. I know that constituents of mine who have to sit for 10 or 15 minutes at a railway crossing will be very pleased about this.
The federal government has provided the money, and the state will do the work. This is real money in a real budget that will help many people in Swan get home to their families quicker and safer. You might not enjoy this, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—or you might but you won't be surprised—but what Bill Shorten and his candidate decided to do the next day was announce that, if elected, they will match the commitment. But, of course, that's only if Bill's candidate is elected. Did they miss the announcement? It's already funded, it's already in the budget, it's real money, but they're going out and announcing it the next day.
Labor always love to boast that they care for hospitals and that they're the ones to trust on health. But as I've always said in this House: don't believe what they say; look at what they do. I assure you that there is a stark contrast. The WA Labor government don't support Bentley Hospital in my electorate of Swan. They started their attacks when I was first elected in 2007 and ramped them back up in 2017 when they came into government. When Jim McGinty was the state health minister in 2007, he attempted to close down the maternity services for Bentley Hospital. Under the leadership of the WA Liberals, we stopped Labor's campaign to undermine one of the key services offered at Bentley Hospital.
It doesn't end there, though. On the WA Labor government's 2017 budget, the Southern Gazette reported in September 2017:
Ten million dollars earmarked for the redevelopment of Bentley Hospital was quietly passed to Royal Perth Hospital's fire needs in the recent State Budget.
They took $10 million out of Bentley Hospital. Guess what happened recently? It's one of the oldest hospitals in Perth's south, it's still in operation and Labor believed it wasn't important, so they cut $10 million. Conveniently, Bill Shorten's candidate was in the Premier's office at the time as an adviser during the preparation of this budget that decided that Bentley Hospital did not need an upgrade. But now the Leader of the Opposition's candidate and Labor have attempted to hide their cuts to Bentley Hospital, and Bill Shorten has come over to announce—wait for it—$10 million with his candidate for Swan.
Opposition members interjecting—
They don't want to hear this, because it's a contrast. WA Labor take $10 million out of the operating budget then the Leader of the Opposition comes over and announces it like it is new. How hypocritical! I hope you're keeping up. If you are, you would have worked out that Labor has done absolutely nothing for the hospital except return the initial funding that it cut in the first place.
Under the Liberals, as the Treasurer announced, we are back in the black, and we will stay that way. Western Australians know that when the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer come to WA they will be in their back pocket quicker than they can say, 'Tax and spend.' The people of Swan are far smarter than the Leader of the Opposition and his candidates take them for. It's disappointing that they're pulling political stunts like this with hospitals in my electorate of Swan. I've said it once and I'll say it again: when Labor run out of money, they come after your money. Under the Liberals, as the Treasurer announced, we are now back in the black.
Very sadly, the most common source of complaint to my busy electorate office is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. People with disability, their carers, their families and their loved ones are usually at their wits end when they come to us. These typically self-sufficient people don't really want to come to their member of parliament but are forced to do so out of sheer frustration and their inability to get the service, care and equipment that they need for their loved one or, indeed, for themselves.
I get it. I think more than 600,000 Australians are making the transition from the old system to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's a big exercise. There were always going to be challenges, including teething problems, but we could never have feared that the system could let people down so badly. Like our Centrelink staff, who are also under-resourced, NDIA staff are copping much of the brunt of people's frustration, and they shouldn't be. I have the highest regard for the agency staff. They are doing their best in very difficult circumstances, circumstances driven in large part by the staffing cap that this government has placed on the agency. They're trying to do a very difficult and challenging task in the most challenging of circumstances.
I shouldn't be surprised that so many people are coming into my office, because something like 77,000 fewer people have made their way to the NDIS than should have been the case. That's a lot of people. Obviously each of the 150 members of the House of Representatives have their share of those 77,000 people. You can imagine how distressed those people and their families were to learn on Tuesday night that the Prime Minister built his wafer-thin budget surplus in part on the back of their pain. He funded his surplus by underspending on the NDIS. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister say, 'But it's demand driven.' Yes, it is, and 77,000 people aren't placing any demand on the system because they can't get into the system. What an outrageous thing for a government to do. Does it have no conscience, heart or care for these people? It's very disappointing.
As an opposition we don't pretend that this mess is going to be easy to fix. We have to be careful about expectations management as well, because what we will inherit will be somewhat of a train wreck. We do make the commitment that we will remove that cap, and that in itself will make a big difference. We will work as hard as we can for these people to fix their problems. We will make this an absolute priority for a Shorten Labor government. Why shouldn't it be a priority? Surely there's no greater responsibility than for us to take care of those less advantaged than we are. Certainly there's no group of people in our community more worthy of support than those who are finding themselves frustrated by the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I remind people that the budget surplus is around $7 billion. You have to be careful suggesting that $1 billion is not a lot of money—of course it is—but, in federal government budget terms, it is not that much more than this government is spending on giving cash rebates on dividend imputation for people in this country who don't pay tax. Of course 80 per cent of that money is going to 20 per cent of the highest-income earners in this country.
Where are the government's priorities? Are we that concerned about people getting a tax rebate when they don't pay tax? Or are we more concerned about the people in this country, their carers, their families and their service providers, who are as frustrated as those with disabilities themselves? Where are our priorities? Our priorities should be with those with a disability and all those other people suffering disadvantage in our communities, including those on Newstart. Those on that side like to demonise people on Newstart as if it's somehow always there fault. Sure, there are people who could try harder, but there are more people who, for whatever reason and through no fault of their own, have struggled to get work in this country.
I appreciate this opportunity, my last opportunity to speak in this parliament. Upon reflection, we have been a good government. We have returned the budget to surplus. We inherited a budget deep in deficit and we have turned that around. We have the budget back in surplus. We have seen the creation under this government of 1.2 million new jobs, a number that was laughed at when we first suggested a million new jobs. We have unemployment under five per cent—with a four in front of it—a tremendous achievement. The AAA credit rating has been maintained. We have stopped the boats. There have been no further deaths at sea, and we have been able to increase our humanitarian refugee intake from places like Syria.
Yet I look at the possibility of an alternative Labor government and I am frightened by what I see for the future of our nation. We have Labor's housing tax, which will slash house prices in electorates across the nation. In my electorate, those who own a house are likely to see a $100,000 devaluation of their homes. We see their attack on self-funded retirees on modest incomes—a discriminatory, regressive tax that slugs those people that have saved and worked under the rules of the day only to find in their old age the Labor Party wants to move the goalposts and steal their franking credits.
Then, of course, we have the report from Brian Fisher of BAEconomics—truly independent modelling from Brian Fisher, who used to be employed by the Keating government and the Hawke government. Labor's 45 per cent emissions reduction target that they brag about will cost this nation 336,000 full-time jobs. We'll be able to fill the MCG up three times with the number of people that Labor's policies will put in the unemployment lines.
Then there is the slash for those that still have jobs—an eight per cent cut in real wages across the board. The opposition leader said this should be a referendum about wages. I say, 'Bring it on!' because he is taking to this election policies that will slash wages by eight per cent. For the average wage earner, by 2030 that will be something like $9,000.
Then we have Labor's policy on electricity. The modelling tells us that it'll increase the wholesale price of electricity by up to 58 per cent. We already have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. The Labor Party's policy will see a de-industrialisation of this nation if they proceed with those reckless and wanton targets.
One of my greatest concerns about what the Labor Party's policies will do if they're elected will be in motoring and the freedom of people to own and purchase the type of car that they would like to buy. We have seen this absurd stunt of talking about electric cars.
Electric cars are nothing other than expensive green toys for rich virtue-signalling people. If someone wants to buy an electric car, good luck to them, but they should not come with their hand out asking for a government subsidy and asking for governments to assist them. This morning we saw how absolutely clueless the Leader of the Opposition is in this area. He was asked how long it takes to charge an electric car up. After a long pause, he said something along the lines of: 'Oh, um, ah, it depends on—it can take 8 to 10 minutes.' This shows how completely clueless he is and that he is not across his brief. The time to charge a Nissan Leaf at home from 0 to full on a three-pin plug is 18 hours! On a special 3.7 kilowatt plug, it is 11 hours. Even on the so-called fast charge, it is six hours. A Tesla Model S charged at home takes 44 hours to charge! We have had the Leader of the Opposition out there today saying it will take eight to 10 minutes! (Time expired)
As the 45th Parliament draws to a close, I'm reflecting on what the government has done for the people of Werriwa. The answer is not much, and not much for the NDIS in particular. This government has woefully underspent. It has let down recipients and carers alike. Many of my constituents have been left suffering, waiting 12 months for plan reviews. The stories that I hear in my electorate are heartbreaking, as were those detailed by the member for Hunter. This should not be happening to provide a surplus.
Not much has changed about the NBN either. Much of Werriwa is still waiting for the NBN—or those who have actually got it would like it to work even when it rains! Some parts of my electorate, like Long Point, which I've spoken about in this House on several occasions, won't see it for another 12 months. Although, given that every time that we check on the website that date seems to move back, 12 months may also be a pipedream.
There is not much for Western Sydney Airport. Werriwa is the home to Sydney's new airport, but we don't know if this government will deliver the road, rail and fuel line needs for the promised economic boom. There is also not much for education. School and TAFEs, which promise opportunity for the people of my electorate, are being left to stagnate by this government.
Then we get to energy bills—they have never been higher. Residents of Werriwa are feeling the squeeze of the cost of living and the lack of energy policy that is leading to the uncertainty that is keeping power bills high. Werriwa's had enough. We need a Labor government to deliver the health care, education and infrastructure our community deserves.
Buongiorno! Last month I attended the beginners Italian class at Marco Polo Italian School. The school is hosted by CNA-Italian Australian Services. My electorate of Werriwa has a large Italian community. When I speak to my constituents, they're concerned about their children and grandchildren maintaining a connection to their culture and their language. While visiting CNA, I spoke to some of the HSC students learning Italian. These young people highlighted how important it was for them to continue learning the language of their grandparents, so they can connect to them and their cultural heritage. Money is tight at CNA and other language schools in Werriwa, but they still do their best to deliver services to as many of our citizens as possible.
That's why Labor's $8 million investment in community language schools is so important. We want our young citizens in a diverse and multicultural Australia to have an affordable way to connect with their language and their culture. We want our young people to be able to communicate with their grandparents and their relatives, and be part of our global economy. Under our plan, the not-for profit language schools will be able to apply for grants of up to $25,000 to upgrade resources, improve teacher training and expand their programs to preschool aged children. Having seen the CNA school, I know just how much difference this money will make, and I look forward to community language schools flourishing under a Shorten Labor government.
In February I visited John Edmondson High School in Horningsea Park for a very special ceremony. Together with Principal Leon Weatherstone, I unveiled a plaque commemorating the support of the Edmondson, Hurst and Peacock families during both World War I and World War II.
We think of World War I as the time when Australia became a nation in her own right. Whilst the Gallipoli campaign was catastrophic, it brought Australians together to share in the bravery and sacrifice of our own soldiers and those of New Zealand across the Ditch. We know both wars are significant in terms of Australian history and world history, but something we reflect less on is the individual sacrifices and the impact those sacrifices have on families and communities back home. John Edmondson, whom the high school is named for, died when he was 27 on the battlefields in Tobruk. While we rightly commemorate the bravery and sacrifice of John Edmondson himself, what we often forget is to consider the grief of his family and the grief of the community he left back home in Liverpool. John's parents, Joseph and Maude, had to wave good-bye to a son they would never see again. John was their only child. This story was common in the countless families whose bravery supported their children to fight for their country and never return.
The plaque was funded under the armistice centenary grant. These grants enable community organisations to commemorate Australia's military history and the effect that it had in places around the time of World War I and World War II.
I rise to speak about the very significant infrastructure funding which has been announced for the Corangamite and Geelong regions and which is a game-changing investment for the people I proudly represent. In the budget this week, along with the surplus, we announce add record $100 billion over 10 years for roads and rail projects right across the country in our rural areas and in our cities. This includes $2 billion to finally get fast rail going in this nation from Geelong to Melbourne to deliver a 32-minute journey. As soon as the state government can match this funding—we're calling on the state government to match this funding—and is willing to build this rail line, the money will be there. It is in our budget on page 64 of Budget Paper No. 2, and the reference is from 2021-22: $2 billion for the delivery of fast rail from Melbourne to Geelong to reduce travel times, increase train patronage and ease congestion on the Princes Highway and West Gate Bridge.
We've also delivered $700 million more for the Geelong rail duplication project, a project that I have championed since 2015. In 2016, we delivered $1 million for planning at a time when the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Jacinta Allan, said this was not a priority. In the 2017 budget there was $100 million, in the 2018 budget there was $50 million and now, of course, there is $700 million, bringing it to a total of $850 million for this project. There's also money for a business case to look at the Geelong rail tunnel and additional money left over for provision for future construction works to deliver that dual track that we desperately need to provide more frequent, reliable and faster rail services through Geelong. We know how critical rail infrastructure is.
I want to call out and make this very clear on the record today: Australians do not like lies. I want to call out Bill Shorten's candidate in Corangamite, who said on the—
The member for Corangamite will refer to members by their official title.
I'm not talking about a member.
I believe you are.
I'm sorry; Bill Shorten. Apologies. I want to call out the Leader of the Opposition's candidate in Corangamite, who in a post on her Facebook page said:
Scott Morrison and the Liberals have sat on their hands for nearly six years, doing nothing to improve rail infrastructure in Victoria.
What an absolute joke that is. That is a patent lie. As I've documented very clearly, we've delivered $150 million already, and now in this budget, which preceded this candidate making this statement, we delivered another $700 million. Of course, just two weeks ago we announced $2 billion. So what a mockery. Politics is full of people who come to politics for all the right reasons, but Australians want their politicians to have integrity, and there is no integrity when a candidate makes that sort of statement after our government has delivered this sort of money for the Corangamite region. Of course, the total amount of money available and announced by our government up until the budget was $1.75 billion for the Regional Rail Revival package, when the state Labor government had provided only $150 million.
Now we have the member for Corio making more untruthful statements, claiming that the $2 billion for fast rail is not in the budget. That is patently untrue. They are desperate. It is clear that the Labor Party does not support fast rail. The Labor Party does not support faster, more reliable rail services into our region. The member for Corio is on a mission to campaign against better rail services. I say to the member for Corio: shame on you. We are incredibly proud of our commitment to fast rail. I call out his untruthful statements, which are completely untruthful, and I call on the Victorian government to provide the $2 billion in the matching funding that we need to get on with this project; to expedite the business plan, this $50 million that it's allocated for it's business plan for fast rail; and to bring forward the construction timetable of the rail duplication project so we can get on with this project.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:21