2016-03-01 44 1 8 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 1 March 2016

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Committee 1 Membership 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators as participating members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee's inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. As the list is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read it to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 1 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2016, Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016, Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 1

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2015

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment Bill 2016

Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016

Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015

Assent 1 Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 1

Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014

Consideration of Senate Message 1 12:02 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 12:02 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin These final amendments to the Future of Financial Advice arrangements represent the triumph of Labor and consumers over the government. Today marks 714 days since those opposite introduced a bill to comprehensively attack Labor's FoFA reforms. A lot has changed since then. We have had a new Prime Minister, a new Treasurer and multiple assistant treasurers. We have seen a whole series of messy deals and backflips and theatrics in the Senate on this bill. Today that ends. I am very pleased and satisfied to stand here today and say that Labor and consumers have won. We prevented some very bad legislation from passing, and all that is left to consider today is some tidying up of the original package. We have cemented the most important reforms to financial services in a generation and have protected consumers in the process. I pay tribute to all who have fought for these protections, in the community and in this place, especially the member for Oxley but also the members for Maribyrnong, McMahon and Lilley and the former member for Lindsay, and, in the other place, senators including my friend Senator Dastyari. We introduced the FoFA reforms in the wake of the collapses of Storm Financial and others, and after the member for Oxley's important parliamentary inquiry into financial advice, products and services. The resulting Future of Financial Advice package was widely regarded as the most significant reforms in financial services in a generation. Labor's package contained a variety of measures designed to protect investors and help the industry professionalise. They required advisers to act in their client's best interest. They required clients to opt in to receiving ongoing service every two years. They ensured statements would be sent to clients annually disclosing fees and details of services provided and performed for those fees. And they banned conflicted remuneration. The whole basis for introducing the FOFA reforms was to restore faith in a sector rocked by high-profile collapses and a poor culture of product sales over advice and also to ensure that Australians are getting advice and service that is in their best interests. It says it all about the coalition government that one of their first policies announced when they came into government was a watering down of protections for consumers. If they had had their way, they would have completely unwound the good work done in the FoFA package. The net effect of their proposal would have been to remove the requirement for financial advisers to act in the best interest of clients; to allow advisers to continue to charge fees indefinitely, without receiving consent from their clients; to not require advisers to provide annual disclosure to pre-2013 clients; and to allow conflicted remuneration on general advice and certain types of personal advice, opening the door to a sales push culture of products over genuine advice. In 2014 the Senate, in its wisdom, rejected these unfair changes. Then, in an embarrassing couple of weeks, the government entered into a cynical, underhanded deal    with the Palmer United Party which enacted the majority of their badly motivated changes by regulation. Labor dug in, and eventually the Senate came to its senses in December 2014 and disallowed these bad regulations. The legislation today enacts some of the minor technical amendments Labor agreed to in the wake of the government's regulations failing, including measures to ensure FoFA treats basic insurance products and non-cash payments consistently with other financial products; allowing consumer credit insurance to be included in the conversation a bank employee has with a customer; clarifying the application of the client-pays and intrafund advice provisions; and regulation-making powers to allow existing exemptions to conflicted remuneration to be wound back by the minister. Importantly, this amended legislation maintains the fundamental consumer protections introduced by Labor, proudly, in our original FoFA package. So we are supporting these amendments to bed down some small but important technical clarifications. The government should get back in their box. They should not seek to make further changes to the Future of Financial Advice package. These reforms are a proud part of Labor's legacy in financial services. We are pleased to see the government finally abandon their attacks on our important consumer protections. I congratulate again everyone, around the country and in this place, who was involved in this victory that we celebrate today. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3 12:07 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I move: That the order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 3

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016

Second Reading 3 12:08 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley Speaker, thank you, and I congratulate you on your role since assuming the high office of Speaker. It has been a pleasure to be part of your parliament. Last week, I was bringing this House up to date on all the things happening in the Riviera of Melbourne down on the Mornington Peninsula and in the Frankston area of the electorate of Dunkley. I was imploring the state Labor government to seize the opportunities of a number of projects, moving parts and funding avenues to transform its thinking from just a bit of a tart-up of Frankston Railway station, and a bit of a refurbishment, to seeing it as a catalytic opportunity for change, transformation and new opportunities in our city. I was urging the state government to enable the Metropolitan Planning Authority to take over the oversight of that project—and a number of others that I detailed in this place—to seize this opportunity for a transit orientated development focused around the Frankston railway station. I was urging them to see the transport linkages and the opportunities for the future and our educational focus as the Fremantle of the east coast—these are all things that we could do. I was told by the state government, 'No, Bruce, you've got this all wrong. It's just a rejuvenation. A bit of a lick and paint job on the Frankston railway station. It's just a project. Let's not get too strategic.' That was the very point. It is not just a project, or it should not be just a project. It was about lifting the ambition and the opportunities, and I was outlining how we would do that. Sadly in response to that, it is my melancholy duty to tell you the state Labor MP has given me a slap on Facebook. How is that for constructiveness? The Facebook slapper has come out and said, 'Bruce, you've got it all wrong. It's just a project. How could you possibly think about the longer-term vision and ambition for the city? You've got it so wrong, and, besides, we'll just blame the federal government for not putting money into our little tidy up of the Frankston Railway station.' A couple of things come to mind: a fully owned asset of the state government, and a transport project that they are saying is 'just a project' in an area of constitutional jurisdiction they have on their own. There is a distinct lack of interest. They have no appetite whatsoever to try to lift the ambition and the opportunity, which would enable us to then engage federally around regional solutions and other funding avenues. The state Labor government and their front-of-house person—the state Labor MP—do not want to do anything that would make this project something more than simply a bit of a shine for the railway station. That is very disappointing. To cap it off, what do you do when you are in trouble and you have no argument? He goes personal. He is a rookie. I accept he is finding his feet. But what a waste of an opportunity this seems to be. Sadly, he has swallowed the Labor 101 game plan book on if anything is not going right just lash out at everybody else and take no responsibility yourself. Sadly, it segues into somewhere else where this has happened. There was another Facebook campaign where I got another slap. Isn't it terrible, the 'Facebook slapper' was after me again about the Frankston and district basketball stadium. This is a $12½ million project in and around the Kananook railway station. It is a fantastic facility that we needed to redevelop to turn it into a community hub, a focal point not just for basketball but also for participation, a resource for our community, something that would help keep our kids in schools and find pathways for new job opportunities. Guess what? Our coalition government has stepped up. I hoped I would get $5 million to support the project. I failed. I got $4.95 million. That is not a bad effort. In fact, it was nice to read on social medial I was known as the 'member for slam Dunkley' because it was such a huge boost for basketball and this facility in our area. What was happening? I was getting slapped around on Facebook with people saying, 'Where's the fed's money?' There is the money—an important lion's share contribution. The biggest single contributor to this project is the coalition federal government—$4.95 million. Frankston City Council has contributed $4 million, the former state coalition government has contributed $2.5 million and the basketball association has contributed $1 million. Do you know what? We are $2½ million short. Do you know what the state Labor government could do? Anything—just turn up. They have not contributed a dollar. There has been lots of slapping on Facebook of people who are contributing to this project, but at this stage the state Labor government has not contributed one dollar to this project. At the state government level the only one who committed any resources was the previous coalition government—Dr Napthine's government. Here is another opportunity. Rather than get all hot, sweaty and angry on social media the local Labor members of parliament—part of the state Labor government—could actually do something. They could make a contribution to see this project achieve its full potential to make sure we can invest in those extra stages of the works that would make sure it is a high-performance centre. It would be a chance to host some of the highest levels of competition and would be a real jewel in the crown of our community. Similarly, we are getting on with other key projects. The Dunkley Community Safety Plan is progressing extremely well. It is great that the Mornington CCTV project is well-advanced. The final stages are coming together now—more cameras, better coverage and street lighting. This outstanding village of Mornington is a great retail, hospitality and family entertainment area during the day and turns into a nightclub and entertainment precinct in the evening—both making a great contribution to our local economy. We need to manage the transition with care in the village main street area around Mornington. We have done that by the smart deployment of Commonwealth funded and backed CCTV technology, making sure the laneways from the main street to the car parking areas are safe, that the cameras are the best of breed and that it is all integrated. The Mount Eliza project, which we have hoped for some time to get done, is also nearing operation and that is very exciting. In Frankston city itself, the CCTV rollout around the Beach Street Macca's and South East Water area is moving on. That is part of the Dunkley Community Safety Plan. There is a great initiative to put CCTV technology at the Mahogany centre and also at Seaford—that great alfresco dining area down on the foreshore. At the Langwarrin shopping area the change in ownership has delayed our progress there, but this needs to be done to cover not only the shopping centre but also the area around the community centre and skate park. This is all happening. The anti graffiti technology, the kit on the vehicle and all of the supporting infrastructure that is needed is also underway, but we are not done. I have got a few more months in this place. I accept that I might not look like an athlete but I am trying to mimic what athletes do: whenever they are in a race they try to run their hardest near the finish line. That is my approach. We have got more to do. We are not resting on 20 years of public service. There is more opportunity to carry forward the Dunkley Community Safety Plan, to really support what is happening in the revitalisation around the foreshore precinct—again supported by funding from the Commonwealth. We want to get some secure lockers for the most popular beach in Melbourne, which is down at Frankston, so people can store their stuff there. There is lots happening. It is the Riviera of Melbourne, it is the place to be. There is a reason every season to come to the greater Frankston and Mornington Peninsula area, and I hope this account lets you know all the things that are happening in my community. 12:16 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016, because there are issues that the opposition are concerned about in relation to the proposed legislation. This government continues with its advocacy for the cuts that were first proposed in the 2014-15 budget, and it should not be forgotten that many of the provisions in the bills that were proposed by the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer are now proposed by the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer. This afternoon I would like to refer to some of the failures of the government in relation to worker exploitation. I think it is clear that there have been increased instances of exploitation. It is becoming more common and, as a result of some of the good efforts by media outlets—the ABC, Fairfax and others—we are seeing greater levels of exploitation of workers in this country exposed. When we see systemic exploitation of working people it is important that there is some response by government. But, to date, there has been little or no effort by the Turnbull government to respond to such exploitation. In my contribution this afternoon I want to outline the opposition's policies in relation to this area because it seems to me that it would be left to Labor to fill the void that exists within the government. We have seen too many examples of exploitation of workers. Some very high-profile companies—household names, in fact—have been associated with exploitation. A very recent example where there has been very significant exploitation is 7-Eleven. Potentially thousands of workers have been involved and at least $100 million in underpayments. That is a great concern to Labor. But it is not only 7-Eleven. Pizza Hut delivery drivers have been paid as little as $6 an hour—almost one-third of the minimum wage—under some sham contracting arrangements. Subcontractors who provide services to Myer have been significantly exploited. We have also seen workers providing services to Steggles chicken exploited. The injury to those workers is great. Many of these workers are low paid as it is, but to be underpaid so significantly and for such a long period does enormous injury to them and it also does enormous injury to the majority of employers who do the right thing. If we allow employers to undermine employment conditions in this country we are also injuring the majority of employers who pay conditions of employment pursuant to Australian law. We are punishing and putting enormous pressure on those good employers who do the right thing, because their competitors are reducing their labour costs unlawfully and therefore putting downward pressure on wages generally. It is absolutely vital, given the prevalence of exploitation, that the government respond, particularly in light of the fact that the federal jurisdiction now predominantly covers the field in industrial relations. There was a time when state and federal jurisdictions shared industrial instruments, but it is predominantly the case now that the federal jurisdiction covers the field and so I would argue that it is the primary responsibility of the federal government to respond. To date there has been little or no response by the government. On 15 October last year, the Minister for Employment announced a ministerial working group comprising the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Minister for Justice—who is at the table—and other ministerial colleagues. However, to date there has been no action by that working group and it is therefore incumbent on the Minister for Employment to explain what will be done. I sought information in relation to this ministerial working group. In fact, on 11 December last year we submitted an FOI request to a number of departments, including the Attorney-General's Department, for access to documents relating to this ministerial working group. I asked questions of the role and the information that might have been provided to the Minister for Justice. The answer I received from the department in relation to the Minister for Justice's office states: 'I have identified that the Minister for Justice's office has no documents that fall within the scope of your request. A thorough electronic search for documents has been undertaken as well as making inquiries of those who may have been able to help locate relevant documents.' We asked for any internal office briefs or covering notes to the department's briefs prepared by the minister's staff; any email correspondence between the minister and her staff, as the employment minister, or between members of the minister's staff; any email correspondence between the minister's staff and the staff in other ministerial offices, including the PMO; and records of any meetings or telephone conferences attended by the minister or her staff. The answer was that there was no information; no documents that fell within that scope. This really shows that there is no point in having a photo opportunity to announce a ministerial working group. Mr Keenan interjecting— Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 I understand the sensitivity of the minister whose office had to actually explain that he had no role whatsoever; in fact had not entered into any correspondence with the Minister for Employment and had no details whatsoever in relation to these matters. The fact is the reason there were no details to the questions we asked is that this working group is not working. The ministerial working group that involves the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Employment is not working because they have no interest whatsoever, I would contend, in examining and redressing the widespread exploitation that is occurring with respect to workers in this country. For that reason, we had to ensure that we filled the void left by the government because the government is not responding. We would have done this as a matter of course, but it became more pressing given the government has done so little. The announcement we made on 1 February this year was to ensure that those rogue employers who do the wrong thing do not continue to do the wrong thing. For example, we would ensure we cracked down on underpayments to workers through significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees. We would also ensure that we ramped up protection for workers from sham contracting by strengthening legal protections for workers' entitlements and increasing penalties. We would give the Fair Work Ombudsman more power to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers. We would also introduce reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers were not being exploited and underpaid, and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia. There is no doubt there has been a perverse incentive to exploit workers on temporary visas because they have no redress in law if they are being underpaid. We want to ensure that we sort that out. In the absence of any effort by the government to redress what I think is widespread exploitation by rogue employers, Labor have announced those policies. Indeed, we have written to employer groups, employers, unions and others about these reforms and attached an exposure draft of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Australian Workers) Bill 2016. I seek leave to table that draft bill. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Mr Keenan E0J Yes. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Thank you very much. Mr Keenan E0J Very generous. Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 In light of my observations about the failure of the minister, I do appreciate the fact that he was courteous enough to allow for the tabling of that exposure draft bill. That draft bill has gone out to affected parties for consultation—something we do on our side of politics; we actually consult. We do not see too much consultation occurring from the government in relation to these matters. We will continue to have that conversation. We will introduce that bill in the Senate sometime in the near future—I think it might be 14 or 15 March—in order to have a debate about these significant matters because we cannot wait any longer for the government to act. There have been too many examples of exploitation that have fallen on deaf ears. The government chose not to act and we will fill that void. It is important that we do, because it is a race to the bottom when you allow a situation to continue in a systemic way that drives down wages through unlawful behaviour. We hope that the government will join us in the pursuit of that exploitation. With respect to some of the recent comments from the Minister for Employment in the Senate, the minister has made much of some alleged insulting and offensive comments to officers of a Commonwealth agency. If those comments were made then Labor condemn those comments from the building industry. I also want to bring to the attention of this House that, when we are having a conversation about the building industry, we must not forget some of the other challenges that confront agencies in dealing with what can be a very dangerous and difficult industry. I want to remind the government that this is a difficult industry. On occasions, there are unsafe workplaces and I want to refer to just one site: the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site. Jorge Castillo-Riffo, 54, was in a scissor lift and was crushed against concrete and sustained fatal head and neck injuries on 27 November 2014. I met his widow two weeks ago and there is still no resolution to that inquiry. On the same site, as recently as 20 February this year, Steve Wyatt, 63, died after being crushed between a scissor lift and the head of a low doorway while supervising the fitout inside the CBD site on Saturday afternoon. He was a highly respected electrical engineer who had 42 years' experience across the building industry. They are two deaths that happened on the same site—at the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site. I want the government to use the powers and the agencies of the Commonwealth to do better in preventing deaths in the building industry but also to examine why they happen. I understand the government has its agenda about other matters, but I would just say that we spend millions of dollars resourcing Commonwealth agencies that oversee the building industry and I am concerned that so little of those resources are put into preventing these tragic deaths. I would ask the minister and the government to consider deploying the resources of the agency to prevent these deaths and, if they do occur, examine how we can ensure that they do not happen again. 12:31 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan The Prime Minister is right when he says that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, and as the member of parliament with one of the world's leading universities, the University of Queensland—which is in the top 10 in the world for commercialisation—in my electorate, I can say with great confidence and enthusiasm that there has never been a more exciting time to be the member for Ryan. Australia is leading the world in this information age and, through the coalition government's unprecedented investment in science and innovation, the opportunities for Australians have never been greater. The coalition government's overarching policy on science and innovation is the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Released in December last year, the national agenda is geared towards exploiting Australia's natural strengths in science, innovation and technology, to secure Australia's future prosperity and high standard of living. The Turnbull government's National Innovation and Science Agenda will create a modern, dynamic 21st century Australian economy, and will transition the Australian economy from a winding-down mining boom to a burgeoning ideas boom. The coalition government, through the National Innovation and Science Agenda, has committed $1.1 billion in funding to incentivise innovation and entrepreneurialism, reward risk-taking and promote science, maths and technology. This agenda involves a number of key measures delivered through the Department of Education and Training, including $1.5 billion over the next 10 years for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, NCRIS, to provide long-term funding certainty, as part of a broader package of $2.3 billion in new funding for research infrastructure; $885 million for a new research support program to provide flexible funding to our universities; $948 million for a new research training program to support our next generation of researchers; $64 million to encourage Australian students to study STEM subjects at school; the opening up of the Linkage Projects scheme from July this year to accept applications year-round from researchers and industry; and the introduction of the first-ever National Impact and Engagement Assessment, to assess the benefits of university research and encourage collaboration between universities and industry. The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, NCRIS, is making possible some truly groundbreaking scientific research in universities and research facilities around Australia. One of the projects being funded is the Australian National Imaging Facility, a $130 million project which is providing state-of-the-art imaging capabilities for use by the Australian research community. The National Imaging Facility, which is being led by the University of Queensland, provides researchers with 12 new flagship instruments across 10 nodes based at five institutions. One of the flagship instruments funded by the NCRIS is a multimillion dollar 7 Tesla whole-body MRI scanner, located within the Centre for Advanced Imaging at the University of Queensland in my electorate. The Centre for Advanced Imaging, through the use of this 7 Tesla MRI scanner, is performing the most advanced cardiac imaging in the Southern Hemisphere. The MRI scanner provides still and moving images of the human heart which are used by researchers in the investigation of techniques relating to the diagnosis and treatment of heart disease. In addition to our commitment of $1.5 billion to secure the future funding needs of the NCRIS the government has also committed $814 million in funding for two large-scale, internationally significant research projects: the Australian Synchrotron and the Square Kilometre Array. The Australian Synchrotron, which will receive $520 million in government funding over the next 10 years, is a world-class research facility that uses accelerator technology to produce a source of light one million times more powerful than the sun. It is the single largest piece of scientific infrastructure in the Southern Hemisphere, and has applications in a wide range of fields. Some of the research projects in which the Synchrotron is currently involved include protein analysis to assist in the development of cancer drugs, an examination of the efficacy and safety of chromium supplements in dieting, and the development of an imaging process that reveals how cerebral malaria causes brain damage. The Square Kilometre Array, which will receive $294 million in funding from the government over the next 10 years, is a next-generation radio telescope project involving collaboration from more than 20 different countries around the world—and I acknowledge the great work done by Professor Peter Quinn. The Square Kilometre Array will be the largest and most sophisticated radio telescope on earth. These research projects are truly awe-inspiring and, while most of us struggle to understand the complexities of these large-scale, internationally significant research projects, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are all players in this information age. Science and technology touch us in our everyday lives whether we realise it or not. We are constantly adapting and evolving in the ways in which we live and work. Many of the members in this place, including myself, come from a business background. Some of us come from small owner-operated businesses, others from large multinational corporations. With almost 50 years between the youngest and oldest members of parliament, the collective experience of members spans, literally, decades. Some of us remember a time when, in business as in life, the internet was unheard of but, for most of us, our experience is one of pervasive interconnectivity between business and consumers. This interconnectivity has brought with it unprecedented gains in productivity, and it has changed the way we live and work and transformed the way we consume goods and services. One example of the way in which the internet has revolutionised the relationship between business and the consumer is eBay, which celebrated its 20th birthday last year. But with increasing connectivity comes increasing risk. As businesses and consumers become more connected online, the pace at which commercial and personal information is generated, stored and utilised by business continues to grow exponentially. Just as the internet has made information a valuable commodity in and of itself, so too has it created the means by which a business's competitors and detractors can do serious and lasting damage by accessing, withholding and/or disseminating its sensitive information. Data breaches can cause catastrophic financial and reputational damage for a business and can potentially bring physical harm to individuals. Recent examples in Australia include the Department of Education and Training in Queensland, Aussie Farmers Direct, Kmart, David Jones, and the Maroochy Shire Council, as it was then known. In this digital age, data breaches are soaring. Many businesses are oblivious to the risk and, when a breach does occur, they do not know where to turn. This is where AusCERT comes in. AusCERT, based at the University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan, is an operational Cyber Emergency Response Team—the first CERT in Australia. It has been helping public and private organisations to prevent, detect and respond to cyber attacks, since 1993. AusCERT is self-funded, not-for-profit and independent of government. AusCERT's membership includes 177 schools, 46 universities and 12 TAFEs. Member organisations range in size from between one and 200 network users to more than 20,000 network users. As part of its overall service, AusCERT provides members with security bulletins, an SMS early warning service, incident management services, a 24/7 members hotline, a malicious-URL feed, a remote monitoring service and a phishing take-down service. It also provides, on a fee-for-service basis, a virtual information security officer, and flying squads for organisations affected by cyber attacks. As Australia's first-ever CERT, AusCERT was, until 2010, Australia's national CERT; however, this arrangement was changed by the former Labor government through the creation of the government-owned and operated CERT Australia, which assumed responsibility for the cybersecurity of Commonwealth government departments and agencies. Despite this, AusCERT continues to provide an invaluable service for the business community as well as state and territory government departments and education institutions, none of whom receive assistance from CERT Australia. With the ever-increasing threat of cyber attacks on non-government organisations, and with the heightened risk that comes with government-mandated collection of metadata, AusCERT remains, in my mind, an integral part of Australia's cybersecurity landscape. It does concern me that CERT Australia refuses to partner with AusCERT as a fall-back service provider for non-government organisations. More alarming, AusCERT does not appear to play a role in the government's draft Cyber Security Review report. Given the emphasis on economic growth and innovation in the review's preamble, I find it extraordinary that the organisation responsible for servicing the non-government sector has not been invited to participate. We need to recognise the role that AusCERT plays in keeping Australia cyber-safe, and I believe CERT Australia should enter into a formal partnership with AusCERT and invite them to participate in the government's draft Cyber Security Review report. Australians have been great beneficiaries of the industrial and technological advances of the last 250 years. After three industrial revolutions, and now in the midst of the information age, it is an undeniable fact that the poorest Australian today enjoys a better standard of living than the richest Australian did two-and-a-quarter centuries ago. And while there is still much to be done in terms of closing the gap in Australia, we should not lose sight of the fact that many of our regional neighbours also require a helping hand. As good neighbours, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the benefits of education, modern medicine and technological advancements are shared. Members in this place will know that I place great emphasis on the importance of our relationship with our regional neighbours. I take this opportunity now to highlight some alarming statistics. In Papua New Guinea, five women die from childbirth every day—the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. In Papua New Guinea, there is one doctor for every 17,068 people—in Australia it is one for every 302. In Papua New Guinea, there are just 51 doctors for a country with 700 villages, 800 languages and 85 per cent of the population living outside the capital city of Port Moresby. In Papua New Guinea, the per capita health spend is $67.00—in Fiji it is $453; in Australia it is $6,600; and in Vanuatu it is just $159. It goes without saying that modern medicine is of little benefit to a country that cannot afford to administer it and, through Cyclone Winston in Fiji and Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, we see how natural disasters stretch the capacity of these countries' already underresourced public health systems and highlight the necessity of Australia's aid program in the Pacific. There is no doubt that Australia is a generous provider of foreign aid. In this financial year, alone, the Australian government will provide an estimated $4.052 billion in official development assistance, making Australia the 13th most significant donor in the OECD. The Australian government has introduced a $50 million Gender Equality Fund, to strengthen gender equality and encourage the economic empowerment of women in our region, and maintains a $120 million Emergency Fund to assist in humanitarian and disaster relief efforts globally. The Australian government reacted swiftly and generously in its humanitarian response to Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, last year, and we have done the same in response to Cyclone Winston in Fiji. In the area of accountability and transparency the government has introduced a new performance framework, Making Performance Count: enhancing the accountability and effectiveness of Australian aid, to improve the accountability of aid spending and, in improving the transparency of our aid program, we have published and made available 25 Aid Investment Plans and an interactive map showing the distribution of Australian aid. Australia has much to be proud of in the area of foreign aid and of the initiatives and priorities of our foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop. But there is always more that can be done and, in that regard, I encourage the government to give priority to our foreign aid obligations in formulating the 2016-17 budget. I commend the bills to the House. 12:46 Ms HALL 83N Shortland The legislation we have before us today—Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016—demonstrates the difference between the Turnbull government and us on the opposition benches. Rather than attacking people who are the most vulnerable in our community and ripping services out of the community, our approach to the fiscal challenge is to make multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, reducing superannuation tax concessions for millionaires, increasing the charges to tobacco excise, ceasing the emissions reduction fund—in other words, stopping paying polluters to pollute—and not proceeding with the government's new baby bonus. The Shortland electorate is the seventh oldest electorate in the nation. It has the seventh highest number of people over the age of 65. The people of Shortland depend on government to deliver services. There are 19.8 per cent of the population aged 65 or over and many of those people are on fixed incomes. Many of them rely on their doctor bulk-billing for them. Many of them do not relate to computer technology and find it very difficult when they go to a Centrelink office and are referred to a computer or are handed a telephone and told to speak to somebody on the phone. People like—and expect—to be delivered the services they elect governments to deliver for them. Unfortunately—very unfortunately—over the term of this government, in this parliament, services have been ripped out of communities. My office has been contacted by many constituents who are disturbed by the fact that when they walk into a Centrelink office they are greeted by a person with an iPad and directed to a telephone or a computer. They find this intimidating. They find the lack of service very hard to cope with. Rather than setting up a system where special services are designed to ensure that older Australians can access information, payments and services they require, the government is putting in place barriers to prevent people, particularly older people, from accessing that information and getting those services. It is a government committed to small government, in the sense that it does not believe in service delivery. If they can outsource it they will. If they can cut it they will. And the cuts are directed towards the most vulnerable—those people who rely the most on government to deliver services. Last Saturday I was at one of my local shopping centres. This Abbott-Turnbull government is seeking to close the Belmont Medicare office. The Howard government closed the Belmont Medicare office and Labor reopened it in 2009. Now we have another Liberal-National Party government and they are—again—closing the Belmont Medicare office. Service delivery has changed. The staff do not provide as much hands-on service as they did before—because of the directives this government has in place—but, every time I go up there, there is someone at the counter. Last time I entered that Medicare office there were 10 people lined up to use the computer. When they get into trouble they can get assistance in the Belmont Medicare office. People come from as far south as Gwandalan and Summerland Point. The alternative for them is either to go to Lake Haven or to travel all the way to Charlestown. For a person who lives in Swansea or even Belmont—two suburbs within the Shortland electorate that have a high elderly population—travelling to Charlestown means that if they are lucky enough to have a full licence—many have restricted licences—they have to drive to Charlestown or catch a bus. If they have a restricted licence, it is outside the area where they can travel. I really feel that some of the decisions that this government is making are to the detriment of the people I represent in this parliament. It shows a lack of understanding. If we look at health and the measures that this government has put in place to encourage GPs not to bulk-bill, once again this has impacted on people in the Shortland electorate. It has created a situation where people are avoiding going to the doctor. Changes to the PBS have led to rationing of medication by people who are on low or lower or fixed incomes. It is very short-sighted, because in the long term it will increase health costs within the community. Countless constituents have contacted me about this particular issue. I have been contacted by numerous constituents about Centrelink and the failure to deliver services there. I have been contacted by countless constituents about the fact that doctors are being encouraged not to bulk-bill. That has been further exacerbated by measures in the last budget that will lead to pathologists no longer receiving the bulk-billing incentive. I have in my hand a letter from Pathology Australia where they highlight the impact that this will have. In this letter Pathology Australia said that it will lead to a situation where only those Australians that can afford to have pathology tests will be able to have them. Currently there are no out-of-pocket expenses, but when that bulk-billing incentive is removed there will definitely be out-of-pocket expenses. It is very important to note that 100 per cent of all people diagnosed with cancer have contact with and need services from pathologists. This will only lead to Australians becoming sicker. I think those on the other side of the House need to take this back their party room. They need to consider a little more the impact that the changes that they are pushing through their party room have on people in their electorates. These are real people that are fighting to have the finances to get the services that they need to keep themselves healthy and to get treatments that they need from their doctors. I believe that that is very, very important. Just to give you a bit of insight, last month was Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. The changes that will take place will have enormous implications for the costs associated there. A pelvic ultrasound will have a gap of between $10 and $101. A CT abdomen and pelvis scan will have a gap of between $48 and $145. That will impact on so many women. Ovarian cancer is a difficult cancer to diagnose, and if people are facing out-of-pocket expenses that will be a disincentive for them to have those tests. The other thing that I would like to touch on quickly is education. This government has ripped money out of education and has failed to commit to the ongoing funding of the Gonski reforms, reforms that my local schools have told me have led to students improving their literacy and numeracy skills by two years. Labor has committed this year to funding the remaining years of the Gonski reforms. That means that all students in Australia will have equal access to education. It means that as a nation we will have a future. All students being able to access quality education means that as a nation we will be globally competitive. Add to that our plans to provide 75 per cent of funding for vocational education to TAFEs. Add to that that we are moving away from the government's $100,000 degrees. These are all disincentives to undertake studies, particularly in the vocational education area, where people are being signed up by disreputable private colleges and incurring a debt of up to $20,000—I think that is about the highest that has come through my office—and then getting nothing for their money. They have been inappropriately signed up, because they were not up to the course they were being signed up for. On jobs, Labor has a plan for jobs. We will deliver real jobs on the ground. Saying that you are creating jobs and then, at the same time, having jobs going out of the economy is just unbelievable. That is what this government stands in this House and does all the time. I have covered a lot of areas in my contribution to this debate. I would like to finish on this note: this government has no plan; Labor has a plan. Labor has a number of quality policies. At first, this government was going to introduce a GST. It got a little bit hard, so it did not go ahead with it. In talking about negative gearing, the government is looking at retrospective negative gearing. When it comes to a plan for the future, all we hear is a Prime Minister that stands up in this House and uses fancy words. He talks about innovation and about being agile. His contribution to the debate in this parliament is nothing but waffle. The Australian people want action. They do not want waffle; they do not want fine words. They want a government that delivers services to them. 13:01 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It is great to have the opportunity to speak on these very wide-ranging bills, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These bills provide an opportunity for me to reflect on negative gearing and the very poorly constructed policies of those opposite announced a week ago. As time goes on, the tremendous pitfalls involved in these policies are becoming clearer and clearer to the Australian people—predominantly, the pitfalls with the policies put forward by those on the other side. When you look at the investor and homeowner market, for all constructed properties roughly 90 per cent of the banks lend to existing homes and 10 per cent lend to new dwellings. Then when you look at another bar graph of the mix that banks lend to, 70 per cent are homeowners and 30 per cent are investors. As I speak to real estate agents in my area, the issue that they are flagging with me about current policy positions of those opposite in this place is: if this policy ever takes effect in the market, you will have a position where you have 30 per cent of the investors being driven into 10 per cent of the new homeowner market. If you encourage 30 per cent of the investors to continue to invest in property, but if they will only get the tax benefit if they invest in new property, ultimately you will have a demand-and-supply problem—an under-supply and an over-demand of people wanting to buy new property. In turn, through the laws of economics and demand and supply, this will put upward pressure on new properties. There is a certain degree of inevitability that goes with that economic logic—it will push up new prices. As a result of the remainder of the existing homeowner market, what will happen is that Labor will be pinning its economic credibility in espousing that new homeowners, wanting to enter the market, will be advantaged or better off. It is the opposition's intent to dilute the very property value that exists in a second-hand market by taking that 30 per cent out of the market that, traditionally, would have invested in it. So when you go to an election, make sure you campaign honestly and economically correctly in that your policy is built on the premise that, for most Australian homeowners existing in the market, you are diluting their single biggest asset—their home. It is unsustainable. On this side of the House, we oppose those measures. But I want to take the opportunity to thank the opposition for at least bringing a policy position to the table. That is what we are about on this side of the House. We are about engaging with the Australian public on having an adult, rational, intelligent debate in and around tax policy. I commend the Labor Party for bringing a position to the table, irrespective of the potential failings in that policy. I want to also remind the Australian public of some of the other ill-thought-out policies that were rushed into this place—and, on occasions, that did not even come into this place—by those on the other side. I want to let history speak for itself. A policy decision the Labor government introduced had enormous ramifications throughout my electorate. I have three major selling yards in my electorate of Wright. I have the Beaudesert cattle yards. I have Moreton just on the border. I have Kalbar and, of course, the Silverdale saleyards. The instant effect of the poorly thought-out policy of shutting down the live cattle export trade overnight had immediate ramifications through my electorate. This policy position, with its ill-thought-out and ill-conceived genesis is not that dissimilar to the policy position that we have on the table at the moment. The pink batts scheme was conceived on the back of a drink coaster by a Prime Minister on route to a particular locality. Again, an ill-thought-out policy position which cost an enormous amount of Australians—hundreds of Australians—their homes, as they were, unfortunately and tragically, burnt to the ground. Losing one is enough. Regretfully, we had a loss of life in the rollout of that program. A percentage of money was spent on the program. The remainder of the funds was actually spent pulling the pink batts out. It was a policy failure it its absolute. Of course, then, I speak nothing other than the over-costed runs on our school halls scheme. But it is important to start out by being very clear about what negative gearing is. Negative gearing is a very simple and basic concept. Just as businesses have a cost of doing business and are able to deduct those costs in calculating their profitability, people who invest in property can deduct their interest from their investment. You can deduct the cost of renovations, maintenance or whatever it may be on the investment property. You can also deduct the cost of interest. That makes sense because interest is a cost just as maintenance and renovations are costs. I think the average Australian business would find it novel in the extreme if they were told that there was some threat to their ability to claim interest as a cost of doing business. Equally, interest clearly is a cost for people who invest in property. It applies to investments in pretty much all investment classes. It is not just a special thing for investment property. If you borrow money to leverage into a share portfolio, interest will be your main cost. Then we get to the question of what the Labor Party wants to do to negative gearing as it pertains to the property market. To paraphrase their policies as I understand them, it is to say that to extend to someone who wants to claim interest—negative gearing as it is known—on an investment property would only apply if there was a brand-new property. It would not be possible to negatively gear existing home loans, along with changes to the rate of capital gains tax that people would be required to pay. Therefore, for roughly nine million homes in Australia it would not be possible to negatively gear once Labor policy came into effect for any new investments past 2017. For every single existing home in Australia, obviously investors are a very significant part of the market at the moment. As I suggested, they are just over 30 per cent. In the future none of the new investments in existing homes after 2017 will be able to make use of negative gearing. It is very difficult to see why investors are going to continue to invest in an asset class when they have just had the economic rug pulled out from underneath them in that they can no longer negatively gear on those properties. Research suggests that somewhere around 30 to 33 per cent of investments in the existing property market is from investors, so it is significant. It is not just something that is conducted by excessively wealthy investors; it is a very widespread practice in Australia, and something around a third of existing homes are affected by this issue. The more fundamental issue is not just the impact upon someone who happened to have negatively geared but what happens to the prices for the nine million existing homes. Negative gearing is primarily used by middle Australia. Labor is just playing economic envy. There are 10 times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers or emergency service workers than those who are surgeons, anaesthetists of finance managers—more than 100,000 claimants compared with fewer than 10,000. According to the ATO, the greatest total loss of negative gearing over $1,200 in net rental loss is claimed by teachers, nurse, emergency service workers and clerks, compared with just $155 million claimed by surgeons anaesthetists and finance managers combined. In the short term, as I mentioned earlier, this will push up new home prices when supply cannot be quickly extended to meet the new demand. This government will not implement anything as rushed, distorted and potentially disruptive as those on the other side. This government is focused on growth, jobs, innovation and improving the nation's infrastructure. This government recognises the economic transition well out of the mining boom with the introduction of there on 300,000 jobs to the economy just last year. The annual jobs growth rate is 2.6 per cent, well above the decade average of 1.8. Recently we had our finance ministers meet at the G20. Australia is the envy of the world with 25 consecutive quarters of growth, and we are transitioning well with a focus on jobs and a focus on a very solid plan. Every lever of our economic policy is directed at building on this strong performance. I suppose that is why people rate the performance of the current Prime Minister well against an alternative, Labor-led economy. Recently there was a Newspoll on the front page of The Australian. An overwhelming 58 to 22 per cent of the Australian public supported the coalition's strong plan on managing the economy. That is why we have opened up overseas markets by signing historic free trade agreements with Japan and Korea as well as the multinational Trans-Pacific Partnership deal and why we are working currently with China and Indonesia. Three of the world's most influential economies are right on our doorstep, and we need to make sure we build those relationships with our economies. I am starting to see the benefit of those flow through to our saleyards, as I alluded to earlier, with the extra demand in the live cattle export trade being taken up, giving potential buyers the opportunity, if unhappy when faced with prices at the saleyards, to head back home, load their cattle into a boat and send it to another market. It is that flexibility in the marketplace that allows for the elasticity and upward trend of prices. We are experiencing prices in our markets that we have not seen for many years. I would even say that the current cattle prices are as strong as they have ever been. Of course, there are other significant issues—for example, our current exchange rate—which have an impact on that as well. Just over 70c provides that market incentive in the free trade market. This government is investing more than $50 billion in infrastructure. In my electorate alone we have several large-scale projects going ahead, which means a great deal for my constituency base. This includes Bromelton international rail precinct, with just on $10 million of investment from the federal government, partnering with the private sector's $30 million. It will in the long term bring 1,500 jobs to the local economy of Beaudesert. The Toowoomba Second Range Crossing has over $1 billion worth of funding, an 80 per cent contribution from the federal government and a 20 per cent partnership from the state. I welcome it. The project will provide and drive economic growth as our transport corridors become more economically enhanced, removing up to 24 sets of stop lights and improving the travel time for cargo transport operators up to half an hour as they make their journeys. I would also like to acknowledge the government's plan and its ongoing commitment to the national bridge program. Within my electorate I have four shire councils which are wholly engulfed in my electorate boundaries of Wright. The 'scenic rim' has no less than 132 timber bridges that need repair or maintenance in my electorate. Our national bridges program is an incredible investment in the future and will help shires partner with federal government. Regarding the environment, this government has reinstated the Green Army project, which has been a resounding success in my electorate, with over 20 projects. I would like to also quickly touch on the NBN rollout. Under Labor, in my electorate I was not going to see one piece of fibre in my electorate for another eight years. We are currently now well and truly in front of Labor's forecast of when telecommunications was going to be rolled out in my electorate, and without a doubt it is the single biggest issue that unites my electorate. We have a plan for the future. It is an economy which is transitioning from the mining boom. We have an interest in addressing bracket creep and paying down debt. I commend this bill to the House. 13:16 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I would like to address my remarks in this debate around issues relating to northern Australia. In the first instance, I want to talk about farming and horticulture in particular. You would know that there is often a lot of discussion in this place and elsewhere about the importance of the Ord River, and it has been an important investment in developing northern Australia and there is a lot more to happen there; there is no question about that. But this week we have had in the parliament members of the NT Farmers Association, including their CEO, Shenal Basnayake, and their president, Simon Smith. They represent an interesting group of people in the Northern Territory; horticulturalists who produce from a very well-established vibrant and productive part of my electorate of Lingiari—that is, the Top End part of it. The greater Darwin horticultural area has a total value of $180 million to $280 million per year, which is quite substantially more than is produced from the Ord— Mr Gray 8W5 Twice as much. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 In fact it is twice as much as is produced by the Ord, as my friend the member for Brand points out. That is not commonly understood or known. Mangoes are $60 million to $80 million; melons are $50 to $60 million; and over $40 million of Asian vegetables are produced each year. Vietnamese and Cambodian farmers alone are turning over more than $60 million in produce. This is a good story—a really good story—and I know these farmers are incredibly proud of it. Their success is driven by hard work and by the most important fact, which is that they are connected to their markets. We know here in this place, or we should know, that market driven cropping is the only way forward for horticulture in the north. Rural area farmers are very concerned that, in the instance of the Northern Territory government, planning will limit the potential for expansion of their industry. And I am afraid that, sadly, the conservatives in this place and elsewhere, and particularly in the Northern Territory government, seem to have little understanding of the potential of this industry—and not only its current value but its future potential. Recent planning documents do not even identify existing farms, let alone zone potential horticultural areas that could provide future economic growth to the farming industry.     That should be an issue of concern to us. I hear a lot from the government benches around developing northern Australia—water, dams and the like—but these very important issues around planning, around understanding what there is and how to exploit the existing capacity to produce more, are not properly understood. There seems to be no real appetite to get that understanding, and that is a matter of grave concern. Decisions have been made which have affected farmers around issues to do with labour. There is no understanding of this labour market, of the need for itinerant workers and how they should be paid or the hours that they can work. They are being penalised by decisions that have been taken by this government. That is a sad indictment of a government which purports to understand the importance of economic development and economic growth in northern Australia. In this particular instance, they have not only shown their ignorance; they have failed to understand and listen, or even open their ears to the possibility of listening, to the demands which have been properly made of them. As NT Farmers CEO Shenal Basnayake said recently: … with the expected increase in population in the Darwin region and with some parts of the Litchfield subregion already being developed for residential purposes, farmers were coming under increasing pressure. 'If we see what the government is doing, inviting investors in agriculture, we need to give them product that they want to invest in,' Mr Basnayake said. 'You need to make sure those things are available. 'They’re not going to invest in 2.02ha blocks.' And they are not. Whilst urban encroachment is an issue, the fact is that there have been farmers who have sweated their guts out for a long time now, producing a great deal of wealth for the north and for themselves. But it is not only there that we need to think about the potential of the north, and the Northern Territory in particular. I want to refer to a very innovative group of people in Wadeye. The Ngepan Patha is a highly functional women's group in Wadeye, and they have undertaken a very important initiative. They are involved in art, material design and production business, and they have added a new and potentially game-changing initiative to their commercial portfolio. This is important. They have been working in with the prawn aquaculture industry in the development of a natural cooked prawn preservative that has potential for considerable added value to that product. This is a women's group, working in Wadeye in the Northern Territory. The local plant is indigenous to several regions in the north of Australia. Originally known colloquially as the 'billygoat plum' and these days more commonly known as 'Kakadu plum' in the Northern Territory and 'gubinge' in the Kimberley, it can be processed to produce a powder. The powder appears to be much sought after by major prawn producers. This plum powder extends the life of cooked prawns from three to 10 days with no loss of quality or taste. It consequently is valued at $450 per kilogram. About 10 kilos of plum go to make one kilo of the powder. The careful development of this initiative by working with a research facility, major commercial and investment entities and most particularly with the local Wadeye community is producing very good results. Ngepan Patha coordinator Margot and her team need to be congratulated for their work. I know that they are working in conjunction with people in the Kimberly who are working on the gubinge, and they are working around setting up a cooperative enterprise to exploit the possibilities of this particular product. I spoke earlier about the NT farmers and what they are doing to represent the interests of the broader horticulture and farming community across the Northern Territory—horticulture is producing a tea-tree up north at Ali Curung, around Katherine and in the Darwin rural area. But this particular group of Aboriginal people in Wadeye are not being properly recognised. What we have heard about Wadeye in the past has pretty much all been negative, but here we have got a group of people with initiative to develop a new enterprise using local produce harvested by themselves and made into a commercial product which has a real impact on the potential shelf life of prawns. That sort of integrated approach to developing the north is something which we need to properly understand more. There is a lot more activity happening in the region than that, of course. I also now want to talk about something which I am very committed to and very concerned about, and that is health issues in remote parts of northern Australia, particularly in Aboriginal communities of my own electorate. Recently, I had the great opportunity to accompany Professor Brian Owler from the AMA around a number of communities over a couple of days. I hosted him. We visited Kintore in the west, and Urapuntja and Ampilatwatja in the east. Our purpose was to talk to health professionals in Alice Springs, Baker IDI and Flinders University. These discussions were about what the health status was like. We learnt a great deal, and the great deal that we learnt was a matter of great concern. At Urapuntja, for example, we were talking to the people from Baker IDI, and they pointed out to us that the highest incidence of type 2 diabetes in the world is in this region. And shockingly, they had identified a seven-year-old girl with type 2 diabetes. If that does not worry everyone in this chamber and everybody who may be listening—not that there are too many, I suspect, given that the broadcasting light is not on—then understand this: the implications of this on the government's expenditure are enormous not only on health directly but also in other areas such as housing and education. Yet when we talk about these issues more generally, we ignore the interconnectedness of them. We do not see the whole; we see a part. If we want to address this issue of diabetes, the impact it has on end stage renal failure and the high incidence of renal disease in Central Australia and elsewhere, then we need to get back to a very basic discussion about what is required. When we were at Kintore, and indeed in Alice Springs, we visited the Purple House. The Purple House is a renal treatment facility set up by people, in the first instance, from Kintore, the Walungurrucommunity, who auctioned paintings, raised $1 million and with support put two renal chairs in their own community in the Western Desert—not commonly understood in this place, nor appreciated. Now they operate in a number of communities, not only in Central Australia but also in Western Australia, providing patients with end stage renal failure the capacity to be treated in their own communities. But when we ask this question and we talk about the importance of putting this infrastructure in place, we then have silly debates going on around this place around what our primary concerns should be and where the money should come from when fundamentally we have no choice. If we want to alleviate poverty, and if we want to address the health needs of these people I have identified and Professor Owler was able to talk to, then we need to do a great deal more than we currently are. We need to understand that we require an integrated approach across portfolios. For example, if we want to address issues to do with FASD in education in the Northern Territory, we should not be relying on the education department to do the diagnosis. It requires the participation of health professionals. Yet we know in Central Australia there are insufficient health professionals to do more than one diagnosis a month. We know that this is an issue reaching chronic proportions in some communities. We will never address issues to do with preventing chronic disease until we understand the importance of addressing maternal and child health transition to early education, and making sure healthy children are made healthy adults. Otherwise, what we are going to have in this place in 25 to 50 years' time is the next generation of people standing up here, as I am today, complaining about the lack of infrastructure for the support of diabetes and renal failure, and the failure to understand the importance of preventative health measures to stop these things happening in the first place—to stop the onset of these chronic diseases. If we do not do that here then we are abdicating our responsibilities as Australians. We have a responsibility across this parliament to understand the importance of this. We should not be arguing about the money; we should be making sure the money is made available. If we do not make sure the money is made available, what we are committing ourselves to is ensuring that this generation of people with chronic diseases are going to die young—and the next generation, who are in their early teens today, will die young. If we ever want to close the gap, we have got to change our minds and do things very differently from what we are doing currently. That requires a lot of hard work and a lot of thought and it means getting out of the silos of particular portfolios, understanding we need a whole-of-government approach to these things and appreciating that it requires investing money. Let us not argue about it. It needs to happen—otherwise, as I say, the plight of these people which exists today will not be alleviated. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Animal Welfare 15 13:30 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Today World Animal Protection released a report calling for national leadership in animal welfare. It highlights the repeated exposes of animal cruelty involved with live baiting in greyhound racing, puppy farms, live export and intensive production and processing facilities for pigs, chickens and ducks. The report observes that 'government regulations and their enforcement are failing to meet modern community expectations of animal welfare.' When the Abbott government was elected in 2013, it set about dismantling and defunding national frameworks for animal welfare. World Animal Protection proposes as the remedy for this lack of national leadership and coordination an independent office of animal welfare, with independence from the Department of Agriculture being essential. The department's core responsibility for ensuring profitable primary industry means that it is ill suited to have carriage over animal welfare oversight and regulation, especially in relation to livestock. It is inherently conflicted because improvements in animal welfare are often not consonant with increased productivity and profitability and vice versa. I am pleased to say that it is a core part of Labor's national policy platform to establish an independent office of animal welfare. This, together with the bill introduced this week by my Labor colleague the member for Hotham to ban cosmetic testing on animals, means animal welfare is an area where Labor's national leadership is in sharp contrast to the government's total lack of interest. In refusing to ensure that repeated violations of ESCAS are punished and refusing to regulate the export of greyhounds to countries with no animal welfare laws—just to name two things—the Minister for Agriculture has shown contempt not only for defenceless animals but also for the Australian community which cares about them. North Coast Combined High School Girls Cricket Team, Pacific Highway 15 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to acknowledge the North Coast Combined High School girls team that recently won the New South Wales state cricket championships. The girls went through the competition undefeated, beating Sydney West in the final. The team consisted of Carly Leeson, Alyssa Luland and Shinae MacDonald, from Maclean High School; Aleesha Phoonie, from Woolgoolga High School; Amy Riddell, from Grafton High School; Natasha Rudder, from South Grafton High School; Paige Tyler, from Ballina High School; Jakira Toniello, from Lismore High School; and Matilda Lugg, from Coffs Harbour High School. Other members of the team included Kaitlyn Beaumont, Molly Mullin and Georgia Lynch. The team was coached by Grafton High School teacher Vivian Nichols. From this competition, two New South Wales teams were selected to compete in the Australian school carnival in two weeks at Campbelltown. Selected in the first New South Wales team were Carly Leeson, Aleesha Phoonie, Amy Riddell, Matilda Lugg and Kaitlyn Beaumont. Shinae MacDonald was selected in the second side. I wish the girls all the best in the competition. The Pacific Highway in our region is a great infrastructure project. However, the new exit at Byron Bay turn-off needs to be much clearer. Lismore and indeed the whole hinterland area are not signposted well enough, and I call on local councils, especially the coastal ones in the region, to have a regional focus on that signage. Indi Electorate: Bright 15 13:33 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Today I would like to talk about the superbly named town of Bright. I would like to acknowledge the chamber of commerce and thank them for their wonderful hospitality on Wednesday, 17 February. I thank President Tom Smith and his executive and Lisa Grossman for all your great work. I would like to invite all my colleagues to come to Bright for the autumn festival, a 10-day festival taking place at the end of April, and particularly to come to the market, where everything is made, baked or grown within 100 kilometres of Bright. That is on 30 April. Today I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Commonwealth government to Bright in the first round of the National Stronger Regions Fund. For the Alpine Events Centre in Bright, the Commonwealth government provided over $1.87 million, which is going to be matched by the Alpine Shire Council, HVP Plantations, Alpine Community Plantation, United Bright Football and Netball Club and the Alpine Cycling Club. Alpine Shire Director of Assets Charles Bird tells me that over 35 jobs will be created and, upon completion, the events centre will attract over $16.5 million into the shire every year and create up to 70 jobs. Ian Nicholls, President of the United Bright Football and Netball Club, said the club will benefit, particularly through the development of new clubrooms in the new multipurpose facility. Of special interest to the cycling club is the creation of an underpass connecting the trail network to Pioneer Park. I am so proud to represent Bright in this place. Congratulations, everybody. Petrie Electorate: Bald Hills Memorial Hall 16 13:34 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie The Bald Hills Memorial Hall was erected almost 100 years ago, back in 1920, in memory of the soldiers from around Bald Hills who served in World War I. The hall was a place of friendships and commemoration, housing community group meetings and local events. When this hall was severely damaged by fire in November last year, it was a shock to the entire Bald Hills community. I understand just how important this hall was to local people and I want to assure the Bald Hills people that I am doing what I can to help rebuild it. Just last Friday I met with the Bald Hills Memorial Hall Committee, along with the state member for Aspley, the Hon. Tracy Davis, and Brisbane City Councillor for Bracken Ridge Ward, Amanda Cooper, to discuss funding options. And I have been speaking with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, about getting some help from the federal government with restoration as well. In the meantime, I want to tell the Bald Hills people and the community not to worry. We are doing everything we can to make sure the hall is fixed as soon as possible. It will not be, unfortunately, ready for Anzac Day this year—there is always a wonderful Anzac Day commemoration in the Bald Hills community, and the hall is used—but it will be ready as soon as possible for next year. Rural and Regional Health Services 16 13:36 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Many choices by this government are hurting regional areas. I often say that National Party choices hurt. In health, some of these choices and some of these cruel cuts have been very harsh. Let us have a look at some of them: the GP tax, the cuts to public hospitals, the cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging, and the privatisation of Medicare services. They are doing this all with one objective—to destroy Medicare and to destroy our health system. The Turnbull government announced last year that it would scrap payments to pathologists and diagnostic imaging services when they bulk-billed patients. It did this to save $650 million over four years. These cruel cuts to vital bulk-billing medical services mean that people will not be able to be access bulk-billing for these specific services. This means that patients will have to pay for procedures like Pap smears, blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds. This makes health care less affordable for those who need it the very most: the sick, struggling families and the elderly. These changes unfairly target those very frequent users of pathology, those who are often the most sick. That is who they are targeting: the people who are most sick and will have to pay for these services. Labor will fight these attacks on bulk-billing. We will continue to fight all these unfair and cruel measures. We will defend Medicare and we will defend those people who rely on it. These cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging are some of the cruellest and they are certainly hitting regional areas the hardest. We always remember that National Party choices hurt and these cuts to health really hurt. HMAS Tobruk (II) 16 13:38 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons The HMAS Tobruk (II) served our nation proudly for 35 years. Her motto was: faithful and strong. It would be indeed disrespectful, and shameful perhaps, to see this part of our heritage and our nation's history sold for scrap metal. A better alternative is to scuttle the vessel off the east coast of Tasmania, at Skeleton Bay. I have here with me the proposal and business case to create an artificial reef and marine habitat and a world-class dive tourism site. The report highlights the significant economic benefits that will flow to the community of St Helens, and to Tasmania more broadly. More copies of the report are available in my office. I must commend the support and commitment of the St Helens community, the Break O'Day Council, the Break O'Day Chamber of Commerce and Tourism, the Break O'Day Business Enterprise Centre and the Tasmanian state government for their strong support. Tasmania remains the only state in Australia that has not had a decommissioned naval vessel gifted from the Commonwealth. The waters off the east coast are renowned for their high visibility and abundant marine life, which makes Skeleton Bay the ideal location for such a project. The HMASTobruk (II) deserves better. I am on board and I encourage all Tasmanians also to get on board. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 17 13:39 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio The evidence that Cardinal Pell has been giving to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has stirred the emotions of hundreds of thousands of Australians across the country. One of those, Leonie Sheedy—who along with Joanna Penglase was the founder of the Care Leavers Australia Network—has been attending those hearings. I spoke to her this morning. I am a patron of CLAN. I can see at least one other patron of CLAN here as well, and I think others are coming this afternoon. I think for all of us we feel that what little we add to their advocacy is important work—as important as any that we do in this place. CLAN has been a driving force behind the apology to the forgotten Australians and the establishment of the royal commission itself, because part of the story of those who grew up in orphanages in Australia was child sexual abuse. A week or so ago Leonie introduced me to two women in their 60s who were visiting Geelong for the first time. They had grown up at St Catherine's with Leonie but had lived their lives in Melbourne ever since. They literally had not made that journey down the road once since then. Coming down the road was a traumatic experience for them. They were dry retching and they were in tears. To be honest, they did not want to come back to Geelong again. It says so much about how the impact of their childhoods is with them more than half a century later. The royal commission has recommended the establishment of a single nationally organised redress scheme. As a member of the Labor Party, I am proud that we have committed to that and we call on the government to do the same. Airport Noise 17 13:41 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I appreciate the shadow minister's call to my call yesterday. If you land in Perth you land in my electorate of Swan. There is one particular flight in my electorate that causes great angst to many of my constituents. This is the South African Airways Airbus A340 that departs at 11.45 pm each night—I see the member for Brand and I am sure he is aware of it, because it flies right over his house—SA flight 281. The A340 is an extremely loud aircraft and the noise reverberates through several suburbs during this quiet time of the night, waking up my constituents and constituents in other areas. The 2013 monitoring report for Manning showed the Airbus A340 recorded the top nine loudest noise events during the reporting period, with an LAmax dB(A) maximum reading of 77 decibels. Airservices Australia is very familiar with this flight as it generates many complaints. They have assured me they are looking at ways to address this. It is ironic that when you go to the South African Airways website to book on this flight, while you wait for the search results a message comes up saying, 'From great flights to sleep tights, we'll help you to find the right place to rest your head on holiday.' To South African Airways, my constituents would sleep a lot tighter if South African Airways rescheduled this flight to the daytime or upgraded its aircraft fleet to a modern aircraft. My question for question time today is: will the member for Moreton still survive or make it through question time today! Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 17 13:42 Ms KING 00AMR Ballarat You could not pick up The Age this morning and not be absolutely moved by the most extraordinary act of courage I have ever seen. These brave, beautiful men from Ballarat are in Rome currently to bear witness for the many survivors of childhood sexual abuse whose stories we are hearing day after day through the royal commission. These men have more courage than I have ever seen anybody show. I am so extraordinarily proud of them every single day for the lives that they have lived, and for the people who love them and who are supporting them there in Rome. The voices and hearts of my community are with them. An important issue, though, is what happens next? The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released its final report into redress and civil litigation. It contains detailed recommendations about a national redress scheme. I am shocked to hear that this government has not actually acted on it. It seems to be leaving this entirely up to the states and institutions to deal with and it is frankly not good enough. These men and women have waited long enough for redress. The government needs to have a national redress scheme immediately. Stronger Communities Program 18 13:44 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney I wish to update the House on the success of the Stronger Communities Program and the positive difference it is making in my electorate of Tangney. The Strong Communities Program is designed to assist community groups and not-for-profit organisations that have projects which will add to the vibrancy of the community .One such group is A Cappella West, a women's barbershop chorus that has recently received $6,757 in matched funding to provide the group with uniform shoes and shirts with their logo embroidered on it. The chorus considers itself a large family, with 109 members from many different cultural backgrounds and ages ranging from 22 to the late 70s. They are a group dedicated to performing for the community, with regular performances at community events like the WA Day celebrations in St Ives in Murdoch and the carols by candlelight at St John of God hospital in Murdoch. The grant will no doubt increase the level of performance and professionalism that will be shared by the wider community. Rare Cancers 18 13:45 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston I rise today to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, Gerry Hodges, whom I spoke with yesterday from Daw House Hospice. Gerry has been diagnosed with a rare cancer in his stomach. It has metastasised and he has only a few months to live, according to doctors. Gerry wanted me to raise the importance of this parliament and our community in dealing with the issue of rare cancers. He did say that he recognises that this is not an easy issue. It is expensive to provide treatment and therapy for rare cancers when they affect so few people. But he did say, and I agree with him, that as a community we do need to look at how we ensure that people who are suffering from rare cancers and other rare diseases get the treatment they need. Gerry said that it will be too late for him, but he wanted to raise on behalf of others just how important it is for this issue to get the attention of the parliament. He praised Rare Cancers Australia as a good voice for people such as himself. He believes that society does need to look at this, that we do have a response and that these people are not forgotten. Liquor Licensing 18 13:46 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert In Townsville we are looking for jobs and we need every one of them. That is why it was so disappointing that the Queensland Labor government, with the crossbenches, voted to support the lockout laws for our nightclub and music industries. Make no mistake: these new laws will cost jobs. Make no mistake: the grubs who go out looking to king hit people as a form of fun will not simply stop; they will just find other avenues to remain as grubby as they are now. The safest place to be on a night out is inside the venue. I have two daughters who work in the music and hospitality industries. They want to keep their jobs and so does everyone in these industries. I want young people to go out and have a good time. They keep different hours to me, but the basic tenet of friends having a good time remains relevant from generation to generation. We have a nanny state government that wants to punish everyone but not the grubs who throw these punches. State Labor says that it is alcohol that causes this. Yet these laws say it is okay for you can walk out of a nightclub when it closes and into a casino and continue to drink as much as you want, 24 hours a day. How does that make sense? If these laws are the solution, why don't they apply to casinos? We need to back up our venues, we need to back up the police, we need to target the grubs with real penalties and we need to support the job-creating clubs that offer music and fun for all. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 18 13:48 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Australians should be enormously proud of the achievements of our science community and its role in detecting gravitational waves for the first time in human history. I acknowledge the work of the Australian International Gravitational Research Centre in Gingin in Western Australia and give my heartfelt congratulations to Professor David Blair and his team from the University of Western Australia for making a major contribution to this groundbreaking discovery. Professor Blair has dedicated his life to detecting gravitational waves and his work has been a vital part of the international collaboration. It has been a magnificent collaboration between scientists across Australia and internationally. The CSIRO was proud to proclaim its role—unfortunately masking the fact that the section of CSIRO that did key work was closed down last year because of budget cuts. The optical fabrication and coating facility in Lindfield in Sydney has been disbanded. This group developed the highly-specialised coating on the lenses used in the ultraprecision instruments necessary for this major discovery. They were acknowledged to be the world's best precision optics fabricators. Millions of dollars of unique equipment is lying unused, half-finished orders have been abandoned and world-class scientists have been retrenched. (Time expired) Veterans 19 13:49 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Since 1999 we have lost 46 Australian servicemen on active duty in foreign fields. In the same period we have lost 239 returned servicemen who have taken their own lives on home soil. In the last 16 years we have lost five times as many servicemen on home soil as we have on the battlefield. We clearly have a problem with reintegrating our servicemen back into our society. We cannot send people off to war, to kill in our name and to face death and expect them to return to our society unchanged. That brings me to the Veterans Motorcycle Club, who have a facility in my electorate at Menai, previously known as the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club. They are being evicted from their premises at Menai by Ausgrid. They got a notice to quit the premises one day after Anzac Day. I call on the management of Ausgrid to show some social responsibility and some social leadership and to give the Veterans Motorcycle Club at least another six months. Sport 19 13:51 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton It is my sad duty, on behalf of the member for Dunkley and the member for Fowler, to report the cricket score from the match between the Press Gallery and politicians on Sunday. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP I thank the member for Herbert for his contribution both on the field and off the field. Unfortunately, the politicians went into bat first and were all out for 156 in the 32nd over. Top scorer was James Martin on 36; the member for Lyons, Eric Hutchinson, on 30; and Senator Matt Canavan on 23. The best bowler was Hutchinson, three for 37 and Taylor, three for 33. Sadly, in reply, the Press Gallery reached five for 157 off the 34th over. Top scorers: Bettles, 52 not out; Hutchens, 21 not out; and Roberts, 13 not out. Best bowlers for Australia were Eric Hutchinson, the member for Lyons, two for 28; Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, two for 30; and Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, one for 18. I congratulate the press gallery captain Andrew Probyn and particularly thank the politicians' captains Bruce Billson and Chris Hayes. Sadly, I also report that in the other game between the press gallery and politicians in touch football this morning, the politicians went down 4-2. Tomorrow morning there is a game of football. Let us hope there is a chance for some revenge and that the fourth estate can be consigned to the loser's podium. Queensland: Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs 19 13:52 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In the great state of Queensland there really is palpable concern about the lockout laws that are the sum total of the Queensland government's response to alcohol-fuelled violence—nothing for drug-fuelled violence and nothing for sober violence, just closing a club an hour earlier and 'I am sure everything will be okay'. It is fine to quote some evidence that levels of assaults have fallen, but they fell everywhere in these studies, even where lockout laws did not change. Add to that now what appears to be a rolling out of the welcome mat to illegal and criminal bikie gangs—the latest, Satudarah from the Netherlands and Mongrel Mob from New Zealand, who are going to test this new Labor Premier, who is going soft on organised crime by calling for reviews of the VLAD laws only to allege that it allowed paedophilia to flourish. What an appalling allegation from state Labor. We must crack down on this bikie violence. We will not tolerate them coming back in the state of Queensland and continuing with their extortion, their assault and their distribution of ice. That is not acceptable. If the state government goes soft on this, we will see it sooner rather than later. They must not erode in any way, shape or form the efforts of Taskforce Maxima, which was set up by Campbell Newman. Those opposite may wish to dance on his grave politically but in reality, pink jumpsuits aside, Campbell Newman drove them out of the state of Queensland and they belong nowhere in this great nation of Australia. Do not go easy on criminal bikie gangs. They may well sell the occasional Legacy badge or make a donation to CanTeen, but they do not belong in the great state of Queensland nor the nation of Australia. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 19 13:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been proceeding with its important work since 2013. The Australian people are rightly horrified by what it has revealed. While the commission will continue until the end of next year, it has already made its final recommendations on a national redress scheme for survivors of abuse which it delivered to the government last August. I am proud that Labor in government established this royal commission, and I am proud that last year we announced that, were we returned to government, we would implement its recommendations for redress. This is right. It is just. It is overdue. Unfortunately, the position of the current government on this matter is not so clear. The government has not made clear whether it is committed to a single, national scheme. It has not announced when the scheme will begin, what its financial contribution will be nor what forms of redress will be made available to survivors. This is, frankly, not good enough. Survivors of child sexual abuse deserve justice, and the government must explain how this will be achieved. As a matter of simple respect to the royal commissioners who have taken the trouble to report early on their final report on redress so that the federal government could take action, this government must now do something. Durack Electorate: Boundary Redistribution 20 13:56 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I am pleased to rise in the House today to welcome the new towns which have been added to Durack following the boundary redistribution in Western Australia. The shires of Bruce Rock, Westonia, Yilgarn, Narembeen and Quairading will join the list of my existing local governments, taking the number up to 51 in my electorate. Additionally, to the self-named shires, I welcome the communities in Shackleton, Ardath, Babakin, Belka, Southern Cross, Bullfinch, Yellowdine, Koolyanobbing, Mt Walker, Mt Arrowsmith, Wadderin, Woolocutty and others to the 300-odd towns and communities in Durack. These towns are all steeped in rich farming history and I want them to know the Turnbull government is looking out for them. Together with the release of the Agricultural competiveness white paper, this government has a number of new initiatives available for all farmers, such as the $250 million drought and drought recovery concessional loans; $50 million to boost emergency pest and disease eradication; the $35 million Drought Communities Program; and accelerated depreciation for farm equipment like the cost of fencing and water facilities. This is all on top of doubling the farm management deposits to $800,000. To Australia's farmers, the message is clear: the Turnbull government is looking out for you. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 20 13:57 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga Right now, the media is dominated by the royal commission into child sexual abuse. The horrific abuse of children has shocked and saddened all of us. The cruelty, negligence and indifference of those who were meant to care for them has angered us. On behalf of the Labor Party, I pay tribute to the remarkable survivors, for their bravery in coming forward to tell their stories; for their resilience, living through decades of pain and trauma; and for their resolve as they walk this long road to justice. The royal commission has recommended a single, national scheme be established to provide overdue redress to survivors of abuse. Labor will implement a national redress scheme. The government has not yet committed to a single, national redress scheme. This is just not good enough. Survivors have been waiting their whole lives to get redress for the crimes perpetrated against them. I ask the Prime Minister, as a patron of the Care Leavers Network, please make this commitment. We have all been affected by these stories of tragedy and survival, but our kind words are not enough. Without action, our words are hollow. Survivors want justice. Survivors want redress. It is the very least we can do. Flynn Electorate: Liquefied Natural Gas 20 13:59 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn This weekend will see the opening of yet another gas plant on Curtis Island in Gladstone in the seat of Flynn. The project is expected to supply LNG for the next 20 years. It has cost something like $24.5 billion for one plant—that is big chips. The first boats have sailed and there will be many, many more to come over the next few years. It will add to the Queensland economy and the Australian economy. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 20 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today in the coalition party room the former Prime Minister challenged the current Prime Minister over his lack of economic leadership. Honourable members interjecting— Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing? The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right were not only interjecting, but interjecting so loudly I could not hear the question. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question again, and I would urge members on both sides not to interject. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG My question is to the Prime Minister. Today in the coalition party room the former Prime Minister challenged the current Prime Minister over his lack of economic leadership. Will the Prime Minister finally show some leadership and rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing? Mr Nikolic 137174 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 554 of Practice, which specifically prescribes that questions about party room matters are clearly out of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on the point of order: Practice also makes clear that ministers are expected to be across matters that are in the media. This one is well and truly in the media, and the question itself goes to what policy action the Prime Minister will take. The SPEAKER 00APG I am not going to hear point of order after point of order on the subject. Certainly the standing orders do make clear certain things with respect to parties. But, as I explained yesterday to the member for Bass—indeed on another point I think he made—I do allow latitude in both answers and questions. It has been the practice of many Speakers to allow preambles to questions. That is something that I have been reflecting on. It goes right back to the 1960s. In any event, the second part of the question was certainly in order, and I give the call to the Prime Minister. 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and I thank him for the opportunity to talk about our party room and the depth of the experience on our side of the House. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that, on the coalition side, on the government side, we have members from every walk of life—from big business; from small business; we have farmers; we have professional people; and we have military people. We have every line of work represented. So, when we have a discussion about economic matters, there are backgrounds and views brought to it with a rich range of diversity that enable us to work through these issues carefully and come to the right decision. The challenge that every member of the government party room knows is before us is: how do we successfully transition our economy from one that is led by the mining construction boom to one that is led by the big opportunities opened up by the new global economy and the big opportunities in Asia? How do we do that? Each and every one of our party room knows that the answers to that lie in innovation. They lie in investment. They lie in infrastructure. They lie in opening up big markets. They see, and we recognise, that every lever of our policy is pulling in that direction. They recognise our innovation statement in encouraging investment in start-up companies, encouraging investment, promoting entrepreneurship and promoting investment. We compare that to the policy of the Labor Party, which of course is to increase the tax on investment by 50 per cent So, at the same time as the government is encouraging people to invest in new businesses and new enterprises, the Labor Party are saying, 'We will increase the tax by 50 per cent on any gain you might make.' That is what they are seeking to do—to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent. At a time when we are promoting confidence and encouraging entrepreneurship and recognising that the family home is the most important single asset for every family, the largest single asset class in Australia, what are the Labor Party doing? They are recklessly, thoughtlessly and ideologically undermining the value of the family home. There is a road to that new economy. There is a transition that can be undertaken. It needs investment, innovation, infrastructure and open markets. We know what those levers are and we are pulling them. Labor are standing in the way. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting and the members for Chifley and Morton will cease interjecting as well. Media Ownership 21 14:06 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is reforming Australia's media laws to embrace the challenges of the new economy? How is this reform part of the government's plan to help Australia transition to a new economy? 14:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and I note his powerful commitment to and advocacy for the needs of regional Australians in terms of their broadcasting services. Today, the most significant reforms to media ownership laws in a generation were presented to and approved in the party room and they will be introduced into the parliament this week. The media ownership regulations, in our law, were written before pay television. They were certainly written before the internet. They are a relic of a past media economy and they have been out of date for years. Governments have kicked the reform of these media ownership rules into the long grass for so long that they have formed part of the rich subsoil of Australian political inertia. We are taking them out. We are tackling this important microeconomic reform, and we are bringing the media ownership laws into the 21st century. Most significantly for regional Australians, we are doing so in a way that will secure more news and more local content throughout regional Australia. The regional broadcasters, who have been constrained from merging with larger organisations and expanding their reach by the restriction—the so-called 70 per cent reach rule—have had their economic prospects constrained by that. That rule has been left in place, even though those types of territorial regulations and constraints have been rendered completely irrelevant and out of date by the internet, and everyone has known that for years and years. My government is grasping this nettle and dealing with it. This is substantial microeconomic reform. We are doing so in a way that will ensure that, when regional broadcasters do merge, as they will, their local news and local content requirements will be increased substantially in the areas where there are local content obligations today and, in the many areas where there are no local content obligations—large parts of South Australia, and Western Australia in particular—new local content and new obligations will be imposed. What we are seeing is strong microeconomic reform and deregulation, and we are freeing business up, recognising the technologies of the 21st century and, at the same time, ensuring that the honourable member's constituents, and people in regional Australia right around the country, will get a better deal from their broadcasters than ever before. Taxation 22 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the former Prime Minister has shirt-fronted the current Prime Minister over his lack of economic leadership. Will the current Prime Minister take up the former Prime Minister's challenge and rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing? Government members interjecting— Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Herbert! The Treasurer will just wait a second. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter will cease interjecting. I asked the member for Herbert to cease interjecting a second ago. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Flinders will not interject while I am addressing the House. I again invite him to familiarise himself with some rulings I made while he was away. The member for Moreton and the member for Herbert are warned. 14:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. The question actually relates to the different positions, apparently. But let me talk about the different positions on that side of the House because, 12 months ago, Jon Faine asked the Leader of the Opposition: 'Yes or no? Would you, in some way, wind back negative gearing?' And the Leader of the Opposition said, 'That policy is not on our radar.' Then, nine months ago, when asked the same question, he said, 'Negative gearing changes are not the focus of the Labor Party.' He said, again, nine months ago, 'We have said all matters need to be on the table for discussion, but it is not our focus or on our radar to scrap negative gearing.' Now that is fair enough. That is what he said nine months or 12 months ago, and that, apparently, was the position of the opposition on negative gearing. So, funnily enough, just 2½ weeks ago, when the member for McMahon was asked about negative gearing, he said—and this was after they had announced their catastrophic, market-destroying changes—'We've been working on our policy for 18 months!' He forgot to tell the Leader of the Opposition. They are the 'Bib and Bob' of basket cases when it comes to policies on negative gearing. What those opposite do not understand on negative gearing is that mums and dads are investing in property for their own future. One of the things that those mums and dads are doing is that they are investing— Ms Plibersek interjecting— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. Just before I hear the member for Griffith on a point of order, the interlude gives me the opportunity to warn the member for Sydney and the member for Jagajaga. The member for Griffith on a point of order. Ms Butler 248006 Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Unfortunately, the minister giving the answer is not relevant, and I ask— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will resume her seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. Without restating everything that I have said about ministers' answers, on any reading the preamble to that question was very broad. The Treasurer has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L It would seem, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition is on a need-to-know basis when it comes to their policy. But I cannot call them policies, because all they are announcing is higher taxes. That is all we are getting from that side. They camouflage policy as putting their hand deep into the pockets of mum and dad investors who are simply trying to get ahead. The point I was going to make is: who do they think is investing in properties that go into Defence Housing Australia's pool—that are actually providing properties for our servicemen and servicewomen. For mums and dads investing in negative gearing, private investors account for more than 70 per cent of the properties in the DHA housing pool. But, interestingly, over 3,000 defence men and women are those who are investing in negative gearing, and they have an average net rental loss of some $9,300. Those opposite may want to think that these investors are the problem, but we on this side know that they are the ones who are supporting the successful transition in our economy that this side of the House knows how to manage. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 23 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to welcome two former members of this House, Mr Bill Taylor, the former member for Groom, and Jackie Kelly, the former member for Lindsay. Welcome back to the House. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 23 14:14 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House on the importance of investment and innovation in supporting Australia's transition to a more diversified economy, and is the Treasurer aware of any threats to our transitioning economy and Australia's economic growth? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. Our economy—as the Prime Minister has rightly said, and I and those on this side of the House have said—is successfully transitioning. That is recognised not just here but it is recognised around the developed world as an economy that is dealing very successfully with the global headwinds that we face. But the real champions of this process are the Australians and the Australian businesses who are making this happen every single day. It is true that our economy is growing and we are generating more jobs for every inch of growth in this transitioning economy. More than 300,000 jobs, last year, generated the strongest jobs growth we have seen over a calendar year since 2006. Service industry capex is up 12.4 per cent. Service exports are up 8.3 per cent over the year. Financial service exports have been in double-digit growth for three years. It is not just happening in the services sector, because as our economy diversifies our traditional sectors of the economy continue to perform. The AIG Performance of Manufacturing Index was up, again, in February. It was the eighth successive month and the longest streak of consecutive improvements in that index since 2006. Our resource export volumes, as the minister for resources will know, over the past year, continue to go up and our market share, particularly in places like China, continues to grow. We need to back-in that transition. We need to back it in with investment in that transition, particularly in terms of innovation. Our policy, when it comes to capital gains tax, is to cut capital gains tax, because we have a policy on innovation to provide a capital gains tax exemption for investors in start-ups and a 20 per cent non-refundable offset, a 10 per cent non-refundable tax offset for capital invested in new early-stage venture capital limited partnerships. We are relaxing the same business test to allow a start-up to bring in an equity partner and secure new business opportunities, and we are removing the rules that limit depreciation deductions for some intangible assets. What we are doing on tax is enabling Australian businesses to innovate and to support the transition of our economy, which the jobs of so many Australians depend. Those opposite, their plan is to increase taxes on investment. They want to put up the capital gains tax by 50 per cent on the investment of Australians. They do not understand that taxing more to spend more is not a plan for jobs and growth, and it shows why they cannot be trusted to manage the transition that is occurring in our economy. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. Taxation 24 14:18 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday during Senate question time the Attorney-General, representing the Prime Minister, said, 'It has always been the position of coalition governments to have an in-principle opposition to retrospectivity.' Can the Prime Minister confirm that this has always been the coalition's policy and, if so, won't the Prime Minister now rule out any retrospective changes to negative gearing? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question and I would remind the honourable member of the importance of considering changes to the tax system with great care. The tax system is the biggest single force of influence the federal government has on the economy. In March or April last year my predecessor, the member for Warringah, and the former Treasurer, the then member for North Sydney, launched an open conversation with the Australian people on tax reform in publishing a discussion paper, which raised a wide range of issues. And there has been an open discussion about tax policy ever since. The government is considering these matters and considering them very carefully. We are taking the best advice and analysing the impacts of various proposed changes with great care and diligence, a diligence which the opposition, plainly, has not done. The honourable members opposite know full well that the changes they have proposed to capital gains tax—no doubt, in a rush of blood to the head of wanting to deal with all of those rich investors who do so well out of capital gains—what they have done, at a time when, plainly, we need more investment—we want more entrepreneurship; we want people to take risks; we want them to invest in businesses large and small—at that time, at that very juncture in our economy, in our transition, when we are, as the Treasurer has said, actually providing incentives to invest, the Labor Party is proposing to impose a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax, which will, obviously, provide a massive disincentive to invest. The honourable members opposite can shake their heads if they wish but the reality is that if you want people to invest, with a view to achieving a capital gain, then you do not increase the capital gains tax by 50 per cent. What they have sought to do, of course, with their proposal to outlaw negative gearing from 1 July 2017, in established properties, is strike at the ability of ordinary families on modest incomes, average incomes—nurses, policemen, teachers—preventing those people from investing. Ms Plibersek 83M They can still buy a new house! Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member opposite says they can still buy a new house; the Labor Party will not stop them doing that. But this is a very important point. What the honourable member opposite has conceded is that she wants to ban Australians on average incomes from making an investment in established properties. She wants to limit them to buying homes they are not able to invest under her— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 24 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:22 The SPEAKER 00APG I welcome in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. David Hodgett, a member of the parliament of Victoria and Deputy Leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Education Funding 24 14:22 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Prime Minister. The Safe Schools program has been stopping bullying around the country, and has helped many young people feel that they fit in. Prime Minister, is your commitment to socially progressive values so skin deep that you will put young people's welfare at risk and throw a successful antibullying campaign under a bus just because the bigots in the conservative brotherhood tell you to? Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). He has been warned. The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne should know full well that the last part of that question contained language offensive to members of parliament. The Prime Minister will disregard it. I am saying to the member for Melbourne, and to all members, now that I have made that point, that a repetition of that in a question will not lead to a rephrasing—I will move to the next question. I am going to ask the member for Melbourne to withdraw the unparliamentary term. Mr BANDT M3C I withdraw. 14:23 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Every student, every child has the right to be safe at school and at home. We have no tolerance for bullying of any kind. Let us be quite clear about that: bullying, whether it is in the classroom, on the bus or on the internet, wherever it occurs, is utterly unacceptable. It is unacceptable on whatever basis that bullying occurs—whether it is on the basis of a child's sexual orientation, their perception of their sexuality, their race, their gender, their religion or their appearance. All of us have been children and many if not most of us are parents. We know how damaging bullying of children is. We know, too, how significant bullying on the internet can be. When I was a child, of course, bullying was much more of a personal, face-to-face issue. Now we know that destructive bullying of kids online can do enormous damage. That is why our government has established a Children's eSafety Commissioner to ensure that bullying and abusive material directed at young people is taken offline. Let me come to the particular point of the honourable member's question. He asked about the Safe Schools program. We are totally committed to schools being safe—absolutely. Members of this parliament on both sides have raised concerns about some of the content that has been made available, apparently or purportedly, through or in connection with this program. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Honourable members opposite say that those claims are untrue. We on this side of the House respect every member of this House because they represent Australians. They each represent a constituency. We respect every member of this parliament and, as concerns have been raised, I have asked the minister to examine the complaints and to report back to me. That is the responsible thing that any Prime Minister and any government should do. The minister, Senator Birmingham, is doing just that. He is conducting a review, or having a review conducted by Professor Bill Louden, Emeritus Professor of Education at the University of Western Australia. When that review is completed it will be provided to me. We will make that review public and we will be able to judge the merit of the criticisms and what steps, if any, should be taken consequent on the review. That is taking children's rights seriously. It is taking bullying seriously. It is standing up for children. (Time expired) Mr Keenan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Justice will cease interjecting. The Minister for Justice is delaying me giving the call to the member for Forrest. Taxation 25 14:27 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline what impact proposed changes to capital gains tax arrangements will have on Australian family farms? How would such changes, if implemented, erode the work this government has done in restoring agriculture as a fundamental pillar of the Australian economy? 14:27 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member, more than most, understands the privations that come from being on a family farm and working hard to deliver to a marketplace a product that is part of the sustenance of everybody. The honourable member has taken an active and physical role in developing and growing their family business, which still includes working with Kim and their daughter-in-law, Deanna. It is a bit of a shame that the family farm and the benefits of the family farm are not appreciated as much on the other side. It was with some sadness that I saw the member for Hunter's comments on his willingness to accept more consolidation and corporatisation in the sector. This is from Hansard on 26 November. He says that 'it is a reality of the sector that further consolidation will be necessary.' It is not so much that I am against it, but the ABS report that was out today says that large family farms have generated, on average, higher returns than their corporate counterparts, and family farms have also provided most of the capital for the Australian farm sector. It is very important that we understand what drives this. We on this side believe in the aspiration of the person who starts at the bottom and makes their way to the top, makes their way through the economic and social stratification by their own endeavours, by the sweat of their own brow, by working hard. That is what we believe in. So often it is the case that when people go on the land they buy an asset which makes them equity poor and cash poor at the start. As they work hard their capital base increases, but they remain cash poor and they go without. They go through the probation of not having the best car, of not going on the holiday that other people go on, of not having the accoutrements that come for a person on a regular wage—such as clothes and all of the other bits and pieces that come from having a regular wage. They do this over the longer term because they believe in the capital gain that awaits them at the end. They believe that, after all that hard work and after having to deal with the vagaries of the climate, they will have that capital gain. But, of course, what the other side believe in is not so much standing up for those people and the sacrifices they make but making sure that they tax them more—making sure that they put their hands into their efforts over so many years. We are going to stand behind the efforts and the entrepreneurship that come from the so many people who, through the history of this nation, have gone west and gone to the remote regions to carve out an existence that has benefited not only them but our nation in whole. We do not believe that, after all of their endeavours and all of their work, we will allow the taxation department, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, to take that effort away from them so that they, alike, end up being cash poor, asset poor and having missed all of the advantages that, otherwise, they would have got from the remaining of a coalition government in power. Taxation 26 14:31 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister deposed the former Prime Minister, he said: We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people. Is the Prime Minister doing the opposite of respecting the intelligence of the Australian people by hoping that they do not notice that he will not rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing? Will the Prime Minister now finally rule out making retrospective changes to negative gearing? 14:31 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth We respect the intelligence of the Australian people by considering fundamental changes to the tax system carefully, with full analysis and with due diligence. We do not respect the intelligence of the Australian people, nor do we discharge our responsibilities appropriately, if, as the Labor Party has done, we were to rush into proposing changes without understanding the consequences of them. What the Labor Party has proposed, in terms of its changes to negative gearing, undermines the value of the largest single asset class in Australia. It undermines the value of every Australian home. It will, as the member for Sydney observed a moment ago, ensure that hardworking Australians on average incomes—a nurse, a teacher, a police officer—will not be able to buy an investment property, a residential property, and rent it out, and offset their net rental loss against their income. Ms Plibersek interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member for Sydney says, 'No; they should be happy just to buy a residence.' So only the wealthy who can negative gear against their investment income will be able to buy existing residential properties under the policies of the Labor Party. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for Sydney that she has already been warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 That is the consequence. That is what happens—that bizarre and inequitable outcome—when political parties, when governments or, indeed, oppositions in this case, formulate policies without carefully examining them. As we have heard from the Treasurer, we know that his counterpart, the member for McMahon, has been working on this negative gearing plan, apparently, for 18 months. But we also know that the Leader of the Opposition knew nothing about it. So, clearly, this is a policy that was ill-thought-out. It was not well prepared. It did not respect the intelligence of the Australian people. Perhaps it said more about the intelligence of those opposite. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting, as will the Leader of the House. I am going to remind the member for Sydney— Mr Pyne interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Sydney has been warned. It is her final warning. The member for Perth and the member for Wakefield interjected right throughout the Prime Minister's answer. The only reason I did not pull them up was I did not want to interrupt the parliament every time they interjected. They are both warned. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 26 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:34 The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the member for Lindsay, we have just had join us on the floor of the House a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand, led by the honourable Ruth Dyson. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 27 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Arts: Film and Television Industry 27 14:34 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House about how Australia's creative industries are driving jobs, economic growth and promoting Australia's reputation overseas as a dynamic and innovative country? 14:35 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. In wishing her a happy birthday, I thank her for her support of our creative industries and, particularly, her support for the National Science and Innovation Agenda strategy that was released by the Prime Minister last December. Australians are amongst the most creative and talented people on earth. Our international reputation for creativity and innovation was further enhanced last night at the film industry's most prestigious awards, the Academy Awards. The Australian film Mad Max: Fury Road won six Oscars—the most of any film last night—making it the most successful Australian film at the Oscars in our history. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Co-financed by RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Village Roadshow, and co-produced by Kennedy Miller Mitchell productions, Village Roadshow and Warner Bros., Mad Max: Fury Roadswept the technical categories of the Oscars, winning for best film editing, production design, sound mixing, sound editing, hairstyling and make-up, and costume design. I know that the member for Lindsay will be delighted with the success of this film for part of the post-apocalyptic film was actually done in Lindsay in a sand mine in Penrith Lakes. I know that the people of Lindsay were delighted by the filming and post-production work that was done in the electorate because, as it has been estimated, the filming and post-production work generated about $80 million in production expenditure and employed about 2,000 people. Also, 3,000 Australian businesses were used to provide goods and services. The film and television industry in Australia is a serious business. It generates about $6 billion worth of funding, and that is injected into our GDP. The film and television industry employs about 55,000 Australians on a full-time basis. The director of the film, Dr George Miller, was honoured earlier this year at the G'Day USA event in Los Angeles—the government's premier USA public diplomacy event—with a lifetime achievement award for his contribution to the Australian film and television industry not only through the Mad Max franchise but also through films like Happy Feetand Babe. So I congratulate George Miller and his team for promoting Australia on the global stage. (Time expired) Taxation 27 14:38 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2012 the now Prime Minister gave a speech in parliament promising to oppose legislation 'on the basis that it is retrospective'. Why won't the Prime Minister now rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing—or, put another way, why won't New Malcolm just agree with Old Malcolm? Mr Pyne 9V5 Nine months ago you said you weren't going to change it. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:38 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond in relation to negative gearing, because one of the key issues around negative gearing that those opposite have liked to raise is the issue of fairness. They think that somehow this is going to create some greater fairness. But I wonder if they have contemplated this scenario. They raise these issues in the context of fairness, but is it fair for, say, a part-time teacher in Fairfield in Western Sydney, in the member for McMahon's electorate, who wants to return to work in the second half of next year if they were to be successful at the next election, after she has had children? They go back and they buy an investment property, which would be denied under those opposite, to offset the net rental losses. They would have a salary of some $40,000 a year. Under the policy of those opposite, they would not be able to negatively gear that property they bought to secure the future of their family. That is what happens with an existing property under their policy. But consider someone in the member for Sydney's electorate: a senior executive earning, say, $600,000 a year in a cash salary but, more importantly, pulling down some $75,000 in dividends— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Lyons and Deakin will cease interjecting. The Minister for Resources will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG It is. It is on the point of order of relevance. This is the fifth question we have asked the Prime Minister on retrospectivity. Why can't he just rule it in or out? Why is he hiding? Mr Whiteley interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Braddon will cease interjecting. The member for Herbert was right in blaming him that time! The Treasurer is relevant to the question. Mr MORRISON E3L So we have the part-time teacher who wanted to buy an investment property and negatively gear the rental losses. They cannot do that under their policy, but the banking executive living in the member for Sydney's electorate, who could have $50,000 or $75,000 worth of dividends, could under their policy, if they go buy an existing investment property, negatively gear it. They can negatively gear it. This is probably just one of the many things that the member for McMahon and the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about when they were not talking about negative gearing on their side. What the policy says is you can negatively gear against investment income but not on a wage and salary earning. You cannot write it off. Honourable members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Whether it is on fairness, whether it is on the issue of the mayhem it would create in the property markets, if you buy a new property, the minute you put the key in the door under their policy, it becomes an old property and you cannot sell it to one out of the three people who would previously have bought it. Under their policy, it is like driving a new car off the lot. They just have not thought it through. That is why, when it comes to tax policy, they cannot be trusted to manage the transitioning economy as this side of the House can. The SPEAKER 00APG There were a large number of interjections through that answer. The member for McMahon has been interjecting regularly. He is now warned, as are the member for Hotham and the member for Deakin, who I have asked to cease interjecting a number of times on a number of days. Research and Development 28 14:42 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. I refer the minister to the GE global innovation barometer. How does this survey reflect the government's national innovation and science agenda and how is that agenda being embraced by business? Are there any threats to the progress the government is making in this part of the economy? 14:43 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Banks for his question. I know he is particularly interested in the innovation economy. I would also like to congratulate him on the excellent job he is doing as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters under trying conditions in the teeth of the Labor Party's opposition to more democracy in this country in the Senate. Yesterday the 2016 GE global innovation barometer was released, and its findings reinforced the government's national innovation and science agenda. Seventy-two per cent of Australians are optimistic about innovation. Eighty-seven per cent of Australian business executives say the start-up ethos is the paradigm that we need to follow and 94 per cent support making Australia a leading country for innovation. It points to a change in culture, which is the first pillar of the national innovation and science agenda. It shows that our business community is moving to a position where they understand that our economy is transitioning towards an innovative, creative economy and away from the construction phase of the mining boom—and that is a good thing. This culture is being manifested in some real Australian success stories. We saw this year Atlassian list on the Nasdaq and raise $8 billion, the largest capital-raising of any Australian business, and it was founded by Scott Farquar and Mike Cannon-Brookes. We have also seen it in the business of citizen reporters and photographers, in a business founded by Alex Hartman, who would be well known to many members of the House, called Newzulu, an ASX listed company that has deals with AP, AAP, ABC, Channel 7 and Fairfax, with six offices in six different cities around the world. It was a start-up business only a couple of years ago. By contrast, the Labor Party wants to snuff out this new investment, this new support for start-up industries. On this side of the House we have a capital gains tax exemption for investments by angel investors in start-up innovative businesses that will help grow the start-up economy, a capital gains tax exemption for assets held from three to 10 years. Labor on the other hand wants to halve the capital gains tax discount for Australian investors. They want to increase the capital gains tax at the very time when this government is trying to help the economy transition to a new economy by removing some of the hurdles that stand in the path of investment in capital gains tax. The other side of the House, if they were elected, would put up those hurdles and increase those hurdles on investment through capital gains tax. They are a risk to the economy. (Time expired) Taxation 29 14:46 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time both the Prime Minister and Treasurer refused to explain what the Treasurer meant when he referred to 'excesses in negative gearing'. So, Prime Minister, I ask again: what are the excesses in negative gearing? 14:46 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question about negative gearing. Recognising its central relevance to housing affordability, I invite the Minister for Social Services to provide him with some further details on affordability. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat for a second. Members on my left and right will cease interjecting. Mr Swan 2V5 The next Treasurer. The cat's out of the bag. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lilley will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are just as surprised as the Treasurer by what has just happened here. While the Prime Minister can provide a question to the relevant minister, there is no precedent for him providing it to a minister who does not have portfolio coverage of what the question goes to, which is exactly what has just happened. The SPEAKER 00APG I will hear from the Leader of the House. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very clear that the Prime Minister can direct the question to any member of the front bench that he chooses. Fortunately, in this government we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the people that the Prime Minister can choose from. Of course, the minister for housing is entirely appropriate, as would be, for example, the Minister for Small Business, the Assistant Treasurer, the Treasurer or, indeed, myself as the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. The Prime Minister has chosen to do so; he is entirely in order. The SPEAKER 00APG That is right. The Prime Minister did not direct it to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, but the point you make is quite right under the standing orders and under the practice. I call the Minister for Social Services. 14:47 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously housing affordability and rental affordability is an issue we deal with very often in the portfolio of social services. Indeed, it is a very pleasing thing to be able to provide an answer on this issue, particularly with respect to a government under whose watch—between 2007 and 2008, and between 2013 and 2014—the proportion of low-income households in rental stress increased from 35.4 per cent to 42.5 per cent. And yet they pretend in this place that they have some magic silver bullet to both rental stress and housing affordability. What is the magic silver bullet? A new tax. Look, having been referred this question by the Prime Minister, I might quote a previous Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said, 'Those of you who have spent time in Australia know that we are not given to overstatement'. That is something that is true, I think, for the majority of Australians but stops short of the Labor caucus, because when they came up with this policy they described it as— Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— Mrs Sudmalis interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Minister for Small Business, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a tight question. There was no preamble. If the minister is the one who is going to answer, he still has to be directly relevant to the question. He is nowhere near it. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will make a couple of points. It was a short question. The Prime Minister in his answer linked negative gearing and housing affordability, and that is within the broad policy area. The minister is referring to taxation, and I would ask him for the remainder of his answer to stay on the subject matter of the question. I call the minister. Mr PORTER 208884 Indeed, Mr Speaker. The premise of the Labor policy is that it is a cure to the very complicated issue of housing affordability— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr PORTER 208884 They have described it as the most important structural reform in a decade. It is a new tax. Some category of Australians was not paying the tax in 2015, and that same category will be paying it in 2017 under this policy. It is a $585 million new tax, and that is supposed to be the most important structural reform in a decade? They have form in this area of overstatement on tax. Apparently the mining tax which was meant to raise $12 billion worth of revenue in the first two years— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Sydney, that is your final warning. Mr PORTER 208884 was described as 'historic'. Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter cannot raise a point of order on direct relevance; only one point of order can be raised. Mr Hunt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment will cease interjecting. The member for Hunter— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I will just let you go. The SPEAKER 00APG No. The member for Hunter does not have the call. The member for Hunter cannot raise a point of order on direct relevance. Mr Joyce interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I will give him the call but I will not accept or tolerate frivolous points of order. I am giving the member for Hunter fair warning now. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right. Member for Hunter, on a point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 And, of course, Mr Speaker, I would not— The SPEAKER 00APG Your point of order? Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 104(c). The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter will resume his seat, and is warned! Where were we? Mr PORTER 208884 We were at the point where we were discussing what is self-professed to be the most important structural reform in a decade. I was pointing out that they have form on overstatements about tax. The mining tax from the member from Lilley was to be a historic reform. Of course, if you measure historic as 'historic failure to raise revenue', then it was indeed a historic reform with a 97 per cent failure on the estimate to raise $12 million worth of revenue. What we have here is the idea that you can take the two-thirds of Australians who have been receiving a tax benefit, who were negative gearing and who earn under $80,000, and make them pay more tax on housing— (Time expired) Defence White Paper 30 14:53 Ms GAMBARO 9K6 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Defence Materiel. Will the minister explain how the defence white paper and the Defence Industry Policy Statement will create jobs in Australia's defence industries, particularly in my electorate of Brisbane? 14:53 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for Brisbane for her question, for her interest in defence and for her chairing of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. She does an excellent job chairing that committee. As the member would be well aware, the government announced last week $30 billion in new investment in our nation's security. This includes 1.6 billion in Australia's defence industry. This is to help and assist the Australian defence industry capitalise on this spending by creating jobs and producing further economic growth for our country. There is $230 million to create the centre for defence industry capability, $730 million for research into emerging technologies and $640 million for a new defence innovation hub. What this means is that our defence industry, as I have said before, will be able to create further jobs in this area. I would like to take a look at an example in and around Brisbane. We have got $18 billion that has been invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program. What that means for small Australian companies is significant. We have got Ferra Engineering: they make engine material and they will be a beneficiary of this. We have got TAE: they are a leader in avionics and they will be a beneficiary of this. We have got HTA: they are a thermal processing company and they will be a beneficiary of this. And we have got Micreo, which makes radar components. This company employs 200 people and it is confident that, due to the JSF and what it has been able to do on that program, it will be able to generate further employment. I was at AiG's defence council meeting earlier today. There we had all the leaders of the Australian defence industry gathered in the one room. They are extremely upbeat about the defence white paper, because they know it is providing investment certainty. They know it is setting out a plan for the industry. They know they will be able to capitalise on it, and in capitalising on it they know that they will create further jobs. I know those opposite have not been overly interested in the defence white paper. They seem to want to repeat question after question in here, rather than take an interest in what is a significant document. We look forward to them engaging, because the Australian defence industry would like to see that they are fully behind the defence white paper as well. Taxation 31 14:57 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer has reportedly explained to a Liberal backbench committee what he considers to be the excesses of negative gearing. Does this government have such contempt for the Australian people that it will tell a backbench committee what these excesses are but will not tell the Australian people? Will the Prime Minister now finally outline to the House and the Australian people what the government regards as the excesses in negative gearing? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question, and since it is directed at some remarks made by the Treasurer I will invite the Treasurer to answer the question. 14:57 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to again remind those opposite of who we certainly do not believe are engaged in excesses in negative gearing. I will run through the numbers once again. There are 3,105 Defence Force personnel who used negative gearing, a net rental loss of $9,300. We have got 885 anaesthetists who are engaged in negative gearing, but there are 57,855 teachers who use negative gearing. There are 990 surgeons who are engaged in negative gearing, but there are 39,250 nurses and midwives who use negative gearing. Those opposite think that those nurses, teachers and Defence Force personnel are the problem with negative gearing, because they want to say: 'No, you can't engage in it any more. You can't engage in that for existing properties.' In addition to that, 585 lawyers and judges are engaged in negative gearing, but 19,000 police and emergency service workers are engaged in negative gearing. There are less than 7½ thousand finance managers, but almost 35,000 general clerks using negative gearing. What this side of the House understands is that mum and dad investors—people out there working hard every day trying to provide an opportunity for their future—deserve a fair go when it comes to negative gearing. They should be able to continue to do that, as they have been doing it. Those opposite disagree. Those opposite think it is the right policy for Australia in this economy, when there is pressure on investment and when global times are uncertain. They think the best thing they can do for the economy in this country is to put a big tax on investment. More than that, they want to do it in such a way as to take one in three purchasers out of the existing property real estate market and say to everybody and the house that they own that when they try and sell that on, they will be selling it to a smaller group of people. Confidence is so important in our economy. Those opposite should know about that because they eroded confidence in our economy and Australians' confidence in the economy every day they were in government. But we understand that for Australians to have confidence they have to have confidence in the home that they have invested so heavily in and have sacrificed for. Those opposite seem to think that that is an excess. On this side, we do not. We know it is Australians who everyday are enabling—(Time expired) Mr Dutton interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. Environment 31 15:00 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on addressing people by their correct title. The Minister for the Environment has a particularly grand title and it should be honoured in this parliament. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business and explain to the House that I do give great latitude to the Manager of Opposition Business and to the Leader of the House given the positions they hold, but I do not want to see a repeat of that. Mrs McNamara interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Dobell will cease interjecting. Mr HOWARTH 247742 My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister please update the House on how the government is tackling climate change without pushing up the cost of electricity for consumers? Is the minister aware of any alternative plan? 15:02 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I do want to thank the member for Petrie for his question. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business, I confess I do not have any skiing medals. I do not have any medals for being the best skier. My point is that we are practical environmentalists on this side. We want to do real things to reduce emissions. When we look at what has happened in recent times around the world, we see firstly that on our watch the government has contributed in a very significant way to the success of the Montreal protocol and the creation of the road map which came from that. That is a saving of potentially 90 billion tonnes of emissions between now and 2050. The 2020 Kyoto rules were settled in the Australian offices at the Paris talks. The 2030 agreement was contributed to in a very significant way by the work of the foreign minister and others. Domestically what we found is that we have achieved almost 93 million tonnes of emissions reductions through the Emissions Reduction Fund. We have seven million tonnes of soil carbon, over seven million tonnes of Savannah management—a large proportion of which is Indigenous groups doing work on Indigenous land to reduce bushfire, to improve the quality of land and at the same time to generate genuine long-term income for themselves. It is a great combination of Indigenous groups working their land, receiving income and doing the right thing by the environment. At the same time, we have done all of this whilst reducing the pressure on family electricity bills by the largest amount in Australian history. By comparison, what is it that that our friends on the other side have done and what are they proposing? When they tried to tackle this question, they drove up electricity prices. They offered 5½ billion dollars to Victoria's brown coal power stations not to close down, not to clean up but to continue operating—$250 million to Loy Yang and Hazelwood, and $250 million to Yallourn. What are they now proposing? They are not only putting the squeeze on families by hurting their house prices, but they now want to increase the cost of living. So it is the time for the Leader of the Opposition to come clean on how much he will increase household electricity prices by. This actually matters to families. That is what they talk about around the kitchen table. When those opposite were in government, Treasury modelled their current policy as showing a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. So under us, electricity prices— (Time expired) Taxation 32 15:05 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Since last Thursday, the Prime Minister has failed on four separate occasions to explain what he considers to be the excesses in negative gearing. He has also failed on eight occasions to rule out retrospective changes to negative gearing. Even the former Prime Minister, his predecessor, has had to give him a hurry-up to explain matters. Prime Minister, it is beyond a farce now. When will you finally given Australians a straight answer on your tax plans? Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Foreign Affairs will cease interjecting. 15:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth What the Leader of the Opposition is doing is running an early version of the standard run-up to the budget in which the opposition demands that the government rule in or rule out one measure or another— Ms O'Neil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hotham is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 and demands comment on one thing or another relating to the preparation of the budget. What we are doing is working through these very important issues very carefully. We are completing a process of examination of the Australian tax system that was begun in early last year. It has been a good national conversation. There have been good contributions to it, and we are completing it with due care and diligence. Just as Treasurers and Prime Ministers answer with respect to questions about what is going to be in the budget, when we have completed our deliberations and when the government has concluded its work we will present the conclusions, just as we will do with the budget outcomes when the budget is presented by the Treasurer. The Leader of the Opposition should consider very carefully the alternative approach, which is apparently—as he shows—to make policy on the run and to announce measures without any examination. He had his deputy acknowledging proudly that, after 1 July 2017, if she has her way, a nurse or a teacher will not be able to buy an investment property, but should be able to console themselves with buying a home—while at the same time, of course, the person with a substantial investment income will be able to buy that investment property. These are the bizarre and anomalous outcomes that are the consequence of shoddy work and poor consideration. The government is doing its job. It is considering serious issues seriously. When we have concluded our deliberations, policy will be announced. Mr Whiteley interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Braddon is now warned! Hughes Electorate: Crime 33 15:08 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes My constituency question is for the Minister for Justice. Can the minister update the House on what the government is doing to take the profit motive out of organised crime and to protect local communities in my electorate of Hughes from criminal exploitation? 15:09 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Hughes for that question. When we came to government, members would be aware that we established the Safer Streets Program, which was a $50 million investment of money that we have taken from criminals—$50 million that we are providing in grants to local communities for crime prevention projects to prevent antisocial behaviour. So far we have given out $19 million, some of which—I am very pleased to say—has gone to the member for Hughes's electorate after very substantial lobbying from him, including taking me down to see the sort of antisocial behaviour that he was interested in addressing. In the member for Hughes's electorate we have installed 20 CCTV cameras, auspiced by the Liverpool City Council, to make the Liverpool CBD safer and more family-friendly. I congratulate him for his efforts in doing that. Round 2 of the Safer Streets Program will close tomorrow. I am hoping that all members of this place have been encouraging councils in particular, or anyone else who might auspice a project, to make applications under this program to make their communities safer. Importantly, the funding—every single dollar—within this program comes from proceeds of crime. It is money that we have taken from crooks from their illegal activities. When Labor were in office they froze this account. The tried to use proceeds of crime—money that was taken from crooks—to prop up their budget bottom line. Indeed, if this had continued, $112 million would have been locked away in this account by the financial year 2017-18. When we arrived in office we unfroze this money and we are making sure that we are using every single dollar to assist law enforcement agencies to do their jobs in local communities. We have been very diligent in doing all that we can to undermine the business model of organised crime, part of which is of course making these sorts of investments. We have been doing what you would consider to be traditional law enforcement—going after the organised criminals and using the powers at our disposal to tear down their criminal gangs—but we have also been using other tools at our disposal. The minister for immigration has been making sure that people cannot be here, preying on people holding the privilege of a visa. We have been using the Australian Taxation Office to go after unexplained wealth, and the parliament recently passed legislation to make those unexplained wealth laws stronger. We will continue to use every tool at our disposal to go after criminals that use the culture of violence and intimidation to prey on their fellow Australians. One of the best ways we can do this is by getting more proceeds of crime and then reinvesting it in law enforcement projects, like in the member for Hughes's electorate and like we will be doing through the second round of Safer Streets, which I am pleased to say will be closing tomorrow. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 33 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 24 of 2015-16 entitled Performance audit—Early Intervention Services for Children with Disability: Department of Social Services. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 34 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:13 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms PLIBERSEK 83M I do, Mr Speaker. Today in question time the Prime Minister said that I had observed that Labor's negative gearing policy will 'ensure that hardworking Australians on average incomes—a nurse, a teacher, a police officer—will not be able to buy an investment property, a residential property, and rent it out, and offset their net rental loss against their income'. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. As the Prime Minister knows, Labor's negative gearing policy will continue to allow those people who have access to negative gearing to keep it, and people who want to have access in the future will be required to buy a new property. That is the point that I was making. That will create 25,000 new construction jobs. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG I am going to point something out. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting! Mr Mitchell M3E Shut up! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will leave immediately under 94(a) or he will be out for 24 hours. The member for McEwen then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I did not hear the member for Sydney's interjection, but I point out to her that the Prime Minister responded to an interjection. It was not to something that the member for Sydney had said; it was in response to an interjection. That is my memory of it, but I am just going to point out the perils of interjecting, particularly when you have been warned not to interject. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 34 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 34 15:14 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for the Environment seeking reasons for the delay in answering a question in writing. The question, which seeks information on national standards on small commercial energy storage systems, appears as No. 2127 on the Notice Paper. 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Perth. I will write to the minister today. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Housing Affordability 34 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to have a plan to improve housing affordability. I 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— 15:15 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon All around Australia, people understand that there are challenges for housing affordability, that there are young people in particular trying to buy their first home and finding it harder and harder. All around Australia, there are parents and grandparents who are wondering how their children are going to get into the housing market and have the sort of security that they have had through their lives. All around Australia, people understand that, except in that chair—except for the Prime Minister of Australia and those who sit behind him. They do not seem to understand that at all. They seem to treat this matter with contempt. What we see is a government which completely does not understand housing affordability and does not have a plan to deal with it. It started before the last election. I recall the debate between the former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, when he was shadow Treasurer, and me, when I was Treasurer, in the lead-up to the last election. It was a Q&A debate. The then shadow Treasurer was asked about housing affordability. He got into full bluster mode, full Hockey bluster—you remember what that was like. That was quite a sight to behold. He said: I have some plans on that— on housing affordability— which we'll be talking about before … the election. He meant the last election. What followed was tumbleweeds, not a word about housing affordability, and it has been tumbleweeds ever since—except that of course this government has form when it comes to housing affordability. While I am on the topic of the former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, remember his great contribution to the housing affordability debate? Firstly, he denied that it existed, because he said: If housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it … He declared it not a problem by Treasurer's edict. Housing affordability was not a problem because some people were buying houses. And then he went on to say that the answer to housing affordability was to 'get a good job', at which the dentists and the people who were all working hard across Australia, all of the nurses and teachers and everybody, said: 'Oh, that's good advice; I hadn't thought of that. Go and get a better job? I hadn't thought of that!' Then we had the wonderful contribution from the former Treasurer suggesting that young people access their superannuation to buy their first home, which would have had the obvious impact of driving up the price of housing at the same time as driving down the retirement incomes of Australians. So bad was that idea that it was dropped within an hour. And of course it goes on. The government has cut funding from the National Rental Affordability Scheme, axed the help-for-seniors program, abolished the national affordable housing council, abolished the National Housing Supply Council and cut funding to Homelessness Australia. The Liberals just do not get it. They do not get that the government of Australia is looked to by Australia's young people in particular for assistance when it comes to housing affordability. Then the new Prime Minister came in, and there was a sense of relief around the country. People said: 'I'm glad that there's a new Prime Minister. He might be able to have a sensible conversation about some of these big issues. He might be able to make a big difference on some of the challenges facing the nation, like housing affordability.' And yet what we see is the now Prime Minister refusing to do so, instead engaging in a scare campaign and doing so in a condescending fashion. Just yesterday the Prime Minister was asked about housing affordability. A journalist asked the Prime Minister about negative gearing and housing affordability: Do you have a message— this is a very important point— to young people who don't have parents who can act as a guarantor on a mortgage, who can't afford a deposit of say, $100,000, and probably face the prospect of renting for the rest of their lives? And only ever seeing housing going up … in the capital cities? Do you have a recommendation for what those young people can do? There was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to send a message to those young people, to talk directly to those Australian citizens, about his plans for housing affordability, about how he understands the challenges and their problems. He said this: Look, let me just say this to you. The Labor Party's policy on negative gearing and capital gains tax are calculated to lower the value of Australians' homes. Not an idea, not a plan, not a bit of vision, not even a bit of empathy for Australia's young people, but a scare campaign. And it gets worse, because the journalist pulled him up and said: But, young people can't afford homes? And this was his answer: Turning to capital gains tax, let's just consider this— and he went on with the rest of the scare campaign. He had two opportunities to send a message to Australians concerned about housing affordability. He sent a message all right. The message is: 'I don't care.' I am indebted to the member for Griffith, who said on national television that the Prime Minister could condescend for Australia. Well, there was an example of it: condescending to Australia's young people, saying to Australia's young people that he does not care about their opportunity to get a house; he does not care about their opportunity to get into the housing market. We hear a lot about aspiration from those opposite. We hear about how they embrace aspiration. How about the aspirations of young people to own a home? How about the aspirations of young people to build their wealth through their house? One house would do it. That is what they want to start with: to get into the housing market. All they have is condescension and a lack of a plan. We are told that the government have taken decisive action on housing affordability on the matter of foreign investment. What they have done is that they have told the owner of a $39 million mansion in Point Piper that he must vacate the premises. I was deluged by people in my electorate saying: 'Thank goodness, I can now afford a house! I can now get that $39 million mansion in Point Piper!' 'That's housing affordability for me,' said people in my electorate and the electorates of all my colleagues! They were so grateful to the Prime Minister for that decisive action on housing affordability! But we on this side of the House recognise the challenge. We recognise the problem. Since the 1980s and 1990s, ownership rates have fallen, and the largest decline is amongst those aged between 25 and 44. Thirty years ago, you needed 3.2 times an average income to buy a house. Now it is 6.5 times. First home buyers are now just one in seven purchasers right across Australia and investors are 50 per cent. It is harder and harder for young people in particular to buy into the market. It is harder and harder for parents to put aside money to help their children. We understand that and we understand that when looking at housing affordability we do need to look at the taxation treatment. We understand that we have the most generous taxation treatment of property investment in the world. What we need to know is that that has an impact. I had thought that the government were running an outrageous scare campaign deliberately. After their question time performance I am prepared to give them a little benefit of the doubt. Maybe they just do not understand it because we had the Treasurer of Australia stand at the dispatch box and call negative gearing 'claiming deductions against investment income'. That is what is allowed under Labor's policy for existing properties and that is not negative gearing. If the Treasurer of Australia does not understand the policy, no wonder he does not support sensible changes to the policy. I thought he was bad, but I did not think he was that bad. I did not think he actually misunderstood the complete basis of the policy. We know that the answer to housing affordability is to boost supply, to get more supply into the market. We are not the first ones to think of this; many housing experts will tell you this. Other governments have dealt with it—state governments, Labor and Liberal. We all know about the first home owner grants that were introduced many years ago and have been implemented by governments of all persuasions. State after state, Labor and Liberal, have said: 'What we need is more supply. We will only allow first home owner grants for new housing.' Has the market collapsed? Has there been Armageddon? Has there been a major collapse in housing prices because state governments have said, 'We are going to focus our policy on supply, on getting more houses and apartments into the market'? No, there has not. Here we have the alternative government making a sensible suggestion for better targeting negative gearing, putting negative gearing to work for all Australians, keeping negative gearing and saying, 'We want to see a dividend for every single Australian from negative gearing.' Ninety-three per cent of existing negative gearing goes into existing houses. That is a 93 per cent failure rate if your objective is new housing construction. If we had a 93 per cent failure rate, you would want to review that government program. We on this side of the House are up for that discussion. We on this side of the House are up for leading the debate. We on this side of the House are up for suggesting and proposing better and new policies. Those on that side of the House, robbed of their plan to increase the GST, have nothing—not a jot of an idea, not a jot of a vision or a jot of a proposal; just old-style Liberal scare campaigns. The Australian people deserve better. The Australian people are looking at this Prime Minister and they are very disappointed because they hoped for better. They hoped for this Prime Minister for a bit of character, a bit of honesty, a bit of hope and a bit of ticker. Instead, he has given them nothing. This Prime Minister has reverted to the old-style Liberal scare campaign when robbed of his plans. It can now be truly said of this Prime Minister: His promises were, as he then was, mighty; but his performance, as he is now, nothing. 15:25 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about housing affordability. It is the case in Australia today that we do have an issue with housing affordability. It has risen over a period of time to a point where it is greater than at any point in many years. It is also the case that housing affordability is a complex issue related to supply and demand in the market. What we heard for the first eight minutes of the shadow Treasurer's presentation was not an explanation of quality policy that would improve the situation of housing supply in Australia because he knows, as we know, that supply is a function of state planning policy and state governments. I have some experience and understanding of this as I am a New South Wales member from north-west Sydney, Sydney's main growth corridor for property over the last decade. It is good that the shadow Treasurer comes from another growth corridor in Sydney, the south-west of Sydney. The state Labor government and the federal Labor government have been in place for most of the time we are talking about in the creation of unaffordable housing. We in this place do not have short memories, economists do not have short memories, people in the housing market do not have short memories and people who have been to rental auctions all over Sydney and bid to get a rental property do not have short memories either. They remember when the Carr Labor government declared in 2000 that Sydney was full. They remember when the state Labor government deliberately slowed to a trickle the release of new land. They will not forget the impact of Labor deliberately slowing to a trickle the release of land in a major market like Sydney and the impact that that had. That meant a decade of an increasing housing prices, increasing rents and in Sydney having to lodge a bid to get a rental property. This was the result of a previous Labor intervention in the housing market. Every time Labor turns up with a 'plan' or, as the Leader of the Opposition said last week, a 'positive plan'—there is no reason why it is positive; it is just a 'positive plan'—to intervene in the market you know it is part of the famous lingo that came from Ronald Reagan that the shadow Treasurer it is fond of espousing: 'I'm here from the government and I'm here to help.' When you hear that from the shadow Treasurer it is time to run the other way. If you own a house in Sydney or you own an investment property and you are negatively geared and you hear the shadow Treasurer say, 'I'm here from the government and I've got a plan for you; I am here to help you with your investments,' it is time to pack your bags and run. What happened in Sydney that was one of the biggest contributors to GDP? We saw a big fall over the decade while the Carr government restricted the principal part of the economy—housing. We saw a drop in Sydney's contribution to GDP. I am sorry to say as a proud New South Welshman that we saw tens of thousands of people leave for Brisbane and tens of thousands of people leave for Melbourne. What could you possibly do to make people flee one of the best cities in the world, the city I grew up in? What could you possibly do to make people leave a beautiful city like Sydney for the likes of Brisbane or Melbourne? You could be a state Labor government, intervene in that market and make housing affordable. So Labor have form. They have history in intervening in the property market. They know exactly what they are doing with their new policy on negative gearing. I want to talk a little bit about that, because the shadow Treasurer then turned to his magic way of increasing supply, which is his changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing. He believes that that will somehow make housing affordable in Australia. That is your proposition: that your changes will make housing more affordable. That is in the face of all of the contradictory evidence that we have been presented with by the Labor Party. They will not acknowledge to us that prices will fall from their policy. They are hiding from that implication. Will they come out and say how much existing property prices will fall when their policy is implemented? No, they will not. In fact, they refuse to release any of their modelling that they have used to construct their policy in relation to negative gearing. Why are they hiding their modelling? By what percentage does it show that existing property prices will fall if you make the changes that they are suggesting—if you remove one-third of the investors from the existing market and you stream them only into new properties? What impact will that have on existing prices? We do not know. Nobody knows, except that, if you take one-third of the investors out of the existing property market and you put them into new properties only, you are going to have a downward pressure on price for existing properties. Everybody knows that. By how much? Only the shadow Treasurer knows. Only he has modelled it. In fact, Bill Shorten, one week ago in a doorstep here at Parliament House, on 24 February, when he was asked about negative gearing, said, 'Our proposals have been modelled to death.' Well, I say to the shadow Treasurer: if you have modelled them to death—which is an interesting phrase; is it the death of the property market or the death of the opposition?—you can release your modelling for the comfort of the investment market and the property market here in Australia. You have modelled them to death. That means you have modelled them, presumably, so many times that they have died. Then release your modelling. Show the public. Give them some confidence in your policies. I do not suspect that you have modelled them to death, because, as the Treasurer said in question time today, just 12 months ago the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to the question, 'Will you be grandfathering or winding back negative gearing?' said, 'That policy's not on our radar.' Again as the Treasurer outlined, just nine months ago the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Negative gearing changes are not the focus of the Labor Party.' So just nine months ago the Leader of the Opposition did not even know that you were already modelling to death your policies, but now he has discovered, one week ago, that the shadow Treasurer has modelled to death the Labor Party's policies. So where is that modelling? Who have you relied on? Please do not tell us the McKell Institute, shadow Treasurer, because I am not sure that is going to fly. The fact is that the Commonwealth spends a lot of money on housing every year. Every single year, the Commonwealth spends significant funds: $1.3 billion in the National Affordable Housing Agreement, and $4.4 billion and climbing in Commonwealth rent assistance. It is only right that the Commonwealth continue to work with the states to work out how we can get the best bang for our buck when we are spending $1.3 billion per annum, and $4.4 billion in Commonwealth rent assistance. How can we unlock, critically, more supply in combination with the states? It is the focus of this government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services—who the opposition do not understand has responsibility for housing and working with the states on housing. They should look it up in the order of government, because it is there. They want to make some cheap point in question time. But they also should look up a little bit of their own record. They should look up the report of the ANAO and the Auditor-General on the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was their only contribution to affordable housing when they were in government. We know that when they were in government, between 2007-08 and 2013-14—and this is an important statistic for everyone to listen to—the proportion of low-income households in rental stress increased from 35.4 per cent to 42.5 per cent. That is during the period of the last Labor government. That goes to show the effect of their affordable housing polices. The Auditor-General and the ANAO found that the NRAS, the National Rental Affordability Scheme, Labor's policy, has been slow in delivering. What that means is that you are not bringing on supply. It is slow. But wait; there is more. That is not all they said. They said it had failed to meet its delivery targets, despite ongoing government funding. Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr HAWKE HWO The point is this, shadow Treasurer: if the Australian National Audit Office says that, in spite of ongoing government funding, you are slow in delivery and you are not meeting your targets, it is time to get a more effective program. It is time to use taxpayers' money more wisely. It is time to use that money, in combination with the states, to unlock supply. What you will see with the Baird Liberal government, for example, is $1 billion on the table to unlock institutional investment in social housing and affordable housing. If you bother to talk to the social housing sector and the affordable housing sector in New South Wales, what you will find is that they are over the moon about the Baird government's policies. You will find that this new approach that the Baird government is taking is going to unlock more social housing and affordable housing, which is a component of affordable housing in Australia—something you have ignored in your presentation. The fact is that Labor do not have a plan to ease the housing affordability crisis in Australia today. There is no reputable economist who will put their name to the view that Labor's negative gearing changes will reduce affordable housing stress in Australia today. The evidence is not there, and they will not release modelling to show that it is. This government is working on this issue and will continue to develop good policy to ensure we have more affordable housing in Australia. 15:35 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I was amazed to find myself briefly agreeing with the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer. It always surprises me when that happens. When he said that housing affordability issues were the fault of the Baird and O'Farrell governments, I found myself agreeing. Mr Bowen DZS Even a broken clock's right twice a day. Ms PLIBERSEK 83M As the shadow Treasurer says, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The assistant minister was right a second time as well: he said, 'Labor know exactly what they are doing with their new tax policy.' Well, we do. Of course, the agreement did not last very long when I found the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer starting to talk about what a great job the Baird government was doing with social housing. It is the housing in Millers Point in my electorate that he is talking about. It is being sold, throwing communities out of their homes. They have been there, in some cases, for generations. In comparison, I remember a government that built 21,600 new social housing dwellings. That was a Labor government under Kevin Rudd. So that is the comparison: you can throw old people out of their homes in Millers Point, the Baird government's approach, or you can build 21,600 new social housing dwellings. The shadow Treasurer said earlier that Joe Hockey's answer to housing affordability in Australia was a long time coming, and we did not really get an answer, other than people should go out and 'get a good job'. It made me really think about my own family and the circumstances of their buying a home. My parents came to Australia in the 1950s with nothing, like most migrants. They worked extraordinarily hard to put a deposit on a block of land, pay it off and build a house themselves—they were living in the house before there were floorboards. Each week, my dad would spend a bit more money, buy some more building equipment and do a bit more work on the house. They bought that block of land—this is from memory, so I would have to double-check this with my mum on the weekend when I see her—for 250 pounds in the late 1950s. In those days, an ordinary man with an ordinary job, married to a woman who stayed at home to raise her family, worked hard but could afford an ordinary home. Compare that to the circumstances of my niece and her husband today—a teacher and a geologist, both professional people and both very good savers. They have been saving for years—in fact, they had one of our first home saver accounts before that lot opposite abolished the first home saver accounts. They are saving as hard as they can and wondering whether they can possibly afford a home of their own, particularly before they start a family. It is not the case with my niece and her husband, but people moving into their 30s are still living at home. Many people will tell you about parents of my age and older with adult children living at home because those adult children feel that they will never be able to afford to both pay rent and save a deposit for a home. They feel they will never be able to afford a home of their own. We are changing our entire society because of this issue of housing unaffordability. We know that only one in seven homes bought now is bought by a first home buyer. We know that in 1985 you needed a bit more than three times the average income to buy a house, but today you need about 6½ times the average income to buy a house. We know that in 1985 the average housing debt was 27 per cent of average income. Today it is 136 per cent. We see that an ordinary couple or an ordinary person with an ordinary job can no longer afford an ordinary home. And what have those opposite done in response to this? They got rid of first home saver accounts, they got rid of the Housing Supply Council and they got rid of the COAG council that was set up specifically to deal with what the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer talks about: the responsibility of state governments and local governments to release housing supply. They got rid of that. They got rid of the Housing Supply Council. Of course, they also abolished the National Rental Affordability Scheme, which 'only' built 26,000 homes before they killed it off. That is not much of a contribution! What have the Romans done for me lately, apart from those 26,000 homes they built! They got rid of the help-for-seniors housing program. More recently, they have been bagging us for our tax policies. What is their tax policy? It is a 15 per cent GST on everything. Would that have applied to rents as well? (Time expired) 15:40 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I am afraid the blinkers have been on for this debate for some time. We have heard a lot about house prices in Sydney, but there is a big, brown, wide land out there. It is not just about one capital city in this country. I am about to speak about some good activity in Queensland. I note my friend and colleague the member for Rankin has slid around on the front bench here. It is only a little bit further, Jim, and you will be in the big chair! It is not far away. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you are a passionate Queenslander. The Housing Industry Association report on 10 February 2016 said that the number of Queensland home building approvals was the highest it has been in 21 years. In 2015, 48,000 new residential buildings were approved in Queensland—the highest since 1994, according to the Housing Industry Association. When you are out in the regions, housing is much cheaper. They have also said the level of home building approvals are now double the rate reached during the post-GFC trough in industry activity—that information is from Warwick Temby. Multiunit developments have been the main driver behind the growth in activity in 2015. The detached housing market has also shown solid growth. This is good news for Queensland, where, of course, the downturn in the mining industry has had a detrimental effect, particularly on Central Queensland. In Central Queensland, there are tens of thousands of highly skilled people who want a job. The issue for them is that they want a job. Those are the things that we need to be focused on. The Housing Industry Association also said that the home building industry in Queensland can look forward to about $10 billion worth of work in 2016 and starting the construction of around 42,000 new homes. This continues to be good news. Once again, I acknowledge that, clearly, house prices in Sydney certainly appear to be very high and very difficult to meet. But there are real opportunities in regional Australia, and I would encourage people who are out there listening to this broadcast: if you own a company, if you own a business, if you are out there on the ground and you want good opportunities for your people, shift to regional Australia; move your company somewhere else where housing is affordable. We have the infrastructure, we have the connecting links, we have the roads, we certainly have the telecommunications and, of course, we have airports with direct links to Sydney. Look at Harvey Bay in my electorate of Hinkler. There are direct flights to Sydney every single day. It is a beautiful part of the world to live in, and that is certainly why many Australians choose to retire there. Mr Hutchinson 212585 You have taken the words out of my mouth! Mr PITT 148150 I have taken the words out of your mouth! Housing there is certainly more affordable. But the opportunities are around jobs. Those are the things that we need to focus on. What do those opposite want to do? They want to destroy the housing market. Their proposal for negative gearing will destroy the housing market. I am advised by the Property Council of Australia that there are currently 5,576 investment properties in my electorate of Hinkler. Do you know who owns those investment properties? They are the mums and dads of my electorate. They are hardworking people on wages. They are the ones who take a risk. They are the ones who go to work and take an extra job so that they can get ahead. It is them that the Labor Party want to destroy. It is very straightforward. It does not matter whether you are selling houses or selling bananas. It comes down to supply and demand. If you take 30 per cent of the buyers out of the market, then clearly prices will fall. Eventually, you will have an oversupply and the prices will fall even further. What happens then? Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know you know what happens. Looking at farming properties in particular, when the value of properties fall, the banks do a review and the immediate action by the banks is to put up interest rates, which makes things far more difficult. If you are trying to meet repayments in difficult conditions and interest rates go up, it makes it harder again. What happens after that? Clearly they then look at serviceability—can you actually pay for the loan that you have? Then, if the price continues to fall, they start to look at foreclosing and they take your house away, which will then flood the market. The proposal from the Labor Party is very straightforward. They want Australians who are out there right now who own these properties to go broke. They want them to lose their properties so that they can drive down the housing price market, particularly for Sydney. Out there in regional Australia, things are actually fairly bloody tough. Things are tough right now. I can tell you there are areas in regional Australia—I can look at somewhere in Flynn, for example, and, in particular, a couple of the smaller centres—where housing is incredibly cheap, under $200,000. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars will get you a nice little two-bedroom place. But the issue of course is jobs. That is what we need to be focused on. We need to be focused on that right now. The proposal from those opposite is absolutely diabolical. The idea that we would destroy the housing market in this country I find absolutely incredible. It simply cannot go on. So, to the voters who are listening to this broadcast: do not vote for the Labor Party. They want to take your house away. They do not want you to have anything of value. They want to ensure that it goes down in value. It should not happen. 15:46 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley It is little wonder that Australians are doubly disillusioned with the Turnbull government. There are reds under the bed everywhere, according to the Turnbull government. And how have we got here? We all knew, up until three or four weeks ago, that they had a solution, a plan for our economy. It was an increase of 50 per cent in a big fat tax on everything. If Australia increased the GST, everything was going to be fine. That hit the dust, and we saw some chaos. Then we saw the Treasurer go to the Press Club and, in an incredible humiliation, stand up and say that there had been $80 billion worth of savings over 2½ years under the Turnbull and Abbott governments and then turn round and whisper, 'Oh sorry; we spent the $80 billion that we saved.' So they have got back to zero—no 50 per cent increase in the GST, no net savings. 'What are we going to do now? What is plan Q, or plan Z? What are we going to do?' So they come up with a great idea: conduct a scare campaign against the Australian Labor Party. Who has done that before? Malcolm Fraser—reds under the bed—and Tony Abbott. We all know what the government have been about from day one. What joins Tony Abbott to Malcolm Turnbull is simply this: they are going to conduct a campaign of ripping up the social safety net and increasing the tax burden on low- and middle-income earners, because that is what Liberal Party people do. It is in their DNA. They want to hit working families hard and they will hit them first. Having no net savings after 2½ years, what are they going to do? As we have heard, in the past they seemed to think that we should be concerned about deficits. If you were concerned about deficits, why would you save $80 billion and then spend $80 billion? They are severely embarrassed about the state of the budget. We do the responsible thing on this side of the House. We say to ourselves that we should responsibly look at the tax concessions, just as the government should have done 2½ years ago and are being forced to do right now. But, if they are going to have to do that, what are they going to do to save some money? 'We're going to go back and target working families.' They are going to continue to do what they have done for the last 2½ years, which is to smash the payments going to families. In the last budget, nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lost, and nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families gained. Let us just go through what they did to people on family payments. People on $65,000 a year, with two children, lost up to $115 a week. People on $120,000, with two children, lost up to $60 a week. The government are severely embarrassed that we have got the guts to try and clean up the tax system, to put some fairness in it, to drive economic growth. We understand that a fair tax system is the basis of a strongly growing economy. It rewards people who work hard and it rewards people who invest. But guess what—if you put out tax concessions that discourage the market, that actually inflate the market, you give all of the benefit, through those concessions, to the highest income earners. What you are about to do, because of your failure in the budget, because of the fact that you have spent all of your savings, is to target us for making responsible savings, by running a scare campaign. The Australian people are absolutely onto you, because the Australian people value the safety net. The Australian people value a fair tax system and they know that every Liberal in this parliament will sit here and vote for proposals which will take money away from working families. You will sit in this parliament and take money away from pensioners whilst you are protecting the tax concessions of some of the wealthiest Australians. Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the member for Lilley to direct his questions through the chair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 The member for Corangamite is right. The member for Lilley has the call and will direct his comments not at the chair but through the chair. The use of the word 'you' points to me. Mr SWAN 2V5 And you're a good bloke. Anyway, the unfairness of what is happening with negative gearing is something that does not really resonate with everyone on that side of the House, because you are into trickle-down economics. Ten per cent of the top income earners get 50 per cent of the tax concessions. That is what you are doing. You are defending the wealthy against the many. 15:51 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh It is great to have the member for Lilley back in the chamber. We have missed you! Where was he for all those years? Looking for those four surpluses that you promised? Did you find them, Member for Lilley? Did you find them under the bed? Ms Ryan 249224 Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the member is using the word 'you'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Yes. It has been used on both sides, yesterday and again today. I remind the chamber that the use of the word 'you' is directing a comment to me. Please desist from that. Comments should be to the other side or to a person other than the Speaker. Mr WILLIAMS 249758 I will conclude on my search for the member for Lilley. I understand that he was overseas and that he went to the coalition school of government looking for how to manage an economy and finances better than what they did for many years. The member for Mitchell said it is back to 2007. I do not think we want to go back that far. I do not think we want to go back to their time in government at all because that was not the greatest period. People would say to us, 'They were the worst government since the Whitlam government,' and that was said many a time out in the electorate. 'They were the worst government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—since the Whitlam government.' Let us reflect on the member for Lilley's comment about targeting working families. As we have heard so much over the last couple of weeks, where are the targets of the Labor policy for negative gearing? They are at middle-income Australians. They are at hardworking Australians. Let us get some statistics on the board. There are 10 times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers and Defence Force personnel than there are surgeons, anaesthetists and finance managers. I can give you some statistics, too, on the numbers and percentages: there are around 10,000 fitters around Australia, and there are close to 10,000 steel workers. These are not the high-income-earners and the rich. These are everyday Australians who Labor's negative gearing policy is going to be targeting. It will target their hard-earned money that is invested in property and invested in wealth to help our country grow. Looking at some of the comments from industry experts, the Urban Development Institute of Australia says: … when seen as a package of taxes …, the government ends up making a lot more out of property investment than it gives in support to investors. They also say that, 'The housing policy model is unique and is under threat with the proposed changes to negative gearing.' It goes on to refer to incentives for private investment for rental supply in a fast growing population and rapid urban expansion; and we know that there is rapid urban expansion through our big cities, whether it be Melbourne or Sydney. Part of the solution is the investment by the private sector in the supply of housing and that is where negative gearing does have an important impact and does help this policy challenge that we have. It is why our approach is a much better considered approach. We are weighing up what the appropriate response is to a policy challenge. We know that Labor's rushed, reckless negative gearing policy hits mum and dad investors and does not hit those people who are working hard and doing the right thing in Australia. Going to the results of the analysis, we can see that if house prices were to fall by five per cent, as the Prime Minister has said, it would leave households in the lowest income quintile—those in the lowest 20 per cent, not the highest—just under $12,000 poorer. Their house prices will decline. That is the impact of this negative and reckless negative gearing policy of the Labor Party. We promote hard work, we promote investment in our country and an appropriate policy that incentivises people to do the right thing, to go out and invest, to go out and make a living—those teachers, those police personnel and those Defence personnel who are doing the right thing investing and trying to make a difference in our country. 15:56 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser I was holding a street stall recently when a young couple came up to chat about their troubles buying a first home. She was a teacher, he was a builder, and they were thinking about having a family but they were worried that they would not be able to meet the mortgage repayments when their two incomes went down to one. Despite being in their late 20s, this couple were looking at moving back in with their in-laws. Changing nappies and juggling sleepless nights under the same roof as their in-laws was not their idea of the Australian dream. But their story is, sadly, typical. Since the early 1980s the share of 25 to 34 year olds who own their own home has fallen from about 60 per cent to about 30 per cent. It used to be the case that the top fifth were just as likely to own a home as the bottom fifth but now there is a 15 percentage point gap in home ownership rates between the top and the bottom. In the early 1980s the average home loan for a first home buyer was $81,000. Now, it is $308,000. Over just the last two years we have seen house prices in Australia go up 20 per cent and yet we have got the slowest wage growth in 18 years. As the young Canberra couple said to me, 'It's hard to afford a mortgage when the prices are going up so much faster than your income.' Those opposite want to pull up the ladder of opportunity on young Australians. The gap in homeownership is another part of the growth in inequality that Australia has seen over the course of the last generation, where earnings have risen three times as fast for the top 10th as for the bottom 10th, and where the wealthiest three Australians now have as much wealth as the poorest one million Australians. How did we get here? The Ralph review—commissioned by Peter Costello—recommended that we halve the capital gains tax rate on long-held assets and immediately after that we saw net rental income in Australia, which had been about a billion dollars a year until then, immediately go negative and stay negative. In fact, in one year net rental income in Australia was minus $10 billion. The Ralph review did not contemplate that halving the capital gains tax rate on long-held assets would hit real estate. It said it would spur investment in productive companies. But, in fact, that combination of the capitals gains tax discount and negative gearing acted to drive up house prices. Those opposite would have you believe that negative gearing goes to those of the bottom of the distribution but those in the top 10th have claimed more than half of all negative gearing tax concessions in recent years. The average surgeon gets 100 times the tax benefit of negative gearing as the average cleaner and 16 times the benefit of the average nurse. Over the course of the last week we have had suggestions from the Prime Minister that Labor's policies would drive house prices down, and from the Assistant Treasurer that they would drive them up. Monday Malcolm said it would drive down inequality; Thursday Malcolm said it would drive up inequality. Ms Henderson ZN4 Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask the member to refer to members by their proper titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 I thank the member for Corangamite. Dr LEIGH BU8 Today we had the Minister for Social Services telling us that two-thirds of Australians negatively gear—a patently false claim. Right now we have 93 per cent of property investment going towards existing properties, not new ones. If this is a policy aimed at boosting housing supply, it has got a 93 per cent failure rate. In 2001, when Peter Costello expanded the First Home Owner Grant for new homes, making it twice as large for new homes, Mr Costello said, 'This measure will stimulate the building sector, including many small businesses.' But that idea that we ought to give more generous support to those buying new-built homes, seems to have been forgotten by those opposite, who will praise Peter Costello whenever it suits them but forget that he provided more assistance to new home buyers. Before the election we were promised more jobs, more growth, more investment and less debt. But what we have got is rising unemployment, GDP downgraded, capex tanking and debt up. We have got a Prime Minister who, over the last six months, is less agile and more Abbott; less genial and more Godwin. He has promised to change his party, but let's face it: they are changing him. Only a few bites of the onion and we will be back where we were in 2013. (Time expired) 16:01 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay I am really pleased to speak on this matter of public importance put forward by the member for McMahon. The member for McMahon is in fact a neighbour of mine in Western Sydney. What I find so disappointing about the member for McMahon is that his electorate, like mine, is wedged in one of the fastest-growing regions of our country. The south-west growth sector, which goes through the member for McMahon's electorate, is seeing unprecedented growth right through the region. This growth is so important for the future of Sydney. Earlier another Sydney colleague, the member for Mitchell, was talking about the issues of supply and demand. The supply and demand of real estate in Sydney is absolutely crucial. He was right when he said that Bob Carr, when he was Premier of New South Wales, made that bleeding statement: 'Sydney is full'. And let us not forget the Wran government, who sold off our corridors so that those of us who live in Western Sydney are not able to have jobs where we live and corridors to move from our homes to our work. This supply and demand problem in Sydney is a failure in planning that was created by the former state Labor government. This is the failure of the former Labor government. The Baird government has been working to create a diverse supply of real estate for people at all income points. In my own electorate of Lindsay, on the north side of the Penrith train station UrbanGrowth—the New South Wales state government organisation—has been working to provide a diverse supply of real estate options and affordable housing. Those opposite think they can tax their way out of anything. What we need is houses for people to live in, not reckless comments by Labor premiers. In Western Sydney, west of Parramatta, we will see one million people move west of Parramatta between now and 2031. What we need is visionary ministers—like the member for Bradfield, who is working to create roads and corridors to connect these suburbs. We are investing to be able to create these suburbs, release the land and build a diverse housing mix for the people who are choosing to call Western Sydney home. The key aim of Thornton is to provide more diverse housing choices including innovative compact housing, seniors living accommodation, affordable housing and housing for people living with disabilities. This is a wonderful thing. Evolve Housing is one of the developers within this estate, and this developer has said: The mixed tenure model has been expanded to private market apartments in addition to affordable and social apartments. The mix is made up of 50% private market and 50% is a combination of affordable and social. There will be 10 social apartments, 124 affordable apartments and 134 private market apartments. It is expected that these will be completed by mid 2017. This is what we need to see. We need to see tangible construction. We need to see housing that meets the demand. The increase in housing right across Sydney and including Western Sydney is a result of simple Year 9 economics of supply and demand. If you do not have enough supply the demand goes up. If demand goes up the price goes up. So what do you do? You supply more real estate. The other thing about the former Labor government that completely failed New South Wales in every shape and form is that they were not investing in real estate, they were not building and they were not meeting the needs of our community. We saw their contribution to the GDP of our country fail. But under the Baird government we have seen the New South Wales economy go from last to first. I would like to congratulate the Baird government. I would also like to congratulate the member for Bradfield, who has been working tirelessly to ensure that we build the infrastructure that will release our land and that will surely provide the housing to make affordable housing for the people in Western Sydney. And that is to be commended. 16:06 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin In question time today we saw the ashen-faced look on the faces of those opposite, as it slowly dawned on them that all they did in September last year was to replace one barely adequate scare campaign with another terrible scare campaign. It was a hangdog expression on their faces as they realised that all they had done in September was to elect somebody who is long on words and short on deeds. The revelation slowly dawned on them that, even though neither the member for Warringah nor the member for Wentworth can run a government, at least the member for Warringah could run a scare campaign. Like all Australians, those opposite expected better from the member for Wentworth. He promised them leadership and instead they got shambles. As the Prime Minister turns around in question time, as he did today, because he does not want to answer a question and he almost throws it to the Treasurer, and he thinks, 'No, I can't do that, I’ll throw that to another minister instead' that is just an indication of the free-fall that the Treasurer of Australia is in when it comes to credibility. The Treasurer, whose answers are so pathetic in this place, is now routinely ignored by his colleagues. The most effective symbol of the chaos and confusion on that side of the House is when it comes to housing policy and tax policy. There is a whole range of issues on housing, as other speakers before me have raised—issues around housing affordability, particularly for our young people; home ownership rates that have dropped among young people; and the fact that it takes many more years of a normal person's income to pay off a house. These are the issues we are dealing with in the housing sector. Instead of a plan for housing or a plan for tax from those opposite, we get this humiliating spectacle which was best encapsulated last week when they tried to argue that our policies would drive prices up and down and flat line all at the same time. It is an absurd and humiliating spectacle to see an Assistant Treasurer, a Treasurer and a Prime Minister who cannot get their facts straight. The Prime Minister looks around him now and sees that his scare campaign is in rubble all around him, shards of credibility lying all around the Prime Minister as he gets up in question time, again and again, and tries to argue that black is white when it comes to housing. After 2½ years of government, there has not been a whiff of a policy from those opposite on capital gains, not a skerrick of a policy on negative gearing, not even a hint of an idea about housing and housing's role in the broader economy. You can see why these two blokes across the table are so grumpy, because it has even dawned on them. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but it has even dawned on these two that in September last year they traded down, not up. What a remarkable thought: when they replaced the member for Warringah, they traded down, not up. And it is dawning even on these two sitting across from me right now—what a waste of time. No wonder The Financial Review asked of the Prime Minister: what is the point of Malcolm Turnbull? No wonder the Prime Minister is getting shirt-fronted by the member for Warringah in his own party room. No wonder the backbenchers are in open revolt, taking away from the Treasurer the tax-making policy of this country. No wonder the Prime Minister throws to the Minister for Social Services, they are in such disarray. No wonder the Prime Minister has appointed the head of his own department so that the Treasurer of Australia has no role in the making of tax policy in this country. This is what happens when you do not have a plan for the economy—this kind of chaos. When the Prime Minister does not deliver on the leadership that was promised this is what happens. When there is no direction in economic policy that was promised by the member for Wentworth this is what happens. It affects their ability to come up with a housing plan just like it affects their ability to come up with a broader economic plan. How humiliating for the government and for the colossal ego that sits in the big chair that the opposition are making the running on economic policy in this country. How humiliating for the two B-graders at the table that it is the opposition that are making the running on policy. We have the plans to fund health and education in this country. We have the plans to level the playing field between investors and first home owners in the housing market. We have a plan to boost the supply of housing in this economy. We have a plan to boost construction jobs in this economy. We have the plans for housing and for tax. It is humiliating and embarrassing for those opposite that after 2½ years and two treasurers and two prime ministers that they have no idea what they want to do for the economy. This election will be a contest of ideas on the economy and we are going to win it. 16:11 Mr WHITELEY 207800 Braddon For those who were listening, those chill words of 'working families' have come back to haunt us. Of course, we just had the member for Rankin, who was the one who loaded the gun that said we were going to have four surpluses; the poor, old member for Lilley was the one who had to fire the gun. Do you remember that? Do you remember those hollows words, 'the four surpluses that we announce tonight'? We have moved on, thankfully. The Australian people spoke very clearly in 2013. It has always been difficult for young people to get into the housing market. It has always been thus. But we do know that removing the incentives and encouraging people to invest is not the reason why. It is to do with local government quite often and state governments in respect of land releases. It is around local planning. In my own electorate in the south-east of Tasmania, it is issues around infrastructure in supporting commuters in Sorrell, Dodges Ferry, Lewisham, Forcett, Copping and places on the Tasman Peninsula. People who commute into Hobart each morning from these areas are met with traffic problems at the roundabout at Hobart airport. For example, if a taxi is turning right at eight o'clock in the morning to go into the airport, the traffic banks up for about three kilometres back towards the Sorrell Causeway. It is that sort of lack of infrastructure that is impeding the development of houses in the south-east of Tasmania. So I will be fighting, I can assure the people of my electorate, for an upgrade to the roundabout at the Hobart airport, which will open up south-east Tasmania. The attitudes of banks to young borrowers looking to enter housing market for the first time is also problematic, but it has always been thus. What we have from those opposite is a rushed and reckless policy that is about destroying the single biggest asset that most Australians have—that is, equity in the family home. I have spent a lot of time at sheep sales, I am proud to say, and I know what it is like when the mainland buyers do not come down to a sheep sale in Tasmania. I can tell you that the prices do not go up; they go down. I have spent a lot of time bidding for wool, albeit with other people's money, in sale rooms all around Australia. My biggest joy was when one of my competitors competing on a particular type of wool would walk out of a sale room because the price did not go up but went down. So it is if you remove from the market a third of those potential buyers in the housing market, the single biggest asset for most Australians will go down. And it is the schoolteachers and the nurses who will suffer, because they are the majority of people who are trying to get ahead. What has become of this country when we do not celebrate people who are prepared to take a risk? What is wrong with our nation when all those on the other side want to do is knock them down? We should be celebrating these people who are prepared to invest more money and take a risk. Unfortunately, those on the other side want to support the dentist who has a share portfolio worth $700,000 or $800,000 and has dividends coming in of $40,000 or $50,000 and allow them to use that for negative gearing. This is a world gone mad. We should be celebrating the majority of people who are trying to get ahead. My message to those people in Sydney or Melbourne is: 'Come on down to Tasmania; we want you in Perth, Tasmania.' As I look at realestate.com.au, I see that, in Phillip Street in Perth, Tasmania, there is a three-bedroom house for $279,000. This is an opportunity. I am the proud owner of one investment unit. I must say that it is a very modest investment, and it is declared on my register of interests. I can tell you that it is not negatively geared; it is positively geared. There are opportunities for so many young people in Sydney and Melbourne to come on down to Tasmania and enjoy the opportunities of the state that is, as I stand here right now, the most confident in the nation with respect to small and medium businesses. That is something that I am truly proud of. When I came to this place in 2013, after five years of Labor and the Greens in charge, confidence was at a low—and we have fixed that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 99931 The time for the discussion has concluded. BILLS 45 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 45

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016

Second Reading 45 16:17 Mr IRONS HYM Swan As the member for Lyne leaves the House, I would like to note that I agree with him and say that the member for Rankin—as much as he is a good bloke—seems to forget that he was the actual architect of the four surpluses that the member for Lilley said he would deliver but never delivered. He was right on the money today when he was talking about the member for Rankin being the architect of the disastrous effort of those opposite in trying to reach a surplus. I rise today to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriate Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament to provide for expenditure on activities that require additional funding or new activities agreed to by the government since the last budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides for ordinary annual services of the government and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides for other than the ordinary annual services of the government, such as capital works and services and payments to or for states, territories and local government. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, I am from Western Australia. The GST is always a bit of a bone of contention for those of us who travel across the wide spaces of Australia to come to Canberra, and we always ply our constituents' and our state's ideals when it comes to the GST. As we hear in this place quite often, the mining boom is over, but we are still seeing most of the GST go east. At the current rate, about 30c in the dollar is estimated for 2015-16. If we look back to 2006, there was parity—it was dollar for dollar. So our take of the GST has fallen off the edge of a cliff. But I am sure members and senators from Western Australia will continue to advocate on behalf of the great state of Western Australia to get our fair share of what we actually raise for the GST. There are big implications for the WA budget and the ability to deliver services from GST revenue. We do recognise that a special payment was made by the coalition government in the 2015-16 federal budget to recognise this disparity in the distribution of the GST—but more must be done. Perhaps this can be considered as part of the tax reform process that the coalition is going through as we lead up to the budget. The appropriations being sought from these bills is just over $2.2 billion. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides for an appropriation of just over $1.3 billion. Major elements include $447 million to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, $277 million to the social services portfolio and $186 million to the Department of Defence. The additional funding for border protection is aimed at enhancing the management of the onshore Immigration Detention Network, reflecting further support for refugee resettlement arrangements and additional support for the accommodation and processing of asylum seekers. A few weeks ago the Christian group Love Makes a Way held a vigil outside my electorate office. The purpose of their vigil, as I understand it, was to end offshore detention arrangements. In addition, there were about 300 protestors gathered in Redcliffe to protest against offshore processing for asylum seekers. The Refugee Rights Action Network organised the protest outside the Perth Immigration Residential Housing facility following the High Court decision ruling offshore detention as being constitutional. We have heard the Minister for Immigration say that any weakening of our border protection arrangements sends a message to the people smugglers and that we are determined to ensure that the people-smuggling trade does not flourish again. I completely agree with the immigration minister—as would, I believe, the vast majority of my electorate. I can say this based on the surveys of my electorate that have been done in the past and also from the locals who have come to talk to me about it, particularly during the period of the last government when we saw many drownings at sea. It is interesting that some of the people who were most vocal in their protests against the previous government's policy with regard to the boats were people who came here during the fifties, sixties and seventies as immigrants from Europe. They came here through the normal process and the correct way, and they were shocked that the previous government was allowing people to come here through the back door, on the boats. The last time the people-smuggling trade was underway was under the Labor government, and 1,200 men, women and children died at sea. This has not and will not happen under our watch. There have been zero deaths at sea under the coalition government. This government will retain its commitment to border protection. We saw the member for Denison move a motion in here the other week to suspend standing orders to censure the Minister for Immigration, and then we saw the member for Melbourne actually second that motion. I want to quote some of the things that the member for Melbourne said: What did the minister say? He said he would not preside over a situation where we have people self-harming to come to hospitals in this country because they believe that to be the route into the Australia community and to Australian citizenship. I would suggest that most of the people in my electorate would agree with that. You cannot have people self-harming to find a way to come to Australia as a citizen. The member for Melbourne went on to say: … as we always see with this government and the Liberal-Nationals, when the polls go down the vileness goes up, and it is happening yet again. As we head towards another election it is becoming another race to the bottom on refugees, another race to the bottom to see who can take the most vulnerable in our community, those who need the most help … But what the member for Melbourne seems to forget—he seems to have amnesia, along with the opposition—is that it was the Greens who did a deal with the Labor Party to start the boats coming to Australia again, back in 2008-09. It was their deal with the Labor government that saw the boats coming in. The member for Melbourne conveniently seems to forget that the Greens were part of the whole program that saw those 1,200 people drown at sea, and now he wants to say that we are the ones who are vile. I just cannot believe that the member for Melbourne would lose his memory and try to abrogate all responsibility of the Greens for that disastrous period of time with the boat people. He went on to say: But the suggestion from this government boils down to this: whatever we might be able to do in terms of a regional solution, whatever options there might be, the government is saying that somehow child abuse is a necessary component of an effective border protection and immigration policy. What rot. We do not agree with that. We do not agree with that, either. We do not agree that child abuse is a necessary component of effective border protection. He says the Greens do not accept it. Well, nor does the coalition. The coalition does not accept that that is a way to citizenship in Australia. So, again, the member for Melbourne has totally forgotten that it was his party, along with those opposite, who opened the borders for all those disasters at sea. Because of the success of the coalition's border protection policies, Australia is now able to devote its refugee intake places to those refugees in genuine need. These bills appropriate $102 million for the support services to resettle an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing conflicts in Syria and Iraq. I am sure that these refugees will be made to feel welcome by the Australian people. On the domestic front, just over $108 million will go to the National Disability Insurance Agency for the transition to the full National Disability Insurance Scheme, and just over $11 million will go to the Department of Human Services for addressing welfare reliance in remote communities, to provide incentives for job seekers to work and to strengthen the mutual obligation framework in Community Development Program regions. The NDIS trial commenced in the Perth Hills area of Western Australia, just outside my electorate, in July 2014 for people with disability, up to the age of 65. The latest quarterly report from the National Disability Insurance Agency shows that the scheme is providing assistance to more than 22,000 Australians with disability and that participation satisfaction levels with the NDIS is high. I must admit that it was a privilege to serve on the NDIS Joint Standing Committee for some period of time, and it was great to see the expectations and hopes for the NDIS system from the many people who will benefit from it when it is implemented. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 provides appropriation of just over $905 million. It includes $385 million for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, primarily for the Roads to Recovery program to help our local governments and councils to maintain our roads. The councils have used money from this program to repair and upgrade more than 45,000 road sites. The aim of the Roads to Recovery program is to contribute to the Infrastructure Investment Program through supporting maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure assets, which facilitates greater access for Australians and improved safety, economic and social outcomes. In Swan, there is a big mix of old and new roads. In November, the Prime Minister visited one of Swan's ongoing traffic and road issues: the intersection between Manning Road and the Kwinana Freeway. I started advocating for a southbound on-ramp in 2009, after consultation with residents in the area. Now that Fiona Stanley Hospital has opened, more and more people are travelling south on the freeway. An on-ramp would be a major piece of productive infrastructure that would act as a safety release valve, because the current route for people who need to go south on the freeway is quite treacherous and needs to be improved. With the increase in expected enrolments at Curtin University, much of which is on Manning Road, this is a vital piece of required infrastructure. At the 2010 election the coalition committed $10 million towards this infrastructure project but, unfortunately, Labor made no similar commitment. It was interesting to hear recently that federal Labor had made some comments in the other place suggesting that they oppose the Manning Road on-ramp upgrade because it is not rail or public transport. I would suggest that the good senator who made that speech, and who lambasted the information that was sent out to all the locals in that area, go out and doorknock the houses in Manning and in the Karawara area along the Manning Road and actually find out that it is probably one of the hottest topics within that area. The Labor senator for the area has got it totally wrong. So, again, we see they are totally out of touch with the people in Swan. In stark contrast, the PM and the finance minister visited the site in person. PM Turnbull said that there was a definite need for an on-ramp. I suppose that is the difference between the coalition and Labor on roads. Since the coalition came to government Swan has had several major black spots fixed, including three of the top 10 in WA for crashes and costs. These intersections were upgraded by the Gateway WA project, ahead of schedule and under budget and not reliant on the mining tax, as there wasn't one. Swan is the electorate all visitors to WA see first, and the federal government's Gateway WA project has helped make an impressive impact. We opened the Grand Gateway last year and I am looking forward to seeing the completion of the project in the very near future. Seven black spots in Swan received funding in the 2015-16 black spot program. Two of these have already been completed while the others are underway for this year. Constituents of Swan will receive a mail piece soon that will ask them to nominate more black spots for this government to address. I look forward to receiving that feedback from my constituents. We know black spots are often found at level crossings and this is certainly the case in the electorate of Swan. Two local level crossings in Swan are ranked in the top 100 in WA for crashes and costs. Just outside my electorate the federal government has led the way in making level crossings safer and improving traffic flow. My colleagues are working to eliminate the notorious level crossing at Nicholson Road, in Canning Vale, in a partnership with the state government. I hope the government can next turn its attention to level crossings in Swan. I also want to touch quickly on the Safer Streets Program, a program that has had great success in my electorate. We secured $100,000 for four CCTV cameras for a shopping centre in Belmont, in conjunction with the City of Belmont, and we ended up with 27 cameras, which is a great bonus. The people of Belmont and those visiting the shopping area can feel secure knowing that those who are up to no good will be caught on camera and, if appropriate, will be passed onto local police for assistance in prosecution. We know that CCTV works, and the figures in Belmont back this up. We have been able to deliver great things for the environment in the Swan electorate as well. I have been working closely with the environmental groups and want to thank the Green Army for all that they have achieved at Tomato Lake and Garvey Park. In Swan we also have the Swan-Canning River Recovery Program. This program is progressing well, with the hydrocotyle management plan to be launched very soon. I commend the bills to the House. 16:32 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway In rising to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 I want to touch on three areas—the area of citizenship and multiculturalism, the area of health and the area of organ donation—and how they impact, specifically, on my electorate of Greenway. I turn, firstly, to the issue of citizenship and humanitarian settlement. Citizenship is a defining feature of our shared identity. We rely on citizenship to provide a sense of community and society, something that we all believe in. Since the citizenship amendments were passed, late last year, we have heard very little from this government on the topic. Labor has supported, with careful consideration and deliberation, a number of changes to Australian citizenship laws over the term of this government. Yet today the government has gone quiet. Instead of sober planning, the only thing we have heard, recently, is about leaked national security documents advocating radical change to both residency and citizenship for new migrants. These include selective proposals to revamp the citizenship test and pledge as well as, specifically, calling out certain ethnicities—namely, the Lebanese community. The government must rule out these approaches based on fear and reaction. Citizenship policy is too important for political power grabs and should never be subject to internal government stoushes. Sitting alongside this, this government has only been able to settle some 26 Syrian refugees out of a promised 12,000 over five months ago. There are 26 new refugees. Just think about that for a moment. The Abbott-Turnbull government announced this more than 160 days ago. At this rate it is going to take years to resettle 12,000 refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq. Compare this to Canada. Canada's new government is on track to accept 20,000 refugees before we even reach 100—and they were not even elected when the Abbott-Turnbull government made its announcement. Australians are rightly proud of our humanitarian program. Our settlement services are recognised globally as best practice, yet a new life in Australia cannot begin until migrants arrive. Instead of dreaming up new adverse citizenship laws, impinging on people because of their background, religion or ethnicity, it is time for this government to get on with it. Like the economic program, simply nothing is happening. There are some other issues that point to the fact nothing is happening in this area. In February last year we had Senate estimates reveal that the government is still relying on Labor's multicultural policy. You go to their website and you see Labor's multicultural policy. This government has not bothered to develop its own policy on citizenship and multiculturalism. In answer to questions during Senate estimates, the year before, the Department of Social Services said, 'The government is currently in the process of developing an updated multicultural affairs policy.' We saw, in February this year, over 800 days and still no multicultural policy from this government. This government remains a policy-free zone in this area. On 11 February, then Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, when asked about when a policy would be developed, said: 'We don't want to rush the process, so we'll be taking our time.' There is no risk of any rush, here, because we still have a government that not only does not have its own policy but also cannot live up to the expectations of Australia's communities when it comes to best practice in this area. Unlike this government, we on this side of the House value the economic, social and cultural contribution of new migrants to Australia. We do not just say it. We are the ones who have a policy about, unlike this government. You do not have to look very far to see that this government wants to hurt migrants. Only recently, we had government members—all of them on that side—voting to limit overseas travel for pensioners. They all voted in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill to make it harder for migrant pensioners to continue to receive the pension while overseas. The situation before the government sought to change it was that pensioners could go overseas for 26 weeks and receive the full pension. If they stayed beyond that time the pension was reduced to a rate that depended on the number of years they had worked in Australia. Under the changes that everyone on that side of the House voted for, from 1 January 2017 pensioners will have their pension cut after just six weeks overseas. You might ask how this got reduced from 26 weeks to just six weeks. No-one precisely knows how. FECCA, one of the key organisations in this area, disagrees with it. Key groups disagree with it. The one word that keeps coming back, as I go around Australia listening to people who are going to be impacted by this—not only for themselves directly, but the children of people who will be impacted—is that it is just mean. This government has grossly underestimated not only the impact but the level of discontent and opposition to this in the community. In addition to that, we even had, in December last year, the new social services minister, Mr Porter, making another blunder, this time in relation to the newly arrived residents waiting period. This was a tricky move—trying to present something that simply was not true. In attempting to justify this government's $225 million of cuts for newly arrived migrants, the minister told the ABC: The only exception to the newly arrived residents waiting period is refugee and humanitarian arrivals. But there's one other very curious exemption that has existed for a while and that is if an Australian citizen or resident goes overseas and marries and brings back a wife or dependent child— And it goes on. Those very curious exemptions are real people. They are the spouses of Australian citizens that this government is hurting. The exemptions that the minister wants to remove, to support newly arrived migrants, are the ones that allow them to access Newstart allowance, youth allowance, Austudy payments, carer payments, sickness allowance, special benefits and other payments. This government is seriously lacking in an understanding of the area. It is very disturbing that we have a minister who not only does not even understand the basics of this policy area but also is lacking in any appreciation of what the impact will be. I want to look at the issue of health and, in particular, some matters that have affected the Greenway community very badly. The people of Greenway are sick and tired of mistruths and backflips regarding health services in Blacktown. One issue that strikes more than any other for local residents, because it impacts on so many of them, is the government's decision to close the local Medicare office in Westpoint and move it to the Centrelink office on the other side of Blacktown. I have had nothing but complaints from local residents on this matter. There was no consultation about this whatsoever. The parking situation around that area is terrible. The number of people I have coming to my office or calling me and saying, 'I simply cannot do business with the Medicare office anymore' is astounding. I know what this government's tactic is: it is to make people move on and do things online. That would be fine if we had access to a real broadband network across all of Blacktown. It would be fine if we had a situation where everyone was able to do these things. But we do not. I used to be able to say that one of the key arguments for keeping the Medicare office where it was in Westpoint was its proximity, not only to retail services but specifically to banks and local health funds. But this was not enough. After the government privatised the remainder of Medibank Private, the local branch of Medibank Private in Blacktown was shut down as well. After receiving a number of complaints from local residents about that office being shut down, I put in a question to the Minister for Finance asking what conditions were in the Medibank Private sale terms about keeping branches open and why the Blacktown Medibank Private office was closing while others, including Parramatta and Castle Hill, are not. I got from Minister Morrison, as he was at the time, nothing but a statement about what the Medibank Private Sale Act was. There was nothing whatsoever to give any comfort to my local residents. The other issue, of course, that is making it even more difficult and painful for people to access health services is this government's absolute intent to put co-payments through the back door for certain services. I note and I commend something that I think those listeners who might be tuning in today should read. It is an op-ed by Catherine King, the shadow minister for health, about why the cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging are making it harder for women with cancer. She writes regarding ovarian cancer: It’s a silent killer and women diagnosed with this disease need all the help they can get. Sadly, this year, the Turnbull Government is doing the exact opposite with December’s budget update cutting $650 million from spending on the tests and scans which are vital to detecting, treating, and fighting diseases like ovarian cancer. She says that even after the Medicare rebate, patients will be left between $365 and $1,322 out of pocket. I think her point here is absolutely right about budget cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging. When women are told that they may have ovarian cancer, the last thing they need is to have that fight made harder and more expensive. I am not surprised that I recently received correspondence from Pathology Australia. They are scathing in their assessment of the way in which pathology providers have been treated by this government. I quote: Pathology providers had have enough. Providers have indicated they will introduce co-payments for pathology tests as a result of the cuts— That is, this government's cuts— The bulk-billing incentive when introduced in late November 2009 was designed to maintain and raise bulk billing for patients. It has worked. So we have a situation where we have health services impacting on the electorate of Greenway, on families, cutting bulk-billing incentives so that people who are sick are discouraged from seeking help, and paying consultants and bureaucrats millions of dollars to work out how to best privatise the medical payments system. In the time left to me: I indicated that I wanted to touch on the issue of organ donation, and I want to touch on a quite heartbreaking story about a young person named Deyaan Udani. Far too often, life is cut short. Deyaan Udani was a seven-year-old boy from Quakers Hill. On a trip to India, only recently, just before a planned return flight home, Deyaan was diagnosed with multiple blood clots in his brain and died three days later. He is remembered fondly. A local teacher said: He could light up the room with his laugh and he has a heart of gold. He always showed empathy to others. He was just a very happy and fun loving little boy that will be missed and gone too soon. Deyaan learnt about organ donation at school. He and his sister encouraged their father to become an organ donor. They told their parents they would actually like to become organ donors themselves when they grew up. Deyaan could not have known how prophetic his desire would be. He died, and his family honoured his wishes. Deyaan's organs were given to four other people, including three children. Each of these people had been critically injured. Deyaan's sacrifice has provided them with a renewed chance of recovery. The media outlet The Hindu reported that this was the youngest ever organ donation recorded in Mumbai. In the wake of Deyaan's passing, his sister Naisha addressed thousands of people in Mumbai, urging them to also become organ donors. This occurred at an event that brought together the Udani family with those families who benefited from his own sacrifice. The mother of the young girl who received Deyaan's heart said the little boy had given them the greatest gift they could wish for. It is hoped that these public gestures and the attention will increase the rate of Indian organ donation, which is currently only 0.5 people per one million. I hope Australia's increases as well. I send my deep condolences to the Udani family. May Deyaan Udani rest in peace. 16:46 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia The mid-year economic outlook review is a good chance to reflect on just how far we have moved forward to deliver good outcomes for ordinary Australians. There are many national achievements delivered by this Liberal-National coalition government, and today I will reflect on some of them. Firstly, the three significant key trade deals that we have secured with China, Japan and South Korea open new doors for Australian industries to build new trade links and create more jobs. In Capricornia, the FTAs have provided the much-needed impetus to reopen live cattle export trades, creating new jobs. In helping to dramatically boost the price of Australian export beef, they have provided our agricultural industries with greater profit margins and the ability to create more local jobs. We have not seen cattle prices this high for generations. This government can take credit for setting up an environment and opportunities to help local rural businesses and farmers prosper. It was, after all, a Labor government that closed the live export trade overnight, causing thousands of Queenslanders to lose their jobs in the farming sector, trucking industry, livestock trade, stock and station agencies and port sector. When it comes to improving the lives of ordinary, hardworking, regional families and our most disadvantaged, this coalition government has taken other steps which we can proudly reflect on. Significantly, the axing of the carbon tax has freed up cash for larger organisations to use to invest in areas that create further jobs. That is good news for ordinary mums and dads looking for jobs. For ordinary hardworking families and our seniors, axing the carbon tax also reduced the burden of extra charges being added to their already escalating household power bills. Further to this, the Turnbull-Joyce government is serious in our promise to expand the role of northern Australia in our economy. It is committing more than $500 million to its future development to kick-start new businesses, trade and jobs. It recently appointed a new minister for northern Australia—based in Rockhampton, the official gateway to the northern Australia. Closer to home, I am pleased to inform the House of progress that the coalition government and I have made in delivering serious and tangible infrastructure projects to my electorate of Capricornia. In Capricornia, we face a jobs crisis due to the coal downturn and tough times for tourism and small business. Families, too, are struggling to find work and make ends meet. The Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-National government has focussed on providing our region with road and infrastructure spending for projects designed to stimulate economic activity and employment. Recently, $20 million in new federal funding was announced for three key projects under the federal government's National Stronger Regions Fund program. The funding includes $2.34 million for the Capricorn Rescue Helicopter Service to construct a new hangar and medical aviation centre in Rockhampton. The project involves a two-bay hangar with engineering facilities and much needed space for doctors and medical teams to be on stand-by. We are providing $7 million towards the revamp and upgrade of the Rockhampton Riverbank Redevelopment on the Fitzroy in the city's CBD. The funding will support the Rockhampton Regional Council's project for better facilities and the opportunity for greater economic activity in the area. Also, we are providing $10 million towards stages 4 and 5 of the Yeppoon beach foreshore redevelopment on the Capricorn Coast as part of a major economic, job creation and tourist drawcard. These funds come on top of $9.9 million in joint federal-state funding under the category D Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to aid in the continued recovery after Cyclone Marcia. The NDRRA funds, which relate to rebuilding damaged infrastructure to a more resilient level, will be spread across six projects, including: $2 million to top up a fund in Livingstone Shire to rebuild the Scenic Highway, or Statue Bay road, with joint government funding now totalling nearly $12 million for this project; $3 million to continue further rebuilding of Kershaw Gardens in Rockhampton; and $5.1 million towards strengthening the rebuild of Pilbeam Drive, Glenmore Water Treatment Plant, Dean Street, Capricorn Street and Elphinstone Street in Rockhampton. In February, to mark the one-year anniversary since Cyclone Marcia, the Prime Minister joined us in Capricornia for a special morning tea with SES volunteers and crews from the Capricorn Rescue Helicopter Service to thank them for their participation in cyclone recovery activities. Earlier, I mentioned that it is recognised that, due to a current mining downturn, the local Capricornia economy is doing it tough. The $30 million in investments in infrastructure that I have just outlined will go a long way to stimulating economic activity and job potential in these areas. Our federal coalition government has also been investing heavily in road-building projects to provide jobs to help offset the mining sector downturn. For ordinary Central Queenslanders this means the chance to apply for new jobs. Safer roads also mean saving lives and reducing the risk of accidents which could potentially claim the lives of any one of us or our loved ones. In the two years I have been in this job I have managed to fight for nearly $400 million worth of local road funding. As we consider the economic outlook tonight, let me outline some of them. The Turnbull government's road projects include $166 million to fix up the Eton Range section on the notorious Peak Downs Highway west of Mackay. I was present to officially mark the start of construction there at the end of January. This project is about saving lives on the busy mining route, which has been the site of far too many horrific and deadly accidents involving heavy vehicles and trucks. It is worth noting that this is in fact a state run highway and, as such, is the real responsibility of the Queensland Labor government, but the federal Liberal-National Party coalition is the government that is actually contributing all of the $166.17 million to fix the notorious Eton Range crossing. The highway is predominantly used to serve the inland coalmining sector. The new alignment between Nebo and Mackay will reduce the gradient of the highway over the Eton Range, making it safer to accommodate heavy trucks. Over 4,000 vehicles, including 800 heavy trucks, travel through the Eton Range each day. I am proud that our federal coalition government is delivering for the truck drivers, the mining workers, the local residents, the rural property owners and country travellers who use the Peak Downs Highway and this particularly dangerous spot. In addition, the regional economy benefits with around 295 jobs supported over the life of the project. Other major road projects include $38.26 million to replace seven old bridges in Isaac and Rockhampton shires under the federal Bridges Renewal Program; $8.5 million on overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway near Sarina; $15.5 million to construct three new overtaking lanes and to extend a fourth along the Bruce Highway from Rockhampton to north of Gladstone; $29.4 million in Roads to Recovery grants over five years to help fix up council roads and streets in five shires, including Rockhampton, Livingstone, Isaac, Mackay and Whitsunday; and $136 million to complete the stage 2 Yeppen south flood plain project on the Bruce Highway south of Rockhampton. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, visited Rockhampton in December to officially open this project. It is important to note that Rockhampton is the gateway to northern Australia and northern Queensland. Previously, during floods Rockhampton was cut off by rising waters, leaving food, coal transport and freight trucks carrying vital goods up and down the Queensland coast stranded outside the city. The Yeppen south project is about keeping this city and our great region open for business in severe wet times and it is about awakening the future economic growth of our great nation. This is because the economic cost of freight and haulage trucks being stranded by floodwater represented a huge cost in lost business, revenue and trade. Further to this, we are improving mobile phone coverage in Capricornia with a $3.14 million program to build or upgrade four new base stations, delivering better services to families in areas around Clarke Creek, Marlborough, Mount Chalmers Road between Rockhampton and Yeppoon, and Gargett in the Pioneer Valley. I continue to lobby for better mobile services in the Clermont area, about 400km west of Rockhampton, and for many other blackspot zones, including in the Sarina Range. By providing better communication we are providing better access for rural businesses to grow their client base and ability to create jobs. Better communication also provides better access to education for remote and rural children at school and for adults studying university. Young people in Capricornia are also benefiting from the programs being rolled out by the Turnbull-Joyce government. For young people seeking work skills that may eventually lead to full-time jobs or careers, the Liberal-National government has injected over $3 million towards 16 Green Army projects which are either underway or completed in Capricornia. These projects range from Mackay to Yeppoon and Rockhampton, providing young people with experience in environmental projects and increasing their skill base to help them seek full-time employment. I have been fighting hard too for families experiencing dreadful circumstances such as domestic violence and family court disputes in Capricornia. After much lobbying on my part the federal Attorney-General and I recently announced the appointment of a new Federal Circuit Court judge, Judge Anne Demack, to be permanently based in Rockhampton to service Central Queensland. Rockhampton has the highest rate of domestic violence in Queensland per capita, and this new role is a significant step forward to help those with family court disputes domestic violence and custody rows. This helps the most disadvantaged groups in our city. The Turnbull-Joyce government is not just looking at the short term but also setting goals for our very long term future in Capricornia. Recently, I was pleased to announce that Central Queenslanders will benefit from a long-term plan to spend $190 million on defence infrastructure and intelligence programs in the Rockhampton-Livingstone region in the coming years. The projects were outlined in the release of the Turnbull government's 2016 Defence white paper. The paper sets out the government's comprehensive long-term plan for Australia's national security. The government will increase defence spending by $29.9 billion over the next decade. In Capricornia up to $190 million is ear marked for upgrades in infrastructure at the Shoalwater Bay training area, which is already considered one of the best sites for international military exercises in the Pacific. Mr Dreyfus HWG Mr Deputy Speaker, will the member for Capricornia accept an intervention under standing order 66(a) in relation to the provision of a courthouse or courthouse facilities for the newly appointed Federal Circuit Court judge in Rockhampton? Ms LANDRY 249764 I will not. Our white paper's Integrated Investment Program will deliver substantial benefits for Central Queensland, including these points. The Shoalwater Bay training area will be upgraded to support a range of new land combat and amphibious warfare capabilities over the next decade to 2025-26, representing an investment of up to $150 million. An additional investment of around $40 million is planned for the decade between 2025-26 and 2035-36. And new facilities at the Shoalwater Bay training area will support the introduction of new armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance unmanned aircraft in the early 2020s. The investments outlined in the Turnbull government's 2016 defence white paper will strengthen our Defence Force and provide a welcome boost to the economy of Capricornia. They are likely to create contracts for local supply businesses and raise the prospect of raising new jobs. Defence employs over 70 people in Capricornia and joint defence exercises conducted at the Shoalwater Bay training area bring thousands of personnel, and millions of dollars in local spending to the Rockhampton-Livingstone economy. This has significant flow-on effects for the local economy and our local businesses. Meanwhile, I have had brief discussions with both the federal Defence Minister, Marise Payne, and Assistant Defence Minister, Michael McCormack, about other military proposals in the Rockhampton area, including a push to base a contingent of military warfare vehicles at Shoalwater Bay permanently. This would allow additional military families to be based in Rockhampton, which helps to diversify the city's workforce and is good for business. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Thank you. I call the member for Bendigo. 17:01 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair. Right before Christmas, just after this government dropped its MYEFO, my local paper reported, 'Government’s cuts hit La Trobe's clinical placements'—22 December. An article the following day says: La Trobe University has been left to find $2.6 million per year across its campuses to fund clinical placements – many of them in nursing and allied health courses – after Treasurer Scott Morrison announced a raft of budget cuts this month. So, right as universities were ending the academic year, this government announced it was cutting funding to the following year's clinical placements. There was no warning and no opportunity to look at the reserves to see if they could fund this. This government announced, with days left in 2015, that they were going to cut the funding for clinical placements. Many of these students are based in Bendigo. We have the Rural Health School in Bendigo at La Trobe- Bendigo campus. That facility was built by the former Labor government, a government that did invest in higher education—not like what we have seen from this government. At the time, the paper reported that the university would not axe the clinical placement program; it was too important. However, they did acknowledge that funding would be found from elsewhere within the university budget. Funds that otherwise would have been used for teaching and learning resources will now be deployed for those clinical places. This is the chaos of this government. This is what this government does when they make these radical budget decisions—whether it be in the May budget or the December budget—that affect universities and regional communities. Clinical placement funding is critical if our students are to receive the same educational opportunities in Melbourne. That is just a simple fact. If we are serious about ensuring that we have the skilled health workforce we need in the regions, then we need to make sure that universities like La Trobe and the Bendigo campus can have access to funding for their clinical placements. At the time, the health minister said: 'That's okay. They'll be able to apply for the new fund that has been established.' But what is not being made clear to the university is whether they would qualify for this new fund. Bendigo Rural Health School does not have a medical school within it. It has everything but. So it is unclear whether they can even apply for the new funding. It is not known whether Bendigo-La Trobe's Rural Health School will qualify for the new competitive funding round. Secondly, the very nature of competitive tender processes means there is no guarantee this campus will be successful, especially given there is now less funding in the pot than what there was previously. Thirdly, there was the timing of the announcement of the cuts; they tried to sneak them through right before Christmas. These were not the only cuts that hit Bendigo in the MYEFO budget and in the appropriations bills that are before us. What was also shocking was the cuts to funding for programs that help our most vulnerable job seekers. With just under $130 million cut from jobactive, in addition to about $130 million cut from the Skills for Education and Employment Program, this means one in five job seekers in central Victoria will miss out on the opportunity to acquire new skills to help them find employment. The group they are targeting with this is our older workers. What this government does not seem to understand is the shift in the nature of work and work opportunities within the Australian workplace. People who may have worked in manufacturing their entire working life or may have worked in mechanics or a number of other skilled jobs that simply do not exist today—or there are fewer of them—do want to retrain. They do want to have their skills going forward, yet this government is cutting the very programs that support that. That is where this government is narrow-sighted. They want to get out the big stick and whack you if you do not look for work, yet they are not willing to help fund the programs to help you find work. Last week I caught up with a local group that has come together to talk about the long periods when you cannot find work, about how depression can set in and about the effects on mental health. This group of local men have put their hands up to say: 'You know what? It's really hard to find work. It's really hard on my family when I can't find work. I find it really stressful. And now I'm seeking mental health support and I'm looking for support to get through this troubled period.' All these issues could be avoided if the government only funded support programs properly and, more importantly, had a genuine jobs plan, a plan that would actually create and secure jobs into the future—lots of jobs, the jobs that we have today that will exist tomorrow. It is this great statistic that people like to throw out there: '40 per cent of the jobs for tomorrow have not been created yet'. Guess what that means: 60 per cent of the jobs we have today will exist tomorrow. Yet what will the nature of these jobs be? Why isn't this government doing more to create good, secure jobs that people can count on? There is a reason we have net negative wage growth in this country. It is because more and more people are losing good full-time jobs and are being forced to take up insecure casual and part-time jobs. People are working for less money than they have previously, and that is having an impact on their household income. In the MYEFO there was also a recommitment by this government to cut $80 billion from health and education. In my part of the world that included $34 million from Bendigo Health. Next year—it is very exciting—the state Labor government will actually open the brand-new Bendigo hospital. It is a massive investment project that has been building for quite some years. But what is disappointing to the people of Bendigo and to the state government is the fact that this federal government is short-changing them on the operating funds. They have cut money from the operating budgets, meaning it is going to be harder for this new hospital to turn the lights on, to perform procedures and to have the funding for wages so they can open more beds. This government is not paying its fair share when it comes to health funding. It is not just the Bendigo hospital; it is also the cuts to the Castlemaine hospital, to the Kyneton hospital, to the Maldon hospital and to Heathcote Health. These are smaller hospitals that rely on urgency care and that are, for some people, the only way to access emergency care during the weekends and during the evenings. They are staffed by doctors who basically bulk-bill those patients. We saw this government recommit to introducing some form of GP tax and, worse still, continue to cut funding from Medicare. It is a government that does not understand that in the regions we actually need to invest more in health, not cut funding from health services, because it makes it very hard for these smaller hospitals and health services to deliver the health support that is needed. This government, in its MYEFO, also committed to the funding cuts to our schools over a decade—$10 million to the schools in the Bendigo electorate. The Bendigo electorate schools would have been some of the biggest winners under the Gonski reforms. Years five and six would have delivered the resources that a lot of our smaller regional schools need. They would have delivered the resources for a lot of our schools in low-SES areas, like Eaglehawk, Long Gully and Heathcote They would have delivered extra resources for schools that have a higher than average number of students with a disability. I do not know if many of those opposite are talking to their prep and primary school teachers, but they have never seen the numbers of students with a disability, who are on the autism spectrum or who may have a learning difficulty, like dyslexia, coming into their classes. Specimen Hill Primary School said that 40 per cent of students in their prep classes need some form of help. Yet when the schools most need this government to partner with the states and invest in them the government is cutting away these critical dollars. I was out at Huntly Primary School a few weeks ago, and I went on a tour with the school captains and school leaders and spoke to the principal. The oval was looking very dry. I said, 'Is that because of the water bill?' and the principal said: 'Yes. I have the choice to either water the oval, which costs me about $4,000 a quarter'—water is very expensive in central Victoria—'or in a year that is the funding for a part-time teacher aide. My school made the tough choice of putting the numeracy and literacy skills Reading Recovery program ahead of watering the oval.' These are the tough choices our schools are making, because this government has short-changed them and not paid a fair share into schools. Education is absolutely critical. We need to ensure that every student, regardless of their postcode, will get a great education and that, regardless of their postcode, the schools will have the resources they need. But under this government and the funding they have cut, some of our schools will continue to fall behind, not because they are not good schools but because they do not have the resources. This Prime Minister stands up here and says, 'It's not about resourcing.' That is wrong on so many levels. I challenge him again to come and to the schools in my electorate, meet the students and their teachers and learn what it means to be a school that cannot afford art applies and that is making the tough choice between a language program or a music program because they simply do not have the dollars in their budget to pay for those extracurricular activities. Earlier I mentioned jobs. This budget, again, in MYEFO, failed to have a comprehensive plan on how the government is going to create jobs for our young people. What disappointed me in this budget was that there was no concrete commitment to return funding to successful programs like Youth Connections, there was no concrete commitment to restoring the funding they cut from skills and apprenticeship systems and there was no concrete commitment to guarantee future funding for our TAFEs. All the talk about the fantastic new white paper means nothing if you do not invest in skills. In my electorate I have the Bendigo Bushmaster, which is built at Thales, and the Hawkei contract will come online. It is a bit hard to build a Bushmaster and a Hawkei without having an engineer who has being trained and without having apprentices to go into that work so that they have the skills that they need to build our defence equipment. If we are serious about innovation, if we are serious about having jobs in the manufacturing sector going forward—high-tech, high-skilled jobs—we must invest in education. Finally, I would also like to highlight that this government has not reversed its decision on the financial assistance grants to our local government areas. It is okay for MPs who may have electorates in the inner city. They can make up the revenue cut by this government, through parking meters. In the regions, you cannot. Ratepayers in the regions cannot afford to pay anything extra. In one part of my electorate, rates increased by as much as 18.5 per cent over three years. It was unsustainable. At the same time that their property prices went up, their rates became a cost-of-living pressure, forcing many households into poverty. So increasing rates for local government is no longer an option, because the ratepayers cannot afford these massive increases. That is why the government needs to restore the funding that it cut in its first budget—and has confirmed it will cut in its next budget—to the financial assistance grants. That is to ensure that our local government has the resources to build the roads, to build the footpaths, to make sure that our SES as well as an array of other services are there to go forward. The minibudget that the government has released demonstrates again that it does not matter who the Liberal Prime Minister is or who the Liberal Treasurer is; they are addicted to cutting funding from the areas that need it the most. It does not matter who is in charge of this government; it is just more of the same: cruel cuts that hurt the most vulnerable in our community, actually stall growth and mean that we are not moving forward as a country. 17:16 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the Turnbull government's achievements and the many ways in which we are delivering jobs and growth. Before I do that, I want to place on the record my profound concern in relation to the member for Bendigo's comments about health funding. We have seen a situation in Victoria where the Victorian government have made an improper grab for money which they were not owed—some $73 million—and they are now going around frightening local hospitals, local CEOs, making claims that are simply false. This is an improper grab for cash. They did not run the calculations properly in relation to the formula. What the member for Bendigo has just said in relation to that matter is absolutely wrong. The Victorian government need to fess up. This has not happened in any other state. The Victorian government's tricky accounting has not gone by without being noticed by us and being corrected. We will not stand for this misrepresentation from members opposite and from the Victorian government. At this time, as we transition out of the mining boom and into the new economy, the innovation economy, I am very proud to see that we created over 300,000 new jobs last year. This is the best record of job creation since 2006. The doomsayers on the opposite side—the likes of the member for Corio—spoke endlessly about skyrocketing unemployment in our region. Well, we are seeing some of the best employment figures we have seen in a long time. We have just announced—as we have just seen the figures from the ABS—a 5.2 per cent unemployment rate in the Geelong region. There are pressures on the local economy—there is no doubt about that—particularly in manufacturing. Of course, we lost Ford under the previous Labor government. Let us not forget that­, but let us not forget that there are 500 or so Ford workers continuing to work in our great city. But we are seeing some wonderful success stories in the local employment figures that are coming through, and nationally the ANZ job ads survey in January 2016 shows that job ads are now 11.3 per cent higher than they were 12 months ago. Everything that the Turnbull government is doing is focused on driving jobs and growth—the jobs of the future, not the regressive policies that we have seen from the other side, from the Labor Party, a party that believes that you can prosper by taxing homebuyers and through its smokers tax, its capital gains tax and its absolutely unbelievable refusal to support our attack on multinational tax avoidance. The Greens showed much greater economic responsibility when they joined with us to vote for that legislation to combat the improper shifting of profits by multinational companies into other jurisdictions. What did Labor do? It voted against the legislation. The Labor Party proposed some $5 billion of savings prior to the 2013 election that they are, unfortunately, now blocking in the Senate. We are seeing gross recklessness from the Labor Party, from members opposite. Of course, we are seeing that in spades with the negative gearing policy that the Labor Party have put forward, a policy which will punish the many thousands of nurses, midwives, metal workers, teachers—the people who rely on negative gearing to give their family a bit of a head start. Taking one-third of the demand out of the established property market will do enormous damage to the homebuyers market. Labor have simply not thought this through. They do not understand that, when you destroy confidence in a market as important as the property market, that ricochets throughout the economy. This is another example of an ill-thought-through, reckless, irresponsible policy which shows that the Labor Party are simply not up to governing. I am incredibly proud of our government's achievements. We have abolished the carbon and mining taxes. We have finalised three free trade agreements, with China, Japan and Korea—and of course the TPP is our fourth major free trade agreement. We are delivering the lowest company tax rate for small businesses in almost 50 years and we delivered $5.5 billion of incentives for small business through the last budget. We understand that small business is the engine room of our economy. We are tackling the hard questions, in the Harper review, looking at how we can change competition law to drive innovation and the jobs of the future. We are investing some $50 billion in infrastructure. Our $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda shows that we are focused on the future—what we need to do as a responsible, contemporary government, looking at the opportunities that lie ahead for us as a nation. But we are also tackling the hard issues on our industrial front. In Victoria in particular, construction costs run at some 30 per cent higher than in any other state. That is because of the lawlessness in the building and construction sector. We have heard some terrible stories of corruption and of standover tactics by some union bosses—not the ordinary men and women who are members of unions, who work hard and go to work expecting their union bosses to do the right thing by them. They want to make sure that when they go to work their business thrives, the industry thrives, and we are not seeing that, particularly in Victoria. That is why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission—of course, another major initiative for our economy that is being blocked by the Labor Party. I am very proud of the achievements in the Corangamite electorate delivered by the Turnbull government. Last year we announced a $14 million Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, an industry growth centre to drive those advanced manufacturing jobs—for instance jobs in the renewable energy sector. A lot of work is going into the renewable sector to look at how we can improve issues such as battery storage to make sure that we are investing in those wonderful opportunities in renewable energy. We have announced $2.6 million for the Geelong Region Job Connections program. There are lots of local jobs creation programs being rolled out across our region, which have really made a difference on the ground. I am very proud that the new Australian Bureau of Statistics centre of excellence, the national data acquisition centre, opened yesterday. It will eventually hire up to 300 people—a wonderful high-tech centre. Another government agency coming to our region and bringing wonderful opportunities. Only about 40 ABS jobs will actually move to Geelong. The rest are all going to be created locally, so that is absolutely wonderful news. That builds on the incredible investments we have made with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Barwon trial has been rolled out. Many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent already, and in excess of $400 million in my own region with the National Disability Insurance Agency headquarters in Geelong, which is wonderful. At the moment there is a tender underway to construct a new building. It will be in excess of $100 million to house not just the NDIA headquarters but also some 400 jobs for people working for the Commonwealth Department of Human Services. This is on top of the new WorkSafe building, which has just been announced, another state Liberal commitment matched by Labor, but again an initiative of the Liberals. We are seeing some wonderful investment being driven into the Corangamite region. One of the very big focuses in our region is infrastructure. After years of failure when it comes to rolling out NBN broadband we are now seeing NBN fast broadband under construction, or available, to more than 70,000 Corangamite homes and businesses, by 2017. This includes the Geelong southern suburbs of Belmont, Highton, Grovedale, Marshall, Wandana Heights and Waurn Ponds—now all on the rollout. Construction begins in the beginning of 2017 and in other parts of Geelong later this year. Construction is already underway in places like Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads, Torquay and Jan Juc. It is wonderful to see this essential infrastructure being delivered. Many parts of Corangamite were left off the NBN rollout by the previous Labor government—a very poor reflection on the Labor Party, on the previous Labor member and on commitment to important infrastructure in large regional cities like the one that I proudly represent. Another failure of Labor is that no money was invested in mobile phone black spots. It was with great pride when we announced that there will be 10 mobile base stations rolled out across Corangamite: in Apollo Bay, Barongarook, Barwon Downs, Cape Otway, Carlisle River—where construction will be completed in a couple of months time, which is great news—Dereel, Gellibrand, Kawarren, Steiglitz and Yodine, to service Birregurra. Some 115 of the 141 mobile phone blackspots nominated in Corangamite will be addressed by handheld, or external antenna coverage, and this is wonderful news. We have our Great Ocean Road upgrade underway. They are wonderful projects for such an iconic road. It is so important and a centrepiece of our $2.1 billion tourism industry. This is the road that Labor forgot. This is the road that federal Labor vehemently opposed in terms of investing in this road. Not only is the $50 million making a real difference to communities like Anglesea, Lorne, Separation Creek and Wye River, where there has been a terrible crisis after the bushfires over Christmas. We have announced the start of construction of a new $4 million Separation Creek bridge. This road is so important that I am fighting for more funding for it. This road is so important for road safety, for tourism and for the regional tourism economy, not just for domestic visitors but also international visitors. We are duplicating the Princess Highway—another very important commitment—an incredible infrastructure project for our region. The first section is almost complete. There have been some real problems with the completion date, but it is wonderful to see that the Winchelsea to Colac section is on track, supported by some $371 million in total of investment. We have major infrastructure challenges in our region. The cancellation of the East West Link has been an absolute disgrace. The Auditor-General in Victoria has now disclosed that that has cost Victorians $1.1. billion. This is a project that Labor members opposite—people like the Leader of the Opposition—previously supported. We desperately need a western road link for Geelong, Corangamite and south-west Victoria. It is an absolute gridlock trying to drive to Melbourne in peak hour, getting over the Westgate Bridge. What is the Labor Party doing in Victoria? They are doing virtually nothing. It is an incredible reflection on Labor that we are seeing virtually no progress when it comes to rolling out the infrastructure that we need in our great region. Another example is rail. We are seeing utter chaos with V/Line services right across Victoria. It is an absolute shambles. It is costing the Victorian government $4 million a week, yet the Victorian government is refusing to look at one of the most important infrastructure projects that we need for our region: the duplication of the rail line through southern Geelong to service South Geelong, Marshall and Waurn Ponds. We need new platforms and a duplicated rail because people living in Armstrong Creek and all through the southern part of Geelong cannot get the rail services they need. While there has been the Regional Rail Link that has now been completed, of course it cannot be used most of the time because of the chaos with V/Line services. It is apparent that that is doing more for people living for western Melbourne than it is for people living in Geelong and Corangamite, and the Labor Party have absolutely taken their foot off the accelerator when it comes to rolling out these important infrastructure projects. Another great announcement we have made in the last week is almost $30 billion of additional defence expenditure. It is wonderful to see our defence white paper, which reinforces the importance of so many wonderful defence projects, including the LAND 400 program, and I know that our city and our region are working very hard to secure a slice of the action of that incredibly important $3 billion project. 17:31 Mr GRAY 8W5 Brand The debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 gives me a wonderful opportunity to talk about Northern Australia and the importance of Northern Australia not just for Australia's budget bottom line but for the social and economic wellbeing of our whole nation. Northern Australia is not simply the home of our big export cattle herd. It is also the home of our oil and gas industry and our prodigious and greatly capable iron ore and coalmining industries. It is, in so many ways, the economic engine room of our nation. In the past decade we have seen investment in the resources sector of Northern Australia eclipse even the modern-scale equivalent of the Marshall Plan—which was an investment program to help Europe recover from the devastating impacts of World War II. What we effectively saw in our resources sector over the past decade was a scale of investment some four times bigger than the Marshall Plan, and that investment was carried out in one single sector of our economy, in the resources sector. We built massive capability in iron ore exports, in port facilities, in rail facilities, in coal exports and in oil and gas in particular. Indeed, this year we will see coming into location the Icthys central processing facility and the Icthys floating production, storage and offtake facility. Both of those facilities, in and of themselves, are impressive. But when hooked up to one of the world's largest subsea pipelines, some 500 miles long and 42 inches in diameter, running from the Icthys field into Darwin, we have revealed the most significant resources investment in one sector in one project than can even be comprehended. In many ways, that single investment is the world's largest-ever single financed project. It is financed by bankers around the world—$20 billion of it privately-raised finance—in order to make that project work. On many occasions I am caused to think that the engineering of the central processing facility itself is impressive. The engineering of the third-longest subsea pipeline, at 42 inches in diameter and 800 kilometres long, is, in and of itself, impressive. But the financial engineering that underpins that project is simply staggering. In the course of the next 40 years that project will generate jobs that will be generational in their impact on our communities, particularly through the Kimberley and through Darwin. That project alone will generate business in the order of $100 million a year, and that is before we discuss the start-up that will happen in coming months at Gorgon, the world's largest geosequestration project, that will happen at Curtis Island when Curtis Island is in full production, and that will happen as we move into enhanced production from our existing iron ore capacity. The story does not end in hard commodities and oil and gas. The story continues when we look at the great potential of Northern Australia for food and protein production. Out of Wyndham in the north of Western Australia we may well see one of the world's great seafood production operations commence, Project Sea Dragon. One would hope that, in the next few years, that project will produce prawns for a North Asian market, bringing into productive use lands around Wyndham, generating local wealth, jobs and opportunities for West Australians and also generating opportunities for Aboriginal people who live in the East Kimberley. It will also generate an export income that is both sustainable and highly valuable into the next decade or three or four. Underpinning much of this is the optimism that Australians necessarily and instinctively feel about Northern Australia. Within that optimism there is kind of a traditional craziness. A view that all that land and all that water must eventually be turned to some great productive use often causes us in this place to focus on building dams. And building dams is not what it is all about. Building water impoundments can be useful. Water impoundments can control water run-off in tropical environments that can be important. Building water impoundments to store water for future use can be extremely valuable, but sometimes the uses need to be purpose designed, and we are seeing some thoughtful work being done in this area that may well be a key to good finishing-off crops that will help our billion-dollar northern cattle herd but also some interesting opportunities in horticulture as well. In a previous parliament as a parliamentary secretary for northern Australia, I oversaw the investment in the Ord stage 2. Ord stage 2 saw a total investment from state and Commonwealth governments of in excess of $500 million. But one of the really interesting developments in horticulture in Northern Australia is actually south of Darwin, where there is very little Commonwealth or Territory money. That investment is to support the horticulture that is driven by Cambodian and Vietnamese horticulturalists and families, who make their businesses work through the sweat of their brow, the incredible energy that they bring and their willingness to find creative crops and willing markets. So okra production out of an area south of Darwin finds its way into markets in Melbourne within days of being picked, and finds itself in a situation where growth and opportunity is available to it, providing opportunity and economic security to the families that are driving those businesses in the horticultural districts south of Darwin. One of the terrific things about this is that we see pure entrepreneurial spirit being invested to drive opportunities in northern Australia. It does not all need to come from a multibillion dollar damn-building project from the Commonwealth government or from a state government—clearing land, laser-levelling fields in order to, as we used to say, build a field and he will come. Sometimes what we are seeing is pure entrepreneurial spirit driving opportunities, creating wealth, defining markets and sustainably generating products. In recent months in the Northern Territory, we have seen a range of decisions made by political parties around fracking and around gas production from onshore opportunities. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the Northern Territory for more than 40 years. Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting water, sand and relatively small amounts of chemicals into rocks and creating fractures that allow gas to flow to the surface. This technology can unlock significant additional gas resources and generate low-carbon energy, jobs, wealth and opportunity not just in the Northern Territory but across northern Australia. At a Katherine regional mining exploration forum that I recently attended, I discussed the science of hydraulic fracturing with engaged community members. Regrettably, good science has been missing from the misinformation and scaremongering that have ignited concerns about fracturing. Good science by the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency, the New South Wales's chief scientist, who was recently named in the New Year's Honours list and Geoscience Australia and Dr Allan Hawke, the Territory's special adviser on fracturing, show that hydraulic fracturing can be and is being managed safely. Of course, as we expect in Australia, the risks of fracturing must be managed through robust risk and environmental impact assessments and continued environmental management and monitoring. Regulation plays an important part and Australia has some of the best environmental regulations in the world. In Queensland, the most comprehensive water monitoring program in Australia, if not the world, is regulated by Queensland and federal government environmental agencies to ensure that fracturing and gas extraction have no unacceptable impacts. This program in Queensland involves hundreds of monitoring bores and will most likely contribute even more to our scientific understanding of the Great Artesian Basin. It will contribute more in one decade than we have learned about the Great Artesian Basin in the past century. Queensland gas companies have also invested significant funds to treat the salty water that they extract and which otherwise would not be used. They are either re-injecting fresh water into shallow aquifers or virtually giving it away to farmers for irrigation and to local towns for domestic use. Queensland has more than 5,000 land use agreements across northern Queensland and through the Surat Basin with local farmers. These land use agreements have supported local towns and those local towns have embraced the benefits of the gas industry. It is not impossible to see those benefits being delivered to the community of Katherine, if the community of Katherine would embrace the opportunity available to it through the resource that is available quite close to Katherine. In similar fashion, of course, developing the Territory's large shale gas resources through the use of hydraulic fracturing could generate new long-term jobs in any number of remote and regional communities. It could create new businesses, improve regional infrastructure and generate increased royalties to the government of the Northern Territory. Just because science and economics are on the side of fracturing, it does not however remove a broader industry obligation to listen to communities, to properly address their concerns and to build a better understanding of the business of fracturing. It is accepted that a strong regulatory regime is vital to effectively managing environmental risk. But there is a broader social licence that needs to be earned for the gas extraction sector to be successful in northern Australia. While governments can implement strong regulation to effectively manage environmental risks, only the industry can earn acceptance of what they do. I am pleased to hear about recent independently run discussions on fracturing such as those that have been organised by the Darwin rural community forums. Companies in the Territory's onshore gas industry do need to contribute to these forums to explain their practices and their potential benefits. But in a world of 140-character arguments and publicity stunts and ideological campaigning, companies need to return to the field of public debate and engage in the kitchens and cattle yards of their neighbours and hosts. Eventually, common sense and the reasonableness of communities wins out and they feel that they understand the benefits and the risks of hydraulic fracturing, and are confident that companies and governments can manage and regulate those risks. This is happening in Queensland. It can happen in the Northern Territory, with the same outstanding beneficial outcomes. In coming days, on Curtis Island we will see an official event to mark the start-up of the APLNG LNG production facility, taking coal seam gas out of the Surat Basin, converting it to highly energy efficient, sophisticated, elaborately transformed manufactured goods called liquefied natural gas, and exporting that gas for use in industry in North Asia. It is a truly virtuous cycle—taking a resource, making that resource so energy intensive that within weeks of its extraction from the Surat Basin it can be driving industry in Korea, Japan and China. It can be warming homes and cooling food. It can be driving wealth creation thousands of kilometres away from its point of extraction. It also supports outstanding living standards in the towns and regions of North Queensland. So we see across northern Australia wonderful opportunities that come from our horticulture, from our agriculture and from our resource exploitation. We also see that resource industry under incredible stress at the moment. Price pressure in global markets has placed nickel under immense pressure and has closed many nickel mines. I think of one in the Kimberley, where the Panoramic Resources Savannah nickel asset is in the process of being mothballed, and close to 400 workers are being laid off as a consequence of that necessary economic measure. Amidst the closures that happen in coalmining districts and iron ore mining districts I also see companies preparing to become so productive and so capable that, when eventually the commodity cycle turns back—and it will—these firms will become global powerhouses of economic opportunity that will benefit not only northern Australia but our whole region. The productivity gain that we are already seeing in iron ore, in oil and gas, and in coal is making our principal providers of these commodities very power commodities in the global marketplace. We will see them joined in the future by those firms that engage in protein production and horticultural production—making northern Australia the province that we know it can be, driving wealth and generating opportunity across our continent for the benefit not only of the people who live in northern Australia but of all of us who live in Australia. 17:46 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I am pleased to take the opportunity as we debate these cognate appropriation bills to highlight how the government's economic approach is crucial to building a stronger Australia and, indeed, how it is benefitting my constituents on the southern Gold Coast. The government's focus is firmly on creating jobs and growing the economy through innovation, investment in vital infrastructure, tax breaks for small businesses, education and training to meet crucial areas of demand, and helping foster an entrepreneurial spirit. This focus builds on the exceptional work the coalition has done since it was elected in 2013. And that is a point I want to make very clearly today. The coalition has a proud track record over the past two years. It is one that has set the groundwork for economic recovery. It is a track record that has enabled our economy to transition well out of the mining boom, generating 301,300 additional jobs last year—90 per cent of which were in the private sector and over 60 per cent were full-time jobs. When I spoke on the budget bills in June last year, I spoke about our have-a-go budget—rewarding enterprise, boosting small business and creating new jobs. I spoke about how our approach was reflective of the dynamic spirit that has always been part of the Gold Coast. And I am pleased to report that there are very positive signs on the Gold Coast. In fact, last year the number of people employed in the Gold Coast region grew by eight per cent—which is over 23,000 new jobs. As I said last June, local small businesses on the Gold Coast have embraced the budget and regulatory reforms we have introduced, and that is very positive news for our local economy. Over the past 6 months, I have continued to speak with local residents and especially local business owners and there is a real optimism and excitement that the Turnbull government is committed to further building on the economic reforms we have introduced so far. This is not about an announcement-a-day schedule that consists of schemes drafted on the back of an envelope to meet a media cycle. We will consult widely, we will take the time to make sure our policies are carefully considered and we will get them right. Importantly, we will balance the twin imperatives of cutting government spending and reforming the tax system as we craft both the May budget and the policies we will take to the election later this year. This is about the economic future of this country, and we take our responsibility very seriously. I know that the business community appreciates that approach. Certainly that is the feedback I have from businesses in my electorate. Just the other week I had the pleasure of visiting local business and training organisation, The French Beauty Academy at Robina, to discuss how our VET reforms are providing even more opportunities for local people to gain valuable skills. A few weeks earlier, I visited a growing local business, First Class Financial Group, which had secured a federal Industry Skills Fund grant to undertake training that will help them expand their business and product offering even further. Late last year, another successful local business, Global Tour Specialists, secured Industry Skills funding to help their company grow. And I was thrilled when late last year local Palm Beach business Boardcave was offered $466,000 commercialisation funding to take its innovative idea from the drawing board into the global marketplace, under the Australian government's Entrepreneurs' Program. These are just a few of the very recent success stories in my own electorate. It is through practical programs such as these that the government can support the drive and enterprise of businesses that are the backbone of our economy. I am particularly excited, as Assistant Minister for Science, about our National Innovation and Science Agenda. It is the foundation of our plan to grow the economy of the future. As part of the agenda, we have announced 24 different measures, worth $1.1 billion, to create high-paid jobs and help Australia compete globally. I can also report to the House that over the last two years of the coalition government more than $35 million has flowed directly to the local community in McPherson, and I have been pleased to support and lobby for a wide variety of local community projects. This funding includes a number of extremely successful Green Army projects to revitalise and repair the local environment and employ and train young people; beach safety equipment grants to support the fantastic work of local surf lifesavers; positive drug and alcohol treatment programs for youth outreach and rehabilitation; veterans and community grants to help local veterans overcome isolation; local sporting champions grants and the Sporting Schools program to encourage healthy participation and excellence in sports; a new base station for Currumbin Creek Road under the Mobile Black Spot program; a range of Saluting their Service and Centenary of Anzac grants to support local commemorations and memorials; funding for the Gold Coast Dyslexia Support Group for a documentary to educate and raise awareness; several Office for Learning and Teaching grants to support research at Bond University, in the heart of my electorate; funding for remedial maths classes for disadvantaged students at Southern Cross University; Australian Vocational Student Prizes to support and encourage our VET students; New Colombo Plan scholarships to help local university students study overseas and to gain valuable insight and skills. There is a long list, and I could go on at length, but that is just a sample of what the McPherson community has achieved with the backing of the coalition government. It does not include our soon-to-be-released Stronger Communities grants that we have been working hard on to prioritise. I also want to point out the key infrastructure funding that has additionally flowed to the electorate, including over $38 million dollars from 2014-15 to 2018-19 for the Gold Coast City Council under an increased Roads to Recovery program. We also provided an extra $1.2 million in black spot funding to fix dangerous local roads. The federal government also provides close to $4 million each year in additional road funding as part of over $9 million it provides in Financial Assistance Grants to the Gold Coast City Council. The coalition recognises that investment in infrastructure is a key part of ensuring continued growth. I note that the Australian Infrastructure Plan, released earlier, has been welcomed by the government as it provides a positive reform and investment road map for Australia. The plan sets out the infrastructure challenges and opportunities Australia faces over the next 15 years and the solutions required to drive productivity growth, maintain and enhance our standard of living and ensure our cities remain world class. The government will respond to the 98 recommendations in the plan in due course. Representing an ever-growing region like the Gold Coast, I am acutely aware of how vital long-term infrastructure planning is to meet the future needs of the community. Transport infrastructure is a particular passion of mine, and I have spoken many times in this place on the challenges of prioritising transport planning on the Gold Coast. Today, I would like to speak again on the urgent upgrading that is needed for the M1, from Varsity through to Tugun. This part of our national highway system has become an unsafe bottleneck for thousands of local residents, interstate tourists and those who rely on this major route for their businesses. It has been an issue that we, on the southern Gold Coast, have fought for collectively since 2007, when there was a commitment by both the then federal government and the then opposition to widen the Ml—the priority area being Tugun to Nerang. Logan and parts north of that were, however, the beneficiaries. Whilst that is certainly good news for motorists in that area, it meant that my electorate and the whole of the southern Gold Coast have been left waiting for significant upgrades. In November last year, in this House, I expressed my disappointment at the silence I had received from the state government, despite my repeated representations on this issue. I am pleased to say that I did, in fact, finally get the opportunity to meet with the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports, Mark Bailey, just the other week. I was hopeful that the door had been opened and that there would be engagement by the state government to look at ways for the upgrade to occur as soon as possible. I hope that I am not going to be disappointed and that there will be opportunities to work together to deliver this much-needed transport infrastructure to the southern Gold Coast. I have certainly taken the opportunity to meet with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Gippsland, and I do congratulate him on his recent appointment to that role. I have spoken to the federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister just the other week to bring him up to date on progress or, in fact, lack of progress in that area. I have also spoken to the Prime Minister. I will leave no stone unturned in my endeavours to make sure that we have the M1 upgraded. The people of McPherson can be assured that I will continue to fight for funding for upgrading of the M1, as I will for a range of other transport options in my electorate. On that point, I can report that I also met recently with the Gold Coast Mayor, Tom Tate, to specifically discuss transport infrastructure, including stage 2 of Light Rail, for which the federal government has provided $95 million. This will enable completion of the second stage in time for the Commonwealth Games, in 2018, which will be a huge boost for our city. I did want to conclude by pointing out that the Turnbull government's focus on liveable cities is a policy that will provide long-term benefits for growing cities like the Gold Coast, which is, after all, the second-largest local government area in the nation. I certainly look forward to further policy development and announcements in that regard and working with the Gold Coast City Council to ensure our region is able to capitalise on the opportunities provided. I do want to make the point that these are budget bills that we are debating and getting the budget setting right is absolutely crucial. All of the positive programs and infrastructure planning I have outlined today are dependent on it and will contribute to a growing economy. We will not take the approach of racking up deficit after deficit with no plan to get back into surplus. We will not further mortgage our children's future with unfunded spending promises. We will not burden the Australian people and shackle the Australian economy with tax hikes, because we recognise that only responsible financial management and economic growth can offer the social dividend of support and funding for community-based projects that make a real difference. Ours will be a responsible and realistic approach with a focus on harnessing and encouraging the tremendous drive and enterprise of the Australian people—a spirit, which, I am pleased to report, is very much alive and well in my electorate on the southern Gold Coast. I commend the bills to the House. 18:00 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Today we are debating Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016, which are budget bills. With budgets come choices, choices a government makes of its priorities. The mid-year fiscal update, which is part of this appropriation bill, is an update of the government's priorities. Our most recent budget was delivered by one Prime Minister and the update is delivered by another Prime Minister, but the details of the priorities have not changed. There are many things, demonstrated in the mid-year fiscal update, which show that despite the rhetoric of the new Prime Minister, despite the overtures he makes, when you look at the detail—and the devil is in the detail—you see there is no change to many of the critical issues facing our nation, no change to the key priorities of this government. I will go through a few that have been outlined in the budget. The first is paid parental leave. This is of critical importance and something that I am incredibly proud of. It is a measure that our previous Labor government brought in. This affected many families, ensuring that mums and dads could have time off with their children. I was dismayed that in the May budget the Prime Minister and the Treasurer called a lot of these mothers using their workplace entitlements with the government scheme 'double-dippers'. I remember, very clearly, the reaction of my mother's group when many of them were accused of being double-dippers. It was an insult to so many mums and dads around Australia who were doing the best they could to cobble together leave so that they could balance work and family. What did we have from the then Prime Minister and Treasurer? They called these mums and dads double dippers. You would expect a different approach from the new Prime Minister, but no. The new Prime Minister and his Treasurer are continuing to ensure that 80,000 new mums and dads are worse off. This became clear in Senate estimates. The Prime Minister's so-called compromise still means that new mums will be forced to live on less and spend less and not be able to spend time, necessarily, with their newborn babies. It is disappointing that MYEFO has confirmed there will still be cuts to paid parental leave. It is time those on the other side listened to the mums and dads of Australia and to the crossbench that has said it will not support these savage cuts. Rather than bring in a new baby bonus—in a desperate bid to appease the National Party—they should continue with a scheme that is working and supporting parents right across this country. Unfortunately, we do not see that from the new Prime Minister. We still see a lack of understanding of what mums and dads out there with new babies are facing. I will continue to advocate this very important issue. We have also seen, as a result of the budget and update, continued cuts to health care. For a party that said it was not going to get stuck into Medicare, hospitals or health, the evidence is in. There is cut after cut, when it comes to health. I was particularly concerned when we heard reports that the government was not going to fund the Breastfeeding Helpline for a further 12 months. Advocates right across this country stood up and said how outrageous that was. I got feedback from many people in my community who were incredibly upset that this very important service might not be available as a result of government cuts. As someone who recently had a baby and was breastfeeding for some time, I used that helpline when I was unsure about how to proceed. The people on the end of line—the mums and volunteers—helped, enormously, allay my fears and concerns, as they have done for so many other new mums breastfeeding around the country. Unfortunately, as a result of the $80 million cuts to the Health Flexible Funds, this service was put in jeopardy. It is an outrage that it took so many people to stand up against this cut before the government reversed its decision. But they have only reversed it for 12 months. This leaves us wondering what the future will hold for this service. It is time for the government to properly budget for the service to ensure that the small amount of money that goes into it from government, and leads to so many volunteers jumping on the end of the phone to help mothers with breastfeeding, is not cut. June next year will come around pretty quickly and the Turnbull government must stop this callous cut and ensure there is long-term funding. The shadow minister for health was right onto this issue. All of us on this side of the House know that she will continue to pursue this very important issue until the government finally acknowledges that the cuts—and this is one example of many health cuts—will have adverse effects out there in the community. We have also seen many, many more cuts in health. The other cut in the midyear fiscal update was the very significant cut made to pathology and diagnostic services. Slashing bulk-billing for diagnostic imaging and pathology, as well as cuts to crucial workforce training programs, is a significant concern. It also shows, as I said at the beginning, that budgets are about priorities. By slashing bulk-billing for these types of services the government shows that it has no understanding of preventive health care. Not only have they cut significant amounts of money from preventive health care in their previous budgets, but this measure also means that there could well be financial disincentives for women to get Pap smears and for cancer sufferers to get check-ups. This is what this government does not seem to understand: preventive health care actually saves the budget money, because if people are not getting sick it costs a lot less. This is the type of thinking that we never saw from the previous Prime Minister. We never saw any attempt to understand that investing in preventive health care, by preventing people from getting sicker and sicker, is actually good for the budget. It is not just good for health—of course it is that—and good for communities; it is good for the budget. Unfortunately, there is a $650 million cut in MYEFO. This is a very short-sighted decision that will mean that there will be those who fall through the cracks. We saw this type of user-pays attitude constantly from those opposite. If you can afford health care you can get the best health care possible. If you cannot—if you are of modest means and cannot afford to pay these gaps—then bad luck. This is disappointing, but it is not surprising. The Prime Minister has tried to suggest that he is a different type of Prime Minister, but MYEFO shows the truth. It shows that this Prime Minister is no different to the previous Prime Minister when it comes to cutting essential health services. I will get to education. There are so many cruel cuts that are short-sighted for our nation. Take the higher education cuts. When the Prime Minister became Prime Minister I think there was hope in the community that he would walk away from the savage 20 per cent cuts to our universities. But MYEFO clearly demonstrates that those 20 per cent cuts are still on the table. It is still a priority for this government to cut our universities. Twenty per cent is such a significant amount. The education minister has indicated that deregulation is still on the agenda. That means $100,000 degrees. I am incredibly surprised that we have seen member after member in this place come up and defend $100,000 degrees. It is disappointing, especially, that those in the Nationals, who often represent students in rural and regional areas that have found it more difficult to access higher education, have not been stamping their feet and sending a clear message about these cuts, which will disproportionately affect rural and regional universities that do not have the philanthropic support that other universities have. But they have not said boo. Once again, it is disappointing but not surprising that this Prime Minister and this new education minister are absolutely committed to these cuts, not only to our universities but to our schools. Schools, as well as higher education, will be an important debating point at the next election. There will be a clear difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to education. In MYEFO, the midyear update, we saw clearly once again that the Liberal Party is committed to ripping $30 billion out of our schools. Of course the Prime Minister tried to allay fears around this and tried to pretend that he was not really going to do it by announcing that he was good friends with Mr David Gonski and that somehow he understood what was happening in our schools. He needs to actually show that he understands the work that Mr Gonski did. The work that Mr Gonski did clearly demonstrated that to lift attainment right across the country we need a needs-based funding model, a model that is not historic, unchanged since the seventies and not transparent. Instead, he made it very clear that a needs-based funding model would ensure that we can lift attainment right across the country. Once again, there was silence from the National Party. This needs-based funding model would be about ensuring that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and from rural and regional areas, Indigenous students and students with a disability got extra resources to ensure that they could succeed as well. The Nationals pretend to be a party of rural and regional people, but when they do not stand up for rural and regional higher education opportunities, rural and regional schools or access to rural and regional health care, you wonder what they actually stand up for in terms of rural and regional communities. I think a lot of communities out there would be scratching their heads and saying, 'Why do you want to rip this money out of our schools?' The education minister, quite soon after MYEFO was released—he thought it was a quiet period and no-one would notice—did acknowledge that the government was committed to $30 billion worth of cuts to schools. Quite frankly, this election will be about trust. We hear the Prime Minister talking about trust a lot. Well, there was a party that went to the election and said that they would match Labor's schools funding dollar for dollar. That was the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Then they got into government and they cut it. They also said they would not change the funding arrangements for universities. Then they got into government and cut it. It does not matter whether it was the previous Prime Minister or the current Prime Minister, the budget is clear and the budget update is clear. There is a commitment to gutting our health care, gutting our higher education system and gutting our school system. It is time that the Prime Minister listened to the Australian people and actually stopped these cruel cuts that will not deliver to the Australian people. But I do not have a lot of hope. There will be an election sometime this year, and the choice will be clear: Labor stands up for health and education. 18:15 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. Before I proceed with that, I just want to correct the record. A bit of scuttlebutt has been spread by those on the other side about the so-called cuts to education. Cuts mean that you would be getting less next year from what you were getting this year. That is so far from the truth. We in the coalition are committed to improving teacher quality—that is the first and most important thing; everyone remembers their great teachers—and supporting school autonomy. When schools are in charge of their own qualities and standards, things get better. Engaging parents in education is the important thing that is forgotten. Enhancing parental engagement equates with better student outcomes. We are committed to improving the curriculum and literacy testing of teacher graduates. As you know from the press, these have been documented to be sorely lacking. Also, we have a commitment to more language being taught in our schools. Down to tin tacks of funding, what has happened since we were given responsibility of governing the country at the 2013 election? Across New South Wales, my state, there has been a 25.4 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding to schools. What the former member, the member for Kingston, was alluding to were hypothetical reductions in blue-sky forward estimates well beyond any budget forward estimates. There will be increases. There is no cut to the quantum of funds. What is going into New South Wales schools has been established, and it will grow by CPI and population growth. So that is not a cut. But I just think we need to put on the record the truth on this matter. It is really quite scurrilous that the members of the opposition keep talking about hypothetical cuts, or calling them 'cuts', whereas, really, they are increases—just not unrealistic, unfunded, blue-sky, promised increases. We are delivering real money—money that has increased 25.4 per cent—to New South Wales schools, including schools in my electorate of Lyne, during this period of the Abbott-Truss government and now the Turnbull-Joyce government. Getting back to the appropriation bills, these two bills facilitate special transfers of funds to fund, first of all, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for a very important program well known to everyone in regional Australia—that is, the Roads to Recovery Program. A signature National Party initiative from over a decade ago, it has delivered the goods across the country both in metro and, particularly, regional areas. There is $385 million appropriated to give additional funding to Roads to Recovery. That means that, in the Lyne electorate, they are now getting $7½ million in the Manning. That is almost a 300 per cent increase from what they were getting under Roads to Recovery before we came into the responsibility of Treasury and of managing the government in 2013. For Port Macquarie-Hastings, there is $11.4 million over 2014-18 now allocated to Roads to Recovery. Again, that is almost a 300 per cent increase. Secondly, the appropriations bills allow the Department of Health to receive $125 million for capital to establish and deliver the Biomedical Translation Fund. This is all part of a manifestation of the Medical Research Future Fund. Translation funding is when you get raw science and you translate it into a therapeutic application. A lot of this development of medical and biomedical intellectual property requires more research. This will be really well used, because we have such good researchers in this country. They have a track record of delivering on funds in this space—way above their weight. We develop so many medical technologies and do really important research. We are renowned around the world as being really high-class researchers. This money will put that research into a real treatment. Lastly, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides $74 million to bring into action our single-touch payroll reporting system to make it easier for people to interact with the Australian Taxation Office. It also allows the Australian Taxation Office much greater data and analytics infrastructure. There are also funds to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection—of just over $447 million. As you know, the coalition government is committed to strong borders and maintaining control of our immigration program, unlike the disaster befalling Europe. The social services portfolio also has funds allocated—just over $277 million. The Department of Social Services will get $102 million of that to provide settlement services to over 12,000 refugees from that horrible conflict in Syria, Jordan and nearby Turkey in the Middle East. There are many refugees who cannot go anywhere and cannot go back, and we are choosing those families and people who will never be able to go back into that homeland of theirs, because they are threatened by ISIL. That department will also receive $11 million for addressing welfare reliance in remote communities, which is a big problem. It is something that has to be addressed, because being on welfare for generations or for the duration of young, working-age adults' lives is soul-destroying and, if we can get programs through the department that address that, it will be great. It will also allow $186 million to go to the Department of Defence to cope with all the extra transport, logistics and exchange movements that have been so prominent in the recent two years with the conflict in the Middle East. Everyone is now aware of many of these appropriations, but I want to highlight to the House some of the other appropriations and what they have delivered in the Lyne electorate. First and foremost, the biggest infrastructure project in the country, the upgrade of the Pacific Highway, started at the Sancrox interchange outside Port Macquarie. I was very pleased to have fought for this since 2010. That $30 million project will facilitate and is critical in developing the employment precinct and industrial lands on the outskirts of Port Macquarie just adjacent to the Pacific Highway. The construction of the Pacific Highway is happening at the same time, and this Sancrox interchange project has delivered almost 1,000 direct jobs during this phase and 2,900 indirect jobs as a result of the project. There are 37 kilometres of dual-lane highway. There are about 56 bridges across several rivers and creeks. It is a massive undertaking and it is part of a $7 billion program that will duplicate the Pacific Highway all the way to the Queensland border by as soon as 2020. Work in the 37 kilometres in the Lyne electorate will, if all goes well, be there a year earlier. There are many other achievements in the Lyne electorate during the first 2½ years of responsibility being given to me by the people of the Lyne electorate, and I want to put them on the record. We have got funds for schools, medical centres, roads and bridges in both the north and the south of the electorate. We have got extra aged-care funding. We have got extra funding for water supplies. We have got disability funding. We have had many projects that I campaigned for that have been delivered, and I will document some of them. In the first instance, 25 local schools have had grants for the local Sporting Schools program. There have been an extra 252 disability places funded in the Hastings. As I mentioned, councils have had an increase in their federal financial assistance grants, and in the Hastings-Port Macquarie region that amounts to $43½ million over the four years. That includes the $11.5 million for Roads to Recovery that I mentioned earlier. We have had Green Army teams delivered. We have had bridges such as Potts Bridge on Comboyne Road. Two bridges down at Kendall were announced. We have had federal aged-care funding increased from $90 million up to $105 million across the Manning and the Hastings valleys. We have got many black spots for mobile phone telephony in the electorate but we secured for the Lyne electorate $3.5 million for black spot funding in the Manning and the upper Hastings. We have had environmental works done with Green Army teams and Landcare funding in both the Hastings and the Port Macquarie precinct. We have had Work for the Dole projects roll out. We have had expansion funding for Newman Senior Technical College. Wauchope District Memorial Hospital's palliative care unit completed its funding. We have had school funding for St Columba Anglican School, Heritage Christian School and St Paul's High School. So it is really rolling out infrastructure in the northern part of the electorate. In terms of the previous member's contribution about cuts to health: we have had a plethora—almost $1 million—of funds into medical centres to allow for expansion and delivery of better services at local GPs. It has been so hard to get into a GP in these country towns, but these infrastructure grants will allow existing practices to expand and deliver more hands-on care. We have delivered the goods for Port Macquarie Surf Life Saving Club, which has done a really great job with the almost $100,000 they were granted. The tennis court upgrade likewise has been delivered. The Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Centre Town Clinic has also had a contract which over the forward estimates will deliver $8½ million towards health care. So comments about cutting education and health are absolutely incorrect. We have delivered the goods in the Lyne electorate. Down in the Manning the record of achievement is even greater. Sporting Schools grants I have mentioned. We have got $37½ million allocated to the Greater Taree City Council, a council that needs this sort of funding. It is untied, but it has also had over $7 million in Roads to Recovery which is tied to roads. We have had bridges at Dyers Crossing and Dickinson Bridge built. We have had the Gloucester Road upgrade. We have had the Bucketts Way delivered. There have been so many long-term infrastructure improvements. We have had three Green Army projects. We have had increases in the NBN rollout; that is another issue that I need to highlight. When I was given the responsibility of representing Lyne there were areas in the north that were not even mentioned in the rollout plan for 10 years. Fortunately, they are moving through to Camden Haven and into the outskirts of Port Macquarie in the rollout planned for this year. And we just announced two huge new towers to deliver NBN services near Coopernook and over into Harrington and Moorland. We have had Work for the Dole, as I mentioned. Biripi medical centre has also have expansion funds. We have had black spots for roads as well in the Manning—$2.5 million. All these appropriations are really significant. I have not been exhaustive, because there are just too many little ones to mention. The community grants that we are rolling out will also deliver the goods. I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired) 18:30 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to talk to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016. At the outset, I want to acknowledge a number of things. Firstly, we are going to be supporting these appropriation bills which combined appropriate an additional $2.2 billion for the 2015-16 financial year. They will reflect measures in the 2015-16 MYEFO, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, as well as machinery-of-government changes resulting from the leadership change last year. MYEFO was released December 15 last year. We are not in the business of blocking the measures in that bill. It has really been the track record of those opposite that they have engaged in that type of behaviour. We are not in the business of blocking supply, and that is why we intend to support the bill. Having said that, it is important to note MYEFO continues a tradition that has been established from the very first MYEFO that this new government—the Abbott government and now the Turnbull government—delivered. They have both maintained a consistency. The consistency has been for MYEFO to deliver cut after cut after cut. The last MYEFO was pretty much the same. Across a range of areas—be it aged care, workforce development initiatives, healthcare—you could see cut after cut after cut. Also the new Turnbull government is still carrying over the type of things that the Abbott government wanted to do—in particular, there is no walking away from the GP tax; there is no walking away from $100,000 university degrees. All these things have been tucked away, as if they were in suspended animation, ready to come out whenever the government thinks it can get away with it. Judging by the debate that is happening in the other place on electoral reform, I suspect that somewhere down the track you are going to see all these nasties—that we were able to stop through the combined forces in the other place; blocking those types of measures that would have hurt Australian families—resurrected once the coalition is able to. As a result of its engineering of these new electoral reforms, I imagine you will see all these things being brought to life and imposed on the Australian people at some later date. The types of cuts that are still embedded within that last MYEFO are still being brought to us here today. MYEFO itself is being brought down in the context of an economy that is still growing below trend. It has had to be adjusted as a result of population growth, or lack thereof. We still see as well a government that was elected on a mantra of tackling debts and deficits. Their record in that department is terrible. Last MYEFO, the cornerstone of these appropriation bills, blew the deficit out by $26 billion over the forwards. It was a blow-out of $120 million a day between the 2015-16 budget and the 2015-16 MYEFO. As I said, before the election the coalition thought that debt and deficits were the signature test for economic leadership. On that basis, when you look at their track record, they have failed their own test. Net debt for 2016-17 is nearly $100 billion higher than forecast in the 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Gross debt is headed towards $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates. Again, it is worth noting that the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook is prepared independently—it is prepared by the secretaries of Treasury and Finance during the election period—and it had the budget returning to surplus at the end of the forward estimates period. The budget that was brought down by the Abbott government—and now we expect in the next 10 weeks another budget to be delivered by the Turnbull government—did not forecast a return to surplus until 2020-21, and that would be largely off the back of bracket creep. So most of the work of returning the budget to surplus is due to just that: bracket creep. And, if the Treasurer gets his way and is able to prevent bracket creep occurring, it is entirely possible that we could see the surplus go off into the future yet again. I made reference to the fact that the broader economy is not performing in the way that many would expect or anticipate or desire. It is growing below trend, and that is something that the RBA has been pointing out for quite some time—I sit on the standing committee on economics. The economy has been growing below trend, and the RBA does not expect it to move much further into the future. There are some other disturbing signs as well. If you look at last week, wages in this country are continuing to grow at some of the lowest levels—as they have for quite some time—we have seen since records began. This makes it harder for families to anticipate if they will be able to cover a big bill with the savings they have; they cannot bank on a wage increase or a healthier salary, because when you look at wages growth it is just not moving that fast. What is also important to note—and I took heed of the shadow Assistant Treasurer's contribution in this debate where he highlighted an important statistic—is that net disposable income per capita has been falling for six consecutive quarters. This is of great concern, because it is obviously a reflection of what people will be feeling out there beyond this chamber when they are thinking about meeting the needs of their families, paying the bills or being able to fund the types of things that they would like to do. So, it is serious that this statistic has been falling in all of those quarters. Real living standards, as a result, have gone down two per cent since the coalition came to office, and it would not have been helped by the 2014 budget hacking into the type of support that families, the general community and those people in need are accustomed to and require. They certainly would face the same types of pressures as a result of the 2015 budget and the cuts that have been continued in MYEFO. Again, these are serious issues that are impacting on people, particularly from the electorate that I am proud to represent in this place—from Western Sydney and the seat of Chifley. MYEFO, as I mentioned before, continues a tradition that has been set by this government. The tradition has been to cut, cut, cut. The first MYEFO that Chifley residents had to confront was the one for 2013-14, delivered in December 2013. It had a particularly nasty cut in it. Back then we had, earlier in the year, finally secured the green light for funding for an important healthcare project. Health care, for me, is one of the key priorities for the Chifley electorate. People in our electorate should be able to anticipate access to healthcare services that are as good as any in the Sydney area. They have had to contend with a lot, where investment has not kept pace with growth in our area. A number of people, rightly, expect better. It has been one of the areas that, since I have had the honour of being elected into this place, I have pursued—in particular, trying to find sources of investment support to be able to secure new equipment for Mount Druitt Hospital. I have fought for some time for us to be able to get an MRI in Mount Druitt Hospital. After a long campaign, we secured thousands of signatures. We eventually got the funding for that, and in that first MYEFO that the Abbott government brought down, in December 2013, they callously cut away the funding that would have provided that vital equipment for our area. It was a shameful act by a new government that had said they would not be making cuts to health care, and their first signature economic decision in that MYEFO statement was to do that. They were also joined, in this zeal for cutting, by the Baird government. Through the funding cuts of the state Liberal government, New South Wales saw, in an area that is affected by heart disease, the closure of a cardiac ward at Mount Druitt Hospital. It is shameless that in an area of high need they could cut those vital services to people. People basically saw a downgrade of healthcare services in our area from a federal government and a state Liberal government working in tandem to cut the support required. Remarkably, out of the blue, the Baird government, going into an election last year, announced—lo and behold, after cutting funding, after cutting services to Mount Druitt Hospital—that they would put in place an MRI. Bear in mind that they had to contend with the $80 billion of cuts to schools and hospitals that were triggered by the 2014 Abbott budget, but in that climate they said that they would fund an MRI for Mount Druitt Hospital. Putting aside the politics, I was happy to see that occur, because the Baird government had had a dismal record in terms of healthcare funding, but if they were going to put that equipment in, so be it. We will never turn away that type of support. However, while they were quick to make that commitment to fund the MRI, they have been slow to actually honour it. We have seen them dragging their feet in honouring the commitment. My friend and colleague at the state level, the member for Mount Druitt, Mr Edmond Atalla, has asked them on a number of occasions for answers as to when we can expect to see the MRI at Mount Druitt Hospital. He had asked in May whether the New South Wales minister could provide a timetable for various upgrades at Mount Druitt, including the new MRI machine. The minister answered: 'The project planning for Blacktown Mount Druitt Hospital stage 2 is currently underway.' That was it—no indication. A few months later, in August, he asked again: When will Mount Druitt Hospital receive an MRI machine as announced by the Government during the pre-election campaign? The answer: I am advised that: The Government announced a $400 million commitment towards Stage 2 of the Blacktown and Mount Druitt hospitals expansion. This follows the $312 million Stage 1 redevelopment. The Stage 2 redevelopment includes a new MRI machine for Mount Druitt Hospital. There was no answer as to when. They make the promise in the lead-up to the election but do not follow through whatsoever. This is, quite frankly, an outrageous delay that is being foisted on the people of Mount Druitt, and they should not tolerate it. As I have said, they have already had to contend with a massive cut to future healthcare spending by the Abbott government, maintained by the Turnbull government, seeing cuts through MYEFO, and we have seen further cuts in the last one. We have now seen the state government, in a grab for votes, make a commitment and not follow through more than a year since that commitment was made. The people of Mount Druitt should not be forced to wait. Labor in government made big investments in Mount Druitt Hospital. I am pleased to see the shadow minister at the table. When he was a parliamentary secretary he visited Mount Druitt Hospital and announced investment in palliative care at the hospital, which we were very grateful for, and the assignment of extra funding for modern CAT scanners and also extra subacute beds at the hospital, which people were very grateful for. Labor in government had a track record of investing in health care in our area, and from the federal and state jurisdictions we have seen nothing but cuts. This agenda is continually maintained by the types of documents that, as I said, are the cornerstone of this appropriation bill today. So I am calling on the Baird government to finally stump up, to stop trying to get the cheap headlines, to deliver for the people that you said you would and to put that MRI machine in Mount Druitt Hospital. The people of our area, as I said, deserve to have access to health care as good as any within the Sydney metropolitan region, and they have been denied that. We need to stand up to fight for that, not only at the state level but, as I said, the federal one as well, where we are committed to taking on this government, which might be in a different form, in a different guise, but is still maintaining the same type of philosophy that the Abbott government started with, which was to break the election promise not to touch health care, to fail to deliver. We are certainly not going to sit idly by and see continued cuts affecting, particularly, the people of Western Sydney. 18:45 Dr STONE EM6 Murray I wish to talk about a very important human right globally, and that is women's and families' right to control their own fertility. In the early 1950s a group of women and men started to campaign strongly for women's rights to plan their own families. Family planning as a human right challenged many social conventions and religious and cultural ideas of the time. Campaigners faced great hostility to gain acceptance of things that we take for granted today. Some people were imprisoned, but they emerged determined to work with different cultures, traditions, laws and religious attitudes to improve the lives of women and families around the world. At the 3rd International Conference on Planned Parenthood in 1952, eight national family planning associations founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the IPPF. I am very pleased to say that, tomorrow in parliament, we will have the IPPF briefing us on their new focus in our region, which is the need for reproductive health services in times of humanitarian crisis. I am very pleased to say that Australia is one of the major partners in the work of the IPPF in this regard. Sixty years since 1952, the IPPF is a charity of 152 member associations working in 172 countries. The IPPF run 65,000 service points worldwide. In 2011 these facilities delivered over 89 million sexual and reproductive health services. The IPPF's vision is for a world in which all women, men and young people have access to the sexual and reproductive health information and services they want and need. As I say, tomorrow we will have the Australian chapter of the IPPF in this parliament, and Mr Tewodros Melesse, the director, who is of Ethiopian background but is an Australian permanent resident, will be here to brief us on the work the IPPF now undertakes in our region, particularly in response to humanitarian disasters. Let us look at the work of the IPPF. They particularly focus on contraception, including the use of temporary, long-term or permanent methods to prevent pregnancy. Of course, in their promotion of condoms they also want to ensure communities understand the protection that condoms provide for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. The IPPF's work also focuses on women's health, given the great inequalities globally that relate to women's sexual and reproductive health and rights. In some countries, particularly underdeveloped countries in our region, as many as one in seven women will die after becoming pregnant, or when they give birth to their children. Sexual rights are basic human rights but, around the world, they are denied to women, particularly, through violence, abuse and coercion, and through criminalisation and discrimination. Over 40 per cent of the IPPF's resources are devoted to addressing the needs of young people. Under 25s account for 50 per cent of new HIV infections, and girls and young women are the most vulnerable group. Too many impoverished women and girls are trafficked into the sex industry, particularly in our region, and the numbers are growing. At global, regional and national levels, IPPF advocates to persuade governments and decision makers to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights in their populations, to change policy and legislation and to fund programs and service delivery. Increasingly, we are seeing women and girls as the majority of victims of humanitarian crises. Whether these crises come about through natural disasters or conflict, they present acute sexual and reproductive health challenges. Nine out of 10 of the countries worst affected by poor sexual and reproductive health are in fact in a state of humanitarian crisis. IPPF is also at the forefront of efforts to ensure that a comprehensive response to HIV is located within the broader sexual and reproductive health framework. The Global Fund was in parliament today, and I was pleased to chair our forum with them—very well attended by members and senators, I am pleased to say. We heard from Dr Dybul that one of the serious outcomes of gender based violence, whether in our regional or globally, is that women are more likely to become infected with HIV. That is a tragic circumstance, where intimate partner violence is more likely to lead to those women contracting HIV. Until we have gender based equality, individuals face barriers deciding if, when and with whom to have sex; whether or not to use contraception; if, when and how many children to have; and how to seek health care. Too many women, in particular, are denied access or choices in those matters because of their lack of empowerment and equality. Every year 47,000 women die due to unsafe abortions. It is one of the three leading causes of maternal mortality globally. IPPF supports a woman's right to choose and to access safe abortion services. IPPF has now initiated a program called SPRINT. I am pleased that Australia is one of the key partners and donors to this SPRINT program, which is about sexual and reproductive health services provided in crisis and post-crisis situations. The aim of the SPRINT program is to increase, for women and families, access to sexual and reproductive health services; to improve the capacity of health professionals; and to provide better information in communities in humanitarian crisis in the Asia-Pacific, South Asia and Africa regions. We in Australia sometimes take our own great access to reproductive health services for granted. We believe that if it is easy for us to access services it must be comparatively simple for our near neighbours. Tragically, we are a region which is subject both to more frequent natural disasters—most recently in Fiji and to our north—and we are seeing a great deal of humanitarian crisis associated with conflict. SPRINT has supported the training of over 4,000 humanitarian health worker policy and decision makers from 81 countries across the Asia-Pacific, South Asia and Africa regions. These trainees then work to coordinate the implementation of sexual and reproductive health services in natural disasters including: in the Solomon Islands when there were floods; in Afghanistan after the landslides; in Pakistan in the Sindh Arid Zone drought; in TemotuIsland, where there was a tsunami and earthquake; in Baluchistan, where there were earthquakes; in Kenya, when there were floods; in Uganda, when there was conflict and refugees were fleeing; in Indonesia, following the earthquakes; in the Philippines, following Typhoon Haikui, Typhoon Bopha, Tropical Storm Trami, the Zamboanga conflict and Typhon Haiyan; in Ethiopia, where there was drought and food insecurity; and in Kenya, when there was drought and food insecurity. All of these were in very recent times and in our region. Australia is helping to fund SPRINT to train both local peoples and volunteers to be able to implement sexual and reproductive services to the victims of these disasters. The program has been made to integrate sexual and reproductive health with international health emergency management systems in several countries around the Asia-Pacific, in particular in the Philippines. SPRINT partners include the UNFPA and the FPOP. They are working to integrate the Minimum Initial Service Package, or MISP, into the country's Magna Carta for Women, and a landmark reproductive health bill—this is in the Philippines and we commend the Philippines for taking these measures, given they are so often subject to natural disasters as well as conflict within their borders. During the first year and a half SPRINT reached more than 140,000 targeted victims and provided life saving sexual reproductive health assistance to more than 60,000 people—30,000 were women and girls in natural disasters and conflict areas across three regions. I am also very pleased to say that we have had a great deal of cooperation with the University of New South Wales. It has launched a research team to conduct in-depth monitoring and evaluation of SPRINT's activities and it has contributed to the body of evidence on sexual and reproductive health needs in emergencies. The work has enabled SPRINT to improve its strategies, programs and curriculum. ARHA and SPRINT held a joint Australian parliamentary tour to the Philippines and the Thai-Myanmar border, a little time ago, to highlight the need for sexual and reproductive health services in crisis and post crisis situations. There is great collaboration between the IPPF and the Australian government, which is a major donor and contributor to them, and also with ASEAN, the IFRC, the UNHCR, the UNFPA, the UNAIDS, the WHO, the Regional Inter-Agency Standing Committee, the Asia Pacific Emergency and Disaster Nursing Network and the Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crisis. All of those agencies are key and critical in terms of helping with funding, training, capacity building and they need coordination. The IPPF is in the driver's seat to make sure that for the victims of these humanitarian crises—whether they are natural or conflict created—that coordination is there and it is working. SPRINT also provides funding to support sexual and reproductive health responses in acute and protracted humanitarian emergencies across places—I have mentioned the Philippines, but they are also in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Ethiopia, Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire and the Solomon Islands. I am very pleased and proud that Australia is one of the key supporters of this special SPRINT program, which is part of the International Planned Parenthood Federation work. I know we will continue to be a major supporter of the sexual and reproductive health needs and programs for people in crisis and in post-crisis situations. Sadly we currently seem to have more humanitarian crises associated with conflict in the globe than ever before, and the victims in those conflicts are increasingly women and children. Too often we overlook the most basic needs of the women in those circumstances, which is the attention they need for their reproductive health. It is very often a case of rape, of forced intercourse, in child marriages and child pregnancies. I know we all are horrified with the policies and the behaviour of ISIL as it prosecutes its terrorist acts and war in places like Syria and Iraq. Australia understands those crises and understands the sexual and reproductive health needs of women trapped in those circumstances. We will always be at the forefront in offering special support. I commend the work of the IPPF. I look forward to chairing their forum tomorrow in this place. I am also so pleased that Australian aid has long been associated with supporting women and children, with some 80 per cent of our total Australian aid budget committed to programs and projects which have an empowering outcome for women and girls, particularly in our Indo-Asia Pacific region. 18:58 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Victoria is being cheated by the Prime Minister and the government, who are undermining possibilities for public transport in Melbourne by refusing to fund promised support for Melbourne Metro. Federally, Victoria has only received eight per cent of infrastructure money—getting $91 per head as compared with $230 per head for New South Wales. Thirty-five per cent of all immigrants coming to Australia are pouring into Melbourne and we have net migration now from other states. Melbourne will become a city of four million people and it needs rapid expansion of its public infrastructure. We can handle the population growth, as Australia expects us to, but we need the correct proportion of funds to fund public transport so people can move around the city. Worse, until recently the hypocritical Liberal Party were voting with the Greens in the Victorian upper house to prevent the sale of the Port of Melbourne. Ideologically the Liberal Party talk about being in favour of privatisation, but as soon as they get the opportunity they vote with the Greens in the Victorian upper house to prevent the Victorian government having the money to partially fund this themselves. The Prime Minister says that this nation will grow through investment in infrastructure but he has yet to commit funding to any new projects since taking over. Melbourne Metro now has a business case showing its economic merits. The Victorian government has committed $4.5 billion of its own funds, but despite all of this the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister, is refusing to match the funds. Victoria may now have to go it alone, paying the $10.9 billion that the project will take that will integrate trams and trains, put a lot of the trains underground in the inner city and connect the outer services with level crossings, et cetera. All of these are absolutely necessary in a growing city of four million people. We have seen pictures of our Sydney Prime Minister crouching down outside the Melbourne Club, taking selfies of himself on trains and trams—but, selfies aside, as Australians, as Victorians and as Melburnians, we want someone to actually fund public transport, not just take pictures of themselves. The Melbourne City Loop is at full capacity at peak hour. There is no room for more trains. The trains are severely overcrowded—something you do not see in the Prime Minister's selfies. Some of the trains have a capacity of 800 and yet 1,200 people are cramming into them, Tokyo style. There has been a 70 per cent increase in people catching trains in Victoria in the past decade—40 per cent over the past five years. That is why Infrastructure Australia had a business case for Melbourne Metro ready years ago and has released a new one. Yesterday the Premier of Victoria, Dan Andrews, wrote to the Prime Minister asking that $4.5 billion in funds be given to the state government in order to proceed with the project. Mr Andrews made the reasonable point that Victorians pay taxes to the federal government and they should be returned in infrastructure. In early February, the member for Grayndler stood with me at the Domain interchange, where the trams and the trains meet each other opposite the shrine, and reaffirmed that Melbourne Metro will be Labor's first priority for infrastructure in Victoria when a Shorten Labor government is elected at the forthcoming election. Mr Albanese said: 'If you leave public transport infrastructure just to the market, you won't get a good outcome. You need a government that is willing to deliver it.' I ask this government why Victoria is being so unfairly treated when such funding is clearly needed for one of Australia's largest and most needed infrastructure projects. On another topic of appropriations, on 16 January our Minister for Foreign Affairs suspended sanctions against Iran and against certain individuals and entities. Although accompanied by a statement, these sanctions were essentially suspended through a backdoor process. There was no ministerial statement from the floor of this House and no debate. The opposition has been calling on the foreign minister to debate her policy for months. Every Monday during November and December we demanded that this government come into the House and explain the process of dropping sanctions. Surely a substantial step like this warrants a debate in this House. We had many debates when we put sanctions on; it is a disgrace that this House—unlike many other democratic assemblies around the world—has been unable to debate these issues. Members of the coalition have expressed to me in private their discomfort about the foreign minister's apparent infatuation with Iran. I will list here, for the public record, issues that Ms Bishop needs to defend in public with regard to Iran. The first issue is her announcement in April last year—before the nuclear deal was even signed, much less implemented—that she was negotiating an intelligence sharing arrangement with Iran. Just this week, we read in the Manila Times that Saudi Arabia has tipped off three governments—Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand—that members of the Iranian revolutionary guards were in advanced stages of planning bomb attacks or hijackings of Saudi passenger planes over South-East Asia. The foreign minister knows as well as we all do that many Australians were aboard MH17 when it was shot down by Russian-backed rebels. A plane going down over South-East Asia, shot down by this country's apparent new allies, could easily have plenty of Australians aboard. Not that it should matter if Australians were aboard; any nation that threatens attacks against commercial passenger aircraft is clearly an inappropriate one for us to have such a close relationship with. The second issue is that the foreign minister quite rightly condemned ballistic missile tests by North Korea in the last few weeks. I remind the House that Iran had ballistic missile tests on 10 October and 17 December last year which were in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929. There was not a word, not a peep out of the foreign minister. Yes, there should be condemnation of North Korea but equally there should have been something said—even by people who go along with this Iranian deal—about these Iranian ballistic missile tests. The third issue is her statement in June last year that Iranian and Russian involvement in Syria should be seen as a positive, given that they, along with Hezbollah and Syrian forces, are now besieging and shelling 300,000 civilians in Aleppo. I constantly interject on the foreign minister during question time and ask her how the bombing of Aleppo is going. She does not respond, but it is totally inappropriate to support Iran besieging the second-biggest Sunni town in Syria, to have Shiite forces in that part of Iran. Again, the Australian government should be saying something about it. The fourth issue is: last year she floated the idea of Iranian consulates in Sydney and Melbourne, giving Iran a diplomatic presence as it has had in Argentina and Thailand where they have organised terrorist attacks—particularly in Argentina where 88 members of the Jewish community were killed. On the fifth issue, I would ask the foreign minister why she would consult with Iran ahead of Australia bombing Daesh targets in Syria, given that Iran is part of the problem in Syria, not part of the solution. The sixth issue, most pertinent to the issue of sanctions, is the apparent lack of scrutiny that has gone into the 144 entities from which she removed designation in January which would assure the Australian public that none of them have institutional relationships with the Iranian revolutionary guards or that dual purpose use could be used in military activities. The foreign minister may not like me or the ads that I have been putting in The Australian Financial Review questioning her policies. She may not like my campaign to have her front up in this parliament. She can ban me from events, as she did yesterday when I was the designated representative with the Estonian and Finnish foreign ministers, but she cannot avoid the spotlight for much longer. We are not going to let this issue die. The opposition is going to see that this issue is brought up at other venues, perhaps in another place, and the foreign minister will have to answer to the public there. Let me turn to the issue of live exports and animal cruelty. In 2011, the then Labor government worked with farmers and industry to establish the Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, ESCAS, forcing exporters to show that they have a plan to treat Australian live exports humanely, and providing a monitoring and auditing system all the way from the port to the abattoir. On top of ESCAS, Labor established the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to provide relevant advice on standards and practices, and proposed establishing an independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports to scrutinise the industry to ensure that the sorts of incidents we have seen many times on TV, the horrific treatment of Australian animals that have been exported, do not re-occur. I am a supporter, like the opposition, of the Australian live export industry. I think it can perform a valuable role for Australia in foreign exchange earnings, but the animals do not have to be brutalised or mistreated. Unfortunately, just a month after the coalition formed government, the new agricultural minister who is now doubling as Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, scrapped the committee and binned the Inspector-General proposal. Mr Joyce's disappointing explanation was, 'This is one bit of red tape we can do without.' In his brutalist logic, he said: 'We all need to be realistic about the fact that livestock are raised for food.' Well, they are but Australia can do better than that. Now, the Deputy Prime Minister is talking of watering down ESCAS. A strong regulatory system is good for animal welfare, it is good for farmers and it is good exporters. The humane treatment of animals is compatible with maintaining a sustainable agriculture sector in this country. Indeed, the red tape that the minister simplistically described, helps project Australia's image as a clean, green agricultural exporter. Animal welfare is more than just red tape. The proper treatment of export livestock should be a standard to which any self-respecting government should strive. Indeed, the enlightened self-interest of the industry is that there be adequate regulations and that they be enforced. It is this same principle that has seen Labor announce just this week the introduction to parliament of legislation that will ban the sale or import of new cosmetics that have ingredients that have been tested on animals. Exporting livestock accounts for close to $1 billion of Australia's economic output. Tens of thousands of jobs rely entirely on this industry. Labor has consistently been a strong supporter of sustaining and fostering Australia's reputable agricultural sector, and it is in this light that our reputation will hang or fall, depending on the treatment of livestock in global exports. Again, the government had better watch this space because the opposition is going take this to the public all around the country, as I am doing next week with shadow agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon and Clare O'Neil, to public forums on this issue where the very many people who are interested in the humane treatment of animals can express their opinions. And we will explain to them the differences between the opposition's views and that of the unnecessary brutality and cruelty we have heard from some in this government. The attitude of the current government highlights how disconnected the Liberal National coalition is with the Australian people. People in my electorate and right across Australia have made it abundantly clear that animal cruelty should be stamped out. I, and the Labor Party, will continue to fight any Turnbull government plans to wind back the instruments of animal welfare protection, and we will re-introduce the Inspector-General when we get back into government. 19:11 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro In my role as Assistant Minister for Finance, I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These additional estimates appropriation bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. I would like to highlight six areas relating to the delivery of the government's commitments that are supported by these bills. First, these bills would provide the Department of Immigration and Border Protection with just over $447 million. This reflects additional funding for enhancing the management of the onshore immigration detention network, further support for refugee resettlement arrangements and additional support for the accommodation and processing of asylum seekers. The Social Services portfolio would receive just over $277 million. The Department of Social Services would receive just over $102 million, primarily to provide support services to resettle an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The National Disability Insurance Agency would receive just over $108 million for the transition to the full National Disability Insurance Scheme, as agreed with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The Department of Human Services would also receive just over $11 million for addressing welfare reliance in remote communities program, which will provide increased incentives for job seekers to work and to strengthen the mutual obligation framework in Community Development Program regions. The Department of Defence would receive just over $186 million, largely reflecting supplementation for foreign exchange movements and the net effect of the reallocation of funds between operating and capital costs. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development would receive just over $385 million reflecting, primarily, additional funding for the Roads to Recovery program to help local government and councils maintain Australia's roads. The Department of Health would receive $125 million to be used as capital by the Biomedical Translation Fund following its establishment. The fund will be used to invest in promising medical discoveries and will complement the Medical Research Future Fund through the commercialisation of health and medical research. Finally, the Australian Taxation Office would receive just over $74 million, largely for implementing single-touch payroll reporting and for improvements to data and analytics infrastructure. The total of the appropriations being sought through these two appropriation bills is just over $2.2 billion. Once again, I thank all members for their contribution and commend these two bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 71 19:15 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016 71

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016

Second Reading 71 Third Reading 72 19:16 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016 72

Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016

Second Reading 72 19:16 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. Labor is supporting this legislation. It is essentially the next logical step in the reforms of aged care. Labor has a strong record on aged care reform. In government, we introduced the 10-year Living Longer Living Better reform of the nation's aged care system. These reforms are rolling out as I speak and sit here in Parliament House. Living Longer Living Better was a 10-year plan to build a better, fairer, sustainable and nationally consistent aged care system that would meet the challenges of our ageing population. Living Longer Living Better was developed and delivered with extensive consultation and bipartisan support. We deliberately chose to implement these reforms over 10 years to ensure the sector, consumers and government had time to make the necessary adjustments. Like those in the aged care sector, I am pleased to see the government continue to roll out Living Longer Living Better and a Shorten Labor government will build on our legacy and ensure the aged care system is sustainable, robust, fair and even better. As we know our nation's profile is changing. Over the next 20 to 30 years, the population aged 65 years and over is projected to increase from over 14 per cent of the population to 25 per cent of Australia's population. Labor recognised these challenges and undertook the Living Longer Living Better reforms to ensure our aged care system kept up and will keep up with the ageing population. The bill before us is making further changes to the way we allocate home care packages. This measure is in the spirit of Living Longer Living Better. I do note that it precedes the legislated review of Living Longer Living Better, which is required by mid-2017. I trust the minister will have an accountable, transparent and independent process. Certainly that is Labor's intention should the Australian population grant us the Treasury benches. That review is where we look at the impact of the reforms to date and then determine the way forward. It was always envisioned that over the next five years we would see an increase in consumer choice, along with greater control for and by consumers. But I get it. I understand why the previous Assistant Minister for Social Services announced this measure as part of the 2015 budget. While there was extensive consultation with the sector and the community, while there was bipartisan support, these reforms are and will always be Labor's. These amendments allow the coalition to make their mark and say, 'I was here too.' I suppose that is true. But they are in the spirit of Labor's reforms. What this measure will do is give the consumers of aged care services—our older Australians and their carers and families—greater choice and control of the services and support they need to remain as independent as possible within their own homes and communities and that is what they desire in increasing numbers. The Commonwealth allocates close to $7.5 billion for Commonwealth funded home care packages across the forward estimates. Given the government's inability to oversee the implementation of Labor's reforms efficiently or effectively, there is good reason for concern. This bill is the first part of a two-stage plan to change the way home care services are delivered to and for older Australians. The first stage is addressed in this legislation before the House tonight, which would allocate packages directly to the consumers from 27 February 2017. Home care packages would 'follow the consumer', enabling the consumer to choose and change their provider. It would 'follow' them if they moved to another area. The second stage would integrate the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single home care program from July 2018. This will require additional legislation from whomever forms government after the next election. The legislation before the chamber will make amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 and Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas. First, funding for home care packages would follow the consumer rather than the provider. Consumers would retain their funding arrangements even if they choose to relocate and live in a new area, or if they want to change providers. For example, if a woman is living with dementia in Ruthven Street in Toowoomba and is cared for by her husband and, sadly, her husband passes away, and her daughter living in Bridgeman Downs in Brisbane asks her to come and live with her, she would not have to abandon the package provided by, say, Blue Care in Toowoomba in the Darling Downs. She could take the package with her and move down to Bridgeman Downs to live with her daughter, who could be her carer. She could also choose to change providers and may choose to avail herself of the services of TriCare or Carinity in that particular location, or any other provider of her choice. That is how the reforms will operate. This measure would remove the Aged Care Approvals Round—ACAR—process for home-care packages. The 2015 ACAR saw the final allocation of home-care packages to providers. Home-care providers currently compete for an allocation of packages through the ACAR, which they then offer to eligible consumers—so the providers have the control. In the 2014 ACAR, which was announced in January 2015, competition for new home care places was extremely high. The department received applications for 108,281 new home-care places with respect to the 6,653 places made available by the department. That means that approximately 17 new places were sought for every place available. That is intense competition and an enormous expense for the providers. This amendment would remove considerable red tape for aged-care providers, who would no longer be required to make these applications, and it would improve the profitability of the providers. Providers would be approved and would meet the accreditation and quality standards. That would not change. Secondly, the amendments before the chamber tonight would create a nationally consistent approach to prioritising access to home-care packages through My Aged Care, the portal available to all Australians who are engaged with the aged-care sector. This measure would remove the regional ratios as well, with a prioritisation process to take into account an individual's needs, circumstances and waiting time, regardless of their location. Consumers would still be required to undertake a comprehensive assessment by an Aged Care Assessment Team, known in the sector as ACAT. Currently, a limited number of new packages are released within various aged-care planning regions according to the aged-care provision ratio. Approved aged-care providers compete for allocations of home-care packages through ACAR, at great cost to the sector and to them in particular. Much work is done by aged-care providers to ready themselves and make those applications. Those packages are currently then offered to eligible consumers. The number of packages with the changes before the chamber today would still be capped, but packages would be released progressively throughout the year, prioritising the needs of individuals. That would be determined through the My Aged Care portal. One of the benefits of the change will be more accurate data on the demand for home-care packages. Waiting lists are managed by individual providers. This measure would allow My Aged Care to capture just how many are waiting for a package, how long they have been waiting, what part of Australia they reside in and so much more. This has some real benefits for accurate collection of data, which will facilitate better government policy in terms of aged care. The third change is the reduction of red tape for providers to become approved under the Aged Care Act 1997. The quality standards will remain, as I said before, but the criteria for assessing suitability will be streamlined. This is a very lengthy process that has been based on key personnel rather than capacity. Providers had to have an allocation of places in order to retain their status as approved providers. The legislation will allow providers to retain their status as long as they meet the quality processes and maintain accreditation. The aged-care reforms are being progressively implemented, as I said before. I just thought that, for the benefit of those who might be listening to this debate, we need to look at just how they have changed. In 2012-13 and 2013-14, years 1 and 2, there were major amendments: new home-care packages and supplements in both home care and residential care; the establishment of My Aged Care and a national contact centre; the establishment of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency; and the launching of the Aged Care Pricing Commissioner. Years 3 and 4 aim to significantly improve choice for consumers and strengthen system sustainability. In 2015, those things were built on. That included the government, with opposition support, improving consumer choice and flexibility. Now we have a situation where all home-care packages are delivered on a consumer directed basis. There have been issues in relation to the functionality of the My Aged Care website and the contact centre hotline. There have been issues in relation to those. Changes have been made in relation to the implementation of national voluntary quality indicators for aged care. There has been growth in the sector with the creation of the Commonwealth Home Support Program. There are better regional assessment services. Public and private funding was introduced into the system. More residential aged-care providers are listed on the Stock Exchange. And there is greater productivity in the sector and greater profitability, if we can believe, as I do, the report done by the Aged Care Financing Authority recently and the report done on the Aged Care Act. In 2016 through to 2022, there will be continuing changes in the sector. The legislation, as I said, mandates a five-year review. I am hoping that whoever gets into government will have—and we certainly will have—an independent, accountable and transparent process. The Abbott-Turnbull government removed Labor's Aged Care Reform Implementation Council and replaced it with the Aged Care Sector Committee. ACRIC was made up of a diverse range of specialist knowledge and expertise, including legal, union, gerontology and government, who were independent from the aged-care sector. There is the development of a road map, and I am asking the government to release that road map. It is outlining the next stage of aged-care reform, and I think the government should release that and should cooperate with the opposition in relation to that. According to the vision of Living Longer Living Better, we need a more sustainable and affordable sector, more diversity, more rewarding career options, encouragement for aged-care businesses to grow and invest, and a higher and better skilled workforce. There needs to be greater choice, with control in the hands of consumers, and more support for people to stay at home as part of their communities as long as they wish. We set a target, as I said, in relation to home care packages of 125 residential and home care places for every 1,000 persons aged 70 years and over by 2021-22. These 125 places comprise a ratio of 80 residential places and 45 home care packages. These changes aim to give consumers greater choice in selecting home care providers, but it relies very much, as I said before, on the My Aged Care website, portal and hotline as a single entry point to access these providers. This is where there have been big problems in the sector. The aged-care sector and consumers are very concerned, as are providers, about the My Aged Care system's capacity to expand even further, and the system currently is inadequate. In addition, it relies on an informed and competent consumer. The government plans to make further changes, as I say, which will integrate the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the Home Care Packages Program on 1 July 2018. These changes have generally had support across the sector, but we in the opposition are very concerned. The No. 1 concern we have is in relation to My Aged Care. From 27 February 2017, consumers would apply directly through the My Aged Care gateway rather than directly to aged-care providers. The idea of a single gateway is desirable, and Labor supports it, but it has not functioned as it was first designed to. I have met residential aged-care providers who have never got referrals through the My Aged Care website and have had to rely on their own devices and, indeed, their backlog of people waiting to get into their facilities. The implementation of the Commonwealth Home Support Program in July 2015 has made consumers and providers very, very wary of the functionality of the gateway. Certainly, whether I have been at the ACSA national conference in Perth or talking with providers in Brisbane at the Brisbane North PHN about all these issues, there have been issues raised again and again. We saw the Commonwealth Home Support Program formed from four programs that were being done: the HACC Program, for home and community care services; the National Respite for Carers Program; the Day Therapy Centre Program; and the Assistance with Care and Housing for the Aged Program, which was for those people who cannot find any housing, are quite financially strapped and have found difficulty with issues of housing and homelessness. According to the government, this was meant to achieve similar outcomes to those proposed in the legislation before the chamber today, including streamlined access to entry-level support services through a regional assessment service, known as a RAS; a standardised national assessment process and entry point, as I say, through My Aged Care; and reducing red tape for service providers through more streamlined funding arrangements. The subordinate legislation, principles and fee structure were not delivered until September 2015, some months after 1 July 2015. The fee guidelines—which the government completely and utterly botched—became principles while providers were functioning in a new system completely and utterly in the dark. This was the direct result of the delayed implementation, the last-minute consultation with the sector and a complete failure by the government to trial regional assessment services. The government want to push legislation through the chamber today in order to give them enough time to ensure that the sector is better consulted and prepared for these changes. Having looked at the track record of the government, I say that is a good thing, because they have certainly not designed and implemented the reforms that they inherited from Labor very well at all. The sector, while supporting generally increased consumer choice, is rightly concerned about the government's capacity to implement this major change in the legislation before the chamber by 27 February 2017. The Department of Human Services Medicare payments to providers and Centrelink means testing remain an issue. In late 2013, the Department of Human Services—Medicare—took over the payment of aged-care supplements and subsidies to aged-care providers. This resulted in a major breakdown of the system, and home care providers experienced major delays and errors in payments. Some providers were not paid from November 2013 through to March 2014 and were owed tens of thousands of dollars. The department had to conduct manual payments through 2014 and into 2015. Leading Age Services Australia, LASA, has expressed concern about the readiness of the government and the department's systems in relation to the reforms before the chamber. Home care providers in particular have suffered over two years, so their confidence in the government's implementation of the reforms before the chamber is debatable. We need a workable payment system, and the problems have not been fully resolved. In addition, there is significant delay in reconciling accounts, with Medicare taking up to three to four months to pay for services. This will make the portability of home care packages in the legislation before the chamber very fraught and very difficult. A consumer may want to change providers, but, unless there are changes to Medicare payment systems, providers may not be able to reconcile exactly how much funding actually remains in a package. The Department of Human Services has failed aged-care consumers as well. Living Longer Living Better saw greater consumer contributions towards aged-care services, but, while older Australians are assured of access to equity in terms of quality aged care, those who can afford it are expected to contribute more. This has seen the introduction of means testing for residential aged-care and home care packages in greater numbers and with greater strengthening from 1 July 2014. To date, older Australians are waiting a long time for assessments. Many have experienced errors, mistakes and delays in notification of assessments. The delays in receiving notification of their assessment have resulted in aged-care residents owing tens of thousands of dollars in means-tested care fees. Aged-care providers were not charging this, as they had received no notification from Medicare. This remains an ongoing issue in the sector. The second major challenge is consumer readiness. The pre-baby boomer generation, which I have heard called the silent generation, are living through this period of rapid change in the aged-care system, and the baby boomers are next. According to electorate offices on our side of politics and the media, older Australians are struggling with the pace of these changes, the complexity of the system and the constant errors and misinformation. It could be argued that consumers have not been taken along this journey to greater consumer choice and control. As I said, the government has failed in terms of its implementation. Not all consumers have the capacity to make informed choices, and safeguards are clearly essential for the most vulnerable and those with complex clinical care needs, especially those who will be required to pay more due to their means-testing arrangements. Elder abuse can occur when unscrupulous family members make decisions based on cost rather than care needs. Consumers will need significant education and information. I ask the government to make sure that the department handles this much better than the examples I gave earlier in this speech. Consumers need to be aware of their own needs, how much they will have to pay for the services on offer, what services are there and what is provided by the providers. They require greater levels of health and financial literacy and support to negotiate packages equitably and effectively. This comes on top of the government cutting the aged-care workforce supplement in September 2013—$1.1 billion. This comes on top of the government cutting the dementia and severe behaviours supplement—$52 million. This comes on top of the government stupidly getting rid of the panel for positive ageing at the mere cost of $1 million. To the credit of Everald Compton, other organisations and Per Capita, through the Longevity Forum, they delivered their Blueprint for an ageing Australia. This comes on top of the aged-care payroll tax supplement being axed at a cost to the sector of $653 million. This comes on top of this government cutting $21 million when they rebadged ACSIHAG to DACS funding. This comes on top of the government cutting $40.2 million from the aged-care workforce development fund. It comes on top of the government cutting $595.1 million from the middle of this year, in MYEFO last year when streamlining health and aged-care workforce programs. It comes on top of the ACFI revision of $472.4 million they did in MYEFO from the middle of this year. The government have cost the sector nearly $1.49 billion and they want the sector to be able to handle the changes they want to do. They have taken the sector for granted. They leave consumers in a position where they find it difficult to access the aged-care services that they need. They make the sector far less profitable. That is clear when you look at the reports I referred to earlier. Regional and rural communities are suffering and those residential aged-care providers are suffering. This legislation comes on top of the government taking nearly 540-odd days to provide a report in relation to their own Commonwealth funded stocktake of Commonwealth funded programs in relation to the aged-care workforce. This was to be, as one of the ministers or assistant ministers for aged care said, the basis for the development of an aged-care workforce strategy. Instead, it was the precursor to nearly $1 billion in cuts in the aged-care sector and health sector combined in terms of workforce development and ACFI revision in MYEFO at the end of last year. The government said in Senate estimates that they are not intending to undertake an aged-care workforce development strategy. This is contrary to the request not just of the unions—that is, the AWU, the HSU, United Voice and the nurses—but all the other stakeholders, all of whom believe there needs to be an aged-care workforce strategy developed in this country. Every single aged-care provider I have met with—in boardrooms in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or elsewhere—has said we need to work together to develop the workforce we need. The Productivity Commission in 2011 said that we need to quadruple the aged-care workforce. The average age of a person working in aged care in this country is about 50. About 90 per cent of the workforce are women. About 34 per cent come from CALD backgrounds. They are paid low wages compared to those who work in other sectors. For example, a nurse working in residential aged care is paid hundreds of dollars less than a nurse working in a public hospital. We need an aged-care workforce strategy that brings the sector together to deliver the kind of reform we need. We have about 350,000 people working in residential aged care, home care and Commonwealth home support programs in the country. We need, according to ACFA, about 900,000 by 2050. We are not going to get it if the government does not show leadership in the development of an aged-care workforce strategy in this country. This government has decided that the market will do the trick. It is wrong. It has failed. It gave back a lot of that money and more so, in terms of the aged-care workforce supplement, after it ripped it out of the hands of workers. It gave it back to the sector and we have seen in the sector no appreciable improvement in salary and wages, career pathways or professional development. There has been no appreciable difference, so the government has a lot to answer for. The government have failed in this area. Like everything to do with aged care, they think it is just about aged care. It is not just about aged care; it is about ageing and longevity. It is about transitioning Australia to the future to an age-friendly country. Other countries have picked up those concepts, like the UK and Japan. The government's fixation is on aged care alone. They have had so many ministers and so many assistant ministers. One of their ministers, the member for Pearce, thought he was the minister for an hour or two. He had it ripped away and it was given to the current Minister for Health and Minister for Aged Care. Even the title 'aged care' shows that they are not even thinking about what we need to do in the future. We need to think about that and transition our aged-care sector workforce and the aged-care system. We need to think about ageing issues and dementia-friendly communities, which Alzheimer's Australia and so many advocates talk about. All of these things remain outside the understanding and the mindset of the government. They do not seem to understand anything about that, but we need to do it. This legislation has merit. We support it. It is the next logical step on Labor's Living Longer, Living Better program. We support it and we will back this legislation in the chamber. But I urge the government to cooperate with the opposition and to think bigger than they are thinking. It is not just about aged care; it is about ageing and longevity, and that is what they need to do. They need an aged-care workforce strategy and they need to do far more than this legislation, and I urge them to adopt a bipartisan approach across this area of policy. 19:45 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I rise to support the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. The government's home care reforms have been designed with the intention to create an aged-care system that supports senior Australians with greater flexibility and choice. The New South Wales Central Coast is a popular sea change destination for retirees and, coupled with an existing ageing population, there is a recognised need to ensure appropriate infrastructure services and facilities are available and sufficient to meet the growing demand. According to the 2011 census, the Central Coast had over 78,000 residents over the age of 65, a full quarter of the total Central Coast population, with this projected to increase by a further 18.5 per cent, to around 93,000 by the year 2021. Ageing in our population is something that we should be proud of, because it points to the successes of increasing life expectancy, greater access to quality health care and medical technology, and improved living standards, to name a few. Realistically, we are redefining what it means to be 'older' more than ever, and the senior residents in our communities are maintaining healthy and active lifestyles. They are vibrant and socially engaged and continue to enjoy a full life well into their later years. Of course, it means that there are opportunities and challenges to take into account to ensure that, as the number of ageing Australians increases, they are still continuing to enjoy the active and fulfilled life that they desire and deserve. With their natural freedoms and desire to lead active social lives, older Australians are also seeking greater flexibility in terms of support services. The home care reforms are a key element to making this happen by supporting seniors' access to the services that they require. This government is ensuring that Australians are able to freely make informed choices about their care. These reforms will strengthen the aged-care system to ensure it remains competitive, of high quality and at the forefront of innovation through increased competition. The reforms were announced through the government's 2015-16 budget as the Increasing Choice in Home Care measure. The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016 gives effect to the first stage of the announced reforms and is an important step towards an aged-care system that is more consumer driven and market based and less regulated. These reforms will dramatically impact the way senior Australians have access to home care services which are based on the current consumer-driven care approach. There are two stages to the delivery and implementation of reforms to the aged-care sector. This bill creates provision for funding for home care packages to follow the consumer. What this essentially means is that the consumer—that is, the senior Australian receiving home care—will have more choice and greater flexibility in deciding on their provider. This bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 in three main areas. Firstly, the funding allocated to a consumer for a home package will follow them, instead of places being allocated to providers to service a particular area or location, as is the current system. Secondly, there will be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to home care packages through My Aged Care, which is the government entry point or gateway to the aged-care system. Thirdly, there will be a reduction in red tape associated with the approval process for providers under the Aged Care Act 1997, which will provide an incentive for new providers to enter the home care market, in turn facilitating greater choice for consumers. This does not, however, change the fact that providers still need to demonstrate their suitability to become an approved provider and meet quality standards. The reality is that, while Australia has a world-class aged-care system that is well respected and provides high-quality services to a diverse population, the demands of our ageing population are changing. In the Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australians report in 2011, the commission noted: Older Australians … did not want to be passive recipients of services, dependent on funded providers. Rather, they wanted to be independent and be able to choose where they live, which provider they would use, the way in which services are delivered … There is strong empirical evidence that consumer choice improves wellbeing, including higher life satisfaction, greater life expectancy, independence and better continuity of care. We as a government are committed to ensuring that the system embraces and accommodates changes necessary to truly empower consumers to make decision about their own care. The current home care system has a number of weaknesses, and one identified is that at present there is limited choice and flexibility for consumer in the home care system, including a lack of portability, since the funding is attached to the provider, not the consumer. In particular, it was recognised that the baby boomers are nearing older ages. For instance, in Dobell 11.8 per cent of the residents, or 16,280 people, are aged between 55 and 64 and many in the coming years will increasingly rely on aged-care services. The baby boomers are a different generation to the one preceding them, with different economic, social and cultural attitudes, expectations and lifestyles. The government recognises the need to keep in step with these changing goalposts in delivering aged-care services, especially in the area of home care, as senior Australians increasingly want to stay in their own homes for as long as possible and prefer to engage services that assist them in doing so. The Productivity Commission's report in 2011 identified that a lack of timely access to care and limited choices available to senior Australians were an issue. Under the current arrangements for home care, once a consumer has been assessed and approved as eligible for a home-care package, they have to source an approved provider with an available package that suitably meets their identified needs. Choices are limited because providers can only accept new consumers if they have not exceeded their allocation of places. In speaking with home-care providers in Dobell, I note this issue has been reiterated as an ongoing obstacle in the provision of services to consumers. There are four levels of home-care packages for consumers, ranging from basic at level 1 to high care at level 4. I am advised that there are little to no levels 3 and 4 available on the Central Coast at present. So, when a consumer is assessed and approved for home care, they need to find a provider that has a place available at the level of care that they have been approved for. If they happen to be assessed at a level 3 or level 4, it is an unfortunate reality at present that it is difficult for the consumer to get the care that they have been approved for, due to the lack of available places. More often than not, it requires them to be placed on a waiting list until such time as a place becomes available. Likewise, if an existing consumer has been receiving care at a level 1 or 2 but reaches the stage, particularly through illness or injury, where they are relocated to level 3 or 4, unfortunately, they likely have no option but to go on a waiting list until a place becomes available, either with their existing provider or, if transition is possible, with another provider. The government's aged-care and home-care reforms address this situation. Providers in Dobell have expressed great optimism for the changes, citing a number of benefits, particularly in increasing the number of clients that they can take on and the fact that they will no longer be limited by the number of packages that they have been allocated to deliver. By attaching the funding to the consumer, providers are now able to service the actual number of clients they have the capacity to manage. They will be able to offer the delivery of home-care packages at any level to consumers without the need for places to become available. They are also enthusiastic that the changes will drive the quality of service delivery because consumers will have the freedom to vote with their feet. If they are unsatisfied with services offered by a provider or if the chosen provider does not adequately suit their needs, the consumer will now have the flexibility to move to a more suitable provider. These reforms represent real and positive change for senior residents as well as service providers in Dobell. They present an opportunity for growth in the aged-care services sector. In turn, this will provide more jobs and better services across the board, driving forward the quality of delivery to meet the needs of senior Australians and facilitating their increased quality of life and greater freedom and independence. The aged-care services sector will, as a result of these reforms, transition into a more competitive, market-driven environment and will be consumer focused, which not only benefits the consumer in terms of the quality of service delivery but also opens up a world of opportunity for providers to expand their business to meet the demand without being constricted by the number of places that they are allocated. It will provide more surety for consumers in having the freedom to relocate, knowing that they will have continuity of care and access to a range of quality service providers who are able to meet their needs. The government recognises that, in order to provide the best options and flexibility in home care, it is necessary for the funds allocated to the consumer to move with the consumer, enforcing the concept that the home-care package belongs to the consumer. Adssi is a not-for-profit organisation on the Central Coast that provides outstanding aged-care services to the community from low care to care for the frail aged, the disabled or those living with dementia. They offer a holistic approach to care, and, like many existing service providers, are excited about the opportunity these reforms represent and are embracing the opportunity to grow. Adssi have over 8,000 clients between the Hunter, Central Coast and northern Sydney regions. They are currently allocated 75 home-care packages. Adssi pride themselves on concentrating on the goals and needs of each individual client, believing that having a person centred approach is key to quality service delivery. They believe cultural change is empowering for the local community, and, even though the competitive market will open up in terms of service delivery, it has given them an opportunity to look at their whole business model and identify possibilities in terms of growth and change in the way things are done. Just as Adssi provide quality services in the aged-care sector, the government is ensuring that any newly approved private provider will be required to demonstrate they are capable and suitable to provide home-care services and meet quality service delivery standards. The current process and criteria for becoming an approved provider are considered outdated and inefficient. There have been no substantial changes to the suitability criteria since 1997—almost 20 years ago. Feedback submitted by various stakeholders expressed the concern that there is too much focus on personnel, who may change over time, rather than the capability of the organisation as a whole to provide care services. Potential providers are also required to go through separate processes to gain approval as a provider for home care and residential care, despite significant overlap in the types of details required under both applications. This has created an onerous red-tape process in becoming an approved provider and a disincentive for entering the aged-care service provision market in the first instance. Providers will still need to be approved by the department under the act in order to provide subsidised home care, but the process for becoming an approved provider will be simplified. All approved providers will be required to meet the home-care standards and will be subject to independent quality reviews. These reforms provide senior Australians greater choice in who provides their care and establish a consistent national approach to prioritise access to care through My Aged Care. The prioritisation process takes into account the relative needs and circumstances of individual consumers, which are determined through the comprehensive assessment undertaken by an aged-care assessment team at the time a person was waiting for care. But, overall, these changes demonstrate the government's commitment to reducing regulatory burdens and increasing choices for Australians. The government is strongly committed to working closely with the aged-care sector in preparing these reforms, and the changes are widely supported. I am looking forward to Dobell's senior residents having the opportunity to choose their care providers and service delivery after February 2017. I commend the Minister for Aged Care and all the government agencies and departments, organisations, groups, committees, businesses and individuals who have contributed to the formulation of these outstanding reforms. These consumer-driven home care reforms are a momentous achievement for our senior Australian and the organisations that provide their home care services. I commend this bill to the House. 20:00 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin As the member for Blair stated earlier on in his remarks, Labor supports this legislation, the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. We do so because it effectively follows on with reforms that Labor began when we were last in office and, indeed, reforms that arose from the Productivity Commission's 2011 report titled Caring for older Australians. When that report was released, I can well recall hosting some forums in my electorate of Makin with the then minister, the member for Port Adelaide, to hear firsthand from older Australians about the aspects of the Productivity Commission's report that they would like to see implemented and how important some of those recommendations were to them. There was no doubt in my mind, from the feedback from those forums, that the aged-care services provided in this country needed to be reformed—and, in fact, needed to have been reformed years ago. The reforms are well overdue. Labor began the process of implementing those reforms when we were in office, and this legislation, as I said a moment ago, in my view, continues that process. The notion of enabling people to live in their home for as long as possible has considerable merit. In my view, it is something that most older people would prefer to do if they were given the choice. Indeed, I have never heard anyone say to me that they would willingly like to go into a nursing home. Some may move on to a retirement village, depending on the nature of it—that is perhaps an easier transition—but most people prefer to stay in their home. That is because it enables them to remain in their local community, where they are in the company of the people they have grown up with, they are in surroundings that they are familiar with and they will still have access to their friends. Often it is the case that a person wants to stay in their own home because, even though they might be at an age where they need considerable care, they might still be with their husband or wife, who might be able to provide some of that care for them. It also means that, in essence, they are surrounded by the comforts that they have become accustomed to living with and the freedoms that they would otherwise not enjoy once they are transferred to another place. Staying in a person's own home has considerable advantages to all concerned. There is no doubt in mind that it ultimately means that it is a less expensive way of continuing a person's life than moving into a retirement village or a nursing home. There are cost savings to government and, as I said a moment ago, it also meets the needs of most older people. One of the important matters relating to people being able to stay in their own home is the ability for them to continue the lifestyle that they have had, particularly if that lifestyle is tied to a cultural difference that they might find if they are placed in a nursing home or even a retirement village. When I have spoken to older people, I have particularly noted that cultural differences are one reason that they want to stay in their home for as long as they possibly can. There are of course other matters relating to financial differences that sometimes arise and also the fact that, for some people, moving out of their home also means that they have to move away from the local area in which they were raised, particularly given that not all areas have all of the facilities that an older person requires. This is particularly so if we are talking about regional and country areas, where sometimes there might be some facilities but not all of the facilities that are required by a person who reaches a point in their life when they require a range of services. For them, moving out of their own home becomes very, very traumatic. Another issue that I have noticed in recent times—and I speak with experience about this, because I have dealt with some families who have faced this very issue—is that, in today's lifestyle, the work commitments of children often take them away from their local area and sometimes interstate or perhaps even overseas. So, whereas in the past older people might have had children who would pop in and care for them from time to time, that is sometimes becoming less the case because their children have had to move interstate or overseas in order to secure work. So there is a whole range of issues that need to be taken into account. If we are going to enable people to remain in their own home, services like the Home and Community Care service, the National Respite for Carers Program, the day therapies centres and the assistance with care and housing for the aged that has been made available all need to be accessible to those people who are staying in their own home. I note that there have been some significant changes to the Home and Community Care services that are provided. I also note that, as a result, many of the people I represent have had some difficulties in accessing those services. Either they have become ineligible or there are only a limited number of services available and therefore they miss out. For them, staying in their own home becomes difficult. We are talking about people who are getting on in life, older people, and sometimes single older people who do not have any support, who might have to do basic home care and maintenance which they are simply no longer up to and for which they need a little bit of support. Aged care issues are, in fact, frequently raised with me and, certainly, access to services that are available for the aged is one of the main issues raised. The difficulty is that, for many older people, getting through to government departments has become increasingly difficult. Many of them are not familiar with the use of computers and IT systems, and so navigating the bureaucratic system and trying to access services online can be not only difficult but impossible for them to navigate. When they hit a barrier they inevitably contact my office, and then we intervene and try to assist. The other area where there seems to be a problem is the aged care assessment process. My office has been able to assist people on several occasions with respect to getting the assessments carried out in a timely manner. Without the assessments, they can get no services. In fact, they will not be admitted to a nursing home unless they have gone through the assessment process. Again, it seems that if we are going to provide a system where people can have services, we need to ensure that the process by which they access those services is easy for them to get through. One of the issues the member for Blair touched on is that dealing with government departments has proven to be problematic in the past, with both service providers not being paid and people having to wait unreasonable lengths of time to get the answers they require in order to access the services they need. I just want to briefly touch on some additional issues with respect to keeping people in their own home. For some people, it is not even a matter of choice any more. It is a case where they have no choice but to remain in their own home. They have no choice because the cost of entry into nursing home facilities, or even retirement villages for that matter, is prohibitive. They might have some assets but not sufficient assets to give them access into those other facilities, and so they have no choice but to remain at home. That being the case, we, as a society, should be doing everything we can to assist them with the in-home services they require to continue on with their lives. I know that many people who stay in their own home and require those services struggle. They struggle in a way that none of us would like to see our own family members or parents struggling. Indeed, when you go to services like Meals on Wheels you get a terrific understanding of that because, quite often, it is services like Meals on Wheels that enable these people to remain in their own homes and at least have someone call in on them every so often to ensure that they are still okay. Whilst I am on that topic, can I just take this opportunity to acknowledge the terrific work that Meals on Wheels does for communities right around the country and the tireless work of the volunteers I see in my own community; and I hear from other members in this place that that is the case right across the country. The same applies with retirement villages. I know of many older people who would dearly have loved to downsize their homes. They might live in a home that has three or four bedrooms and a reasonable backyard of some kind, but they are no longer capable of doing the maintenance, and nor do they require that property. But, firstly, if they want to relocate into a smaller home that is more modern and does not require maintenance, they may not be able to afford the transfer costs. Secondly, they might also be concerned that, when they exit that retirement village, they lose too much of their money because of the financial structures that many of them operate under. These are issues that we also need to address. Whilst I accept that aged care has always been and continues to be a matter of responsibility between the federal and state governments, it is high time that all of us in government work together, because we all have a common objective here to try to assist the older people as much as we can and resolve some of these issues that are not helpful to older people or governments. My understanding of this legislation is that from 27 February 2017, roughly a year away, the home care packages will be allocated directly to the consumer and not to the service providers as they have been in the past. That is a good thing, because that gives the consumer much more choice. It also allows the consumer to move from one place to another without the loss of those services that are required. It is something that, I believe, will benefit the consumer immensely. The critical concern, though, as outlined by the member for Blair, is the number of hurdles people have to jump over to access those services, and there is also the issue of having appropriately qualified personnel to deliver the services. Since being elected to this place, I have regularly gone into nursing facilities and spoken with aged people. One of the things I have noted is that many of the staff who work in this industry sector are people who have come from overseas, which highlights to me the shortage of the number of qualified people within Australia who are willing to work in the aged care sector broadly. We currently have, from my estimations, about 3½ million Australians who are aged over 65. By 2050, the figures are probably likely to rise to about 10 million. That is, the population of Australia is projected to be about 40 million and, if you look at the stats which suggest that 25 per cent of Australians will be 65 and over, that means we will have about 10 million older Australians who might require some form of care. If we cannot manage the provision of services to them now, with numbers being at about a third of that, then what is going to happen in years to come, unless we start to plan the workforce that is required to provide those services. We are simply not doing that well enough. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, when I sat down and spoke with some people from the aged care sector, it was clear to me that the shortage of appropriately qualified staff working in the aged care sector is becoming a problem. It will be a greater problem in years to come so, hand in hand, we are trying to assist people to stay in their own homes. We also need to ensure that we have a workforce that can provide the range of services they require, so it will be a multipurpose workforce. As the member for Blair has made clear, we support this legislation but want to ensure that the aged people of this country not only have a legal right to the services but also can access them in a timely way. 20:15 Mr BALDWIN LL6 Paterson I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. This bill provides the necessary legislation for a more flexible aged care system that will support what the whole of our community wants and, in particular, affected seniors want—that is, to remain in their homes for as long as possible. Home is where they are familiar, comfortable and engaged with their families, neighbours and friends. One of the roles of government is to care for its people. To this end, the government subsidises aged care packages for those who are no longer able to live, independently, in their own homes. The Paterson electorate, before the redistribution of boundaries by the Australian Electoral Commission, was ranked the fourth highest electorate in Australia where residents were aged over 70. My electorate had 18,642 people over the age of 70, which is 15.6 per cent of its population. Unfortunately, this redistribution has meant that many wonderful organisations I have had the pleasure of visiting and, more importantly, working with for a number of years will no longer be in the electorate of Paterson. These include the Lara Aged Care facility at Dungog, Stroud Community Lodge, Glaica House and Beaumont Terrace at Tuncurry, Baptist Care at Kularoo Centre and Barclay Gardens at Forster, the Great Lakes Nursing Home at Bulandelah, the Peter Sinclair Gardens at Hawks Nest, and The Frank Whiddon Home at Largs. I have shared their battles. I have been involved in the development, establishment and refurbishment of many of these fine facilities over the years. However, the boundary changes mean that other aged care facilities will now come under the federal electorate of Paterson. These include Green Hills Nursing Home, Mount Carmel Village and Benhome at Maitland, Kurri Kurri Masonic Village and Maitland Opal at Rutherford. They will join the Opal at Raymond Terrace Tanilba Shores, Salamander Bay United Aged Care facility, the Regis The Gardens at Salamander, the Bill King Aged care facility at Fingal and Harbourside Haven at Shoal Bay plus the many assisted living facilities and service provider organisations, throughout my electorate, servicing the growing needs of my community. This bill gives effect to the first stage of the home-care reforms announced by this government in the 2015-16 budget. Consumers are right to demand more choice and control over their aged care service provider, as is the industry right to demand reduced red tape and regulation for aged care providers. This bill will provide for this outcome—and it is all about the outcome. The changes also lay the platform for future aged care reforms, which will be guided by the Aged Care Sector Committee Roadmap for Reform and will be jointly developed with the sector. These reforms will improve the way home-care services are delivered to older Australians. They will be implemented in two stages. In the first stage, commencing February 2017, importantly, funding for a home-care package will follow the consumer, and I welcome that. This will enable the consumer to choose a provider that is suited to their needs and allow them to direct their funding to their provider of choice. The consumer will be able to change their provider, if they wish, including if they move to another area to live. The second stage of reforms will build on these changes by integrating the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single care-at-home program. This will further simplify the way services are delivered and, in particular, funded. These changes are an important step in moving towards an aged system that is more consumer friendly, market based and less regulated. It is all about the consumer—their rights; their needs—first and foremost. Thankfully, Australians are living longer and healthier lives and it is important that as people age they have choice about their care. The home-care reforms will strengthen the aged care system to provide high quality and more innovative services through increased competition. Our elderly Australians deserve nothing less. Home-care packages are available at four levels, with the majority of packages funded at levels 2 and 4. There are around 73,000 operational home-care packages across Australia. At present, home-care places are allocated to providers through the Aged Care Approvals Round, ACAR, and around 6,000 new packages will be allocated to providers through the 2015 ACAR. We expect the results to be announced shortly. It is important to note that this will be the last ACAR, in which home-care packages are allocated directly to providers, before the proposed February 2017 changes commence. In addition to having an allocated place, to receive a home-care subsidy, a provider must also be approved by the Department of Health, under the Aged Care Act 1997—that is, be an 'approved provider'. The subsidy is paid to the approved provider for a home-care place occupied by the care recipient, the consumer. It is critical to understand that providers are required to comply with a range of responsibilities, under the act, relating to factors such as quality of care, user rights and accountability requirements. Currently, to access a home-care package, a consumer has to be assessed and approved as eligible for home care by an ACAT and offered a package by an approved provider. The new Consumer Directed Care, CDC, system gives consumers greater flexibility in determining what level of involvement they—I repeat, they—would like to have in managing their own home-care package. Consumers and providers work in partnership to identify the consumer's goals and needs, which form the basis of their care plan. The CDC also provides consumers with clear information about what funding is available for their care and services and how those funds are spent through an individualised budget and monthly income and expenditure statements. These tools ensure that providers and consumers have a shared understanding of available resources and how those resources are being expended to meet the consumer's needs. The expansion of the CDC across all home care packages in July 2015 was an important step in moving to a consumer-driven system, but further reform is required to fully empower consumers to be in control of their care. Through the introduction of the CDC, many consumers now have more choice as to how their care is delivered, with increased transparency over what budget is available and how funds are spent. However, under current arrangements, it is difficult for consumers to change to another provider or move to another location. Once the changes take effect, all consumers, both new and existing, will benefit from these changes. We all want and expect choice. These changes will provide greater choices for consumers when selecting a provider. The new arrangements will be closely monitored to ensure that all consumers, including people with special needs and those living in rural and regional areas such as Paterson, are able to access care in an equitable manner. Service providers that do not currently have an allocation of home care packages, and in some cases may be providing subcontracted services to an approved provider, will be able to provide services directly to consumers, should they become an approved provider. As I outlined earlier, under these proposed changes providers will no longer need to apply for new home care places through the ACAR. While welcoming the reduction in red tape, some existing providers in my electorate of Paterson have expressed concerns about the impact of increased competition and the loss of certainty of business income once home care places are no longer allocated to providers. The financial impact of the changes on providers will be closely monitored by the Aged Care Financing Authority. The monitoring will particularly examine the impact on service delivery in regional and rural areas. I welcome that. This is not a piece of legislation designed to reduce funding or care places. In fact, the total number of home care packages is continuing to increase each year, so there is an opportunity for all providers to continue to operate in the market. The challenge for all providers is to understand their consumers' needs and to deliver services which meet the needs of the consumers. It is all about the consumer and the outcome. That is what this bill is about. Changes are also proposed to streamline and simplify the process for becoming an approved provider of subsidised home care. Providers will still need to be approved by the Department of Health under the Aged Care Act 1997 in order to provide subsidised home care, but the process for becoming an approved provider will be much simplified. This will include updating the suitability criteria for approved providers, streamlining the processes for becoming an approved provider and providing a simpler model for existing residential and flexible care providers to also provide home care. Simplifying the process for residential and flexible care providers to become home care providers recognises that these providers have already been tested against the standards required to become an approved provider of aged care. Once an organisation has been approved as a provider under the act, approved provider status will no longer lapse after two years if the provider does not hold an allocation of places. That is critically important. This change will apply across all care types, including home care, residential care and flexible care. Making these changes will remove some of the barriers to entry for new providers whilst still ensuring that standards of care remain high. Increasing the number of approved providers able to provide home care will support greater choice for consumers. Importantly, new providers will still be required to demonstrate their suitability to become an approved provider. All approved providers of home care will need to meet the Home Care Standards and will be subjected to independent quality reviews. ACATs undertake comprehensive, holistic, multidisciplinary assessments to determine a person's eligibility to access Commonwealth-subsidised aged care. In Stage 1 of the reforms the role of assessing eligibility for home care will continue to be undertaken by the Aged Care Assessment Teams. Once home care places are no longer allocated to providers, the assessment approval will indicate a specific package level—level 1, 2, 3 or 4. A guidance framework is being developed to inform and assist ACATs in determining a specific home care package level for each consumer. All consumers who have been assessed by an ACAT and approved as eligible for a package will be prioritised in order to access subsidised home care. From February to mid-March 2016 all ACATs will commence using the full functionality of the My Aged Care assessor portal to conduct comprehensive assessments, create support plans, make delegate decisions, transmit approvals to the Department of Human Services and make referrals to services or waitlists. The changes in Stage 1 will build on this platform. At present, new home care places are allocated to providers at a regional level through the Aged Care Approvals Round. While this system aims to achieve an equitable distribution of the total number of packages, there are significant variations in the distribution of packages between states, regions and local areas. Currently waiting lists for packages are managed by individual providers. There can be significant variation in the waiting periods for packages across Australia, with no systematic way of measuring or addressing the variation. The move to a consistent national system for prioritising access to subsidised home care will allow a more equitable and flexible distribution of packages to consumers based on individual needs and circumstances, regardless of where they live. There was general support from stakeholders for a national approach in the consultations. Once these changes take effect, there will be a national system to manage eligible consumers' access to packages within My Aged Care. This is important to ensure there is equitable access to care. The national prioritisation process will take into account the relative needs and circumstances of consumers, determined through the comprehensive assessment undertaken by an ACAT, and the time that a person has been waiting for care. A consumer who has been prioritised for a package will be supported by My Age Care with referrals to approved providers. But the consumer will be able to choose which provider delivers their care. The department will closely monitor the new arrangements to ensure that all consumers, including people with special needs and those living in regional and rural areas, are able to access care in an equitable manner. We are a government that cares for our ageing. We face an issue with an ageing population. The challenge is upon us to make sure we have the best possible systems in place to care for our elderly with dignity. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. 20:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I am glad to see this bill come forward so we can try to work through some of the issues that many are facing in the aged-care space, whether they be families of older Australians, whether they be older Australians themselves, whether they be any of our not-for-profits providing aged-care services. There have been issues with the implementation of the Living Longer Living Better package since it was first introduced. Reform in this space needs to be continuous and ongoing to ensure that we do get the best possible model for our older Australians. Close to $7.5 billion is allocated to the Commonwealth-funded Home Care Packages across the forward estimates. Home Care Packages allow our older Australians to receive aged-care services in their own home and community. It was a significant part of Labor's Living Longer Living Better package of reforms. In the legislation that we have before us, the first and the second stages are about ensuring that the Home Care Packages would follow the consumer and enable the consumer, or the person with the package, to choose and to change their provider. It is one of the critical things that is needed. I always feel a bit uncomfortable to refer to people seeking these packages as 'consumers'. Yes, technically, there is that element to it, but there is a level of care and support that goes into what a lot of this work is. I thought it would be important to highlight some of the challenges that we have had in Central Victoria and the intersection of this new reform before us—the package about Commonwealth-funded Home Care Packages—with some of our local government areas in regional Victoria. In my own area, our councils still deliver their own HACC services, as they are called in Victoria. They receive block grants from our state government. There was some confusion among families when these packages first rolled out over whether they would be better to stay with the council service, which they could qualify for if they reached a certain criteria, or whether they should switch into the Commonwealth-funded service. A lot of families spoke about how confusing it was between which option they should take. That, I guess, is one of the great challenges when you roll out such a bold new reform and try to transition. I hope that some of the lessons we are learning through this process can be applied to the NDIS as it rolls out in our area. I am sure that some of those challenges will come up in that space, as well. Some of our providers, like our councils, are quite nervous about the impact these reforms would have on their own client base. At one stage, it looked like they were going to outsource—contract out—their HACC services because they believed they would not be able to attract enough clients to keep the service viable. And they are not the only council area in Victoria that have gone through that challenge. I have two other Victorian council areas in my electorate, and they, as well, are having this debate as we speak. At this stage, they are keeping them in house and rolling them over. It is incredibly nerve-racking and stressful for the clients—the people that are seeking these services. They want to know the person coming in their door every day. Whether it be for low-level support, such as helping with the cleaning, doing the gardening or providing their meals, or whether it be for more high-level support, such as assistance with showering and support in some of the most personal ways, the person seeking the care wants to know the person coming in. It is a very intimate and close relationship that they have. They want to know that the person, the aged-care worker who is coming in, is someone that they trust. They are opening up their home to this person. A lot of concern that came through the HACC debate in the City of Greater Bendigo was on: who will be my carer? Who will be my aged-care worker if this work is outsourced? I will touch on that a bit later—that is, with any system, we need to make sure that we have an element of funding and support for workforce development to ensure that we get the very best working in this sector so that our older Australians and their families do have that peace of mind and security. The other issue with the HACC services was about the level of service. Once you apply a cost price to something, that worker is then under stress. They only have 15 minutes or 20 minutes. They do not have the time to sit down and have a cup of tea or share a story. We need to ensure that within this system and this package that we are funding that opportunity for the person to genuinely engage. The language we have about 'consumer' is just so transactionary. We have to remember that these are people and that people are social creatures. It is important that we do allow time for the very basics—not just, 'Hello. Good morning. I'll see you tomorrow,' but a chance to really engage and understand and support one another. Some of the other issues that came up in the very early stages of the rollout of the package were complaints from BDAC, Bendigo & District Aboriginal Co-operative. They said that a number of their clients, the people that they know who had been signed up to these packages, had actually lost 60 per cent of their package in administration fees. There was not proper education; there was not proper engagement. So they went through the process of renegotiating a fairer package on behalf of a number of their clients. I believe that the reforms before us today will help clean that up, streamline it and make it easier for people to, if they do believe that the package they are getting is not delivering the quality of care, move to a new provider. To lose 60 per cent of your package in administration fees just demonstrates how it is not always a fair market and you do not always have good providers in this space. You do have some providers out there who will look to make money, and we need to make sure there is integrity in the system so somebody can move to a new service if they do not believe that they are getting the quality that they deserve. Advocate Ruth Hosking has met with me several times to talk about the delays in getting these packages processed. Those waiting for residential care packages, she mentioned, need to provide Centrelink with an asset and income statement every six months. However, it is often longer than six months to wait for a residential aged-care bed, so this is another challenge that we have within the aged-care space. Ruth is incredibly passionate about ensuring that these documents are easy for people to fill in and that, if you fill one in and it is valid for six months, you can have some surety that your claim will be processed within six months. You do not have to complete a new form as you are required to do every six months. This means that families think they have done all the paperwork with regard to their application only to be told once they get a place that their asset and income assessment is out of date. Aged-care advocate Ruth Hosking has regularly told my office that this paperwork is overly complex, confusing and stressful for older people, and I do believe that that is one of the reasons why we need to continue to look at, reform and make this space as practical and easy as possible, ensuring those integrities are in place so that people do not get, as I mentioned earlier, tricked like BDAC and lose 60 per cent of their package in administration fees. Some of the other issues that have been raised with me include the greater demand for home-care packages. There has been some great demand for them, and people have been told that there are none available in their area, particularly for people who live in regional areas where there are smaller towns and they may not have a provider or only have one provider in that space. Denise has been waiting for a package since 2014 and her situation has been made worse because she lives in Woodend, where there is only one provider. This bill will help change that. Another example is in Heathcote and, while Heathcote Health has not been allocated any packages, they have been subcontracted by Bendigo Health to deliver these packages in Heathcote. So there is that tussle that has occurred between Bendigo and Heathcote Health about how many packages they can have in Heathcote. These changes, again, will help relieve some of that tension and help address that situation. People who have signed up for home-care packages are not always aware of how much it would cost. I have mentioned the example of BDAC. Another example is someone who signed up to a home-care package at level 1 and received five visits for cleaning for 1.5 hours per visit and two hours for gardening maintenance. Despite the minimal service, the customer was charged $29 per day for the 63 days they were on the package, totalling $1,700. Their complaint was that they were not aware that they would still have to pay $29 every day even though they did not get support every day. Again, education and understanding for older Australians and their families helps them know exactly what they are signing up for. It is always tricky when you introduce a market into a space which is about quality and care, and it is important that people have the information and know who to go to if they do not believe that they are being treated appropriately. The final things I wish to touch on are workforce and workforce issues. Aged are is one of the lowest paid sectors in Australia and has a very high turnover. People who stay in the industry a lot time tend to work for the employers, businesses, not-for-profit organisations or councils that have been around and involved in a service for a while. They tend to have the higher pay and conditions. My fear is that we need to do everything we can to ensure that those providers stay in the system. My fear with any kind of market driven, consumer driven care system is that it could be a race to the bottom and we would see good-quality providers undercut by those who do not offer the same quality of care and support for our older Australians. The wages are too low. This is a sector where they rely heavily on penalty rates, yet some of the providers have said to me that they are not compensated for those Sunday penalty rates. I have had some people raise with me that they cannot get someone to come out on a public holiday for their father or their mother, because the providers are not willing to pay the penalty rates. It is really sad that it is because of people's rates of pay that this service is denied. So we need to make sure there is enough money in the package to pay people's minimum entitlements. These are not workers who are earning a million dollars. They are not even earning anywhere close to decent wages. They are people earning the basics, the minimum income in this country. They are on very low wages. They love their work. They will tell you when you meet with them that they do not do it for the money; they do it for the work, for the people, that there is a love and a care that they have. But they still should be properly rewarded for the work that they do. That is why it is so disappointing that this government when it was first elected cut $1.8 billion from the aged-care sector. That had largely been towards the development of the workforce, whether it be through professional development, extra funding for training to continue to skill up the workforce or workforce pay supplements. We need to do more if we are going to have quality aged-are providers that have quality, well-paid staff. We do not want to see a race to the bottom in this sector. We want to make sure people working in this industry have good, secure jobs so that we can ensure that any of those providers who do want to cut corners are cut out of the industry. 20:44 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. To begin, I would like to use this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the seniors in my electorate of Petrie for their contribution to Australian society and the great country that they have left people like me and my kids and their kids and grandkids. They really have great stories to tell. I want to acknowledge them and thank them. As Australian seniors, they have contributed so much. Thanks to all of them for their contribution and for sharing their experiences and knowledge with me as I travel around the electorate to retirement villages and aged-care homes. It is important to talk about aged care. This is quite a complex portfolio, and I do congratulate the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon Sussan Ley, for the work she has already done in making sure the system is easier to navigate. The thing is that Australians are living longer and healthier lives. And that is great. But it is important that, as people age, they have choice about their care. For far too long, people in the aged-care system have been looked upon as one homogeneous group, instead of as individuals. The Australian government understands that people are individuals and everyone has different needs and wants. The worst thing for someone entering the aged-care system would be to have all their choices taken away from them. This is not what any Australian would want from our aged-care system, and it is why we announced significant reforms to home care in the 2015-16 budget. From February 2017, funding for a home care package will follow the consumer. This will make it easier for consumers to select a home care provider and to change their provider, should they wish to do so. The current requirement for providers to apply for home care places will be removed, significantly reducing red tape. The changes will give older Australians greater choice in deciding who provides their care and establish a consistent national approach to prioritising access to care. From July 2018, the government intends to integrate the Home Care Packages Program and the Commonwealth Home Support Program into a single care-at-home program to simplify the way services are delivered and funded. The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016 expands on the reform we announced in last year's budget. It makes amendments to the act and the transitional provisions act to enable funding for a home care package to follow the care recipient. This means the care recipient will be able to direct the home care funding to a provider of their choice. Home care places will no longer be allocated to an approved provider in respect of a particular location or region. The amendments will create a consistent national process for prioritising access to subsidised home care. The amendments will also simplify the approval process for approved providers. The legislative criteria used to assess the suitability of a person to become an approved provider will be streamlined. This will also provide for a simplified process for residential care and flexible care providers to become approved providers of home care. An organisation's approval to provide home care will commence as soon as the approval is granted and will not lapse. Currently, approved provider status lapses after two years if the provider does not hold an allocation of places. The lapsing provision will be removed across all care types—home care, residential care and flexible care. For the first time, there will also be a consistent national approach to prioritising access to home care through the My Aged Care gateway, the entry point to the aged-care system. This option will increase choice, flexibility and portability for the consumer. It will reduce the regulatory burden for providers and provide a nationally consistent approach. Removing the concept of allocated home care places will enable the sector to transition to a more competitive, market-driven environment and allow consumer focused and innovative providers to expand their businesses to meet local demand and consumer expectations. Too often I have been approached by families in my electorate whose relatives—parents or grandparents—have been waiting many months for an aged-care place. Some had been waiting years. And this places a lot of stress on the family—particularly if their loved one, their mother or father or even grandparents have an illness. How does it affect those people if they are working full time and raising children of their own? It does place a lot of stress on them. This bill will help alleviate that. The last years of your life, when you looking to go into aged care, are not years that anyone would want to spend in limbo. This is not the time to put pressure or stress on people—especially if they are suffering from a chronic illness like arthritis or dementia. I am glad that seniors in my electorate will have more choice and will be able to access aged care more efficiently. I also want to thank the workers in the aged-care industry. As I have moved around my electorate of Petrie, visiting different aged-care facilities, I have got to meet some of the workers. They do a wonderful job for seniors. They care for them in ways that I could not, and they do so with love and interest. My father actually works in aged care. He works as a handyman at a local aged-care facility just outside my electorate, fixing up trolleys and wheelchairs. He does not do it for the money; he does it because he enjoys doing it—using his hands. But he tells me that he often spends quite a bit of time just talking to the residents in the aged-care facility and that they really appreciate that, because not everybody is blessed to have family that can visit them and so forth, and people are often looking for a good chat. I am sure members on both sides of the House who have been into aged-care facilities would say the same thing when they visit senior Australians. I want to say to people in my electorate too that if they are looking to find a place for their parents or their grandparents then they can visit the website, www.myagedcare.gov.au, which provides all the information on all the services that they would need—where to find those services and other relevant information for their families and for elderly Australians. Again, I congratulate the minister, and I commend this bill to the House. 20:53 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to speak tonight on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Increasing Consumer Choice) Bill 2016. Over the next three decades in Australia our population of people who are over 65 years old is projected to increase from just 14 per cent of the population, as it is currently, to 25 per cent of the population. With this increase comes really significant challenges to a number of programs and support services, including the aged-care sector. Labor accepts and recognises these challenges and undertook the aged-care reforms when in government to ensure that our aged-care system can keep up with that ageing population. A significant part of Labor's Living Longer Living Better package of reforms was the home-care packages that allowed older Australians to receive the care they require in their own homes while remaining in the community where they live, where their networks and families are. The federal government has allocated close to $7.4 billion for Commonwealth funded home-care packages across the forward estimates. The first component of the amendments that are before the House really takes aged-care reform in a direction that has been consistent with Labor's Living Longer Living Better program. Although there is a risk of some of those elements being rushed, I think that the generally bipartisan support that has been committed for much of the reforms in the aged-care sector is a good thing. It enables this parliament to have reasonable discussions so that providers and families can have some confidence in the direction of aged care and the sorts of services that all of us in this House believe should be provided. The amendments before us tonight are going to change the way those home-care packages are being allocated. This bill is the first part of a two-stage plan to change the way the home-care services are being delivered to older Australians. And there is always room for improvement. I know that two approaches are going on in this particular package tonight. The first stage, addressed by this legislation, is really making sure that those home-care packages follow the consumer, as we have heard in this debate tonight—enabling people to choose their own providers, to make that choice and, likewise, be able to change that provider at any time that they see fit, and in making those changes and decisions that package would indeed follow them. The second component of these amendments would be to create a nationally consistent approach to prioritising access to home-care packages through the My Aged Care gateway. It is actually this second component that I think would have helped address a situation that a family brought to my attention—a case where their mother had had a very unexpected stroke. She was assessed as requiring a level 4 home-care package when she was to be released from hospital, but, unfortunately, at that time there was no level 4 packages available for that family whatsoever. The family was left with no option but to accept a level 3 package. That was a package that failed to meet all of the care needs of their mother. Then the family was advised that the only way a level 4 package would become available was upon the death of another person in a level 4 arrangement. After some time, and through the tragic circumstances for that other family, the level 4 package did become available, but that is clearly a most unsatisfactory situation for anybody's family to be in. If the amendments that we are looking out tonight go at least some way towards assisting the availability of home-care packages that meet the actual needs of people in our community, then that is a good thing. As I mentioned earlier, we have lent out support and, indeed, we believe that many of the reforms that began through Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms are continuing to progress in this bipartisan manner now. That is a great thing for all concerned. There is no greater challenge, perhaps, than ensuring that older Australians get to live productive, fulfilling, healthy, active lives for as long as possible, and then, when they need those support structures in their home and in their community, that those structures are available for families to access. So it is with great pleasure that I get to lend our support to the bill before us tonight. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Trade Training Centres 87 21:00 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston We know that this Prime Minister says one thing and does the complete opposite, but what has come to light when it comes to the opening of trade training centres is that it is not just the Prime Minister but it is most of those on the other side. They like to go out to their trade training centres—the trade training centres that Labor funded—and cut the ribbon, but, when they come back to the parliament, they argue in support of cutting the funding. As I have noted in this House already, over 40 government members and senators have attended their trade training centres, put out media releases, posed for a picture and got in their local paper, but then they have cut the program, stopping many other schools. I have here a trade training centres lucky dip, where we have quotes of things government members have said in support of trade training centres. I will start with the member for Flinders. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! You might put the box down away from the dispatch box. Ms RISHWORTH HWA But there are just so many here. Okay. I will pop them there. It is a lucky dip here. We have got the member for Flinders, on Labor's trade training centres in his electorate. He says: This is a state-of-the-art building where students can gain practical construction and trades qualifications. These students have a keen interest in taking up employment in trade industries and this will provide them with the necessary skills to fulfil their passions. Who else have we got in the trade training centres lucky dip? We have got the member for Lyons, who says, on Labor's trade training centres: Training centres like these enable local students to pursue vocational pathways and develop skills across a range of fields. There are real skills shortages around Tasmania - business needs employees who have the right type of training for businesses that are increasingly specialised. Who else have we got in the trade training centres lucky dip? We have got the member for Hume, who said, at the opening of one of Labor's trade training centres: The new facilities at Wollondilly Anglican College Trades Skills Centre will give students the best chance to learn workplace skills. I already know local businesses in Tahmoor are excited about this opportunity. There are plenty more in here. Who else have we got? We have got the member for Cowper, who said about one of Labor's trade training centres: There are ongoing skills shortages in many parts of the hospitality industry and this new facility will provide more choice and opportunity for students who wish to pursue a career in the sector. I will keep going with our trade training centres lucky dip. We have here now the member for Macarthur, who said: We know that Australia's future productivity and competitiveness depend on a skilled and trained workforce. …   …   … It's important that we build strong school and industry partnerships like this one so that student training in schools meets industry and employer needs. There continues to be the hypocrisy on full display. I will go now to the member for Gippsland, who said: This new training facility at Catholic College Sale will help give our students the skills they need before embarking a trade, so they can hit the ground running when they start their apprenticeships. I have got some more time, so I will continue with the trade training centres lucky dip. We have got the member for Riverina, who said: Each high school will be putting their funding towards exciting initiatives which will benefit students of all ages, particularly providing vocational pathways which are important for secondary schools these days. We also have, at the opening of a trade training centre, the member for Mallee— Mr Danby WF6 He's in the lucky dip too? Ms RISHWORTH HWA He is in the lucky dip as well. He said: Providing young people in our region with education and vocational training opportunities that can lead to careers, is vital to the sustainability of our towns … I think I will have time for one more, and I hope it is not you, Mr Deputy Speaker! No. This one is a short one. It is the member for Cowper again, in the trade training centres lucky dip. He said: Educational opportunities are the way to transform our community. What we have seen is coalition member after coalition member praising Labor's trade training centres out there in their communities, taking credit for them and then coming into this place and cutting the funding for trade training centres. This denies others schools and students the opportunity. Indeed, $950 million was ripped from this budget. It would be nice if the 40 coalition members who went out there praising these trade training centres in their communities would come into this place, stand up to the Prime Minister and say, 'We want this money back in our communities.' Regional Development 88 21:05 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak about the plan to develop regional Australia, which many in my party have committed their political careers to. We all think that the iPhone and the computer make us pretty smart, but we are essentially the same as generations gone by, to as far back as ancient Roman and Egyptian times. Some things never change, even though we have got a lot of technology to make life a lot easier. The first civilisations in the Middle East had dams on rivers and were connected to ports for trade, because the highways of the time then were the sea and rivers. They took products that they grew in their hinterland and farmland to markets and they processed them. Cities grew out of rivers and ports, access to dams and the ability to grow foods. That has not changed. It will never change. To put things in perspective: the first dam in Jordan was in 3000 BC. That was the Jawa dam. There was the Sadd el-Kafara dam nearby, which was not only for water supply but for flood mitigation. The earliest irrigation system in India dates back to the BC period, and the oldest dam in China also goes back a couple of thousand years. There was a massive dam that supplied ancient Rome, the Subiaco dam. It was 50 metres high. It supplied water via major engineering structures called aqueducts, which we all know about, until the 1300s. The mighty city of Amsterdam was formed after the Amstel River was dammed. You only have to go to Holland and the low countries to see the massive engineering and control of water there. In our country over 100 years ago we dammed the Murray-Darling Basin system and developed areas, whether it is the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, or areas along the Darling down to Adelaide, or the coastal dams in Queensland and other ones in Western Australia, and around the country—things don't change. We have a deficit of water of in this country. As you know, we are the driest continent and water is the key to developing regional Australia. But that is not enough. In that you also need a food supply, which we are pretty good at, but we are relatively undeveloped compared with the agriculture in the northern hemisphere. We have massive tracts of land that are undeveloped, but again they depend on water. We also need connectivity. We need fast highways and telecommunications in the modern world so that you can not only trade physically but also electronically. We need a comprehensive transit system for our cities, which is the key to developing regional Australia. A lot has been said about the congestion in Sydney and we are doing a fantastic job delivering highways around the country that will facilitate trade, tourism and safety. But that is not enough. If we want to grow Australia we need more cities than Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, and part of the key to that is developing our food bowls in this current state. We do not say you should not develop northern Australia, but we have an untapped food bowl, due to a variety of environmental goals, some of which are quite questionable. A lot of the Murray-Darling Basin is flowing out to the sea. It used to be a river full of little dry riverbeds. A series of locks and dams has allowed irrigation. In regard fast connectivity, whether it is a physical highway, a train system or an internet system, we are delivering all of those at the moment. Inland Rail planning is far advanced. It will increase trade through Victoria and New South Wales, up to the ports in Brisbane. We have telecommunications being rolled out in the NBN. I also want to mention the suffocation of our cities. We need to develop our regional cities. We think of cities as Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong, Melbourne and Brisbane, but it is the hinterland where Australia needs to go. Part of that is a high-speed rail to allow business and trade. We need to secure the corridor and get cracking on planning for the next period of growth in Australia. Local Government 89 21:10 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge, thank and honour members of local government—the staff, the councillors and the communities that provide the foundation of democracy in my electorate of Indi: the Alpine Shire, with its main towns of Mt Beauty, Bright and Myrtleford; Benalla; Indigo, with its main towns of Yackandandah, Chiltern, Rutherglen and Beechworth, and not to forget the beautiful Barnawartha; Mansfield; Murrindindi, with the main towns of Alexandra, Yea, Marysville, Kinglake; Moira; and the Indi towns of Tungamah, St James and Lake Rowan, and all the towns in between. Without a doubt local government is the level of government closest to the people. It is the provider of many of the services that give our communities quality of life. I believe it is the level of government that really has its finger on the pulse of our communities, our businesses and our environment. Tonight I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of local government in being such a strong partner with the Commonwealth government on so many important projects, most notably the National Stronger Regions Fund, the Stronger Communities Program and the Mobile Black Spot Program. In acknowledging this particularly important role I would like to point out the very difficult situation facing local government in rural and regional areas, with the Commonwealth government's cost-shifting. For example, the indexation freeze on Financial Assistance Grants has had a huge impact. At the same time local governments are asked, indeed expected, to co-invest in Commonwealth programs such as the Mobile Black Spot Program. There is a huge expectation that local governments in rural areas are expected to help cover the costs of telecommunication infrastructure, when this is clearly not the case for local governments in our urban areas. I would like to put on the record my personal appreciation, and that of a grateful electorate, for all the work of Alpine Shire CEO Dave Barry, Mayor Ron Janas and all the councillors; Benalla Rural City CEO Tony McIlroy and Mayor Justin King; Indigo Shire CEO Gerry Smith and Mayor James Trenery; Mansfield Shire CEO Alex Green—and previously David Roth—and Mayor Paul Sladden; Moira Shire CEO Mark Henderson and Gary Cleveland; Murrindindi Shire CEO Margaret Abbey and Mayor Margaret Rae; Towong Shire CEO Juliana Phelps and Mayor David Wortmann—and previously Mary Fraser; Rural City of Wangaratta CEO Brendan McGrath and commissioners Ailsa, Irene and Rod; and the Wodonga City Council CEO Patience Harrington and Mayor Anna Speedie. I have welcomed the opportunities to get to know the CEOs, councillors and all the staff. I appreciate the enormous contribution they make to their communities, both in paid work and in the volunteer work they do with such generosity and skill. It has been a great pleasure to welcome many of the CEOs, councillors and staff to this place and I have been proud to advocate on their behalf. Over the two and a half years that I have been a member of parliament we have had some great wins. To mention a few: the National Stronger Regions Fund, with over $17 million has coming to the electorate; the Stronger Communities Program, helping to distribute over $150,000 to local communities and the Mobile Black Spot Program, with 30 new base stations mobile phone towers to be built in Indi in the next two years, which is the third highest of any electorate in the country. I would also like to acknowledge the role played by local government in Indi in creating and enhancing our cultural environment. Our festivals are some of the best in the country, entertaining locals, supporting businesses and encouraging tourists to enjoy the wonder that is north-east Victoria. I make a warm invitation to my colleagues in the House to put north-east Victoria on your holiday calendar: Bright's Rod Run in November; Benalla's city rose festival at the end of October; Beechworth Golden Horseshoe Festival at Easter; Alexandras Truck, Ute and Rod Show, on the Queen's Birthday weekend; Mansfield High Country Festival; Corryong's Man from Snowy River Bush Festival, at the end of March; and, a personal favourite on a summer's evening, Wodonga's Friday Night on High. In closing I call on the Commonwealth to rethink its approach to working with local government, to lift the freeze on indexation of Financial Assistance Grants and to consider reopening the discussion to give formal recognition to local government in the Constitution. Budget 90 21:15 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I rise to advocate on behalf of prudent Australians who work hard, save and invest their earnings over a lifetime to provide for their financial security in retirement. I refer to the aspirational Australians, self-funded and independent retirees in our community. Just because they have the capacity to pay taxes as a result of their effort, diligence and savings does not mean that they should become a target for higher taxation. We must shift the focus on those to deserve to pay and reduce spending on undeserving causes to balance the budget. Public overhead costs in developed societies are increasing at a rate disproportionate to taxation revenue, leading to budget deficits and ever increasing national debt. There are not many developed and advanced First World nations in surplus. If we want to maintain the income and company tax rates in the 20 to 30 per cent range, we have to create a stricter society with less waste and more social responsibility, like Singapore. To balance the budget the government must implement a wide range of measures which seek to incrementally achieve savings and efficiencies over time, without being too drastic, giving people the chance to adapt to changes and modify their behaviour. These measures include programs to increase workforce participation, clamp down on law and order issues, recover health costs from those who abuse the system, and ensure that education funding is administered more prudently. In terms of workforce participation, formerly the ratio of persons in the workforce to those dependent on welfare was 10 to one; today it is estimated that there is a ratio of five working persons to each person on welfare, and this is projected to increase to an unsustainable three to one in the future. The government must encourage the estimated 800,000 unemployed younger Australians of working age back into the workforce through mentoring and training to alleviate this situation. In terms of law and order, the member for Fraser recently observed that it costs more to keep a person in prison for a year than the annual tuition fees at Harvard University. The effects of crime and drug use are conservatively estimated to cost Australian taxpayers $15 billion per annum, and this is an area that can be targeted for savings. Our health system is under rising cost pressure from the ageing demographics of our population, advances in medical technology and developments in pharmaceuticals. Spending on health care is justifiable for the aged, those with illness or victims of accidents; however, the cost to the health system of those intoxicated by illicit drugs or the result of criminal behaviour should be the subject of cost recovery after treatment. Courts should be empowered to issue cost recovery orders upon conviction as part of sentencing if a person who is found guilty has caused or suffered injury and incurred medical costs, with property confiscation orders enforced to ensure compliance. Similarly, if drugs are involved in a presentation to a medical facility then the person should be treated and a higher Medicare levy applied to the person's PAYG taxation contributions to recover the cost and act as a deterrent. Our higher education loans system is very generous by world standards. It is estimated that unrecoverable student loans will exceed more than $11 billion by 2018. Modelling from the Grattan Institute suggests that the total value of student debt will almost double from $33.8 billion in in 2014 to $63.6 billion in 2018, with the government estimating that only $52 billion will be repaid. Reforms should implemented to ensure that students are provided with appropriate career counselling to promote courses which are relevant to workforce demand and for which there are realistic employment prospects on graduation. Contractual conditions should include satisfactory pass marks, completion of the course and repayment if employed overseas. As I have outlined, to balance the budget the government must consider a wide range of savings measures which seek to incrementally achieve reductions in spending and efficiencies, without being too severe. Hardworking Australians who save and invest their earnings to provide for future financial security for themselves and their families should not always be targeted by governments of all persuasions just because they have the capacity to pay. We need to restore equity and fairness into the taxation system. Education Funding 91 21:20 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand In the bubble of Parliament House it is all too easy to forget that sometimes the things we say in this building have consequences for people in our community. After a particularly depressing fortnight spent debating the merits of the Safe Schools anti-homophobic bullying program in this place, I would like to tell any young LGBTI Australians who are out there listening not to despair. One day, I hope soon, we will not have to have demeaning conversations like this anymore. Change is coming, painfully slowly I know, but hang in there. The future of this country is not for the bigots but for you. Hear also that there are people in this place who know how hard it can be at the moment. We hear that six in 10 young LGBTI people report experiencing verbal homophobic abuse. Around one in five report experiencing physical homophobic abuse. We have read in the research cited by the Australian Human Rights Commission of LGBTI kids who have reported experiencing public insults, explicit threats and physical abuse as a result of their sexuality. Eighty per cent of this abuse is reported to have occurred at a school. We know that LGBTI Australians are three times more likely than other Australians to experience depression and that the suicide rate is six times higher for LGBTI Australians. We understand that these figures are not the result of anything intrinsic to being gay but that they are a function of discrimination and exclusion—the result of living in a society in which your sexuality—who you are—puts you in a minority and causes some people to hate and persecute you. That is why the previous Labor government committed $8 million to the Safe Schools program to, in the words of my friend Senator Penny Wong, 'help stop homophobia and create more inclusive school communities'. It is now in operation in more than 500 schools and 15,000 teachers have chosen to use the tools and training offered by the program. It is endorsed by the Australian Secondary Principals Association and by the Australian mental health organisations beyondblue and Headspace. The program is saving lives—the lives of our kids—but, sadly, it is threatening to an influential and vocal minority of MPs on the other side of the house. They feel uncomfortable about homosexuality, and particularly uncomfortable about talking about homosexuality, so they would rather gay kids find their way in the world alone. When Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull caved in to their fears and agreed to a review of the Safe Schools program earlier this week, he gave them a platform to put the mental health of LGBTI kids up for public debate. The former Prime Minister, and apparently the eminence grise of this government, Tony Abbott, said of the Safe Schools program: It's not an anti-bullying program, it's a social engineering program. It is as though the whole range of conservative institutions and individuals in our society trying to force LGBTI kids to be something other than they are is not a form of malignant social engineering itself. The permanently confused Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, seemed to agree with the former PM, calling Safe Schools 'social entrepreneurship'—whatever that means. Senator Cory Bernardi has said that the program is about: … intimidating and bullying kids into conforming to what is the homosexual agenda. Newsflash, Cory: it is a sexuality, not an ideology. To the extent that the LGBTI community has an agenda, or is trying to engineer something for that matter, it is simply trying to be treated the same way as other Australians—surely an agenda we could all share. The member for Dawson went further, mining a particularly odious trope, in saying that if someone proposed exposing a child to the Safer Schools material: The parents would probably call the police because it would sound a lot like grooming work that a sexual predator might undertake. Most improbably of all, in the context of these preceding comments, the member for Cowan, told the House: I have never met anyone that displays an extreme or irrational fear of homosexuality. What has been the Prime Minister's response to this cavalcade of ignorance and irrational fear? Well, he has not repudiated these views. He has not recognised the particular vulnerability of LGBTI kids, nor the value of the Safe Schools in addressing this vulnerability. He has simply said: I encourage everybody who is discussing these issues to do so in very measured language. In other words, he has encouraged members to use a dog whistle instead of a megaphone. It is not good enough. The Prime Minister owes it to the LGBTI kids around Australia who may be listening to tell the dinosaurs of his backbench that they are wrong, and to do it now, because this is just prelude to what we would see in a national plebiscite on equal marriage. Malcolm Turnbull told this chamber that LGBTI Australians and their families had nothing to fear from a national campaign leading up to a plebiscite on the question of whether they are entitled to equal rights. He said that the debate would be conducted with 'decency' and: … if there are unruly voices heard, they will be drowned out by the common sense and the respect and the general humanity of our people. Unruly voices have been heard, Prime Minister. But LGBTI Australians are yet to see common sense, respect and general humanity from their Prime Minister in response. It is about time the Prime Minister did not just scold his backbench over the words that they use; it is about time he spoke to LGBTI Australians, told them that it is okay to be gay and that the government respects this. Cowper Electorate: Safer Streets Program 92 21:25 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper Tonight I want to throw my support behind a campaign by communities in my electorate to create safer streets in the Macleay Valley. The Macleay Valley is a wonderful place. In fact, I would say it is one of the hidden gems of regional Australia. The beaches are spectacular, the national parks are stunning and the people are friendly and welcoming. I am very privileged to represent communities throughout the valley, including Bellbrook, Willawarrin, Kempsey, Smithtown, Gladstone, South West Rocks and Crescent Head. Kempsey Shire Council has been proactive in developing the commercial precincts in the valley, including through significant investments to improve the Kempsey CBD now that the Pacific Highway does not run flow through town. They have created a space for people along the alignment of the old Pacific Highway. You can feel the positive vibe in Kempsey. The CBD is busy and the upgraded streetscape is most appealing. The council has also recently secured federal funding under the National Stronger Regions Fund to support the development of a new cinema in the Kempsey CBD. The new cinema will bring people to the Kempsey CBD and provide new social opportunities for the entire community. Unfortunately, Kempsey like many regional communities also has its share of crime and antisocial behaviour. In recent months, the respected local newspaper, The Macleay Argus, has run several reports about worrying crime trends in Kempsey, including high rates of break and enter and antisocial behaviour. The community, including the local chambers of commerce and the Kempsey Shire Council, are leading a determined effort to make the streets of the Macleay Valley safer. The council has already launched a CCTV pilot program in the CBD area, which is helping to inform the longer term strategy throughout the valley. The pilot program includes 10 CCTV cameras and the related transmission and monitoring equipment. It is worth noting that the pilot program was delivered on time and on budget. Council has applied for funding through the government's Safer Streets Program and I am fully supportive of their application. As part of the project, council plans to install 50 CCTV cameras in key locations in the Macleay Valley, including the Kempsey CBD, west Kempsey, South West Rocks and Crescent Head. The CCTV cameras will reduce street crime and incidents of antisocial behaviour, and assist the New South Wales Police in the prosecution of offenders and also increase the feeling of safety in the community. I spoke to Mayor Liz Campbell about the Safer Street Program and she said: 'This is something the community has been calling for for a long time. The grant applied for will supplement the work that council has started in trying to make the streets of the Kempsey CBD safer and more family-friendly.' The Kempsey community is right behind this proposal. Local business owners are concerned about the security and safety of their businesses. They see better lighting and CCTV cameras as being very important elements of the strategy to make the streets safer for everyone. I should also add that the New South Wales Police are very happy to see this proceed as well because CCTV footage provides them with a key source of information to help apprehend and prosecute offenders. Elsewhere in the Macleay Valley, South West Rocks and Crescent Head business owners are also making an effort to make their streets safer. The Safer Streets application by Kempsey Shire Council includes a plan to install cameras in the Crescent Head commercial precinct. In South West Rocks, there will also be 10 cameras installed. The Safer Streets plan also includes a proposal for three mobile CCTV cameras, which will be used at festivals, markets and other events. Tourism is a significant part of the Macleay Valley economy, so anything that provides a safer, more secure experience for visitors is valuable. The Macleay Valley is a great place to live and visit. The proposed initiative by Kempsey Shire Council will serve to make a great place even better. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 21:29 NOTICES 93 NOTICES QUESTIONS IN WRITING 94 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Treasury: Departmental Hospitality (Question No. 783) 94 783 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 May 2015: In respect of the $25,000 tender to InterContinental Melbourne (CN3008372) (a) what is the event, (b) how many people will attend, (c) what is the full itinerary, including social events and meals, and (d) what is the total cost of all associated activities. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: a) The InterContinental Melbourne was the venue for the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs meeting in June 2015. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs is the ministerial forum responsible for consumer affairs. Membership consists of the Consumer Affairs Ministers from all Australian states and territories, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. b) In line with previous meetings, there were 42 attendees including Consumer Affairs Ministers, Fair Trading Commissioners and officials representing all states, territories, the Commonwealth and New Zealand. c) The InterContinental Melbourne will hold the following meetings: 11 June 2015 Consumer Affairs Australia and New Zealand officials' level meeting including morning tea, standing buffet lunch and afternoon tea. 12 June 2015 Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs ministerial level meeting including morning tea and standing buffet lunch. d) The total cost of the event at the InterContinental Melbourne, including room hire, catering and audio-visual, was $14,499.88, within the contract (CN3008372) cap of $25,000. Superannuation (Question No. 818) 94 818 Dr Leigh BU8 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 23 June 2015: (1) Has the Treasury been consulting with the retirement incomes sector on potential changes to superannuation pension drawdown rules or rates; if so, (a) when, and (b) with which organisations. (2) What tax concessions currently exist for those earning less than $37,000. (3) Why is access being limited to the part pension for middle income earners. (4) When will the issue of superannuation tax concessions flowing disproportionately to high income earners be addressed. (5) Is it a fact that the combination of the Government freezing the Superannuation Guarantee at 9.5 per cent and increasing superannuation tax for low income earners by abolishing the Low Income Superannuation Contribution scheme will cost Australians $983 billion in retirement savings over the next 40 years. (6) What modelling has The Treasury done on the impact of the abolition of the Low Income Superannuation Contribution and/or the freezing of the Superannuation Guarantee on retirement incomes, and will the Government make this public. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, the Treasury has been consulting with the retirement incomes sector on potential changes to superannuation pension drawdown rules as part of the Review of Retirement Income Streams. A discussion paper was released on the Treasury website in July 2014. Subsequently in early 2015, a further consultation paper on drawdown rules was provided to those organisations that provided submissions to the initial discussion paper. I understand the Treasury will publish submissions on their website in due course, unless an organisation has requested otherwise. (2) Individuals with taxable income of less than $37,000 in an income year are currently entitled to the full value of the Low Income Tax Offset (in addition to the Tax Free Threshold), and may also be eligible for the Senior Australians' and Pensioners' Tax Offset (if over 65 years of age) and other tax concessions in line with the normal operation of the personal income tax system. Individuals with taxable income of less than $37,000 in an income year may also be eligible for the low income earner superannuation contribution (LISC), a payment that effectively refunds the 15 per cent tax on concessional superannuation contributions, up to $500, for low income earners. (3) The Government's rationale for these changes was announced in the 2015-16 Budget. (4) The Government's position on superannuation tax arrangements is set out in my press release of 16 June 2015. (5) The Government's position on these policy matters was set at the time of the announcement of the repeal of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. (6) Any analysis Treasury does is to inform the Government's consideration of policy issues Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Commission on the Status of Women Delegation (Question No. 2069) 95 2069 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 November 2015: In respect of the delegation attending the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW59), can his department provide an itemised list of: (a) travel costs, including air and ground transport; (b) accommodation costs, including: (i) the name and location of each venue, and (ii) a description of each suite; (c) meal costs, including the (i) date, (ii) city/town, and (ii) venue; (d) drinks costs; (e) social events costs and other associated expenditure; and (f) the full itinerary of official events for delegates. Mr Turnbull 885 I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) records costs associated with hospitality and international travel. International travel costs are sub categorised by airfare, accommodation and meals/incidentals. Meals/incidentals are not disaggregated between meals and drinks or allocated by a person's name or location. In keeping with PM&C's Travel Guidelines, official expenses were charged to departmental credit cards. The details requested for individual meals/drinks by date and location purchased cannot be provided without an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. Questions relating to the costs of ministerial travel (including advisors) should be referred to the Department of Finance. PM&C was responsible for meeting the costs for four individuals; two government officials and two non-government delegates, attending CSW59 as part of the Australian Government delegation. (a) The costs for flights was $25,865. (b) The Australian Government delegation stayed in standard rooms at the Westin Grand Central hotel in New York, which was chosen for its proximity to the United Nations headquarters where the majority of official CSW meetings take place. The costs for accommodation for the four delegates: $15,732. (c) The costs for meals for the four PM&C funded delegates also included some meals for other members of the delegation, as well as airport transfers and incidentals such as ground transport to attend meetings. Total costs: $7,870. (d) In line with PM&C's Travel Guidelines, PM&C officials are only permitted to purchase a modest amount of alcohol, when purchasing a meal as part of their official duties; these expenses are not tracked separately. The same travel guidelines applied to the two non-government delegates. (e) There were no social events paid for by PM&C. (f) The programme is at Attachment A. Copies of Attachment A can be obtained from the Table Office