2018-05-22 45 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Second Reading 1 12:02 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Just before the budget was delivered, the Treasurer held a press conference in his normal style, full of bluff and bravado, and said that all Australians would pay more tax under the Labor Party. He kept saying it. 'You will pay more,' he said. 'You will pay more under Labor.' In fact, Labor is proposing bigger tax cuts than the government for 10 million Australians. That's the fact of the matter that this government perhaps didn't predict and didn't see coming, but it is a fact of life. In this legislation, at the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving amendments which enable the Treasurer and all members opposite, if they choose to, to vote for tax cuts that are bigger than those in the budget, or they can choose to vote against bigger tax cuts for 10 Australians. The choice is theirs, but they will have the opportunity to do so. The bill introduces a tax cut scheme which is in three tranches and, likewise, I'll deal with the bill sequentially. Firstly, regarding tax relief on 1 July 2018, as I made clear on budget night in the very first post-budget statements that I made on behalf of the Labor Party, we support the 2018 tax cuts. They should be implemented. The government could pass this legislation through this House today and, as soon as the Senate resumes, could pass it through the other place with our full support. The Greens don't support it; that's a matter for them. But the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party voting together would give you the numbers in both houses. It can be done. But, to do that, the government should split this bill. It should split it in this House, and it should also split it in the Senate and allow the parliament to take a detailed and considered position on each of the three tranches. As I said, we are also proposing better and bigger tax cuts in 2019. When the Labor Party comes to office, should we win the next election, everyone earning less than $125,000 will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor's plans—for many of those people, the tax cuts are almost double those being proposed by the government. A teacher on $65,000 a year would receive a tax cut of $982 a year under Labor. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively would receive a bigger tax cut than that which the government is proposing. We, on this side of the House, are able to do this, as well as commit to bigger surpluses than the government has projected over the forward estimates from the election in the 2018 budget. We are able to do this because of the big, difficult but well-calibrated decisions this side of the House has been prepared to make for several years, enabling us to deliver bigger surpluses as well as bigger, fairer and better tax cuts. The government says: 'Maybe the Labor Party's tax cuts are bigger, that might be true, but you can't believe that they'll implement them.' Well, we are prepared to have the House vote on it and we will be voting for those tax cuts in this parliament, in this chamber. If the government's so concerned to ensure that they're implemented, make them the law! We're happy to make them the law. That's our position. The government will vote against those tax cuts, I predict. They might surprise me, but I predict they'll vote against those tax cuts—because they don't actually believe in them. They don't believe in better tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes. Of course, the government is also proposing further tax cuts in 2022 and 2024. So ordinary are the tax cuts that the government is delivering in 2018 that they are determined to change the focus to 2022 and 2024. All knowing, omnipotent, the government—knowing what the financial situation will be like in 2022, knowing what it will be like economically around the world and in Australia in 2024—says this can be afforded. Normally a parliament votes on things which occur during the course of the parliament. The government wants us to vote on the first day after the budget, to just tick and flick very big tax cuts in 2022 and 2024—because they know exactly what they think they can deliver in those years. I wonder what their track record is on consistency when it comes to tax, five or seven years out. Well, it was just last year that the Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and said all Australians earning more than $21,000 should pay more in income tax. We were told we were irresponsible, obstructionist and even un-Australian—because we wouldn't just immediately agree with that. Now, 12 months later, we're told that everything has changed and we don't need that tax rise—we now need tax cuts. And we're expected to believe that these guys know what they can deliver in 2022 and 2024! Their other big priority, corporate tax cuts, hit a stumble block. But I will give the government due credit. That's their big priority—at least $80 billion worth of corporate tax cuts. That's the big line in the sand for them, their No. 1 issue. Well, it wasn't that long ago that members opposite were proposing an increase in corporate tax. Some members might have forgotten this. They went to the 2013 election proposing to increase the tax on large corporations to pay for the member for Warringah's paid parental leave scheme. That's what they were doing. They told us: 'We know what's right for Australia. We're going to increase corporate tax to pay for the member for Warringah's pet project.' So just five years ago they said their No. 1 priority was increasing corporate tax, and now their No. 1 priority is reducing corporate tax. But we're meant to believe that they know what they'll think in 2024! Mr Hawke interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS I'll give the member for Mitchell credit. He opposed that corporate tax rise. It probably did his career development no good at that particular point! But it is probably an investment which paid off for him in the longer term. We'll give him that. At least he stood up for that. But he remembers it very well. He remembers that he was bound by the solidarity of the Liberal Party to support an increase in corporate tax. He had to argue for it in the public sphere even though he argued against it privately. Does the honourable member for Mitchell really expect us to believe that he, who argued against the corporate tax rise in 2013, is now for the corporate tax cut and his colleagues will be able to stick to the plan for seven years? This is a government which can't stick to a plan for seven minutes! We had state income taxes—that didn't last a news cycle! The Prime Minister had an answer to all Australia's problems. He was going to withdraw all Commonwealth funding from public schools—keep it for private schools but withdraw completely all Commonwealth funding for public schools—and give states the power to levy income tax. That was a particularly dumb idea but he dropped it the next day. The Australian people, unsurprisingly, said, 'No, thank you.' That's the consistency. They can't keep a plan from one day to the next but we're meant to believe that they know what they'll do in 2024. The Australian people know a con job when they see it—particularly as this Treasurer has been so shifty when it comes to matters of costings and the impact on the budget. We've seen it day after day after day in question time. They're pretty simple questions. They're not trick questions. We can do trick questions from time to time, I do confess. Sometimes we'll ask a particularly clever question. These are just straight questions: what's the cost? Some members would remember: 'Tell them the price, son.' Well, tell them the price of the tax cuts. Tell them the price, son, of the tax cuts year by year. Why is it so important to know the cost year by year? The Treasurer says, 'I've told you over four years, I've told you over 10 years. That's all you need to know. Just vote for it.' That's his position: 'Just vote for it. Put the blindfold on. Trust me. Just vote for it.' The reason that the year-on-year data is so important is precisely because the Treasurer has designed these tax cuts in three tranches, so we need to know the impact of each tranche. That's what we're voting on. We, by and large, know the impact of the 2018 tranches. That's pretty clear, by and large, but the comparative impact by the end of the process, when this scheme is fully implemented, of what each tranche has cost the Australian people is not clear. It's not clear at all. We do not know because the Treasurer will not tell us. I give the Treasurer this: he's not so incompetent that he does not know. He does know the answer; he just won't tell us. That's probably even worse than not knowing. To know the answer and to refuse to reveal it to the parliament, in sustained questioning from this side of the House, shows that they have something to hide. It is particularly disappointing that the Treasurer just says, 'Vote for it. We won't tell you what it costs and, also, we won't tell you the impact.' There used to be good graphs in the budget paper, honourable members will recall. The distributional impact and the impact of government decisions on families at different income levels. It used to be there for all to see: what do the government decisions mean for families at this income and that income? It disappeared. I don't think it was a savings measure. I don't think it was designed to save Treasury resources— Mr Husic 91219 It was a face-saving measure. Mr BOWEN DZS A face-saving measure maybe, as the honourable member for Chifley points out—because they didn't like what it said. That was the reason for the withdrawal of those graphs. I don't think they want us to know what the graphs would indicate for the two and three later stages of the government's tax scheme either. The government are really failing the responsibility test because they are asking us to write a cheque today when we do not know whether the funds will be in the account in seven years time to pay for that cheque. They're asking us to vote for a scheme about which they cannot or will not tell us the cost, and they are endangering the sustainability of strong and healthy surpluses as they do so. It's good that the budget is projected to get back to balance in 2019-20 if wages growth comes back to a level we have not seen in this country for a long time and assuming no downturn internationally. That's good, but we need surpluses which are healthy and sustainable. The government, having engaged in the process of trying to avoid attention on the 2018 tax cuts, because they are relatively modest, particularly compared to the Labor Party's, by engaging the 2022 and 2024 tax cuts, are failing the responsibility test and the fairness test. I'll get to the fairness test now. The government has not been keen to provide information, but where there's a vacuum it shall be filled, and modellers around the country have been filling that vacuum. We've seen that Ben Phillips, a respected modeller from the Australian National University, has estimated that when the government's full plan is in place the highest quintile will receive a 2.2 per cent rise, the middle-income quintile will receive 1.1 per cent and the lowest will receive 0.2 per cent. That's what the ANU modelling indicates. We've also seen NATSEM determine that the government's plan worsens the progressivity of the tax system. That is their conclusion. And of course we had the Grattan Institute find that, when the scheme reaches its maturity—that is, when it is costing, on their calculations, $25 billion—$15 billion of the annual cost will go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. That all makes sense. That's the way the Treasurer has designed it. That's what he meant to do. It's not a mistake, it's not a bug, it's not a kink in the system; it's what he set out to do. But he should own it. He should be honest about it. I'm happy to have a debate with him about it, but instead he refuses to admit that's the case. So, just as in so many other matters, the government finds that they're being too clever by half. They thought, 'We know what we'll do. We'll have modest tax cuts in 2018. We'll be able to say they're targeted on low- and middle-income earners. The Labor Party won't match them.' In fact, the Labor Party has matched them and exceeded them. We have exceeded them because of our priorities. Our priorities and our values tell us that's the right thing to do—to have bigger tax cuts focused on low- and middle-income earners—because, firstly, they certainly deserve them; and, secondly, these are people that drive the economy through their spending. Low- and middle-income earners, by definition, have to consume a high degree of what they earn to put food on the table, to send kids to school. A tax cut for them will be spent, by and large. That helps drive the economy. Whatever claim the government had on fiscal responsibility was pretty thin. But, whatever claim they had, they have mortgaged it by refusing to get us to one per cent of GDF surpluses on a realistic and sustainable time frame by writing into the budget now tax cuts in 2022 and 2024 which may or may not be affordable. The revenue may or may not be there to engage sensible, sustainable tax cuts at that time. And their mortgage responsibility is at the exact time that we should be strengthening the budget. As the IMF said: Decisive action is needed now to strengthen fiscal buffers, taking full advantage of the cyclical upswing in economic activity. That's the point: there is a global cyclical upswing in activity. It will not last forever. Anybody who thinks it can be built into the budget, baked in to the estimates for the next four or 10 years is wrong. There are risks in the global economy. Global debt is at record levels, much higher than it was in 2009. We're seeing that reflected in the bond rate and in its impact on the world economy. We don't know what's going happen in the global trade situation. We hope for the best, but the risks are material and the impacts on Australia would be very significant indeed if there was a trade war. And yet the government say, 'Don't worry about that; we know better. We know better than to provision now for sensible tax cuts which can be afforded and to see what can be done down the track in future years as to what could be afforded. And you must take it all; you can't get the tax cuts in 2018 unless you sign on to the tax cuts in 2022 and 2024.' That's what the government's position is. That is an unsustainable position. I say to the government: that is an unsustainable position. Just as the government said it was all or nothing on corporate tax and they had to give in, so they will have to give in on personal income tax and they will have to split this bill. If they don't, if they actually think that they can stand in the way of personal income tax cuts in 2018 and the Australian people say, 'Yes, we don't want those tax cuts in 2018 because we're holding out for the tax cuts in 2024', they are kidding themselves. I'm going give the government the opportunity to vote for a second reading amendment to split the bill. I think the honourable minister at the table has supported other Labor Party second reading amendments in the past. She can support this one; that wouldn't be a problem. This is a very sensible amendment which, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, calls on the government to: amend the bill into separate measures which implement personal income tax relief from 1 July 2018 so these measures can be passed by the parliament without delay; introduce new legislation implementing the remainder of the measures in the bill only when further financial information—call us radical, but we want to see the impact on the budget—including year-on-year costs of each step of the government's full seven-year personal income tax scheme is made available to the parliament; and support the opposition's personal income tax plan to deliver bigger, better tax relief to the Australians. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to: (1)amend the bill to separate the measures which implement personal income tax relief from 1 July 2018, so that these measures can be passed by the Parliament without delay; (2)introduce new legislation implementing the remainder of the measures in the bill only when further financial information, including year-on-year costs of each step of the Government’s full seven-year personal income tax scheme, is made available to the Parliament; and (3)support the Opposition’s personal income tax plan to deliver bigger, better and fairer tax relief to Australians". We will then give the government other opportunities when we get to the consideration in detail stage. I flag that I will move amendments to take out the 2022 and 2024 tranches of income tax cuts from this legislation. Bring them back in. Let us have a debate just on those. Let's argue about it. Let's see the data. Let's shine a light upon the government's plans. Let's have a good look at them. I am more than happy for them to be debated, if that's what the government wants. But separate them; don't hold the tax cuts hostage to the 2022 and 2024 tax cuts. Finally, I will move an amendment to implement Labor's tax plans for 2019. The government talks the talk on lower tax. They keep telling us they're the party of lower tax. They keep telling us they're the party of tax relief for hardworking low- and middle-income Australians. Well, here's an opportunity to vote for it—to vote for better tax cuts for those people who are earning less than $125,000 a year. We'll give the opportunity to the government to vote on those. If they choose to vote against them, their names will be recorded as people who oppose those better, bigger personal income tax cuts for Australians who earn less than $125,000 a year. These are the amendments that we'll move in the House. In the unlikely and unfortunate event that those amendments aren't carried—if the government doesn't see sense—of course we'll facilitate the passage of this bill through the House to send it to the other place, and the other place will be able, with their different working conditions and different numbers, to pull apart the legislation if they see fit and send it back to the House. If the government isn't able to get the entire package through but can only get the 2018 package through the Senate, we'll be encouraging it to accept the will of the Senate. That's what we'll be doing: encouraging the government to accept the will of the Senate. But we'll facilitate passage of the bill through this House, because I'm a realist about how this vote will end up. We'll send it to the other place and let the other place do its job, and we'll be prosecuting the same case in the other house as we have in this House: better tax cuts, better targeted, and more responsible budgeting for Australia's future, without risking Australia's financial and fiscal stability but delivering real tax relief where it's needed, and delivering it now. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the amendment seconded? Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:21 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins The Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 will deliver lower, fairer and simpler taxes. We in the Liberal-National coalition believe that the government, after guaranteeing the essentials and living within its means, should keep taxes lower, simpler and fairer. We have to remember that this is the money of every Australian. It is not the government's money. Australians have earned it, they have worked hard for it and they know best how to spend it. By providing tax relief to low- and middle-income earners first, we are helping people manage household budget pressures. By protecting against bracket creep, we are providing rewards for work so that people can get ahead, take on some extra overtime or take a promotion to provide for their families, to pursue their aspirations and to keep more of their hard-earned pay. By simplifying and flattening the tax system, we are providing certainty for most working Australians that they will face the same tax rate over their working life. This is, of course, a significant structural reform. Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers will pay no more than 32½c in tax in 2024-25. This has the impact of knocking out bracket creep, which has been the bane of many a hardworking Australian. Our tax plan not only lowers their tax burden but also will dampen incentives to find ways to avoid tax. The government's seven-year plan is affordable and fiscally responsible, as outlined in the budget, and it will provide certainty to workers. Those opposite talk about certainty. How can we be certain that this seven-year tax plan will ever eventuate? Well, it's very simple: it is one vote here in the House of Representatives and one vote in the Senate, and then that certainty is delivered. We on this side believe in tax integrity. Labor, unfortunately, believes in higher taxes. Labor is not for tax relief. They are playing politics—punishment politics, pitting one Australian against another in a zero-sum game of class envy, and fighting over the pie rather than growing the pie. Labor is for higher taxes, full stop. Labor is part of the high-tax club. Labor has already announced more than $200 billion worth of taxes in opposition, and they keep coming. We've had the housing tax, the savings tax and the family business tax, and now we have the retirees tax. Our Personal Income Tax Plan will provide tax relief for low-and middle-income earners. A family with two working parents on the average full-time wage will receive tax relief of more than $1,000 under our plan for 2018-19. Under Labor's plan middle-income earners will be hit by Labor's policies to abolish negative gearing. As the latest 2015-16 tax data shows, around 62 per cent of individuals who have a net rental loss have taxable income of less than $80,000. From the top 10 occupations that negatively gear, teachers were the second-biggest users of negative gearing. Teachers, despite all of the rhetoric from Mr Shorten, are not the big end of town. Mr Shorten wants to permanently increase— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister needs to refer to members by their correct titles. Ms O'DWYER LKU The Leader of the Opposition wants to permanently increase the top tax rate to 45 per cent plus the budget repair levy of two per cent plus the Medicare levy of two per cent, which would lock in the top tax rate at 49 per cent. Yes, 49 per cent—almost half. This is one of the highest tax rates in the OECD, putting a nail in the coffin of aspiration, hard work, enterprise and self-reliance. The Turnbull government is not continuing the temporary budget repair levy, because we have done the hard work to help repair the budget. As announced by the Treasurer in the budget, the budget is returning to surplus. Again, Labor takes the lazy approach, by making what is a temporary levy permanent. Is Labor seriously suggesting that there will be a permanent budget deficit under Labor? Is it because they are part of the high-tax club? Is it because they can't control their spending? We all know that it is all of the above. The Leader of the Opposition and his Labor Party will take more money out of your pocket and use it for their reckless spending. Don't trust what they say; look at what they do. Who could forget the home insulation program under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments or the $900 cheques to dead people? The list goes on. Labor's retiree tax would reach back into your pocket, taking more of your savings while you are building your nest egg for retirement. Their retiree tax will take more of your savings when you move into retirement. The government's Personal Income Tax Plan will provide a simpler, flatter tax system. It will provide rewards for work and allow you to get ahead. If the tax system was left unchanged it is projected that 37 per cent of taxpayers would face a marginal tax rate of more than 32½ per cent by 2024-25. Labor believes the government has the first claim on people's hard-earned income. By contrast, we know that it is your money. Their plans on taxes—higher taxes—would cost investment, cost jobs, slow productivity growth and stall wages growth. The government remains committed to our plan for a stronger economy. The Turnbull government will keep backing business to invest and create more jobs. The Turnbull government is guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. The Turnbull government is keeping Australians safe. The Turnbull government is ensuring that the government lives within its means. And, as demonstrated through this bill, the Turnbull government is providing tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians. Lower, fairer, simpler taxes: that's what we believe in and that is what we are delivering. I commend the bill to the House. 12:29 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on these personal income tax changes proposed by the government in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. I think the first point that I would make is that the government can't be especially proud of what is supposed to be the centrepiece of their budget when they spend the short time that they're speaking about these bills devoted almost exclusively to the Labor Party. I mean, that really is a signal and a symbol of how those opposite go about these sorts of things. When the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services comes to the despatch box, it should be a triumphant moment. If they're actually proud of these tax changes they're proposing, it should be a moment of triumph; they should be prepared to speak about the policies and plans in this legislation that we're debating at the moment. Instead, we get the usual rubbish, frankly, about Labor's plan for tax reform. If they were proud of this package of bills, they wouldn't spend so much time talking about this side of the House. The reason they don't speak about the merits or otherwise of their own legislation is that they know that the Australian people are onto them. The Australian people know that this government is trying to pull a big swiftie on the Australian people by trying to pretend all of a sudden that they've discovered that low- and middle-income earners in this country are under pressure. The Turnbull government, by proposing this quite modest tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, is hoping that that will buy some amnesia amongst the working people of this country. But the working people of this country know better. They know that the modest tax relief in these bills does not make up for penalty rates being cut, private health insurance going up, energy bills soaring while those opposite have their blues in the party room over the future of energy policy, pensions being cut, the energy supplement being cut and money being slashed from schools and hospitals. The Australian people are onto this government. They know that the modest tax relief being committed to in this legislation will not, does not and cannot make up for the chaos, the carnage and the cuts of the last five years and the four budgets which preceded this one. If those opposite were truly committed to tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, they'd do what the member for McMahon is proposing in his amendment, which is to split the bill. If they genuinely wanted to help people on low and middle incomes in this country, they would split the bill. We on this side of the House have indicated that we are prepared to immediately support tax relief for working people—the 1 July 2018 changes. We have said for two weeks now—I have lost count the number of times I've said it, the member for McMahon has said it, the Leader of the Opposition has said it and everybody on our side has said it—that we are prepared to support those first stages of the tax relief in this legislation. Our message to those opposite in the government is: stop standing in the way of the tax relief that working Australians need and deserve. Stop holding the working people of this country hostage to your cynical political strategy in this parliament and your trickle-down economics. It beggars belief for most reasonable-thinking people that this government is insisting that working people can't get tax relief in the near term unless we on this side of the House agree to an election—to a tax cut— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 A what? Dr CHALMERS 37998 I'll happily agree to an election, too! I'll happily agree to an election as well, if we want to agree on that right now. I'm happy to fight an election on these tax changes because what the government is proposing and saying, by holding hostage working people in this country, is that only if we in the Labor Party support tax cuts two elections away which overwhelmingly favour the wealthiest people in this country—unless we support that seven years down the track—they're not prepared to give tax relief to working people. I think that calls into question just how genuine those opposite are about the tax cuts that are being proposed here for people on low and middle incomes. That's how absurd this is. So I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the member for McMahon because if we split the bills we can vote as one in this place and give working Australians the tax relief they need and deserve. We can do that right now if they split the bill. We call on them to do so, and if they won't do it here—obviously it will get through this place—then we will call on them to split the bill in the Senate as well, after the committee process is complete. Because that's how we can agree on some near-term tax relief for people who've been doing it too hard for too long. It's frustrating, but not especially surprising, if we're honest, that those opposite are playing these games with the household budgets of people who work and struggle in this country. I won't go through the elements of the bill in any detail, except to say, of course, that there are multiple stages of tax changes being proposed. As I said, we support the 1 July changes; we're not wild about the third wave of changes, which come in seven years down the track, after two more elections; and we will consider the second stage of tax cuts. If we are to consider the middle stages of the tax cuts, it's an imperative that the government tell us how much those middle stages cost. We've asked time and time again from this dispatch box. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have gone to that dispatch box and not been able to answer a simple question, which is: 'What are the itemised costs of the three stages of tax changes that you're proposing in this legislation?' I don't know about others, but I think it's a bit much to ask somebody to buy something when they don't know what the cost of it is. We're being responsible; we're insisting on knowing how much that middle stage costs before we come to a view on it. Again, I think that most reasonable-thinking, objective people would consider that to be fair enough. One of the reasons we don't like the final stage of the tax changes in this legislation—and true to form, frankly, from those opposite—is that we know it overwhelmingly, when you take the whole package together, favours the wealthiest Australians. That would be true to form, because we have a government which goes to the wall to defend the biggest tax concessions going to those who need them least, and so this is really of a piece with their behaviour so far. Certainly, the central aspects of their budgeting since that horror 2014 budget have been to take money out of schools, hospitals and the pockets of pensioners and people on low and middle incomes and redistribute it in the wrong direction, towards the people who need it least in our community. That's really what this tax package, taken in its entirety, is all about. If people don't want to take the Labor Party's word for it, that's fine. Three of the most credible institutions in this country—NATSEM, the ANU and the Grattan Institute—have all had a good look at this package of tax proposals and concluded without any doubt that it overwhelmingly favours the wealthiest people in our community. At a time when we've got record net debt, which has doubled since those opposite came to office—we've got gross debt of over half-a-trillion dollars every year for the next 10 years—it's very unfair to prioritise the top end of town with tax relief. It's also unaffordable and unwise when we've got the budget still in not especially good nick despite terrific global conditions. NATSEM, ANU, the Grattan Institute and others have all made that conclusion, and that is our conclusion too. When you look at the package in its entirety, especially that final stage, it is very unfair to prioritise people who need tax relief the least. As I said, that is unfortunately of a piece with so much of what those opposite have proposed over the last five years of being in government. I think that's why the community does not support the budget, because it is so out of whack and so out of touch with the nation's values and priorities. Those opposite like to pursue this trickle-down agenda, which didn't work in the eighties and won't work in 2018. It doesn't accord with what people want to see from their national government. They want to see investment in hospitals and schools, the things that we truly value as a community. They want to see, when there is tax relief to be provided, people who work and struggle prioritised. That's what the nation wants to see and that is what Labor wants to see as well. When we've got a budget delivered in the best global conditions for a decade—we've had $40 billion in extra taxes and charges land at the Treasurer's feet—the Australian people, with some justification, cannot work out why it is that with all that extra money rolling through the door we've still got record debt, twice what they inherited from Labor, and we've still got cuts to hospitals, schools, pensions, the energy supplement, family payments and others. The reason why the budget's not in especially good nick despite all that money rolling in the door is that those opposite continue to insist on defending tax concessions for those who need them least—tax cuts for the top end of town, including $80 billion for multinationals and the four big banks. That, again, does not accord with what the nation wants from its federal government. The budget and these tax proposals in particular fail the fairness test. They also fail the responsibility test. It's as if those opposite didn't pay any attention when they saw the mistakes of the later Howard and Costello years, when there were those big income tax cuts which were built on the back of a temporary spike in revenue and created a structural problem in the budget. We want to make sure that we don't go down that path again. We've seen that movie before. We don't like how it ends. We don't want to see a sequel to that. To ask the parliament to support big tax cuts for the wealthiest Australians seven years down the track after two more elections strikes me as a terribly irresponsible thing to do. We don't know what condition the budget will be in in seven years. We don't know what condition global and domestic economies will be in in seven years. And there is no rush to come to a conclusion on those changes, especially when we could split the bill up. We could have a vote. Labor and Liberal would vote together for some tax relief for people on low and middle incomes. And then Labor, of course, propose to do more for 10 million working Australians with our bigger and fairer plan for tax relief, which the Leader of the Opposition announced from this dispatch box two Thursdays ago. We're in a position to offer that bigger and fairer tax relief for working people because we have prioritised them. We've made them our highest priority in our budget, unlike those opposite, who have made the highest priority $17 billion to the big banks, of which the Commonwealth Bank will get the lion's share. That's their priority over there. Their priority over there is people earning over a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. On this side of the House, very proudly—and I know that the member for Bendigo is in this camp too—we are here to represent working people. That is the purpose we come here for. Our reason for being is to represent people who work and struggle in this country. That's why our tax relief plan—the bigger, fairer tax cuts for working people—prioritises them over everybody else. Those opposite can't make the same claim. They always come in here to defend the interests of the top end of town at the expense of middle Australia, and that cannot continue. We've made the room in our budget by saying we wouldn't give the tax cuts to the biggest businesses. We've made the room in the budget by cracking down on some of those tax loopholes which are growing, eating up a bigger proportion of the budget as the years go on. We've taken some political heat for some of the announcements that we've made. Again, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services spent almost all of her contribution talking about them rather than the positives of her own plan. But we've done that because we wanted to prioritise people who, more than others, need a bit of relief in the household budget. We've taken those difficult decisions, and I think the Australian people are prepared to accept them. Our tax relief also won't come at the cost of our hospitals and schools—again, another claim that those opposite are unable to make. They've pulled so much money out of our local hospitals and our local schools; TAFE's been hollowed out; big money has been taken out of universities—all to shovel in the direction of the biggest businesses and the wealthiest taxpayers in this country. Again, that is terribly out of whack with the nation's priorities and the nation's values. Unlike those opposite, we are prepared to speak about the positives of our plan to give 10 million workers more tax relief by not giving tax relief to those who need it least. It's very unfortunate, really, that the government can spend so much money in their budget and still not be prepared to defend it from the dispatch box. They want to talk about Labor. We're happy to talk about our policies and plans because we take our responsibilities as the alternative government very seriously. That means being fairer with the budget and more responsible as well. Our approach to tax, which is to support tax cuts for working Australians over everybody else, is fairer and more responsible. If the government could make a claim like that, they would be more in touch with what the nation expects, wants and deserves from them. 12:44 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The Turnbull government's seven-year personal income tax plan is going to provide that relief and encourage and reward Australians, starting with low- and middle-income workers. The member for Rankin in his presentation wanted to talk about structural budget deficits. It was him and a Labor government that put us in the position where we had a structural deficit, without doubt. One of the great achievements of the budget that we've just had and of the coalition government is the repair of the budget's finances in a way that enables us to use our revenue to pay our expenditure. Put simply—and we don't talk about this a lot, and sometimes it's hard to communicate this in this place—the Commonwealth borrows millions of dollars every single day to fund services. Under the Labor Party, we had to borrow money every day to fund the ordinary operating costs of the government for that very day. That's the state that the Labor Party, in the time of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, left the budget in. We had to borrow money every day to fund the ordinary expenditure and the ordinary services of the government for that same day. I think everybody in the community would understand that, whether it's your household budget, your mortgage, your life, your business or your family, having to borrow money to fund your expenditure on a day-to-day basis is unsustainable. It's much harder to fix than it is to destroy. The Labor Party destroyed the budget in a way that means we're borrowing every day to fund ordinary services and ordinary service delivery. It is a completely unsustainable model. Do they acknowledge it? Do they say thank you? No. The member for Rankin says that the Howard government was just some accidental cheap trick of a commodity boom and—here we are—we're having it again. He is in complete ignorance of the fact that the reality of the revenue increase that we're having in Australia right now that enables us to put the budget back on a firm footing is because we have one million new taxpayers. That's because, under the coalition government, over a million new jobs have been created in five years. That is the biggest single factor in the increase in the federal government's revenues, and it's because of the policies of this government. Lowering the company tax rate has been opposed by the Labor Party up hill and down dale. They've opposed the company tax cuts for small Australian businesses, trying to defend the notion that if you've got above $2 million of turnover, if you get $2,000,001 of turnover—not profit—before you've turned a cent of profit for your business, you're somehow a big business. It is complete ignorance of the reality of doing business. They've opposed small Australian family businesses getting a company tax cut, when we know those company tax cuts for small Australian family businesses have meant they've been able to generate jobs. They've been able to increase their part-time and full-time workforces, which has meant one million new jobs in Australia. This, not a commodity boom, has meant an increase in government revenue. The member for Rankin and the shadow Treasurer are deliberately misleading the House when they say this is all a big commodity surge again. Yes, there has been some modest increase in commodity prices, which has meant some increased revenue. But the bulk of the revenue increases are because more people are in work. Also, we have fewer people on welfare. There has been a substantial drop in welfare. We don't hear a lot of people from the Labor Party saying 'Hear, hear!' to that these days. In fact, they get upset. But the welfare bill is down about $5 billion. For the first time in years the number of people on the disability support pension is falling. The number is actually reducing. It's this government's approach to spending and budgeting that fixes structural deficit. We've done this work in just five short years—in budgetary terms, five years is a relatively short period—to fix and correct the failure of the six-year term where you really had a loose spending approach. Never mind that the member for Rankin was the architect of the four years of budget surpluses that were announced by the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, which never eventuated. No surplus has been delivered by the Australian Labor Party since 1989. So what are we to make of the claims today in the debate on this bill that the Labor Party will have bigger tax cuts than us or that somehow they'll do better at delivering tax cuts and budgetary management. I think most people will know that that is a cheap trick from the Labor Party when they bring this into the House. When the Opposition Leader stands up—and you can't trust what this person says to the public—and says, 'We'll do bigger tax cuts than they will,' I don't think it's believable. It's completely unbelievable, if you ask me. The reality is that, while we're resetting the government's finances, getting the budget under control and charting a very credible path to surplus a year earlier than predicted and expected—and we're able to achieve that surplus in a real way—the Labor Party has suddenly started to talk about debt and deficit and tax cuts. But they are not tax cuts for Australian small and medium businesses. In fact, it is still their policy to unwind the tax cuts that the government has already delivered for those Australian small and medium family businesses. They're not staking their whole moral and political fibre on the big end of town; they are attempting to unwind tax reductions to make our businesses internationally competitive, flying in the face of all of the evidence, the data, the productivity increases, the labour hire increases and all of the benefits that have flown through to our economy. They want to unwind and tax small and medium Australian businesses again at a higher rate. And then we're supposed to believe that on personal income tax they'll deliver a bigger income tax cut. It doesn't add up. It doesn't add up with the notion that they're going to introduce—and we know now but they don't mention the cumulative effect of their tax increases; we know it's $200 billion. That is $200 billion sucked out of the economy, out of people's pockets, out of companies and corporations, out of the investment market in properties. It's $200 billion that they'll be sucking in. That's $200 billion not to be spent in the economy. And then somehow we're to believe that they'll deliver a bigger tax cut than us and that somehow people will be better off when they're sucking in $200 billion of tax. We know that, if you're a retiree, you've worked your whole life, you've funded your own retirement and you've invested and set up what for most is a modest lifestyle—you've worked hard and you've put it aside for your whole life—under the Labor Party you are enemy No. 1 of the state. You, because you're in the retirement phase, the pension phase, at the end of your life, when, really, government ought to leave you alone and ought to say, say, 'Look, you have worked hard. You do have a bit more than some people, but it's a lifetime of accumulation'—it's not young people versus old people and it's not old people versus young people. Old people have had a lifetime of work, a lifetime of the ability to put aside money and buy property, a lifetime of getting ready for retirement. That does not mean that, just because they have more now, they are against young people who are starting out in life, which we sometimes hear from the Labor Party. Yes, we have to do more to make it easier for young people to get ahead. Yes, we have to do more to make sure that you have a job, you can buy a house and you can get into the market. But isn't old people versus young people. It isn't retirees versus university graduates. That is the dynamic we hear from the Labor Party more often than not. When we have from the Labor Party the greedy tax grab which borders on theft from people who've earnt their way in life, I think you know that the hit list of 'anyone who has funded their own retirement' will be a reality if Labor comes to government. In these bills we see the makings of this. Self-funded retirees won't benefit from income tax cuts from the Labor Party. They will be materially worse off. And, to the Labor Party's great shame, they do not understand the effect this will have on government. We want people to fund their own retirement. We want people to be off the state as long as possible, because the biggest single item of expenditure in the Commonwealth government is pensions. It is, of course, in the welfare budget and it is pensions, and we have to pay it. Because of the generational arrangements, we have to make sure that people are provided for in their old age, and we do. But, if we don't look at the future with compulsory superannuation, with the nexus of work and the nexus of ageing of our society, and if we say, 'Well, we're going to strip as much as possible off people who've already put aside money to retire on their own bat', it's not the Labor Party that's going to suffer; it's all of the taxpayer base that will pay for people returning to the part-pension and people returning to the pension. So it is completely counterproductive for the Labor Party to rip $200 billion out of our economy, including the retirees tax, which will mean retirees will be worse off and quicker to get back on the government part pension or pension. And, of course, the government's budget will suffer again. It is completely ill thought out from the Labor Party and a great overreach. But we know what their No. 1 target is: it is self-funded retirees. It is older people. It is people who have put aside money. It's people who have worked hard. We stand up for them in the coalition. These are not wealthy people. These are not people that you would describe as the big end of town or fat cats, and the narrative that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition constantly—the Bernie Sanders rhetoric, the socialist rhetoric—that people who have worked their whole life, put aside and funded their own retirement are somehow rich, greedy fat cats and the big end of town is a complete nonsense of the construct of Australian society. The reality is that most people in Australia live modestly. Most people in Australia work hard and do their best. Under the government's tax plans, when we finish the Personal Income Tax Plan of the Turnbull government that the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, announced on budget night, it will mean that 94 per cent of all taxpayers in Australia will face a marginal tax rate of 32.5c or less. Talk about an egalitarian society. You don't have to look too far to understand that 94 per cent of people are not rich fat cats in this country. I defy the Labor Party to look into it that 94 per cent and tell people who are among it that they are rich, that they are fat cats, that they are greedy and that they are people to be targeted by government. We have one of the fairest and most egalitarian countries in human history. The Turnbull government understands that 94 per cent of people in this country work hard. They don't deserve to be the target of government tax policy. They don't deserve to have their income stripped away from them. It has been a bipartisan consensus for a long time in Australia that we tax income too heavily. We are one of the nations in the world that have the highest reliance on income tax for their tax bases. We have always talked about it. We've talked about getting the reliance off people's personal income and onto goods and services taxes, broad based taxes and indirect taxes—not direct taxes through income. But the Labor Party has broken with that consensus because they think that, if you are in that 94 per cent that we think shouldn't be paying more than 32c in the dollar, you're somehow rich or a fat cat. I don't agree. The coalition doesn't agree. We understand Australia. We understand middle Australia, who work hard to get ahead. There is no better incentive and no better signal that you could send to Australians than, 'Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers won't pay more than 32.5c in the dollar.' Then those people who work harder, who get ahead further and who are fortunate enough to get a lot of wealth in their lives will pay a substantial amount of their income in tax. But the broad middle of this country—and it is a 94 per cent broad middle; it is hardworking, ordinary people getting ahead—will pay no more than 32.5c in the dollar. But this, Labor says, is unfair. The modern Labor Party are completely out of touch with the worker of today who works, who gets ahead, who pays taxes and who funds the welfare. We now know that about half of households and individuals receive a form of government payment. The tax base is diminishing. We cannot ask that tax base for more and more of their individual hard work and their day-to-day income and suggest that, somehow, at the same time they are rich fat cats who need to be plundered more by the government. It's a fundamental lack of understanding in 2018 of the way our society is built and what really happens in the real economy. Labor do not understand small business. They do not understand medium Australian family business. They don't understand that most people in Australia work hard to get ahead and earn their way. They already pay a lot of tax. Whether it's income tax or any other sorts of taxes, state and federal, tax is hugely prevalent in all of our lives. It's the coalition that you can trust to reduce the tax burden on income. We're going to make sure, through our Personal Income Tax Plan, that we are credibly reducing income tax over the next decade so that 94 per cent of Australians will pay no more than 32.5c in the dollar. We will, at the same time, relieve the burden on small and medium business and provide for companies in Australia to be competitive internationally at the higher level. This plan will occur at the same time as restructuring our budget, to make sure we're no longer borrowing money every day to fund the daily expenditure of government. It is the coalition you can trust on economic management. It's the coalition you can trust on budgeting and finances. It's the coalition you can trust on tax. It has never been the Labor Party and it never will be. 12:58 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne 'Tax' is not a dirty word. Tax is the price that we pay for a civilised society. So, when legislation comes before this place to deal with a budget and to deal with tax, the No. 1 question that all of us should be asking is: is this going to help make Australia a more equal place? Is this going to defend egalitarianism in Australia? When they say 'tax cuts', I hear 'hospital cuts'. Tax cuts are school cuts. Tax cuts mean less money in the government purse to lift the level of Newstart, which is currently condemning people to poverty. We have an obligation to defend egalitarianism in this country and to make sure that Australia remains a place where, no matter how much money you've got in your pocket, if you get sick you can go to the hospital or the doctor and you won't be stung with a big Medicare gap fee between what Medicare pays and what the doctor charges. We in this place have an obligation to make sure that our public schools are world standard and that, when you send your kid to a public school, you're not stung with so-called voluntary fees that add up to hundreds of dollars and, in some cases, thousands of dollars that increasingly make a mockery of the idea that we have free universal education in this country. We have an obligation to say to people who are dealing with rising unemployment and underemployment—we have a crisis in this country where nearly one in three young people either doesn't have a job or doesn't have the hours of work that they want—that, while they are looking for a job, we will support them with Newstart at a level that is not so far below the poverty line that it becomes life-crushing and a barrier to even finding work. We have an obligation to say the priority should be services, not tax cuts. The Greens would rather see a budget that focuses on services, not tax cuts. Instead it seems that this budget and the next election are very quickly becoming about one thing: it's turning into a tax cut arms race. We have a neoliberal macho 'mine's bigger than yours' tax cut contest going on at the moment, which is nothing short of a bribe-fest. For many people it will mean getting maybe $10 a week in their pocket. But that's going to be eaten up very quickly because we're not putting enough money into Medicare, and the cost of going to the doctor is going up and up. Or it's going to be eaten up quickly because your power bills go up because we no longer regulate energy prices in this country. When you ask people whether they would prefer to have a tax cut that gives them a few dollars in their pocket that will disappear almost as soon as it hits or greater investment in services like public schools and our public hospitals and looking after people who fall through the cracks, most would say they would prefer that the money be spent making Australia a more equal place than to have a tax cut that is going to disappear the moment it hits their pocket. Most people—but not the government—say they want to look after low-income earners. There is a very straightforward way of doing that. Let's lift Newstart and youth allowance so that people aren't stuck in a poverty trap. Let's lift the minimum wage so that we don't grow a class of working poor in this country. It's at the stage now where you can be a full-time worker on a minimum wage and be below the poverty line. We are becoming a US-style society where even a full-time job is no longer a guarantee of security and no longer a guarantee that you won't be in poverty. That's where we're heading as a society. If we wanted to look after low-income earners we'd lift the minimum wage as well as lifting Newstart. One of the best ways of making sure low-income earners are looked after is by making health care, education and all the other social services that people rely on genuinely free and available to them—no extra little out-of-pocket costs or voluntary costs or gap fees to pay. Make these services universally available. The best way to do that is through publicly funded health care, publicly funded schools and a universal system. That's how you get better bang for your buck and that's how you can ensure fairness. It comes as no surprise that this government, which takes its riding instructions from big business and from the top end of town, marches in here and says: 'Here in this bill we want to end the progressive taxation system in Australia once and for all. We want to get to a stage where someone who is earning less than the minimum wage pays the same tax rate as a CEO on $200,000.' That's what this bill will do. This bill will say, 'By the time that phase 3 of the tax cuts kicks in, someone who's earning the minimum wage, or even less than the minimum wage, gets hit with the same tax rate as someone who's on $200,000.' We have a tradition in this country that says the more you earn the higher your tax rate is, because you can afford to give a bit more, because that helps make Australia more equal. That is under direct challenge from this government. The fact that this bill would give a $7,000 tax benefit to a millionaire tells you everything that you need to know about this bill. This bill is about delivering for the top end. If you want to know why the cost of going to the doctor keeps going up or those so-called voluntary school fees keep going up, part of the reason is that the Liberal government wants to give a $7,000 tax break to a millionaire. That's ultimately why the government is hitting the poor: so that it can hand that money over to the rich. That's why the Greens have said consistently: 'We will not engage in this move that will increase inequality in society. We will not support the government in this endeavour. We want services over tax cuts, and we will not support you in this move.' But it hasn't taken all that long, after the government came out, fired the starting gun and started talking about tax cuts, for the opposition to be cowed into submission and to join them in this tax cuts arms race. One of the most distressing things is that straight out of the blocks the opposition said, 'We'll wave through phase 1 of this.' Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— Mr BANDT M3C I hear an interjection saying this is about low-income earners. I don't know what definition you're using, but I find it hard to believe that someone on $110,000 or $120,000 counts as a low-income earner. That's what the opposition has said it's prepared to wave through straightaway: 'Let's take money that could be going to schools and hospitals and use it to help out people on $110,000 or $120,000.' That's not a good use of money. If the opposition were serious about looking after low-income earners, as I've said, the best way to do it is to use the money that they want to give to people on $110,000 or $120,000 and instead put that into reducing the cost of going to see the doctor or any fees that you might face if you end up in hospital, or helping lift people who are on Newstart. That would be a way of making Australia more equal. But it gets worse because, although they came straight out of the blocks and said that, they then said that today—potentially the vote comes on today—they're also now open to the option of waving through phase 2 of the government's tax cuts. For those who don't know what that means or what that would involve, let us be absolutely clear: we are talking about tax cuts for MPs to the extent of $2,000 a year. We are talking about tax cuts for people who are CEOs and tax cuts for millionaires, because by changing the tax rates and waving through phase 2 you're giving $2,000 to everyone who earns, like us, $200,000 and over. That is not what an opposition should be doing. The Greens will stand up to this government and say, 'We are not having a bar of it, because you, the government, are threatening the very foundations of egalitarianism in this country.' But it would be nice to have a bit of help from the opposition. The clue's in the name. It's in your job title: oppose. When the government stands up and says, 'We want to give tax cuts to people who are on $200,000,' maybe it's a good idea to say, 'No, there are better ways of spending the money.' I don't believe that we can sit here in good conscience and vote for a tax cut for MPs and people who earn more than us at the same time as the cost of going to the doctor keeps going up or the cost of sending your kids to school keeps going up or while there are people living in poverty even when they're working full time. That would be a shame. That would be a stain on everyone who votes for this bill today. They are prepared to wave through a tax cut for people on $200,000, either here or in the other place, while we have people who are living below the poverty line, even while they're working full time—people who can't afford to put a roof over their head. What is at stake here is the principle of the welfare state as we know it. This is about saying, 'We do not want to go down the US road of dog eat dog and everyone being left by themselves, where you can work a full-time job or perhaps even work two or three jobs and still find yourself without enough money to make ends meet. We don't want to become a US style society where, if you get sick, they check your credit card before they check your Medicare card. We do not want to become a US style society where the quality of the education you get depends largely on how much money you've got.' To ensure that Australia remains egalitarian and ensure that we reduce inequality at a time when inequality is at a 70-year high, we are going to need to stand up to the powerful. We are going to need to stand up to those who are able to use lawyers to minimise their tax. We're going to need to stand up to the big corporations, but we're especially going to need to say, 'Progressive taxation must remain a foundation of the Australian tax system.' And we must say with a crystal clear voice, 'In this parliament, we want services over tax cuts.' That means voting against this bill and it means coming clean about what everyone is going to do on phase 2 and phase 3. We could go to an election very soon, and I sincerely hope that this rotten government are turfed out. But what we've got to be clear about is what we're going to replace them with. Are we going to replace this rotten government with another mob who also want to give tax cuts to people on $200,000 and also want to give tax cuts to millionaires? Now is the time to stand up to this government. Instead of joining in a tax-cut arms race, say proudly, 'No. In Australia we value the welfare state, and social democracy means that sometimes it is better not to have a tax cut and, instead, put that money into services.' Every time that we join in the race and say that we want to have tax cuts for people who are earning over $200,000, we eat away at the basis of the welfare state. I won't be supporting this bill. I want to see services, not tax cuts. Let's change the debate and get back to a basic principle: tax is not a dirty word. The question is: what do we spend our tax on? And, if we can spend our tax on universal schools, health care and making sure that people are not out of pocket when they send their kids to schools or when they go to the GP, the Australian people will thank us for it. It's a much better use of money than putting $10 in people's pockets, only for them to find it disappears the moment that it is put there. 13:13 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax If the member for Melbourne were in any way economically literate, I would genuinely pay him the courtesy of a response, but what we've just heard over the last 10 or 15 minutes is typical pixie Greens, bottom-of-the-garden stuff with absolutely no understanding of how the economy works. I don't think there's a person in this House, including the Greens and my dear friends who are trying to interject on the other side in the Labor Party, who disagrees on the importance of vital services, whether it be health services, education services or services of welfare. Now, that might be the endgame, but there is a means to the ends, and the means to those ends is the economy—a strong economy. Without a strong economy you do not have the means by which you can provide vital services to the Australian community—a point the Greens fail to understand time and time again. Also the Australian Labor Party have shown yet again, as they have done for over 50 years, that they are utterly incapable of managing Australia's national economy. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 They interject, saying it's only been 25 years that they've been clueless. Actually, I disagree. I think it's a full 50 years, not just 25. Labor, without exception, across the three opportunities it has had to govern in those 50 years, has shown that it cannot successfully balance spending against income. With Labor, spending always has and always will win, and that means the losers always have been and always will be Australia and Australians in the short term, the medium term and the long term because it always takes so long to fix Labor's mess. The only reason Gough Whitlam, the first of the five great Labor wreckers—if you count Kevin Rudd twice, that is—did not leave a deficit at the time of his departure is that he was gone before the impact of his reckless spending could show in the budget papers. What Whitlam left was a time bomb. In just two years and 11 months, he quadrupled outlays on health and education. In his 1974 budget alone, spending across the board rose by a staggering 46.9 per cent, by almost half in a single year on top of a 20 per cent increase in the 1973 budget. The second Labor government of the postwar period, the Hawke-Keating combination, was even more disastrous from the perspective of debt. The net debt Keating left to the Australian taxpayers and to the incoming Howard government in 1996 was $96 billion. In today's money, that is $160 billion. Then, of course, after the Howard government had paid back Keating's debt and returned Australia to a surplus, we had the mother of all Labor governments of the past half century: the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd disaster. The scale of the disaster wreaked on this country and its citizens in that period is obscene. It's record-breaking. It was worse than Whitlam and certainly worse than Keating. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13 Labor delivered budget deficits adding up to $191 billion, although, according to the member for Lilley, at some stage of the budget cycle each of those budgets was projected to be in surplus. The scale of Labor's mismanagement in those years is staggering, and all those complicit in the catastrophe should hang their heads in shame, with today's Leader of the Opposition front and centre among them. Border protection costs were out of control, being $11 million out of whack, because Labor wouldn't stop the boats and detention centres were flooded with 50,000 illegal arrivals, leaving an appalling legacy of 1,200 people drowned at sea and thousands of children in detention. When it was all over, Treasury told the incoming Abbott coalition government in 2013 that, based in large part on committed outlays embedded by the previous Gillard budget, the debt would balloon to almost $700 billion—$667 billion over a decade—unless it was addressed. Since 2013 the coalition has been charged with cleaning up Labor's third great mess. This bill, reflecting a cornerstone of the 2018 budget, is part of that ongoing and disciplined process. The fact that it contains affordable income tax relief for low- to middle-income earners in the first instance, extending through the tax scales over time, reflects the advances that have already been made under this coalition. Job creation is now at its highest level in our history, and confidence is returning. Over 400,000 jobs were created last year. That's over 1,100 new jobs every single day. This bill, offering immediate and long-term carefully calibrated tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, will provide an annual tax benefit of up to $530 to 10 million Australian workers next year. In my region of the Sunshine Coast alone, over 126,000 low- and middle-income earners are set to receive income tax relief next financial year thanks to this bill. The threshold of the 32½ per cent tax bracket will also go up on 1 July, from $87,000 to $90,000, providing up to $135 a year for around 3 million taxpayers. That move extends the benefit for people in this bracket that was contained in the 2016-17 budget, which increased the threshold from the then $80,000 to the current $87,000. The next step, effective from 1 July 2022, is to see that same threshold go to $120,000, to benefit around 3.9 million taxpayers by as much as $1,350 per annum. The final step in this plan to make the income tax system simpler, lower and fairer comes when, from July 2024, the 32½ per cent threshold is extended from $120,000 to $200,000, with the 37 per cent rate abolished entirely. These reforms will largely take bracket creep out of our tax system while at the same time providing a meaningful mechanism to lift productivity, by curtailing structural disincentives to hard work and enterprise. Now, that, Deputy Speaker, is major reform. Needless to say, Labor, of course, is baulking. Labor like the tax cuts at the lower end of the scale, but, in the world of neo-Marxist class envy that mainstream Labor have so clearly and completely regressed to under mounting pressure from the former speaker of the Greens, the member for Melbourne; the unions, of course—let's not forget the unions—and their own increasingly resurgent socialist left, they reject the rest of the package. People on $80,000-plus are clearly bourgeois to the extreme left, which now totally dominates the agenda of the members opposite—and they're proud of it. The bourgeois should either be paying way more tax or tossed on the cart and rattled off to the guillotine, you would think. The fact is that the very people that the members opposite regard as undeserving members of the bourgeois—excluding, of course, all the inner-city yuppies on six-figure salaries that constitute today's latte left—are indeed paying a very significant portion of income tax, and will continue to do so under the coalition plan. In 2015-16, the top one per cent of taxpayers paid around 17 per cent of the $186 billion raised through personal income tax. The top 10 per cent, which would include much of the Green-Labor left, actually paid 45 per cent of that $186 billion. The detail of Labor's alternative income tax plan is, needless to say, somewhat murky, and that's the way they like it—keep it secret and keep it murky—and I suggest, Deputy Speaker, that's how Labor will keep it all the way up until the next election. We do know that Labor's plan will involve massive tax increases approaching $220 billion—and growing. That's growing whether it's in plain sight of the electorate or on the sly. And we do know from the of the oft-repeated but sparsely detailed undertakings from the opposition that there will be increased spending basically across the board. Spending alone for its own sake seems to work like a tonic on the Labor Party. It seems to perk them up as it does in the House now. Labor loves to spend. It's an addiction, and these guys are fully hooked. Where the dollars go and what they actually achieve with that spend—that's back-of-the-drink-coaster stuff, and to them it matters not. The choice for the Australian people between this budget, which details the Turnbull government's plan for a strong economy, and the alternative from Labor has never been more stark. Ultimately, it's about trust and it's about what sort of country we want to have, what sort of country Australia will be. Labor has very clearly and in ways that are troubling to a majority of Australians drifted enormously to the left. Labor's relentless leftward slide has been driven in large measure by the emergence of the Greens as the 21st-century hipster equivalent of the old Labor comrades of years ago, and recently by a resurgence of the militant Left within the Labor Party that seeks to out-Green the Greens, as absurd as that notion might be. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Of course, the members opposite complain because I haven't given due credit to the unions, and indeed they're right. Those left-wing unions are, indeed, the principal drivers. Driven perhaps by their memories of being so tricked and so sidelined during the Hawke-Keating era and totally ignored during the Kevin Rudd prime ministership, now they want their revenge on the right of their own party and on the Australian public. And such is the authority that the unions now wield across the machinery of the Labor Party that the parliamentary leadership has also meekly fallen into line. It is hard to know whether the current opposition leader actually believes the neo-Marxist class warfare claptrap, the rhetoric that has become his stock and trade, or whether, just like Julia Gillard before him, he is simply genuflecting in order to keep his job while doing all manner of deals on the side. There are some things that even the Leader of the Opposition understands will take him so far to the left that he is unelectable unless he can do some of those shady deals ahead of Labor's national conference in July. More than anything, he knows that he cannot afford to allow the boats to start up. And I believe this is the reason, in order to maintain some semblance of immigration policy, that they are giving everything away to the far Left when it comes to the economy. It is why the Labor Party is refusing to support the full measures in this bill that is put to this House that will do what we always do on this side: strengthen the Australian economy. 13:28 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt We've already heard in this debate particularly from the member for Melbourne, who has demonstrated why you can never trust the Greens on the economy or, in fact, to do anything really for the benefit of ordinary Australians. But then we heard from the member for Fairfax, who was railing against neo-Marxism when the irony is that the main proponent of Marxist ideology in this parliament sits behind him. The member for Warringah is proposing the nationalisation of the means of production, wanting the government to buy a coal-fired power station that is actually going to close. Not only does he want to own the asset; he wants to own assets that will be worthless. And the member for Fairfax can't even take it. He's walked out of the chamber because he can't accept that the only proponents of Marxism in this house are actually on that side of the chamber. The hypocrisy that we have coming out of here is amazing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Broadband 14 13:30 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Prime Minister Turnbull's NBN rollout has become a multitechnology messy morass. Before the 2013 election the then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, a well-known socialist, and his then opposition communications spokesman, Mr Turnbull, gave an ironclad promise that by the end of 2016 all Australians would have an internet download speed of between 25 and 100 megabits per second. Sadly, not only has Prime Minister Turnbull broken that promise but his government's total mismanagement of the rollout has caused people in my electorate to become extremely angry and frustrated. My electorate office constantly fields phone calls and emails about NBN problems. I've held an NBN crisis mobile office in my electorate, where many people have told me their horror NBN stories. One of them, my angry constituent Matthew, from Runcorn, said that he's incredulous at the mess the Turnbull government rollout has become. Matthew says that within 400 metres of his premises there are three different technologies being used: upgraded HFC, fibre to the premises and fibre to the node. He says his service will be dramatically impeded after he's connected to the NBN. He says his service won't be able to perform anywhere near his existing service and he will have to rely on copper that is not currently adequate to provide a reliable ADSL connection. Southside residents need a reliable and fast internet connection so that they can contact their families overseas, conduct businesses across Australia and the world or study. We need an internet service that we can rely on. The Turnbull government's NBN is in crisis, and they should be apologising to the Australian people for the mess they've created. (Time expired) Far North Coast Baseball Association 14 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Last weekend, for the first time in competition history, the Far North Coast Baseball Association's senior league team competed on their home field in Lismore after qualifying for the 2018 Australian Senior League Championship. Far North Coast gained qualification to the senior league recently with a hard-fought, come-from-behind win over Brisbane Metro in the Queensland senior state titles. This win has not only sealed a place at the Australian titles for Far North Coast but given the team an opportunity to represent Australia on the international stage. The winner of the Australian Senior League Championship will earn an all-expenses-paid trip to the USA to compete in the prestigious Senior League World Series, the pinnacle of senior league baseball. The Far North Coast squad for the national championship is Nick Battese, Lennox Bird, Nathan Beszrouchko, Sean Bolton, Kynan Davis, Molly Donald, Luke Dransfield, Tom Gooley, Josh Healy, Kave Henderson, Jacob Ponton and Xavier Thacker. The squad is managed by David Boulton with assistant coach Brad Donald and executive officer Lois Ponton. I'd also like to add that the Far North Coast junior and little league teams have also qualified for their respective Australian titles, making this the first time in the association's 81-year history when all three levels have qualified. I congratulate the Far North Coast Baseball Association and wish the teams the very best. Page, the Hon. Ernest Thomas (Ernie) 15 13:33 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I pay tribute to Ernie Page, who lost his ongoing battle with cancer on Sunday. Our community, our state and our party have lost a public servant of the highest order. Ernie did his trade as an electrician after attending local schools. He became a national serviceman in the 1950s, but began his public service in our community in 1962, when he was elected to the Waverley council. He served on the council until 1987, with nine of those years being as the mayor of Waverley. He was elected to the New South Wales parliament as the member for Waverly in 1981 and then as the member for Coogee from 1991 to 2003. Ernie was a minister in the first Carr Labor government in the 1990s, serving as the Minister for Local Government, and was responsible for a number of important reforms, mainly related to accountability and management of local government and election processes. Most importantly, Ernie was dedicated to his local community. He had a real passion for the eastern suburbs. He was very well connected in the community and with local community organisations. He really did advance the interests of working people and the elderly. Ernie was an all-round good bloke. I offer my condolences to his wife, Barbara; his five children; and his 13 grandchildren. Rest in peace, Ernie. Dividend Imputation 15 13:34 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise to make Corangamite pensioners and self-funded retirees aware of Labor's terrible plan to deny people on a low taxable income a tax refund from share dividends. This would mean that, if you are on a low income or have a small self-managed super fund, you will no longer get a refund for tax already paid on your shares. This would hurt more than half a million Australians on taxable incomes of less than $18,200, including many self-funded retirees and future pensioners. This is a $10.7 billion tax slug, and it's absolutely not fair. Of the $200 billion in new taxes that Labor has announced, the one that raises the most tax in the next four years is Labor's retirees tax. That's why we must never, ever allow Labor to get into office. This means that Labor is going on a spending spree with money taken from the pockets of older Australians who've worked hard and saved hard and are now trying to be independent in retirement. Tax refunds from share dividends are relied upon by many retirees in Corangamite and around the nation to help pay the bills. Many of thousands of people in our community would be worse off under Labor's proposed changes. We all know that Labor cannot be trusted to manage the Australian economy, and let's never forget: when Labor run out of money, they end up coming for yours. Lyons Electorate: Home Care Packages 15 13:36 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Ron and Maureen live in Dodges Ferry in my electorate. Maureen suffers early onset dementia, and she was classified some time ago as requiring level 4 home care. Unfortunately, there are no level 4 home care packages available, so she's being funded at level 2. Maureen takes a bus to Hobart for a day at Old Vicarage day support, and they charge $85 for that service. Maureen gets around $1,000 to $1,200 a month. Two hundred dollars a month goes straight to the Better Living Homecare provider, and this provider does nothing. It does absolutely nothing. It doesn't provide the home care. It doesn't provide any care package. All it does is bank the funds from the government, which then go to Maureen. They charge $200 in administration fees every month for simply being a bank account. It's an absolute outrage. I don't care whether it's Liberal governments or Labor governments. I think this is an unconscionable cost that would actually make banks blush with shame. Banks charge around $6 a month to have an account with them, yet this provider, which provides no care service for this family, provides no home care, provides no cleaning services and doesn't help with the transport—it does nothing for this family, so this family look after their own needs because it's actually cheaper for them to get their own bus service rather than going through the provider—is getting $200 a month for doing nothing. That's an outrage. (Time expired) National Volunteer Week 15 13:37 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore National Volunteer Week celebrates the spirit of volunteering and the efforts of more than six million Australians who willingly give of their time to our community. Margaret Court Community Outreach is one such not-for-profit organisation, serving our community for more than 15 years by helping, on average, 550 families and individuals per week by distributing around 3,000 meals and clothing for those in need. There are over 70 volunteers working diligently at the Osborne Park, Kwinana and Forrestfield centres on a weekly basis, assisting with food packaging in hampers and with clothing distribution. All this could never be possible without the outstanding dedication of volunteers, who make a significant contribution to our community. I would like to acknowledge the following long-serving volunteers, who have provided more than 10 years of dedicated service: Katie Caffieri, Shena Tremain, David Shearer and Damiano Chiera, who has served for 19 years. The economic value of volunteering in Western Australia is a staggering $39 billion, which is a significant contribution to our society. I applaud the outstanding contribution volunteers make across Australia. La Mama Theatre 16 13:39 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills It's sad to report that the beloved La Mama Theatre in Carlton was destroyed by fire last Saturday morning. Despite the efforts of 50 firefighters who attended the blaze, the fire gutted the heritage listed building. Thankfully, nobody was injured. For more than 50 years, La Mama Theatre has produced cutting-edge contemporary theatre, with alumni including Cate Blanchett, Julia Zemiro and David Williamson, to name only a few. While the theatre is just outside my electorate, scores of artists do live in Wills, my electorate, and they considered La Mama something of a second home. I spent a fair bit of time there myself when I was studying at Melbourne uni. There has been an outpouring of emotion and support following the fire, which is testament to the importance of La Mama to Melbourne's thriving arts scene. Of course, we amateur thespians here would understand and appreciate the importance of that space where they've created living art with the passion and excitement of live theatre. So I'm not alone in saying how fantastic it is to see everyone resolve to rebuild the theatre. I have already started working to see if there are organisations that could provide some temporary venues so that they can honour their existing bookings. The show must go on, so we should all try and support what is so important in the space of theatre and the arts. Queensland: Water Pricing 16 13:40 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In a world where water and power prices continue to rise, and we have a Labor Party doing very little about it, we now have in Queensland water prices being determined by a state Labor government that expropriated the water from the dams and infrastructure from my very city and now has the temerity to increase the prices. They asked the QCA to do the review, and the 11 local council areas simply have to suck up a three per cent increase every year for the next three years. That is almost $100 tacked onto your water bill. There is a word in the vernacular for a politician on a six-figure salary who waves by those kinds of injustices. We call them muppets. We've had enough of muppets in Queensland, we've had enough of poodles in Queensland. We want MPs who stand up against double-digit inflation on water prices for no reason at all. No sooner have we dragged these Seqwater people out of the courts for their mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam issue that flooded my beautiful city than we have them asking for double digit price rises for the next three years. It is unacceptable but you would expect it from Labor—47 of those state MPs queued up like muppets to vote through the pay rise for Seqwater and the increase in water prices, and there was nothing the LNP could do to stop it. Well, we will stop it. It will take an election to stop it. Mark my words, Labor: if you fiddle with water prices you'll feel it at the ballot-box, and that is only months away. La Mama Theatre 16 13:42 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to join with the member for Wills to express my sympathy and support to Liz Jones, a national treasure, who has been at La Mama for as long as any of us can remember. It was with sadness that we read in the weekend papers about the fire that has destroyed what was an absolutely iconic theatre space in Melbourne. It was important on the cultural landscape not just for Victoria and not just for Melbourne. It was a national treasure. It was a place where artists, writers and directors knew they could tell a natural Australian story in a natural Australian space. It is about grassroots theatre, and it always has been. We all know that David Williamson cut his teeth at La Mama Theatre, and he said he would not be a national treasure were it not for this theatre. There are many others who can say they got their start at the La Mama Theatre—hundreds of them. I join with the member for Wills in remembering my days at Melbourne University and Melbourne State College and the times that I spent there. I co-wrote a play that was produced at La Mama Theatre. So, for me, this is a personal thing. I ask all members to get behind this and make sure we see La Mama rise from the ashes. Murray Darling Medical School Network 16 13:43 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Sometimes in politics you get the chance to be involved in something than can make a true and lasting difference to local communities. The recent announcement in the federal budget of the creation of the Murray Darling Medical Schools Network is one such occasion. At the heart of the new $95.4 million five-school network is a brand-new medical school that will be established in central-western New South Wales through a partnership between Charles Sturt University and the University of Western Sydney After a decade of campaigning, countless setbacks and some fierce resistance, it is mission accomplished. Make no mistake, this initiative is transformational for country Australia. It will change the practice of medicine in our country areas for generations by taking country students and training them in the bush for practice as doctors in the bush. The extraordinary thing about the campaign for this new medical school has been that it has come from the grassroots of our communities. Country people die younger than city people; that's the cold, hard truth. Their health outcomes are worse on just about every measure. It is not acceptable, and country people know it. They know firsthand about the impact of doctor shortages, and it is why this campaign has resonated so much. Thank you to everyone who has supported it, from individuals to doctors to the community groups and local councils. It was a true community effort and it was a long and sometimes rough ride, but we got there, and it was worth it. The time for a new medical school at Charles Sturt University and a fair go for country patients has finally arrived. North Queensland: Infrastructure 17 13:45 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy In the 2013 election campaign the LNP raised great hopes for we one million Australians living in North Queensland by committing to a $500 million water development fund and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Peta Credlin on television last week said $5,000 million was provided 5½ years ago and not one single cent of the $5,000 million has gone out in the 5½ years. On the record is $17 million that went to Onslow, which the media said was a foreign-owned corporation. There is no reference to jobs whatsoever. There is $7 million that has been given to barramundi farms—I think that's a good decision—creating 50 jobs. That's it out of $5,000 million in 5½ years. There is still time for redemption. We would strongly urge the Hughenden irrigation scheme, for which we got support from the honourable Deputy Prime Minister as he then was, God bless him. We're going to see now whether Hughenden gets the money or whether it was only ever a pork-barrelling exercise. Let me warn the government that there is pork-barrelling, which is legal; then there is donor democracy and cronyism, which is on the edge; and then there is straight out misappropriation. Their record in this area is very bad. (Time expired) Budget 17 13:46 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to talk to the people of Petrie about the good news in the economy. The government has a plan for jobs and growth. We've seen that there's been a million jobs created in the last five years, and the benefits of that are increasing income taxes and increasing company taxes because of our crackdown on multinationals. That all helps people when we invest more heavily in roads and infrastructure and when we increase funding for health, hospitals, the environment, mental health and NDIS. All of these things are possible because of a strong economy, and the government is heavily focused on that. In stark contrast, we have those opposite, the members of the Labor Party and the opposition leader, and all they want to do is increase taxes by $200 billion over the next 10 years. That's another $20 billion in taxes that the Australian people are going to have to wear. Everyone in the gallery, everyone listening in their car on the radio, everyone in the electorate of Petrie—they're going to be hit with $20 billion worth of new taxes from Bill Shorten, the member opposite. And it's just unbelievable. It's a disgrace. They've got no plan for a stronger economy and no plan to create one new job. To everyone in my electorate who relies on health funding, who relies on a stronger pension, who relies on welfare: that is only able to be there because of our stronger plan for the economy. The Labor Party is only going to rack up more debt for future generations. Shame on Labor. Youth 17 13:48 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I think all of us would agree it's always a joy when you have schools visit parliament and you speak to the students about their experiences, what they're learning and how democracy works. But I always ask the students, 'If you were Prime Minister of this country, what would be your priority?' I have to say that the students of central Victoria have a much better list, have a much better handle on things than this current Prime Minister. At Girton Grammar School, when I caught up with those students post their visit to Canberra, they actually said that one of their priorities was to phase out coal-fired power and to focus on renewable energy. One of the students also said that he wanted to see the gender pay gap closed, that he believed that he and his sister, if they did the same job, should be paid the same. These are students that are speaking up about what their priorities would be. I also had the chance to catch up with St Kilian's Primary School post their visit. They believe that we as a country need to be doing more to help people who are homeless, making sure that we're investing in new houses for people who are homeless. They said that we needed as a country and as a community to make sure that we're ending family violence and that we're supporting women and children who are fleeing. These are our students, the future leaders of our country. I congratulate them on their vision and on their compassion and encourage them to stay involved, because their ideas are great and are worthy of consideration. (Time expired) Small Business 18 13:49 Mr IRONS HYM Swan On the back of last week's announcement that this government has helped business create one million jobs since 2013, last week I met with a great small business called Geoscan in my electorate of Swan with the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash, to talk about the coalition government's support for small business. Geoscan is just around the corner from the office of EMRC—and there are some people from EMRC in the gallery today. Welcome along. Geoscan specialises in the scanning, analysis and interpretation of drill core, rock chips and other geological samples for the mining, oil and gas, geothermal and geotechnical industries. It is based in Perth and has three offices across the Americas. In 2017, the company entered into a technology alliance with CSIRO that will deliver a coordinated road map for future developments of HyLogger, the automated infra-red core-logging system, and TSG, the hyperspectral IR processing software. Neil Goodey is the Managing Director of Geoscan. Neil has over 20 years of experience in this field and, as a result, has samples freighted from all over the world to be tested and analysed. The coalition government's 2018 budget includes initiatives that will help small businesses like Geoscan grow and create jobs, and businesses like Geoscan have taken to these initiatives like moths to a flame. I'd like to thank Neil Goodey and the team at Geoscan for their hospitality and the invitation for the minister and me to visit the business. It is businesses like Neil's that are the backbone of the one million jobs we have created since 2013. Live Animal Exports 18 13:51 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Since working on the Middle East desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the late nineties, I've been aware of the concerns of Australians about live sheep exports. Since being elected the member for Canberra, I've been inundated with Canberrans advocating for change to the live sheep export industry. Over and over again, they've told me, through emails, through letters, through mobile offices, when standing at their doors while I've been door-knocking and at events, that it's time to end live sheep exports. Australians have been more than patient with promises from the industry that it would change and that it would improve. They've said, 'Enough is enough.' So, when Labor announced it would end live sheep exports, I was pleased to be inundated by messages of support—messages like this one, which I received just yesterday: I want to express my gratitude to you for advocating for an end to the sheep trade. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is pleased about your position against the cruel sheep trade. It's time that we support the industry to transition so that we can get the best outcome for animal welfare and Australia's farmers. Labor has consistently called on the Turnbull government to do something about the deaths and shocking mistreatment of these animals. No matter how many times the Prime Minister has tried to convince us, he just won't do anything about it. This has been reviewed to death. Nothing has changed. Labor will end the cruelty. Drought 18 13:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I rise to bring to the attention of the House the increasing issue of drought. The drought is now progressing. It has been an insidious drought. Drought creeps up on people in such a way that they don't see it like a fire or a flood but its effects are devastating nonetheless. It was good to have a meeting with the New South Wales Farmers Federation in the previous week to see what we can do further as part of a program to assist these people. We already have the farm household allowance, allowing a couple to get around $1,000 a fortnight to keep the wolves from the door and keep some dignity in their lives, the 100 per cent write-off for water infrastructure, the 100 per cent write-off for fencing, the write-off over three years for grain storage, the doubling of the farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000 and the rural financial counsellors. These are all well and good, but this issue requires the states to do a little bit more heavy lifting. We need assistance, especially on things such as freight subsidies. I received a text from a farmer just then saying that they need real help in freight subsidies to assist with the cartage of stock, the cartage of fodder and, in some very dire instances, the cartage of water. That is a role for the states, and the states need to go into bat. Finally, it's incredibly important that people have the capacity to offload stock. If we close down the live sheep trade, we are going to make these people's lives so much harder than they already are. National Volunteer Week 18 13:54 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle () (): I'm pleased to formally launch the 2018 Newcastle Volunteer Service Awards in the Australian parliament today as part of National Volunteer Week. This will be the fifth time that I've hosted these awards, and they continue to be one of the most rewarding and, indeed, inspiring events in my annual calendar. Volunteers are, of course, the lifeblood of our community, but too often they don't get the recognition they deserve. The most recent census data showed that, despite our increasingly busy lives, more Novocastrians are volunteering than ever before. Last year's awards were the biggest yet, with over 100 fabulous volunteers recognised, but I think we can do even better. I would encourage today all Novocastrians to take just five minutes out from their busy lives to nominate someone they know, one of the selfless, hardworking, generous people who give so much of their time to help build strong, resilient and cohesive communities in Newcastle. I can't imagine our communities without your input and your help. It gives me great pleasure, and I know it gives the community at large great pleasure, just to be able to stop, hit the pause button on our busy lives and take some time to recognise you for your efforts. To find out more, visit my website, sharonclaydon.com, or phone my office on 49261555. (Time expired) Hughes Electorate: Moorebank Materials Recycling Facility 19 13:55 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to share with the House some great news for the residents of Georges Fair in my electorate and, in fact, all the residents of Western Sydney, with the announcement that the proposed Moorebank concrete-recycling plant will not go ahead and this land will now be used for residential development. This is something to celebrate and truly great news. It is an outrage that it actually proceeded this far. How the New South Wales Land and Environment Court could approve a noisy, dirty, air-polluting concrete-crushing plant within 300 metres of homes, next to the river and close to a $47 million marina which had already been approved is beyond belief. It was an act of environmental vandalism. But finally sanity is approved. I would like to say thank you to the Moorebank Residents' Action Group, particularly Fiona Macnaught and Rebekah Foxe, for the great work that they have done in rallying the community to prevent this environmental disaster going ahead. Liverpool will return to the river city that it once was, the Georges River will be opened up, and the marina there on the old Flower Power site will be an enormous advantage to the people of my electorate and to the people of all Western Sydney. National Volunteer Week 19 13:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Yesterday marked the beginning of National Volunteer Week, so we celebrate the contribution of all our nation's volunteers, who give their time and their skills to their community. Like the member for Newcastle, I want to particularly pay attention to our volunteers who might be with us today, who have changed the lives of so many. In the Northern Territory, we've got about 70,000 volunteers out of quite a small population. They also benefit the Northern Territory economy by an estimated $3 billion. So it's really significant. For my part, I work as a volunteer with Vinnie's and also with ex-service organisations, and I joined volunteers at the Darwin North RSL war memorial to continue the clean-up after Cyclone Marcus on the weekend. So I want to tip my hat to all the ladies and gentlemen that turned up there. This Saturday I'll also be attending DigniTEA, which is a high tea fundraiser run by Share the Dignity, an initiative to supply sanitary items to women and girls who are experiencing homelessness, are at risk of homelessness or are victims of domestic violence. Share the Dignity are a great example of the impact that volunteer-driven organisations have in our community. It's also a happy coincidence that the Top End Health Service have launched a new volunteer program at Royal Darwin Hospital this morning, and I look forward to meeting those 20 volunteers that have already signed up when I got back to Darwin. (Time expired) Canning Electorate: Career Readiness for Young Parents 19 13:58 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Last week I was pleased to host the Minister for Social Services in Canning to announce the Career Readiness for Young Parents initiative. This is an exciting new program that has the potential to change the lives of young mums and dads in Mandurah. The initiative is a trial program that will provide 60 young parents with coaching and support to help them get back to work. It's part of the coalition government's $96.1 million Try, Test and Learn Fund. Having a child is a joy, but it's also disruptive. For young parents, it can be especially difficult to get back into work. In fact, Centrelink data indicates that 79 per cent of people receiving parenting payments under the age of 19 will still be receiving income support in 10 years time, and 57 per cent will still be receiving support in 20 years time. You never know the personal circumstances someone is facing. That's why we have a generous safety net for at-risk people in our community. But on this side of the House, we're also committed to helping people to find work and build their self-sufficiency. That way, in the long term, these young parents will be able to get a good job, stand on their own two feet and no longer need government assistance. This program is good news for Canning, and I thank the government for delivering a program that is going to change the lives of many young mums and dads in Mandurah. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 20 CONDOLENCES Carrick, Hon. Sir John Leslie, AC, KCMG 20 Reference to Federation Chamber 21 14:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Honourable Sir John Leslie Carrick be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 21 14:12 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. On 28 March, the Prime Minister said about his entire corporate tax giveaway: We will be committed to it today and we'll be committed to it at the next election Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer? 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I do, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition stands, too, by his and his party's assessment of a reduction in tax as a giveaway. What does that mean? You can't give away something you don't own. The Labor Party believe that every profit, every dollar of income earned by an Australian business, belongs by right to the government, and so any reduction in tax is a giveaway. This is the hubris of the Labor Party. So contemptuous are they of the people whose hard work and enterprise has created, since September 2013, 1,013,600 new jobs in Australia that they regard every dollar they earn as belonging to the government, and whatever is left to them after tax as nothing more than a gift given in the mercy and charity of the Labor Party. Mr Speaker, we know better than that. We know that our strong economy and all of the essential services on which it relies depends on those hardworking Australian businesses. The Labor Party's made it very clear. It does not simply oppose the future elements of the enterprise tax plan that have not been legislated; it wants to repeal the tax cuts for millions of small and medium Australian family-owned businesses. That's what it wants to do. It wants to go to all those businesses, whether they are in Longman or in Braddon or in Fremantle in Perth or in Mayo or in any electorate. It wants to go to them and say to them, 'We're going to jack up your tax.' And then will it take responsibility as the economy weakens, as people lose opportunities, as jobs diminish, as the ability of Australians to realise their dreams would be dimmed by the Labor Party and its relentless attack on business? We stand for enterprise, we stand for Australians getting ahead, we stand with business investing and we stand above all for jobs. And we have the runs on the board: 415,000 jobs last year, the most in any year in our history. We promised jobs and growth in 2016, and now, in 2018, we are delivering. Budget 22 14:16 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I have a question to the Prime Minister on that same theme. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the budget is building a stronger economy and guaranteeing the services Australians rely on, including in my electorate of Bowman? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:16 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Last week the honourable member and I joined many of his constituents in Cleveland to talk about the budget and to talk about the opportunities it was providing, and it was received with great enthusiasm because the honourable member's constituents there in Cleveland know how important it is to continue to deliver stronger economic growth. They know that that is what enables record funding for hospitals and schools, more medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, more affordable child care, fully funding the NDIS and ensuring our security agencies have the resources they need to keep us safe. And they know it's the foundation on which 1,013,600 jobs have been created. They know it is that stronger economy that is being enabled by our national economic plan that is enabling Australians to get on and get ahead. It's what's enabling us to provide tax relief for hardworking Australian families, starting with middle-income families and families on lower incomes and then building up over seven years a complete personal income tax plan that will ensure that 94 per cent of Australians do not pay more than 32½c in the dollar on new income. It encourages incentive, it encourages aspiration, it encourages work and it encourages enterprise, and those are the values that are driving stronger economic growth in Australia. There is an alternative, and it is a bleak one. It's represented by the honourable members opposite. They're the ones—and the honourable member for Bowman and I saw many of their would-be victims at Cleveland. We saw all those retirees. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable members opposite can shout. They are going after the savings and the income of some of our older Australians who deserve respect and support. Twenty-eight per cent of people's income is being snatched away in a $5-billion-a-year tax grab. That is what the Labor Party is planning to do, and Australians know that that is a cynical tax grab designed to undermine their prospects in retirement. They know that the extra funding for hospitals, for schools, for national security and for infrastructure depend on the strong economy Australians are building and our economic planning is enabling, and the greatest threat to that is the Labor Party and the member for opposite. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Leader of the Opposition: I've asked the members for Paterson and Ballarat and I'm now asking the member for Lyons to cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Taxation 22 14:19 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question's to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government has made a secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson's One Nation political party to ensure the passage of its big-business tax cuts? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. 14:19 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, is well aware, owing to the antibusiness arrangements, the coalition, between Labor and the Greens; owing to their refusal to support measures that will encourage employment or, to quote the Leader of the Opposition, will encourage more investment, higher productivity, more jobs and better wages—that was then; that was a few years ago—and because of their concerted opposition to reducing business taxes in this and so many other measures, we have to seek the support of the crossbench. We do so with respect. We do so constructively. All of those negotiations are conducted, as indeed they are from time to time with the opposition, in confidence and with the respect that comes from that. The honourable member would also know that the delivery of those tax cuts—the ones that were secured in the teeth of Labor opposition—is already delivering the jobs that are ensuring we have stronger revenues and lower expenses in our budget. That is enabling us to bring the budget back into balance a year early. That is enabling us to spend an additional $30 billion a year on public hospitals in the next hospital-funding agreement. And I might say that I hope the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, is getting ready with a bit of paint to fix up an extraordinarily dishonest and lying billboard that the Labor Party has parading around the electorate of Longman, which claims we are cutting millions of dollars from a public hospital in Queensland. We're spending more money on Queensland every year, more money on public hospitals in Queensland every year, and the new public hospitals deal offers over $7½ billion over five years in additional funding, a 34 per cent increase in funding. The Labor Party omits or forgets to remember that you don't make a lie true by repeating it again and again. Labor is lying about hospitals. It's lying about schools. It's lying about all the essential services that we are funding and guaranteeing and delivering because of the strong economy our policies have enabled and its policies threaten. Budget 23 14:22 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the budget is delivering for North Queensland and Central Queensland, including for families in my electorate of Capricornia? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. I was particularly pleased to be with her in Rockhampton last week as we spoke to businesses and as we spoke to others in the community about the budget, because the budget is a plan for a stronger economy. It's a stronger economy that we've seen become stronger under this government, so much stronger that a million jobs have been created. A million jobs have been created since the election of the coalition government in 2013. Those jobs have been particularly on show in Queensland. In the last year, in the strongest growth of jobs on economic record in Australia, one in five of those jobs was created in Queensland. That's great news for Queenslanders, whether they're in Longman or in Capricornia or anywhere in Queensland. One in five of those jobs was created in Queensland. At Coxon's Radiators, I stood with the member for Capricornia and talked about the success of their businesses. The Labor Party want to put their taxes up, not make them more competitive. But the real issue for North Queensland and Central Queensland is that we're continuing to back in the stronger economy in Central Queensland and North Queensland. That includes the commitment we made of $175 million to the Rookwood Weir and $500 million to support the livelihoods and the jobs that depend on the sound environmental management of the Great Barrier Reef. It depends on the $10 billion that is there to boost the Bruce Highway and fix the issues on the Bruce Highway, including $400 million for the Haughton River Bridge—which is very well known to the member for Dawson. It depends on the $121 million going to the Rockhampton northern access road, which is an important piece of infrastructure up there in Central and North Queensland. It depends on the $1.5 billion for northern Australian roads as part of the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, which the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Deputy Prime Minister, has announced. It depends on further funding for the Building Better Regions Fund as well as part of the budget. These are the investments that the Turnbull government is making in a stronger economy for Australia and a stronger economy in North and Central Queensland. In Townsville, I had the opportunity to visit the site where $100 million is being invested as part of the City Deal. That's part of a quarter of a billion dollars of which every cent will be invested in Townsville as part of the package of measures we've committed to infrastructure in Townsville. The great news about the stadium being built with $100 million of support from the Turnbull government is this: 230 North Queensland businesses are working on that site, 85 per cent of trade packages have gone to North Queensland businesses, 240 individuals have been inducted to work on that site, and, by hours worked, the Indigenous representation is over 20 per cent. This is a government that believes in North and Central Queensland and is investing accordingly. Taxation 24 14:26 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now tell the Australian people the details of his secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson to ensure the passage of his big-business tax cuts? 14:26 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I remind the honourable member that he's quite familiar with the need to work with the crossbench. In fact, in 2009 on this very topic— Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 He did. No, he did. He's been aware of this for a long time. He has. He is an authority on the importance of cutting tax. He is. He wrote a book about cutting tax. In 2009 he said: We are focused on getting the budget through, and that will mean that as … in the budget and with most major legislative matters, very intense negotiations with the cross benchers in particular … He said: That means we then go into discussions of a very intense nature with the minor parties and there is often brinkmanship to the last minute … I could go on, but it does seem the honourable member is very familiar. The reality is that we will continue to negotiate respectfully with the crossbenchers in the Senate on all the measures that the Labor Party and the Greens decide to try to block. We respect every member of the Senate, and we give them the courtesy and the confidence of negotiations, but the important thing is that, when those negotiations are concluded and legislation has passed, all is before the Australian public. Migration 24 14:28 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Prime Minister, are you aware that there are 1.4 million temporary visa workers in Australia, the highest in the OECD? In fact, 3.6 million workers—half the entire Australian workforce—were born overseas. The threat of deportation renders foreign workers docile, supine and super cheap, ensuring they, not Australians, get the jobs. Whilst imported cultural and spiritual values inundate us, still 600,000 people pour into Australia each year. They seek the 200,000 new jobs already sought by over 200,000 school leavers. PM, you inherited this situation from Labor, but will you fix it? 14:29 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I'm glad the honourable member, in the last part of his question, acknowledged the Olympic-class performance of the Leader of the Opposition in issuing 457 visas for people to work in McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC. We have done more than any government before us to make sure Australians are given priority for jobs in Australia. Our policies are ensuring that our Migration Program is targeted and reflects the genuine needs of the economy. Our Migration Program operates in the national interest of Australia and Australia alone; that is its objective. It's a recruitment exercise. Our job is to ensure that nobody comes to Australia that we do not need or want, and it is the sovereign right of the Australian people, exercised through their government, to determine that. Of course, we saw when Labor were in office how they outsourced migration policy to people smugglers and criminals. That won't be happening again; although, if the member for Batman has her way, that will be on again. We have an excellent program and I want to describe to the honourable member some of the details in it. Of the people migrating to Australia, 68 per cent are skilled migrants; 32 per cent are from family visa streams. Of the family visa stream, 79 per cent are partners—husbands or wives—14 per cent are parents, six per cent are children, and 1 per cent fall into other categories. The skilled program is split between employer-sponsored, skilled independent, and state, territory and regional nominated visas. The big difference is that we ensure that everybody that comes here, comes because they are needed or wanted. In 2016-17, the permanent migration program was 183,608 places and that was, roughly, two-thirds skilled stream and one-third family places. So I can assure the honourable member that the Migration Program, which is being excellently managed by the Minister for Home Affairs and his ministers, is one that operates in the interests of our nation and no other nation. That's our commitment. We're determined to ensure that the mistakes, the follies and the tragedies that occasioned Labor's abandonment of border protection will never happen again. Budget 25 14:32 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is delivering essential services and infrastructure for regional Victorians, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches? 14:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. He knows that the budget is a plan for a stronger economy and an economy that has, under this government, delivered over a million jobs now around Australia. That was something that was a solemn pledge that the member for McMahon didn't believe could happen but it is one that we believed could happen, and we went to work and set about achieving it together with businesses, and Australians all around the country got out there and got those jobs. But we know that a stronger economy is essential to deliver on the essential services that Australians rely on. That's the guarantee for Medicare; that's guarantee for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; that's the guarantee for the pension. They are not guaranteed by the empty promises of the Leader of the Opposition. They are guaranteed by the strong economic management of a Turnbull government that has a plan for a strong economy that can deliver those essential services that Australians rely on. I was pleased to join the member for Dunkley at Frankston Hospital with the Minister for Health, where we could meet with Ally and Georgia—her mum—who will benefit from the listing of SPINRAZA, which provides real hope for young Australians who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy. But it is not just Ally and Georgie who we are supporting; it is also the support we've given to Georgie Fyfe-Jamieson. Georgie is on a trial for Kisqali, a breast cancer drug being provided under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at a cost of just over $700 million. That is what you can do with a stronger economy; you can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. But a strong economy is also about delivering necessary infrastructure. As the member for Dunkley knows, the electrification of the Baxter to Frankston line is going to be a big game changer for people who live in his electorate. It will mean that commuters can get to jobs. It will mean that patients can get to that hospital at Frankston on public transport, on the electrification of that line. I want to commend the member for Dunkley for his tireless advocacy in ensuring that this critical, congestion-busting infrastructure in Melbourne is being delivered by the Turnbull government. Also, we were there with the Seaford Senior Citizens Club when we were down at John Paul College. We were talking about the commitments we're making for ageing Australians on the in-home aged-care places, 20,000, and the like. I'll tell you what they reminded us of when we there: just how much they resent the Labor Party for coming after their retirement savings. The Leader of the Opposition is looking to swipe the tax refunds of hardworking Australians. He's got his hands in their pockets and he'll never take them out of them. Budget 25 14:35 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. In its budget two weeks ago, did the government account for its secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House has the call. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, how can the Prime Minister answer a question about a complete hypothetical dressed up as a question about the budget? There is no question in the member Hotham's question because there is no such thing as the deal she talks about. And no-one has confirmed there's such a thing, so therefore the question is based in an entirely spurious, hypothetical manner. The SPEAKER 00APG I will call the Manager of Opposition Business. If those sitting behind both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business could contain their interjections, I would be able to hear both of them. They're entitled to be heard in the roles they have and I can make a judgement. Just before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I would point out one aspect of the Leader of the House's point of order, and that is his claim about the factual accuracy of questions. I'm not in a position to judge those, otherwise we'd be suspending while I considered each question, five minutes at a time. The Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order. Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. To the point of order: at no stage have the government disputed that this agreement exists. At no stage have they disputed that the document exists. The question goes to whether or not money has been appropriated within the budget to account for that agreement. You can't get anything, I think, more within the standing orders than that. The only agreement or document we're not allowed to ask about is a coalition agreement. If the government want to argue this one's a coalition agreement, then they're welcome to make that case. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs isn't helping. Could I just say: as the Manager of Opposition Business articulated it, that made perfect sense to me, but the question wasn't that clear. It didn't go to a policy issue. Mr Burke DYW Can they ask it again? The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, I'll allow the member for Hotham to ask the question again. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, that's not the point I'm making. I'm quite capable of knowing the question mentioned— An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, you should ignore the Leader of the House on these interjections. The point I was making was the connection to the budget. The member for Hotham can repeat her question. Ms O'NEIL 140590 Okay, I'll repeat the question. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In its budget two weeks ago, did the government account for its secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson? The SPEAKER 00APG No. That's out of order because it's referring to just a secret deal. It's not— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No. I'm sorry, the member for Hotham can resume her seat. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No. Members can cease interjecting. The member for Hotham can resume her seat. The member for Hotham is expecting me, as Speaker, to draw a connection with earlier questions. I know what she's trying to do, but I'm not going to do that. The member for Dawson. Infrastructure 26 14:39 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent announcements of nation-building, job-creating regional infrastructure, including in northern Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Dawson will resume his seat. The Leader of the House is warned! The member for Dawson will repeat his question so I can hear it. Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent announcements of nation-building, job-creating regional infrastructure, including in northern Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:40 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Dawson for his well-asked question, and I acknowledge him for his advocacy for Queensland and specifically for the electorate of Dawson. Recently I visited the electorate of Dawson with the member. We visited the Haughton River floodplain area, where there's going to be a project built. There will be more than half a billion dollars—$514.3 million—for the Haughton River floodplain project. Construction of an upgraded Haughton River bridge will include 13 additional bridges, two overpasses, an upgrade of nine rural intersections and road widening. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 The member for Moreton can yell all he likes, but this is an important project for Queenslanders. It's going to save lives. It's going to connect regional communities. But don't take my word for it. Lyn McLaughlin, the mayor of the Burdekin shire, said that the upgrade was long overdue. She said: This project is not just about the Burdekin. This is a route that links southern Queensland with the North and the ability to access it at all times is vital. It's vital infrastructure that is being delivered by the Turnbull government. Projects such as the Haughton River floodplain will boost local economies and create jobs. And guess what? We've created—yes, that's right—a million jobs. I said yesterday that it was exciting. A million jobs is very, very exciting. This government is delivering through our nation-building, $75 billion, 10-year infrastructure pipeline that is focusing on local jobs. There will be $3½ billion for Roads of Strategic Importance, and $1½ billion of that will be dedicated to northern Australia. The pipeline is going to support 50,000 direct and indirect jobs. Our informed, diligent investment is creating jobs across the nation, especially in northern Australia. As I say, $1½ billion will be dedicated to northern Australia under Roads of Strategic Importance. There will be $600 million for the Northern Australia Roads Program. That'll help Dawson. That'll help all our Queenslanders. Certainly, it's going to create hundreds of jobs. There will be an additional $160 million to seal and widen priority sections of the iconic Outback Way, which is called Australia's shortcut. Indeed, between Winton, Queensland, and Laverton, WA, it's more than just a shortcut; it's a vital linking road. There will be $180 million put towards upgrading Central Arnhem Road and up to $100 million put towards improving the Buntine Highway. I was in Darwin with Minister Scullion the other day, talking that up. Last week, I visited Northern Queensland with the member for Leichhardt, as well as Senator Macdonald, to talk up the Mareeba-Dimbulah water supply scheme. They're vital projects. There will be $11.6 million put towards modernisation of that project, which will include 4½ kilometres of new pressurised pipeline. That's what we're doing. We're getting on with building roads and rail. We're not just about putting down bitumen to the media releases, as those opposite were when they were in government. Budget 27 14:43 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to previous answers concerning the government's secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson. In its budget two weeks ago, did the government account for and make provision for this secret deal? 14:43 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member, through the Prime Minister, for the question regarding what was accounted for in this year's budget. I'll tell you what was accounted for in this year's budget: the surplus coming in one year earlier. That's what was accounted for in this year's budget. Net debt will peak this year and fall by over $30 billion over the next four years. That's what was accounted for in this year's budget. Net debt will fall by $230 billion and more over the next 10 years. The Australian economy will grow to be a $2 trillion economy over the next four years, because it's a plan for a stronger economy. What's planned for in this budget is the delivery of tax relief for all working Australians so 94 per cent of Australians do not face a marginal tax rate of more than 32.5 cents in the dollar. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order. Mr Bowen DZS Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that, unless the Treasurer is outlining how the secret deal is in the budget, he is not being directly relevant to the question. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I've said to him before that he needs to state the point of order. The Treasurer has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. The budget also accounts for backing business to create more jobs. That's what it does. A million jobs have been created under this government. And we're backing business through our investments in infrastructure, through our investments in a 21st-century medical industry, through our investments in the training of Australians. This budget budgets for guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. That's what it does. That's what you do with a stronger economy. You can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. This budget accounts for keeping Australians safe. That's what it does. It budgets for keeping Australians safe— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr MORRISON E3L On this side of the House, we know how to protect the borders. That's what we know how to do. Maybe the member for McMahon wants to take a point of order on protecting our borders. He could talk about the 25,000 people who turned up in illegal boats on his watch, the most failed immigration minister in the history of Federation— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. Whilst the question was fairly broad on accounting for things in the budget, the Treasurer has now strayed way off the topic of the question. Mr MORRISON E3L Let me bring it back to the fifth point. The fifth point is that this is a budget that accounts for the Australian government, the Turnbull government, living within its means. That's what we do—by keeping taxes under control. The Labor Party wants to put a $220 billion burden on the Australian economy. Their tax plan should have a picture of a snake eating itself from the tail—because that's what Labor's tax plans will do to our economy. We will keep taxes under our speed limit. Expenditure as a share of the economy falls to 24.7 per cent. This is a government that knows how to live within its means. The Labor Party, every time they get into office, the Australian people know they cannot be trusted with money because they cannot live within their means. This budget accounts for a plan for a stronger economy that delivers more jobs and protects the services Australians rely on. It is a budget that is receiving strong support from the Australian people for that very reason. (Time expired) Health 28 14:47 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a stronger economy enables the government to invest in the health of Australians and does the minister know of any alternatives? Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned! 14:48 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Fairfax. As somebody who is expert in business, he knows that it's fundamental to have a strong economy to deliver essential services. If you have a plan for an economy and you deliver a million jobs, that's how you're able to deliver outcomes such as support for the Thompson Institute, which I visited only two weeks ago with the member and his counterpart the member for Fisher to support additional mental health services—real services to Australians on the Sunshine Coast. But a strong economy also means we can deliver record funding for Medicare, with an additional $4.8 billion; record funding for aged care, with an additional $5 billion; and record funding for PBS drugs, with an additional $2.4 billion of investment in new medicines such as those which the Treasurer has outlined. But, of course, it means we can invest more in our hospitals and achieve record funding which the Prime Minister has outlined. There is an additional $30 billion over the course of the next five-year agreement—something that you could never do without a strong economy. What is also fundamental here is that, in this budget, we are delivering that support for hospitals. The funding will go from $21 billion to $22 billion, to $23 billion and to $24 billion a year—a record for each state and territory, every year of the budget. So that's what's actually happening. But I did see a fascinating thing. I saw a press conference from the shadow minister for health at Caboolture Hospital where she was asserting, falsely and incorrectly, that there had been cuts to funding from the Commonwealth. And it's been broadcast elsewhere, by the Labor Party on their billboards and by the Leader of the Opposition. We will call out Labor's lies. Let me refer to it specifically. I did, over the weekend, go through Queensland activity based funding through the national health funding pool comparing Commonwealth and state funding. I know, I should get another hobby, but what that showed is that, over the last three years, Queensland funding to its own hospitals went up eight per cent. Over the last three years, Commonwealth funding to Queensland hospitals went up 29 per cent. And in the area where Caboolture is located, including the royal Brisbane hospital, Queensland funding over the last three years went up by four per cent; Commonwealth funding went up by 38 per cent—a more than ninefold rate of increase. But most fascinating of all was that in the last year Commonwealth funding to the metro-north area went up $120 million, and what happened to Queensland funding to its own hospitals in metro-north? It went down by $21 million. (Time expired) Taxation 28 14:51 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answers. Is the Prime Minister seriously claiming the Australian people don't have the right to know the details and the cost of his secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson to secure his company tax cuts? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. As I said earlier, the government engages in negotiations with crossbenchers in the Senate. We engage in negotiations with the Labor Party as well, and occasionally with the Greens. We treat every member of the House with respect and consideration and earnestly urge them to support our program. Those discussions are always held with the confidence that that respect entails, and, if and when agreement is reached and legislation is passed, all is revealed. Employment 28 14:52 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister update the House on how the government is helping hardworking Australians by supporting the creation of more jobs in our economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:52 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Boothby for her question. The member for Boothby, like all members on this side of the House, will be delighted that this government has created over a million new jobs in the last 4½ years, which is actually five months earlier than we had scheduled to do so in our promise in 2013. It is an enormous achievement and it's been achieved because this government has methodical, calm, consistent policies that support companies, employers and employees. They are policies like the Australian Building and Construction Commission or the Registered Organisations Commission. The last time the ABCC was in existence, it saved consumers $7½ billion and it increased productivity in building and construction by 16.8 per cent. So it had a real impact, the first time it was in existence, on the economy. Labor promptly abolished it, but this government brought it and the Registered Organisations Commission back. Those policies, working with the government's policies around tax, employment, infrastructure and defence industry, are creating those one million jobs that we promised 4½ years ago and that we have delivered. We know that, if Labor get back in power again, they will abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission. They've already promised that. That would be in the agreement with John Setka and the CFMEU. But what else is in the secret agreement with John Setka and the CFMEU? That's what we need to know. The Leader of the Opposition has a secret agreement with John Setka, a man convicted of 59 civil and criminal offences. That's the person they have a secret agreement with, and they need to reveal that agreement to the Australian public. We know this has been part of a long-term plan of the Leader of the Opposition and the CFMEU. Graham Pallot, the assistant secretary in Western Australia of the CFMEU, said, back in October 2016: … what we're actually going to do is take ownership and responsibility of the ALP … And that's exactly what they've done. That's exactly what the CFMEU have done. They've been brought into all the decision-making forums of the ALP by the Leader of the Opposition. He's accepted $2½ million of their donations on behalf of the Labor Party, and he has struck a secret deal with the CFMEU that will hurt jobs and the economy. He needs to reject their donations; he needs to kick them out of the ALP; and he needs to reveal his secret agreement with John Setka. Turnbull Government 29 14:55 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since the last election the government has gifted Senator Pauline Hanson an attempt to weaken race hate laws, a university level English citizenship test and now a secret deal so embarrassing that the government won't say it aloud? Why does Senator Pauline Hanson have more say over government policy than government backbenchers, and why won't this Prime Minister match the actions of John Howard and put One Nation last? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The member for Burt! Members on my left! Before I call the Prime— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, I'm not calling the Prime Minister yet. The Prime Minister can resume his seat for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I remind all members who've been warned, of which I think there's only one today. Let me give a ruling I give regularly when this topic comes up. The Prime Minister will disregard the last part of the question. I've said ad nauseam that the Prime Minister is not responsible for preference decisions. 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. The government commends the budget to every member of the House and of the Senate, including Senator Hanson and her party. We commend it to the members opposite. It's not too late for them to see the light and recognise the importance of cutting business taxes or indeed of ensuring that personal income tax is reformed. We will continue to engage with all members to do everything we can to ensure that the budget is passed, that all of its elements are passed, and that we're able to deliver— Mr Hart interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bass is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 the stronger economic growth and the stronger economy that will enable us to spend more money on hospitals, more money on schools and more money on national security and will enable us to ensure that we get stronger jobs growth. All of those elements depend on the delivery of our economic plan. And, while it may suit the Leader of the Opposition to give us advice about how to engage with the Senate crossbench, I can assure him that we won't be taking his advice on that or any other matter. We'll be focusing on delivering a stronger economy and more jobs for all Australians. National Security 30 14:58 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, could you update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies, and, Minister, are you aware of any risks associated with alternative approaches? 14:59 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson As it turns out, I am aware of those risks, and I thank the member for raising them today. Australians know that this Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted. It doesn't matter what topic we're talking about. It doesn't matter whether it's on the economy. It doesn't matter whether it's in relation to border protection. Do not trust this man. Do not trust this man! No-one who's ever done a deal with him will ever trust this man again. The Australian public should be mindful of the fact that this man went to the last election promising that there would be no difference between Labor's border protection policy and ours, yet every single day since then he has wound the Labor Party back from the position of stopping the boats. As it turns out we now have a majority of Labor Party members who are opposed to stopping the boats. There is a latest conscript to this cause. You may have seen the contribution to the debate in the last 24 hours from the member for Batman. As it turns out, the Labor member for Batman is more radical than the Greens candidate for Batman would have been on this topic. One of the most galling aspects of the hypocrisy of the member for Batman is that she would seek to lecture us on border protection policy. There's a lot of talk today about deals. The last deal I remember was done between the Labor Party and the Greens, which saw 1,200 people drown at sea. The last deal that I saw was between the Labor Party and the Greens, which saw 8,000 children go into detention. The last deal that I saw between this dodgy Leader of the Opposition and the Greens saw people squandering $16 billion of taxpayers' money to clean up Labor's mess. So what I'd say to the Australian people is never take this man on face value. Always look at the secret, dodgy deal that's just beneath the surface. The fact is that this Leader of the Opposition will never control the Left of the Labor Party when it comes to border protection. If you live in Longman or in any other electorate around the country, don't trust Labor when it comes to boats policy. Always know that Labor will say one thing in opposition and they will unwind it when they get into government. If you want the boats to restart, and if you want the tragedy of the drownings at sea and the kids back in detention, vote for this man. MOTIONS 30 MOTIONS Turnbull Government, Pauline Hanson's One Nation 30 15:02 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes it has been revealed today that the Government has made a secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party to give an $80 billion handout to big business but the Prime Minister won’t tell the Australian people: (a) the details of its secret deal; (b) the cost of its secret deal; and (c) if its secret deal is even accounted for in the Budget; (2) further notes that since Senator Pauline Hanson returned to the Australian Parliament, and without notice to the Australian people at the last election, this Government has: (a) attempted to weaken race hate laws; (b) attempted to introduce a university-level English test for citizenship; and (c) refused to commit to putting One Nation last; and (3) therefore, calls on this Prime Minister to stop making secret deals with One Nation and join Labor in putting One Nation last. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House: (1) notes it has been revealed today that the Government has made a secret deal with Senator Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party to give an $80 billion handout to big business but the Prime Minister won’t tell the Australian people: (a) the details of its secret deal; (b) the cost of its secret deal; and (c) if its secret deal is even accounted for in the Budget; (2) further notes that since Senator Pauline Hanson returned to the Australian Parliament, and without notice to the Australian people at the last election, this Government has: (a) attempted to weaken race hate laws; (b) attempted to introduce a university-level English test for citizenship; and (c) refused to commit to putting One Nation last; and (3) therefore, calls on this Prime Minister to stop making secret deals with One Nation and join Labor in putting One Nation last. They may as well be in coalition with Pauline Hanson. 15:04 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. 15:04 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.

The House divided. [15:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:13 The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 15:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I second the motion, Mr Speaker. Pauline Hanson is writing the tax policy, and they're keeping it secret— 15:14 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That the member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [15:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

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

Question negatived.

 15:22 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 35 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:23 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BOWEN DZS I certainly do, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon may proceed. Mr BOWEN DZS In today's The Daily Telegraph, there is a claim that I, as well as other Labor MPs, breached protocol by attempting to take budget documents with me when I left the budget lock-up at 7 pm on budget night. The article refers to 'a major security breach' that broke strict protocols to protect embargoes. This claim is entirely false. It has been longstanding practice in this place for members of parliament to leave the lock-up at 7 pm so they can interact with other members of their party before the budget is delivered. Members have always taken budget papers with them when they leave. This was the practice observed by Labor governments for the Nelson, Turnbull and Abbott oppositions and observed by Treasurer Costello for his entire time as Treasurer. In fact, the Treasurer wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 8 March this year outlining the arrangements for the lock-up. The letter says, inter alia, 'Participants may enter the lock-up after 1.30 but cannot leave until 7.30 pm, with the exception of members of parliament, who may leave the lock-up at 7 pm.' The letter does not say that documents cannot be removed, and at no stage was any change to the longstanding convention that the opposition can take the budget documents with them discussed with me or anybody else in the opposition. On budget night this year, for the first time ever, Treasury officials sought to prevent Labor members leaving with their budget papers. This was entirely without warning and without precedent. The documents which Senator Wong, the member for Jagajaga and I had were personally annotated and in some cases contained extensive notes. Far from this being a breach of protocol on our part, the very serious breach of protocol was that it was attempted to cease us leaving with the documents. I do not know where the instruction originated from, but it is a serious breach, and it is a direct threat to members of parliament being able to do their job. The Treasury officials who carried out this instruction were clearly following orders and just doing their job. The situation was not their fault. Any suggestion that any Labor member alleged otherwise is also patently false. 15:26 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the member for Ballarat claim to have been misrepresented? Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR I do, most grievously. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat may proceed. Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Thank you. In question time today, the Minister for Health accused me of lying about his cuts to public hospitals at a press conference at Caboolture Hospital. The facts are these. The 2013 election platform of the Liberal Party states that they will fund public hospitals at 50 per cent growth funding of the efficient price. The 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018 budget papers show that the government is in fact only funding public hospitals at 45 per cent of growth in hospitals and a cap of 6.5 per cent. That represents a $715 million cut from 2017 to 2020 and a $2.9 million cut to Caboolture Hospital. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 35 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 35 15:27 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce Mr Speaker, I have a question pursuant to standing order 105(b). I wonder whether you could write to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who has failed to reply to questions in writing as follows that I lodged on 26 February: 931, 932, 933, 934-35, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941 and 942. 15:27 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Bruce. I'll write this afternoon. In fact, the letter's probably already beginning to be drafted now. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 35 15:27 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's ongoing cuts to real infrastructure investment. I call upon all 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— 15:28 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler There are two ways that you can invest in economic growth: you can invest in nation-building infrastructure, or you can invest in people through education and skills. When it comes to infrastructure, of course, this government does neither, and this budget of 2018 is a hoax. It is a triumph of spin over substance—not a dollar of new investment. When you look at Budget Paper No. 2, it's there for all to see on page 137: 'Infrastructure Investment Programme—Australian Capital Territory infrastructure investments'—zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. You go through the next table, 'Major Project Business Case Fund'—zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. 'New South Wales infrastructure investments'—the same. 'Northern Territory infrastructure investments'—the same. 'Outback Way'—the same. There is table after table. 'Queensland infrastructure investments'—zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. 'Roads of Strategic Importance'—zero. 'South Australian infrastructure investments'—zero. Tasmania—zero. 'Urban Congestion Fund'—zero. 'Victorian infrastructure investments'—zero. Right across the board, what you have is no new investments—simply an allocation of money that was already in the budget. And where has that allocation gone? In the next financial year, one per cent, $1 in every $100, of the new projects announced in the lead-up to the budget and on budget night are there with funding. Indeed, across the forward estimates it is 15 per cent of funding. More than 85 per cent of funding is there not for this term, not if you vote for the Turnbull government for another term, but if you vote for whoever's in charge of the mob opposite for a term after that. It will be three terms into the future before 85 per cent of the funding flows. The fact is that we need infrastructure investment now. Congestion costs the nation some $16 billion a year right now. But what we see at page 46 of Budget Paper No. 3 is the actual investment. It falls from $8 billion in 2017-18 across the forwards to $4.5 billion in 2021-22, a drop of almost half. That's consistent with what the Parliamentary Budget Office found when they independently examined the budget papers after last year's budget and warned that Commonwealth infrastructure investment over the next decade would halve from 0.4 per cent to 0.2 per cent. And it's consistent also with the fact that if you compare this year's budget across the forward estimates, if you compare it with last year, it is $2 billion less, which is what The Australian reports today based upon the work and analysis that is there in the budget papers themselves. And Infrastructure Partnerships Australia—the peak organisation that I addressed last week—certainly agrees. All of the sector is onto the con that these people have been engaged in: it is a budget of deceit. In the lead-up to the election we saw a grand announcement about Western Sydney Rail—through Badgerys Creek Airport along the north-south corridor. How much is in the budget for construction? Zero. There was $50 million for a study. That's all it got. There was a grand announcement and a promise of fifty-fifty funding into the future, but not a single dollar. Of course, we know not that there was not a single dollar in the budget for Brisbane's Cross River Rail project—not one. It was identified by Infrastructure Australia way back in 2012 as the No. 1 project. It was funded in the budget in 2013, cut by this government in 2014, and remains cut—even though it's a precondition for expanding the rail network in the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast as well as Brisbane. You need to do something about the capacity—just like the Melbourne Metro project is a precondition for expanding the rail network in Melbourne. And there was another front page story—the airport rail link in Melbourne. But if you have a look at the budget papers, they say they'll 'have a chat to Victoria about an equity investment'. So it is off-budget funding. They think you can build infrastructure for free. The only way you can have off-budget funding of on infrastructure project is that it has to fulfil two criteria. The first criterion is that it has to have revenue—from people paying to go on the train, the toll road or whatever piece of infrastructure it is—that is higher than the maintenance cost. There isn't a rail line in Australia—not one—that meets its operating and maintenance costs. That's the nature of public transport. It's an investment in our nation that boosts an economy, gets people to and from work and other activities, and produces a national economic dividend. It doesn't produce an economic dividend to the owner of that particular piece of infrastructure, let alone be able to pay back the capital investment of a project that will cost more than $10 billion. So, once again, we have a big announcement leading to absolutely nothing—sham funding. As the Grattan Institute said: If infrastructure projects are never going to make a commercial return, the government should stop pretending they will. And if they are worth building at all, the government should fund them transparently on-budget. That's exactly what any transport economist has said. That's what everyone in the sector have said. And those opposite know that this is the case. Indeed, Mathias Cormann, the finance minister, argued this in the cabinet. When he was asked on Neil Mitchell's radio program about this, he refused to defend this off-budget funding because he knew that it means that it simply won't be real. The NAIF—the No Actual Infrastructure Fund—was established more than three years ago. It hasn't got a single project in North Queensland, hasn't got any major projects funded. The IFU, remember that? They don't think their acronyms through very well, this mob. The Infrastructure Financing Unit, established by the those opposite, was going to transform infrastructure investment and was going to mobilise all this private capital into projects. Guess what? Not a zac, not a road, not a railway line, nothing. And now it's been transferred into the Department of Infrastructure. The fact is that, even when they announce funding on budget night, the government don't deliver. One out of every $5 that was announced in their first four budgets was never spent. There was a $4.7 billion gap between what they said on budget night 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 when you go back and look at what was actually invested. There were: underspends on roads, $2.7 billion; underspends on the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan, $700 million; underspends on northern Australia roads—beef roads, black spots, heavy vehicle safety program. From time to time, you can have delays but, the fact is, every single one of this government's programs has seen underspends every single year. There is a better way. Labor showed the way last time and we will again with real investment in roads, real investment in public transport, real investment in nation-building infrastructure. We lifted infrastructure investment from $132 for every Australian up to $225. Australia went from 20th to first in advanced economies in the world in infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP. We did it before and next term, when we're on the Treasury benches, we'll do it again. (Time expired) 15:38 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield We heard there a greatest hits selection of the shadow minister's repeated mendacities and falsehoods. He claimed, for example, that the Cross River Rail project presently submitted by the Queensland government is the one previously approved by Infrastructure Australia—quite wrong. There was in fact a change report submitted by the Queensland Coordinator-General because the current project is so different. As the shadow minister knows full well, the Cross River Rail project submitted to Infrastructure Australia was the subject of a recommendation by Infrastructure Australia to the Commonwealth government that it should not be funded at this time. What the shadow minister has just told the House is plain wrong. He can't even get the budget treatment right in relation to Melbourne Airport Rail Link. He talks indignantly about the fact that we've indicated we have an interest in looking at an equity approach. Let's look at what the budget actually says in Budget Paper No. 3, page 48. I'll read it out very slowly so we are absolutely clear on this. (b) The Commonwealth’s $5 billion investment in the Melbourne Airport Rail Link will be provided as equity or otherwise as agreed, but consistent with the principles of conservative Budget management, this investment has initially been reported as grant funding. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House: the premise of what the shadow minister has just said is absolutely factually wrong and entirely inconsistent with what is said on page 48 of Budget Paper No. 3. Then, of course, we've got his ripper claim that there's somehow some problem with allocating money for projects beyond the four-year forward estimate period. Let's go back and have a look at the shadow minister's greatest hits, the 2013 budget that he had responsibility for. There was $6.2 billion allocated in 2013 to urban transport. Let's look at some of the projects. There was $3 billion allocated to Melbourne Metro, with $2 billion of it outside of the forward estimates. There was $500 million allocated for the Perth Airport link, with $300 million of it outside of the forward estimates. Apparently there was $2 billion to support the Parramatta to Epping rail link, with the entirety of the funding outside of the forward estimates. The shadow minister states some sweeping principle of budgetary management on the one hand but behaved in a total different manner when he was the minister. Now, let's look at some of the basic claims that underpin what's in this MPI and that underpin the usual, tired, threadbare range of factually incorrect propositions that the shadow minister advances in a collection of poorly-attended media conferences around the country. First are the claims about the level of funding for infrastructure. Let me point out to the House some basic facts: the average level of spending for infrastructure under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, when the shadow minister had portfolio responsibility for infrastructure, was just over $6 billion a year. Let me remind you what the numbers are for the next four years: $8.6 billion, $8.7 billion, $8.2 billion and $8.5 billion. You'll see that there's quite a difference between just over six and well over eight, yet he has the temerity to come in here and claim that in some way infrastructure spending is falling. Was the shadow minister asleep when we announced $3.5 billion for the Roads of Strategic Importance, $1 billion for the Urban Congestion Initiative, over $5 billion for projects in Queensland, $971 million for the Coffs Harbour bypass, up to $5 billion for the Melbourne Airport rail link, $1.05 billion for additional Metronet projects in Perth and $944 million for a Perth congestion package? The claim that, in some way, infrastructure funding is falling is factually wrong. The facts are clear. We are seeing increases in infrastructure spending. Of course, those increases build on an extremely comprehensive existing program of infrastructure investment all across Australia, be it $1.6 billion for projects on the North-South Corridor in South Australia, presently underway; $400 million for the Midland Highway in Tasmania, presently underway; $914 million for Gateway Upgrade North in Brisbane, presently underway; and $5.6 billion for the Pacific Highway—a subject very close to your own heart, Deputy Speaker Hogan—to be upgraded to four lanes all the way from Sydney to the Queensland border. That is a comprehensive infrastructure investment program all around Australia.' Let me turn to the ludicrous claim that the shadow minister advances that there's no new money. You could not find a more embarrassing admission of a failure to understand the basic public sector accounting principles that have been employed in constructing this budget. Let me explain it very simply and carefully. We've made a commitment to invest $75 billion over 10 years for infrastructure. We haven't just made that promise on a one-off basis and walked away from it; we've been very careful to make sure that it's supported by the appropriate responsible, credible, public sector accounting treatment. What we do is provision the required amount of money every year for 10 years, and then for every project we announce we allocate very specifically against that rolling program the designated amount and the designated timing. That's why there's no need for individual dollar amounts to be set out in the line items cited by the shadow minister, as he knows full well but is simply cynically attempting to mislead people who may not find public sector accounting the most fascinating and gripping topic. But that is a deeply misleading claim, because the money is there. The money has been provisioned. Let's turn to the substance of the claim that it's not new money. If you live in Tasmania, what you now know is that there's $461 million committed by the Turnbull government for the Bridgewater Bridge. That's money that wasn't committed before. You could compare that to what Labor committed: $100 million. They got laughed off the island for that particular proposition. We've committed $461 million, and it's fully provisioned in our 10-year infrastructure program. Tell the people of Nowra that apparently it's not new money. There's $155 million for the Nowra bridge. They know now, after this budget, that that money is there and that project will be delivered. Tell it to the people of Brisbane. They now know, after this budget, that there is $300 million for Brisbane Metro. They didn't know that that money was there before, because that decision hadn't been made, and yet the shadow minister has the temerity to claim that that's not new money. If you live in Brisbane, you now know that $300 million is committed to Brisbane Metro. What about the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, with $540 million? That is new money committed for the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, funding that was not committed before, and yet again we have this ludicrous proposition that there's no new money. The people of Perth now know something they did not know before the budget: there's $1.05 billion for further stages of the transformational Perth METRONET project, for Ellenbrook to Morley and the extension of the Armadale line to Byford. That's $1.05 billion, but apparently there's no new money. I've got 1.05 billion reasons to say to you: that is dead wrong. There is $1.05 billion of new money. In Port Augusta, the Joy Baluch Bridge has $160 million. The Gawler line electrification has $120 million. Mr Champion HW9 How long has the Gawler line taken? Mr FLETCHER L6B 'How long has the Gawler line taken?'—from a South Australian Labor MP. We don't have the time to go through the lengthy catalogue of public sector incompetence that we have seen from South Australian Labor when it comes to the Gawler line electrification. But I'll tell you what: in years to come it will be a case study in schools of government and schools of public policy all around the country—the chaotic mess that Labor, federal and state in South Australia, produced when it came to the Gawler line electrification. We are going to fix that. We are going to work with a businesslike, sensible, serious, determined state government in South Australia. Thankfully, they now have a capable Liberal government in the Marshall government, and we've committed this vitally needed funding to the Gawler line electrification. This ludicrous claim that somehow investment in infrastructure through debt and equity doesn't count as infrastructure investment is simply factually wrong, but the shadow minister continues mendaciously, misleadingly and deceivingly to quote only one line item in the budget, which is grant funding. What he needs to do is quote all of the funding for all of the infrastructure investment programs. That's how we get to $8.6 billion next year, $8.7 billion the following year, $8.2 billion the year after that and $8.5 billion the year after that. So don't come in here and tell us that infrastructure investment is falling. It's not. That's wrong. Look at the facts. 15:48 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I'm proud to rise on this matter of public importance to discuss the government's failure to invest in infrastructure. It's a privilege to follow the member for Bradfield, a warm-up act to four successive National Party ministers. It must be very galling to be taking orders from the likes of the member for New England. The truth is that this is a smoke-and-mirrors budget. This government, as the member for Grayndler has ably outlined, uses equity investments to inflate the infrastructure figure. This inflation is completely dodgy because the projects that are associated with the equity investments are unlikely to provide a commercial rate of return. Equity investments in certain arenas are justified and are reasonable, but in the projects they've identified they have Buckley's of getting a commercial rate of return. The most egregious example is the $5 billion for the Melbourne rail link. The truth is that not a single passenger rail line in Australia returns a profit—not a single one. In fact, on average, a passenger rail line returns 25 per cent of its cost. The Sydney Airport line is a classic example of when you try to make it a commercial rate of return. The company went bankrupt and had to be rescued after the incompetence of the New South Wales Liberal government. The truth is that infrastructure grants are the key measurement of a government's commitment to infrastructure investment, and grants under this government fall from $8 billion in 2017-18 to $4½ billion in 2021-22. What's even worse is that this government is so incompetent that it can't even spend the money it's allocated. Over the last four years they've spent $4.7 billion less than they promised to spend. Let me repeat that: the National Party infrastructure ministers got into cabinet, wrestled and managed to get some funding for grants, and they then can't spend it. They have spent $4.7 billion less than they promised. Why is this? Why is this government so hopeless on infrastructure? The truth is it's all spin and no substance. I remember when the Prime Minister was triumphant after assaulting and assassinating the member for Warringah. He became Prime Minister. He was going to be the infrastructure Prime Minister. Well, guess how many times he's mentioned infrastructure grants since becoming Prime Minister: twice—twice since becoming Prime Minister. He's mentioned wine four times. He's mentioned rugby four times. He's mentioned poetry twice. This bloke cares more about poetry, drinking and rugby than he does about infrastructure grants. This is the quality of the Prime Minister. What's even worse is that we have a series of interning infrastructure ministers. We have a revolving door of infrastructure ministers under this chaotic government. We had Warren Truss, who spent two years and 153 days in the portfolio, and he was a stayer compared to the ones who succeeded him. An opposition member: He slept through most of it! Mr CONROY 249127 He slept through it and, quite frankly, we slept through his question time performance. Then we had the member for Gippsland for one year and 305 days, and then the member for New England for 68 days, and the current bloke, the member for Riverina, has been in for 77 days. The current minister has been minister for infrastructure for only slightly longer than Mal Meninga's political career! In fact, the last two ministers have lasted for fewer days than Sophie Monk's relationship with Stu Laundy—and I checked. In fact, the last three ministers combined have had a shorter tenure than the time Britney Spears was married to K-Fed. That is how short these ministers' attention span is. When you add up the entire tenure of all the four coalition ministers, it's lasted less time than the Taylor Swift-Katy Perry feud. This is how seriously these guys take infrastructure. Compare their combined period, four years and 238 days, to the golden era of infrastructure investment in this country under the member for Grayndler, who served for five years and 289 days. During those five years, infrastructure investment per person in this country increased from $132 to well over $200, a significant rise in per capita investment. That's how you do infrastructure investment in this country: matching your rhetoric with real dollars, unlike this sham of a government that uses smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that it is underinvesting, ripping off Australians, ripping off our economy and driving us into the ground. 15:53 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I thank the member for Shortland for his contribution. In actual fact, he has just been a warm-up act for a National Party minister and, with a bit more practice, he might get there. I was going to comment that I feel that the member for Shortland should spend a little bit more time in his electorate and a bit less time in front of the TV. One of the advantages of being around here for a while is that you have a memory. I sat here through the entire time when the member for Grayndler was infrastructure minister, and I saw other ministers in that era that were responsible for government expenditure. Mr Hill 86256 You didn't learn much! Mr COULTON HWN Well, I learnt one thing. I learnt that one of the biggest forms of infrastructure that was important for regional Australia was the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, and I remember sitting there while the member for Grayndler and others removed that and turned it into a $900 cash splash in 2008. It disappeared. There was not one mobile phone tower in two terms of government. I sat here in this place as I watched members spend money on infrastructure in schools—school halls that didn't fit the schools— Opposition members interjecting— Mr COULTON HWN I'm certainly against the spending of money that is not value for money. The member for Shortland talked about the time of rolling things out. It's because the coalition government does look at responsible spending of taxpayers' funds, not just rolling them out. But, if you want to have a look at real expenditure, have a look at the inland rail. The member for Grayndler spoke about it a lot. You can look at it now: there are railway lines lying along the side of the track, they are driving pegs into the ground and there is work. Mr Albanese R36 You haven't done anything. You haven't dug a hole yet. Mr COULTON HWN You should come and talk to some of my farmers who have railway lines coming through their place, member for Grayndler, and ask them if they think it's going ahead. It's going ahead all right. This is real infrastructure that's being rolled out, not just talked about. There's the completion of the duplication of the Pacific Highway and the relationship with New South Wales. The federal government, from my memory, reneged on their share of the expenditure. It took a coalition government to bring it up to 80 per cent funding of the Pacific Highway. There was the announcement last week of the bypass around Coffs Harbour—real spending. It's not only on inland rail, which runs across my electorate, but some is on infrastructure that has a great effect on communities. There is the $10 million that we're contributing to the Bourke abattoir—a small animals abattoir that will employ a couple of hundred local people in that western New South Wales town. There is the infrastructure spending going into the Dubbo airport at the moment—a large project in conjunction with the Dubbo council and the Flying Doctor Service to increase the capacity at that base, not only to service the people of western New South Wales through the Flying Doctor Service but also to help Dubbo grow as a regional hub for freight. So this government is getting on with proper spending and diligent management. It's not just talking about cash splashes and not actually getting the job done. There are practical things like the heavy vehicle bypass around Warialda that will get those large, high-mass vehicles out of the main street, stop a bottleneck that's dangerous and help productive farmers in the northern part of New South Wales and Queensland get to markets in a more efficient way, with cheaper freight and in safer measure. I find it quite incredible that the member for Grayndler would bring about this matter of public importance—the member who oversaw five years of incompetence. He had a great amount of cash lent to him by the Howard government and he squandered it. Mr Albanese R36 Go talk to your mayors. Mr COULTON HWN Member for Grayndler, you had your turn. I just sat there quietly and listened to your dribble. The other thing that the member for Grayndler did was in the way of funding things. There was the Roads to Recovery strategic fund. That was one of the first things removed. It's been replaced in this budget. 15:58 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I must say it's a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, whom I might start addressing as 'comrade' because he did such a great job for the Labor opposition in raising so many wonderful issues for us to talk about in this infrastructure MPI. To think that a member of the government would stand up and talk about telecommunications infrastructure, knowing the absolute catastrophe that the NBN rollout has been across this country. Not that I've got that much of it in my electorate, but I can tell you that, where we do have it, all we get is complaints about the dropouts and problems with the HFC. I don't just get the complaints in my electorate, of course; you get them in Senate estimates. How much genius does it take to double the cost and halve the speed! That deserves an absolute round of appreciation for the government's effort. Might I say, the Prime Minister himself was so proud of his job when he was the communications minister. I met with him about the NBN. He sat me down and he showed me a map and said, 'Look how much broadband you have across your electorate.' Come to Griffith, Prime Minister. Meet the business in Morningside that had to use a dongle because they couldn't even get cable or HFC. Come to my electorate and meet with the people who can't get all of their kids' homework done, because they don't get decent broadband access. Tell us how great it is to have broadband in Griffith. I also wanted to thank the previous speaker for raising Inland Rail, perhaps one of the best examples of the concerns that we have in relation to this government's absolutely woeful record on infrastructure. It's an off-budget project—one of these off-budget projects that looks too good to be true because it probably is. The claim that this project can be fully funded by an off-budget $8.4 billion government equity injection into the Australian Rail Track Corporation is absolutely doubtful. You don't have to listen just to me on that. You've heard John Anderson, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former Leader of the National Party. What did he say about it? He said: While the economic analysis indicates that inland rail will deliver a net economic benefit to Australia, the expected operating revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment required to build the railway – hence, a substantial public funding combination is required … He's saying we're not going to cover the cost of it over 50 years. That's not a Labor Party position; that's from the former National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson. Even the infrastructure department acknowledges that, as a stand-alone, the Inland Rail project will not be commercially viable in at least the short-to-medium term. They said the comments made by the secretary of the department for infrastructure at Senate estimates were indicative of the returns on equity for ARTC as a whole rather than for the Inland Rail project. They've cast aspersions on the figures. So I'm very pleased that the previous speaker in this debate decided to raise the issue of Inland Rail, because it is emblematic of this government's absolute failure when it comes to infrastructure investment. The previous speaker also decided that this was a great opportunity to criticise spending money on school halls and school libraries. I tell you what: went I go to St Ita's in my electorate and I see the amazing school library that they got because of the Building the Education Revolution project, when I go to Norman Park State School and sit in their hall for their citizenship events, when I go to St Martin's, when I go to Mount Carmel, when I go to any of the schools—Camp Hill has an amazing hall—I will see they were able to get money through that project and build facilities for working-class and middle-class families and their kids in my electorate, and I'll think of how the National Party thought that that was a waste of public money, how they thought that was just something to be laughed at in an infrastructure spending debate in an attempt to avoid coming to grips with the real issue here, which is this government's absolute failure when it comes to infrastructure such as the funding for the M1 that's down on the never-never, beyond the forward estimates. The idea is that 85 per cent of the funding for that project should be beyond the forward estimates and the people of Brisbane are meant to say: 'We'll trust you. We'll trust the Liberals.' They can't trust the Liberals when it comes to infrastructure, and the people of Brisbane are well aware of it. Here is another example: you can't trust the Liberals when it comes to Cross River Rail. This is incredibly important infrastructure project for my electorate and for all of the inner south in Brisbane. It is absolutely crucial. We're already nearing capacity for our rail network. We've got massive road congestion on Wynnum Road, on Lytton Road, on Old Cleveland Road, on Stanley Street. You come to my electorate and see what that road congestion is like. If you want to get people— Dr Chalmers interjecting— Ms BUTLER 248006 It is a car park, as the member for Rankin said. His electorate is affected as well. If you want to get people off the road, you need public transport infrastructure. It's pretty simple. If you want congestion busting, you have to fund public transport infrastructure. The failure to fund Cross River Rail is a disgrace. Labor has committed $2.2 billion. We will continue to support this important project. 16:03 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The one good thing about those opposite is that they never fail to disappoint, do they? And it's just like this MPI has taken me back to when I was 11 years old and I was watching the television—1979, The Life Of Brian. All the main characters were huddled around in this little tomb, and, of course, there was the famous scene of 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' Those members opposite never fail to disappoint. 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' Reg, who was played by John Cleese, said, 'Alright, alright, apart from the sanitation, the medicine, the education, the wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?' It's somewhat similar to how these guys operate over here. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot. I would invite any one of those opposite to come to my hometown on the Sunshine Coast. I know every time I mention the Sunshine Coast the member for Grayndler dips his head in shame, as he should, because he did absolutely nothing for the Sunshine Coast when he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Let's just have a look at a couple of things that have been going on on the Sunshine Coast. This year's budget includes $2.2 billion—I'll say that again: $2.2 billion, that's billion with a B—for infrastructure just on the Sunshine Coast. There's $880 million for Bruce Highway upgrades—they've gone very, very quiet over there—between Caloundra and Pine Rivers; $800 million for the Cooroy to Curra section D bypass; $150 million for upgrades to the Murrumba Downs section; and $390 million for the duplication of the North Coast Line between Beerburrum and Nambour. I lived on the Sunshine Coast for 25 years. One of the most common things was that they felt neglected by the federal governments past. Now that's changed. Now they get $2.2 billion. I notice that the opposition minister for infrastructure has gone awfully quiet yet again. Earlier in 2018 we announced the North Coast Connect high-speed rail project was just one of three chosen by the federal government to receive a share of $20 million to create a business case. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 Just listen! Just one of three throughout the country for fast rail. This is on top of unprecedented funding already committed. Just listen up for a moment. There's $734 million to create an Australian first: a diverging diamond interchange at Caloundra Road on the Bruce Highway. That's on top of $120 million for the Deception Bay interchange. Those opposite can say, 'These projects are never going to come up my way.' You'll actually see these projects being done as we speak. Mr Champion HW9 Are you doing it? Mr WALLACE 265967 Absolutely. Mr Champion HW9 You're doing it? You're out there with a spade? Mr WALLACE 265967 Don't start me on those opposite never knowing what hard work's like! That's on top of another $530 million that we received just last year in upgrades on the Bruce Highway between Caloundra and Pine Rivers. I'd like to just pause for one moment and congratulate the previous infrastructure minister, who has done a sensational job in getting a lot of these projects off the ground. A lot of them wouldn't have been possible but for the great work that he's done, which is continued on by his followers. Unfortunately, this great success should be contrasted with the Labor state government, who continue not to provide a planning study. It's a shame. (Time expired) 16:08 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I think Mr Wallace has been watching far too many Monty Python films. He needs to go and find his holy grail of delivering proper infrastructure around Australia; not just pork-barrelling. If he wants to talk about state governments not delivering on infrastructure, look at the New South Wales government. Look at the disaster that they've caused with the inner city rail and the disaster of their stadiums policy. I rise today to speak on the lack of provision of infrastructure in my electorate of Macarthur. I thank the member for Grayndler for raising this issue, which is an extraordinarily important issue in my electorate of Macarthur. Macarthur is the fastest growing electorate in New South Wales and one in which farms are being turned into new suburbs almost on a weekly basis without proper infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure. Public transport infrastructure is vital in Macarthur. We have outlying suburbs where people have to travel to work, often by car, sometimes for three or four hours a day, which takes an enormous amount of time that could be spent with their young families and adds an enormous amount of stress on them just in travelling to work. The federal Liberal government and state Liberal governments developed what they call City Deals, which is a completely politicised pork barrel that has failed to deliver for my electorate of Macarthur. I'm pleased to see that the member for Hume is in the chamber today. He should be talking about the lack of public infrastructure provided for his electorate of Hume. He should be supporting— Mr Taylor 231027 $2 billion this year. Dr FREELANDER 265979 You are not providing transport infrastructure for your own electorate nor my electorate of Macarthur. I'm sorry that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is not here today to hear me talk about what a disaster public transport is in my electorate of Macarthur. We have the Western Sydney Airport being developed on the northern tip of my electorate and into the electorate of Werriwa. They are not providing appropriate public transport infrastructure for the new Western Sydney Airport. The lack of public transport will mean that my constituents will not be able to fully utilise the benefits of the Western Sydney Airport. We also have Appin Road. A few weeks ago, we had the infrastructure minister and the member for Hume out in their Bob the Builder hard hats doing a public relations exercise, pretending that they're developing Appin Road. They're not. They've pulled up a few tree stumps and they call that delivering infrastructure. It is not. I could go through the cuts in infrastructure in our state over the next few years, but I want to concentrate on my electorate of Macarthur. Just as a guide, there's a reduction of spending on infrastructure in New South Wales from $2.7 billion in 2017-18 to a mere $800 million in 2021-22. There are cuts. I find it ludicrous that anyone could believe that this is a government that's delivering on infrastructure for Macarthur. I was at a sausage sizzle in one of the newer suburbs in my electorate, Oran Park, on the weekend. There were huge complaints from local residents about the lack of transport infrastructure. The Northern Road, which goes from my electorate through to the northern electorate of Lindsay, around Penrith, should have been developed as a six- or eight-lane road, but it is only a four-lane road, which means that in peak hours it's already congested. People are being forced onto roads which are already inadequate. Investment in transport infrastructure in New South Wales has fallen in the projected budgets 2018-19 and onwards by at least 25 per cent. That's money that could have been spent on much needed upgrades to roads and bridges and the beginning of our railway development. The Leppington train line, which was already planned to connect with the Western Sydney Airport, gets no funding from this federal government. It is ridiculous. Every transport expert in the state that I have spoken to suggests that it's a must when the airport opens. This government is a disgrace in the way that it's politicised infrastructure development in New South Wales— (Time expired) 16:13 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on the member for Grayndler's MPI that there are cuts to the infrastructure budget. I'll lay it out quite simply for the member, but I do understand that his knowledge hasn't been that good with numbers—it's not his strong suit, especially since 2013. There have been no cuts in infrastructure spending. There have been no projects cancelled. Funding to the states and territories has not been reduced. Oh, that's right: no projects cancelled except for the East West Link—and who cancelled that? Funding has actually increased to record levels of investment in infrastructure. The coalition government is investing, on average, $2 billion per year more than Labor and investing in a way which delivers better value and results for taxpayers. I guess the member for Grayndler is just upset that the member for Lilley and the member for McMahon couldn't balance the budget to let him have the bigger chequebook to meet the coalition spending. Our investments come with robust governance reforms so they deliver value for money, including ensuring independent assessment of business cases by Infrastructure Australia and working with the government's Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency to get the best return on our investments. This isn't 'back of the napkin' planning such as those opposite often used and are used to putting together, or perhaps the Ros Kelly whiteboard that she used to use in her ministerial office. Mr Hill 86256 Showing your age! Mr IRONS HYM This is a serious, considered investment by a fiscally responsible government. I wouldn't say it's age; it's experience. If only they could just understand that good governance and fiscal responsibility require a system of checks and balances! The funding allocated in the budget each year for infrastructure projects is fully available to state, territory and local governments if agreed milestone agreements and project conditions are met. Where milestones are varied, payments are also varied. This is what fiscally responsible governments do. Those opposite, and in particular the member for Lilley, never seemed to understand that phrase 'fiscally responsible' when they sat on those benches, even though their Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, claimed to be an economically and fiscally responsible person, which he wasn't, as we saw. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM 'Economic conservative', the member for Corangamite tells me. What you don't do is just allocate large sums of money for major infrastructure projects and not review or revisit that expenditure. This is prudent financial management, as the government is not paying ahead of need or ahead of the proponents meeting the milestones or just to meet the government's budget targets. Mr Albanese R36 How's Gateway WA going? Mr IRONS HYM I hear the member for Grayndler yelling out. I think he's yelling out about the pink batts infrastructure he was talking about. We know about the pink batts disaster. That was infrastructure spending which set over 200 houses on fire and killed four people, so that was really good—what a great legacy to have for infrastructure spending the pink batts disaster was! The member for Grayndler might not like it, but if Labor wants to make comparisons here is one: comparing all transport infrastructure investments—this includes payments to states, financial assistance grants, financing and equity—under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government the average annual spend on infrastructure was just over $6 billion, and the average under the coalition government from 2013-14 to 2020-21 is over $8.1 billion per year. If the member for Grayndler could get his numbers right, he'd understand that $8.1 billion is a lot higher than $6 billion. The member for Grayndler might get his numbers right one day. Unlike Labor, the coalition government has a real plan that is building a stronger economy by creating more and better paid jobs, backing small business, boosting exports, delivering reliable and affordable electricity, and building road, rail and other vital infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, those opposite are not fans, but then how could you be a fan of something that promotes aspiration and busts congestion when you have a wing of your party advocating for no new roads? In the great state of Western Australia, the coalition government, in this budget alone, has announced $3.2 billion for an infrastructure package, the largest single infrastructure investment we have seen dedicated to keeping WA moving. This package is committed to busting congestion across Western Australia and improving safety for WA commuters and road users. Unlike those opposite, this infrastructure package is not city-centric but rather is beneficial to regional WA and people in the metro area like my constituents of Swan. This is on top of the $2.3 billion Boosting Jobs, Busting Congestion package included in last year's budget, which included vital infrastructure such as the Manning Road on-ramp, which Labor always refused to fund, and the upgrades to the Roe Highway and Kalamunda Road intersection in my electorate, which Labor again refused to fund. So I thank the member for Grayndler for bringing this MPI so I could talk about how good the coalition funding is in my electorate of Swan. 16:18 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Australia is an immigrant nation. Unless you are an Indigenous Australian, all of our families were migrants to this great country at one point in time. Indeed, there's nothing more Australian than being a migrant, and in recent times the Australian family has been growing at a rapid clip. The Australian population grew by 2.8 million people in the first decade of this century, more than any decade back to Federation, and it's already grown by 2.7 million in the current decade, and we still have a few more years of growth to go. The vast bulk of this population growth has happened in Australian cities. This is a great thing. It's human nation building that benefits our economy and our community. But, to misquote Kevin Costner: 'If they come, you must build it.' My electorate is on the front line of this population challenge. Melbourne's west is booming. Its population is growing at twice the state average, and nearly one in five Melburnians now call Melbourne's west home. Infrastructure Australia's Future cities: planning for our growing population report recently modelled three scenarios and projected that the region will grow by between 76 per cent and 120 per cent over the next 30 years. One in five Melburnians is a big baseline to grow from. Unfortunately, those opposite don't understand the need to invest in the infrastructure needed to allow us to support this growing population. The conservatives have never been the nation builders in this country. They don't have the vision to imagine a different world or the courage to pursue the change. They spend a lot of time sleeping, but they don't spend much time dreaming. When a conservative government is elected, they hit the snooze button on nation building. That's what we've seen in Australia over the last 30 years. When the Howard government kicked off the current high-population-growth era, it invested an average of only $29.1 billion a year in transport, energy, telecommunications and water infrastructure needed to support this growing population—nowhere near enough. When the federal Labor government was elected under stewardship of the member for Grayndler in the infrastructure portfolio, he effectively doubled the average annual infrastructure investment to $57.7 billion. This investment delivered city-shaping investments for Victoria and Melbourne's west in the form of the Regional Rail Link project and a $3 billion commitment to the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel. Unfortunately, the election of the Abbott-Turnbull government hit the snooze button once again, slashing average annual infrastructure investment by 17 per cent to $48b billion. Investment in transport infrastructure alone—roads, bridges, railways, ports and harbours—fell by even more: 22 per cent. The Turnbull government's latest budget is more of the same: no new funding. Federal infrastructure grant funding, the money that goes to the states, territories and local governments to deliver these roads and rail projects, will in fact fall over the next four years to its lowest level since the Howard government. Incredibly, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office, federal investment in Australia's rail and road infrastructure will halve over the next decade. I can tell you population growth isn't halving over this decade. It hasn't fallen by 22 per cent. It's not at the lowest levels since the Howard government. As Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said about this budget: It's concerning to see that the Federal Budget has cut real infrastructure funding by $2 billion over the forward estimates. At a time when our population is growing and our cities are more congested than ever, we need to see infrastructure dollars trending up, not down. The out-of-touch Turnbull government doesn't understand the urgency of the challenge here. Nowhere is this more true than my home state of Victoria. After more than four years in office, the federal coalition has initiated only one new major project in Victoria: the Murray Basin Rail Project. Every other federally funded project currently underway was identified and funded by the former Labor government four years ago. It hasn't initiated a single transport infrastructure investment in Melbourne's west on the front line of this population growth. In 2017-18 Victoria's share of the federal infrastructure budget fell to a record low of eight per cent despite Victoria being the fastest-growing state and having 25 per cent of the Australian population. In the last year of the federal Labor government preceding it, Victoria received 26 per cent of the federal infrastructure budget. Even worse, the projects it has announced for Victoria all rely on funding that is already budgeted for, not new money. For projects like the airport rail link, North East Link, Monash rail and the electrification of the rail line between Frankston and Baxter, 80 per cent of that money—80 per cent of the funding for those projects—won't flow until the second half of 2022 at the earliest. The out-of-touch Turnbull government just doesn't get it. It doesn't understand the impact of population growth on our major cities and it's not making the infrastructure investments needed to support it. A Shorten Labor government won't hit snooze on nation-building infrastructure investments in Australia. At the next federal election we'll offer the Australian public a vision for a better future of the country and give them a choice of a government that invests in the nation-building infrastructure we need. 16:24 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I'd like every constituent in the member for Gellibrand's electorate to listen very closely. He's just read talking points. The most insane amount of rubbish has come out of his mouth. Here he is, a Labor member in Melbourne's west, who didn't have the guts, the courage, to stand up to Daniel Andrews when he cancelled the East West Link. Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Bruce is warned. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 This was game-changing infrastructure, and the member for Gellibrand stood there and said nothing. This is infrastructure that we need, and Daniel Andrews and Labor cancelled that project at a cost of $1.24 billion, and the people in Melbourne's west—the people that the member for Gellibrand represents—have been left high and dry by Labor. The member for Gellibrand has the temerity to stand there when he has been so weak. He has no courage, no guts and no ticker to stand up and say, 'Daniel Andrews we need this infrastructure.' We have $3 billion set aside for the East West Link, and what do we get in exchange? We get the West Gate Tunnel Project, which is a poor cousin of the East West Link. It is one small part of the East West Link. Infrastructure Australia, to which the member for Gellibrand referred, says this is an absolute priority for Victoria. One of the biggest issues that we, as a government, have had with spending infrastructure money in Victoria is that Labor has refused to put the projects on the table. I also want to correct the member for Gellibrand for saying there wasn't one new project in Victoria except the Murray Basin Rail Project. That is absolutely untrue. We have put $1.7 billion into regional rail. I cannot believe the member for Gellibrand would be so ignorant as to stand up and try to make these comments. There will be $20 million for a new terminal for Avalon Airport, which will service Melbourne's west. The mayors and the councillors in the very electorate of the member for Gellibrand, who is walking out because he's so ashamed by his failure to represent his constituents, were at the announcement of the terminal. They are very proud that, as a government, we are providing Victoria's second international terminal, which will service the people of the west, as well as Geelong and Corangamite. Mr Watts 193430 What do they think about the train to Highpoint? They're going to be stranded for the next decade. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Gellibrand is warned! Ms HENDERSON ZN4 As for the new projects, there is $50 million, and $150 million in total, for the Geelong rail duplication project, a new project, along with the upgrade of the Warrnambool line. The Labor Party in Victoria has put only $20 million into that project. We've put nearly $300 million. Member for Gellibrand, our government has committed $150 million to the rail duplication project to ensure that Geelong and Corangamite residents can get faster and more reliable rail services. This is a very important part of our city deal. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, in response, do you know what the Labor Party has put in? It has put in $10 million only. It can't even get a business plan completed in under two years. The office of the Minister for Public Transport told my office, through the minister, last Friday that they had sent the business plan in the mail, and it still hasn't arrived. They're so incompetent that they can't even send a business plan to the minister for infrastructure. As for the member for Grayndler, when he was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, AirAsia struck a deal with Avalon Airport. Labor blocked that deal. Labor would not give permission for the building of an international terminal. The member for Corio said this was not in the interests of Geelong or Australia. It was an absolutely shameful decision, and it took 10 years for AirAsia to build its confidence. We are absolutely fixing this and delivering Victoria's second international airport. The other terrible decision made by Labor when it was in government was that it absolutely turned its back on the Great Ocean Road. That was a decision made by the member for Grayndler. He refused to put any money into the Great Ocean Road, which is one of the most iconic and important roads in our country. Labor has a shameful record. The member for Gellibrand has failed to stand up for his constituents in the west of Melbourne. As he leaves this chamber, I say thank you to the Turnbull government for investing in regional Victoria, in regional rail, in regional airports and in infrastructure across Victoria and this nation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 45 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 45

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Second Reading 45 16:29 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt On budget night, the Treasurer started his speech with the rhetorical questions: What are you going to do now? What does it mean for me? We know that these were rhetorical questions because, clearly, he doesn't want to actually answer them. Indeed, so concerned is the Treasurer that he's also refused to even answer the simplest questions about the centrepiece of his budget: the tax cuts that this legislation seeks to implement. To be clear, there are parts of this plan that we can get behind. Labor will support the government's proposed changes that are to take effect from 1 July this year. If the government split the bill so that we could vote for the 1 July changes only, it could have our full support and they could pass instantly. Low- and middle-income earners could walk away with an extra $530 a year for the next few years, but they won't this year as long as the government continues to be unable and unwilling to provide, or is perhaps deliberately hiding, specific details of its plan, including the year-by-year cost beyond the forward estimates. After getting nowhere with the Treasurer himself, Labor have now asked Treasury for more detailed financial information so that we can have better information about what the government is actually proposing with these cuts. 2022 is a long way away. 2024 is even further away. For the government to say that they are certain they can deliver tax cuts for 2024 is really a bit of a joke. The government are locking in policy commitments that will not come into force for seven years. That's more than two elections away. We don't know what the world will look like then. It seems apparent they have no idea what the world will look like then because they seem unable, or at least completely unwilling, to provide any of their modelling to support what the costs of this plan will look like. The Treasurer contradicts himself in the budget papers, stating, 'Risks appear more balanced in the short term,' but also stating, 'In the longer term, the global economy faces further challenges.' The Treasurer knows that this plan becomes more and more unstable the further it gets from now. It's no secret the upcoming election is essentially now going to be fought on tax. The government are hoping that, by dangling the carrot of up-front tax cuts before ordinary working people of Australia, they will accept even bigger tax cuts for higher income earners. But the people of Australia are clearly more wily than this Prime Minister or the Treasurer. Not only does the income tax plan pander to the top end of town, leaving low- to middle-income earners wanting, but under the Liberals the costs of living are also rising. Workers in retail, food and accommodation industries are losing up to $77 a week in penalty rates under this government. Pensioners are being slugged around $20 a week for private health insurance, and the government wants to remove their energy supplement. Some families are even copping an extra $40 a week for childcare fees. The budget also fails the fairness test on Medicare. The Prime Minister's freeze on the rebate for specialists means that Aussies will have to pay even more as they go to visit a doctor for specialist care. This plan by this government is not about fairness for families, it's not about being fair for pensioners and it certainly isn't fair for low-income earners. This budget looks after big business at the expense of those people who work and struggle. The people of Armadale and Gosnells have an average income of just over $60,000 a year, meaning that the vast majority of residents are effectively now at the mercy of this budget. The people of Burt elected me to this parliament and I'm here to do my utmost to represent them and fight for them. I note the jeers coming from the member opposite, the member for Tangney. I'm sure that he will be very happy with this budget because the average income of those in his electorate is quite a bit higher. But, with more than 168,000 people in the electorate of Burt, the vast majority of whom will be worse off under the way this budget is constructed, I'm not going to let these issues slide. Perhaps if the Liberal Party had been responsible in this budget and in the tax plan that they're introducing in this legislation, we would be having a different conversation. After all, the initial plan for those tax cuts to come in from 1 July is not that bad, and we support that part of the proposal, but, instead, down the track the Liberals are once again doing their utmost to pander to the top end of town. It's Malcolm's 'mates rates' under this tax plan. While we haven't been given the full picture by this government, early indications are that, once the government's three-stage package is fully in place, it will deliver larger benefits to those on higher incomes—disproportionately so. As part of the new proposal, low- and middle-income earners will get a tax offset in 2018-19, with high-income earners getting very little. This part of the plan still remains somewhat progressive. More money will go to lower earners in that tax cut. But we're asking for more information about the proposals for 2022. If the government wants to be judged on the fairness of its package, the government should provide the distributional analysis for the year that the full package is in place. The tax cuts mean that by 2024-25 high-income earners will gain $7,000 per year in tax cuts while those earning between $50,000 and $90,000 a year will gain only $540 a year and, wait for it, those earning $30,000 a year will see only a $200 gain. Where's the fairness in that? In fact, 60 per cent of the cost of this tax plan comes from stage 3, which is when the high-income earners will receive the largest tax cuts. The cost to the budget over the medium term, we understand, is out at $140 billion, but the government refuses to give us any breakdown as to what the costs are as part of each of those three stages. Prime Minister, Treasurer, will you now be willing to provide that more detailed information—a year-by-year breakdown, the individual components of the stages—so that we, as a parliament, who you are now asking to vote on this tax plan, can help put the people of Australia in the best financial position? While the Liberals are being stingy on their tax cuts for ordinary working Australians, you may ask the question, almost as the Treasurer did on budget night: what are the Liberals spending their money on if it's not on ordinary Australians? Well, it seems they're spending $50 million on the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of James Cook's first voyage to Australia. I'm sure that, like me, the member for Tangney—being a good representative of Western Australia, an area of the continent discovered and examined by European settlement long before Captain Cook made his way over to the east coast of Australia—will raise an eyebrow as I did, because the Treasurer will splash money on this anniversary to make sure that he creates a four-year program to be covered as part of this budget. There'll be a plethora of new facilities and activities down at Port Botany to celebrate the event. I'm sure when people fly into the airport they'll see it all happening. Where is this location? Where is Port Botany? Where will this be celebrated? It will be in the Treasurer's own electorate. What's the alternative, Australians ask. A Shorten Labor government will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for more than 10 million working Australians. In many cases these tax cuts will be nearly double what the government is putting on offer for low- and middle-income earners. Labor's tax refund for working Australians will increase the tax cuts that are on offer in the current government's proposal. Everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor compared to the Liberals, ensuring that more than four million people will be better off every year under Labor's tax plan. In addition to our commitment to a bigger, fairer and more affordable income tax cut, Labor will invest $2.8 billion for a better hospital fund to deliver more beds in emergency departments and wards, more doctors, more nurses—more health staff. We will restore the $17 billion that this government has decided to cut from school funding. We'll abolish up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn the skills that Australia needs. That will be part of a $470 million investment in TAFEs and apprenticeships, which is much more than the $270 million that this government has decided in its budget this year to slash from TAFE. We can do this because there is one thing that the government is doing that we will not do, give an $80 billion tax cut to big business and the banks. Australians know the phrase: 'Well, compare the pair.' When it comes to tax cuts, when it comes to funding essential services and when it comes to budget repair that is not only effective but fair, Australians should compare the pair. They will find that this government will be left wanting, because only Labor will ensure that we have a fair go for all Australians. 16:39 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. This bill implements this government's responsible plan for personal income tax relief by making personal income tax lower, simpler and fairer. It is tax relief that encourages and rewards hardworking Australians and backs businesses to invest and create jobs. Reward for effort, that's what I'm about and that's what this government is about. We want more money in the pockets of those who work hard and apply their effort to make a better life for them and their family. It's a plan that by 2024-25 will see around 94 per cent of taxpayers projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less, compared with 63 per cent if we leave the tax system unchanged. This is a seven-year plan and the government is legislating the whole package now to provide certainty—certainty for hardworking taxpayers that they'll be protected from bracket creep into the future, and certainty that a coalition government will also back hardworking taxpayers with lower personal taxation. Let's not forget this government is not spending—it's taxpayers' own money. This bill is about Australians keeping more of what they have worked hard for and earned themselves—money that can be saved and invested in better living standards, in saving for the future, in achieving things for individuals and their family, like buying a new home or starting or growing a small business and employing Australians. Money is always more productive and better invested in the private economy. Taxpayers always know how to spend their own money better than the government does. This side of politics wants people to keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. In making my contribution to this legislation, I'm proud to be part of a government making sure it lives within its means and making sure that it manages taxpayers' money in a disciplined way. This government has kept a tight rein on spending. Government spending is forecast to grow by an average of 1.9 per cent in real terms—half of the four per cent that we inherited from Labor The underlying cash balance is in the best position we've ever seen since the Howard government's final budget. The deficit has halved in the past two years. The budget returns to balance in 2019-20. Since the 2016 election, this government has legislated over $41 billion of budget repair measures. With the financial leadership of the Treasurer; one of my local constituents, the finance minister; and the Prime Minister, the Australian economy continues to strengthen. Jobs are being created, investment is rising and the budget is strengthening. For the first time in a decade, the government is not borrowing to pay for essential services, with the lowest level of spending growth of any government in the last 50 years. Important programs such as Medicare, PBS medicines, the NDIS, school funding and hospital funding—essentials Australians rely on—are being funded sustainably and not through debt. The government is funding priority nation-building infrastructure that busts congestion, making our roads safer and getting what we produce to the market more efficiently. A balanced budget enables the government to do all of this and provide the responsible tax relief delivered by this bill. This government recognises that the battle of balancing the budget is not just a challenge for governments. Every household faces that challenge too, and some find it much harder than others. It's even tougher when you haven't had too much of a pay rise in a while. To build a strong economy, it's vital that hardworking Australians are rewarded for their effort by our tax system. People need to feel confident that they can take on additional work, work extra hours and seek promotion, knowing that their extra hard work will be rewarded by extra income—that it doesn't just go to the government in higher taxes. This bill outlines an affordable plan of income tax relief for hardworking Australians delivered in three steps. Without action, the personal income tax system increasingly will penalise Australians for earning more as they move into higher tax brackets. Over the seven years of this plan, the government will provide tax relief to encourage hardworking Australians and reduce household pressures. There is an immediate and permanent tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. In 2018-19, around 4.4 million Australians will get the full tax relief of $530 per year, and over 10 million taxpayers will get some tax relief. Many of these Australians will be young people leaving university and trades training to enter the workforce for the first time. Right from the start of their career, this permanent tax relief will leave them with more money of their own to invest in their future, for events like moving out of home, saving for a house or car, starting a family and managing their household budget. $530 in tax relief can go into the savings account, pay bills or pay down the mortgage. The second step of the personal income tax plan locks in this tax relief for low- and middle-income earners and protects middle-income Australians from bracket creep. From 1 July 2018, this government will provide a tax cut of up to $135 per year to around three million people by increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. From 1 July 2022, the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $90,000 to $120,000, providing a tax cut of up to $1,350 per year. This will benefit 3.9 million Australians and prevent about 1.8 million from paying the second top marginal tax rate. In addition, the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000, providing a tax cut of to $540 a year. The low income tax offset will be increased from $545 to $645. The extension of the 19 per cent tax bracket, together with the increase to the low income tax offset, will guarantee the benefits of step 1 are permanent. The third step finalises the government's plan for more Australians to pay less tax by making our tax system much simpler. From 1 July 2024, the government will increase the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000 and we'll remove the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. This is fantastic news for the people in my electorate of Tangney. Around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent, or less, in 2024-25. This provides certainty for taxpayers. Most will face the same marginal tax rate through their entire working life. Australians will know that they can take on extra hours, do overtime, accept a promotion, start a business, invest in a business or do better for themselves without their reward for hard work being eroded because they move into a higher tax bracket. This plan for income tax relief absolutely rewards Australians who work hard. Permanent tax relief will fairly leave more Australians' hard-earned income in their own pockets. This government is committed to a tax system that rewards individual effort, a tax system that is internationally competitive and capable of driving stronger investment and stronger growth for our economy. I highlight also the tax cuts already legislated by this government for Australian businesses with a turnover of under $50 million, taking their rate from 30 per cent to 27.5 per cent and eventually to 25 per cent. We remain committed to extending those tax cuts to all businesses. That is relief for around 3.3 million small and medium businesses employing 6.8 million workers and adds to the personal tax relief that is implemented by this bill. Small businesses that employ so many Australians also benefit from the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off—a policy, a commitment, something that is real and tangible—which is very much welcomed by businesses in my electorate. This is for businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million, not the $2 million under Labor's policy. Streamlined GST reporting for about 2.7 million small businesses is saving small businesses time and money so people can get on with running their businesses. Simpler BAS saves small businesses an average of $590 per year. These measures support economic growth, create opportunity and boost living standards for all Australians. A balanced budget enables the government to provide responsible tax relief and encourage and reward hardworking Australians. It backs businesses to create and invest in jobs. These measures and the personal income tax relief plan reward Australians who work hard. Some of the best news around this budget and the personal income task relief legislated by this bill is the number of jobs and full-time jobs created. ABS data confirms that Australians created a record number of jobs in 2017—415,000 new jobs, the largest number in our country's history. Seventy five per cent of those jobs were full time. One million jobs have been created since the coalition government was elected in 2013, and jobseekers are taking advantage of the 1,100 new jobs created each and every day. Our strengthening economy, along with the government's action to ensure our welfare system is well targeted, has resulted in welfare dependency for working-age Australians falling to its lowest levels in 25 years. Around 15 per cent of Australia's working-age population are currently receiving some form of welfare payment. This is down from around 25 per cent two decades ago. I'm the first to say that it's important we have a strong safety net to protect all Australians. The system must support those who are most vulnerable and genuinely in need, but working-age welfare must not be taken for granted. A strong economy is the only way to secure the quality social services we need and to pay for our generous welfare system. This government is committed to jobseekers and people who are supported by the safety net, as well as the taxpayers who make sure Australia is able to provide a generous welfare system. The personal income tax plan implemented by this bill is a very important part of the government's plan for a stronger economy. The coalition government stands for responsible economic management, and we're delivering that for Australia, with lower taxes, a stronger economy, more jobs and essential services, all while the taxpayers' money is being managed in a more disciplined way. This side of the parliament is about responsible budgets and lower taxes. This bill is about making personal income taxes lower, simpler and fairer, because this government is committed to a tax system that rewards effort and promotes opportunity. The personal income tax plan is affordable. This personal income tax plan rewards those Australians. This personal income tax plan delivers for those hardworking, aspirational Australians. 16:51 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner There's one thing worse than right-wing ideologues, and that's unoriginal right-wing ideologues who have to borrow their tax-cutting strategy from overseas. The story of this government's personal income tax plan originates in United States Republican law, with people like Irving Kristol and Grover Norquist. To see the origins of this, you need to look back to the Bush tax cuts implemented in 2003, which saw 53 per cent of the cuts going to the top one per cent. American taxpayers making $10 million or more pocketed an average of $1 million a year. But, in order to hide from the American people the impact of that tax cut, a short-term stimulus was put in place, and so everybody saw an immediate handout but, over the long run, it was the most affluent who received the most. We've seen President Trump recently pass through Congress a similar tax plan. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, over the course of the long term, the impact of the Trump tax plan is to give multimillionaires more than $700,000 but those in the bottom fifth absolutely nothing. The middle class, over the long term, receive a smaller dollar amount from the Trump tax cut, and they receive a smaller percentage amount. The income boost for the very top can be as high as 10 per cent. The income boost for the middle is just one per cent. Again, the Trump tax cuts' long-term impacts are hidden through short-term payments which are due to expire for the middle class. US economist Paul Krugman likens this to going out to dinner with a wealthy acquaintance. The dinner starts with the wealthy acquaintance promising to pay everything, and so you order a hamburger each, and then, as the meal goes on, the acquaintance turns around and orders the most expensive bottle of wine and a filet mignon steak and then says, 'Put it on the poor guy's credit card.' That's what we've seen from the early 2000s Bush tax cuts and from these most recent Trump tax cuts. It is a strategy which has its origins going right back to Irving Kristol's 'starve-the-beast strategy'—the notion that if you cut down government revenue enough then you would have a political excuse to slash the politically popular social safety net. Grover Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, required American Republican candidates to sign 'no new taxes' pledges. You saw movements in the early 2000s to shutdown so-called tax harmonisation—effectively, to go soft on tax havens like the Cayman Islands—costing American taxpayers up to $70 billion a year. I commend to the House the piece in Rolling Stone a couple of years ago, 'How the GOP became the party of the rich'. We've seen in the Australian context exactly the same playbook. In the 2014 budget we saw permanent cuts to the social safety net but a temporary increase in taxes for the most affluent. The only temporary measure was the one that applied to the most affluent Australians. That debt levy lasted only from July 2014 to June 2017, despite the fact that—as the shadow minister for finance pointed out—the net debt has doubled under the Liberals. What we see now in this tax plan is something very similar to what we saw from the 2014 budget, from the early Bush tax cuts, from the most recent Trump tax cuts. It is a set of tax cuts whose early effect is to benefit middle Australia but whose later effect is considerably more regressive. The government has been steadfast in refusing reasonable requests from Labor to provide distributional analysis. We didn't use to have to ask for these things. The budget used to contain a family impact statement, which was omitted with the 2014 budget—not surprising, given how regressive the measures in that budget were. I'll bet, as the Shadow Treasurer said in his speech today, that analysis was done but simply not released so others have stepped into the breach. Analysis from Ben Phillips at the Australian National University uses the relatively new model, the ANU PolicyMod model of the Australian tax and transfer system. That model estimates that, of the measures due to take effect in 2018-19, the average change in disposable income per household would be fairly similar across the distribution. A middle-quintile household would benefit to the tune of $508, a top-quintile household, $650. In proportionate terms for the middle-quintile household, that would be 0.6 per cent and, for the top-quintile household, that would be 0.3 per cent. But it is a very different story when you look at the impact by 2024-25. In that year, the average change in disposable income per household for the middle quintile would be $913 but for the top quintile would be $4,925. That means the top would get more in dollar terms but they would also do better in proportionate terms. According to the ANU analysis, middle-income households would receive a one per cent increase in disposable income by 2024-24 while the top would receive a 2.2 per cent benefit in disposable income per household. As the ANU analysis concludes: Initially these measures are tax cuts targeted at lower and middle income individuals but by the middle of the next decade the measures are weighted towards higher income individuals. A similar analysis carried out by the Grattan Institute shows that the later measures would be more expensive and further skewed towards the top. Its estimate is that by 2024-25: The income tax cuts are much larger for higher income earners in absolute terms. People in the top 20 per cent will get an average tax cut of $4,600 a year compared to $700 a year for someone in the second-lowest income quintile. The Grattan Institute concludes that 60 per cent of revenue foregone goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners. The respected economic commentator Ross Gittins sums it up by saying, 'Morrison's tax cuts miss the middle'. He has made the point that over the long term the impact is considerably skewed towards the top. Mr Falinski G86 Nonsense! Dr LEIGH BU8 I hear those opposite saying 'nonsense'. You can change whatever laws you like, but the laws of mathematics are immutable. It is those laws that the coalition would desperately like to change, because they don't want Australians to know how regressive their long-term tax plan is. NATSEM modelling suggests that the new tax system from 2024-25 is less progressive than the current tax system. This means we'll get higher inequality as a result of these cuts. There is a simple metric for progressivity. It's a measure that looks at how much the tax system reduces inequality. You have a fixed level of inequality that comes from the market, and then you can ask the question, 'How much does the tax system reduce that?' There are a bunch of indices one can use for this—like the Suits index and the Musgrave-Thin index—but the simplest is the Reynolds-Smolensky index, which simply says you've got a Gini coefficient, inequality before the tax system, and another Gini coefficient, inequality after the tax system takes effect. The difference between the two is the Reynolds-Smolensky index. Danielle Wood from the Grattan Institute has simply calculated how much that index would change under business as usual or under the government's tax plan. Under the government's tax plan, you actually see an increase in that index over the short term. You see an increase in progressivity—the tax system does a little more to reduce income inequality in Australia. That's why Labor has said, on the measures that take effect from 1 July this year that we will be supporting those. But then, from 2024-25 onwards, you see something very different. The Grattan Institute analysis from that period onwards shows that the redistributive effect of taxation would be much lower—in other words, that we would have a higher level of inequality from 2024 onwards under the government's tax plan than we would get under a baseline measure. In rough terms, we're talking about half a Gini point of difference in inequality in Australia by the late 2020s under the government's tax plan compared to business as usual. You can also see the difference looking across Australian suburbs. As work by NATSEM has shown, the biggest winners out of these tax proposals by 2024 are those in Sydney's eastern suburbs, inner harbour and north shore, as well as inner Melbourne suburbs. Households in Bellevue Hill gain $9,355. A household in Toorak by 2024-25 gains $9,057 according to NATSEM. Meanwhile, a household in Lakemba sees a disposable income increase of $2,693. A household in St Albans, in Melbourne's west, gains $2,800. The areas that benefit least include the far north of New South Wales and areas in Tasmania. There's also a gendered impact of the tax changes. The Australia Institute's analysis shows that roughly two-thirds of the benefit of the government's proposed income tax cuts flow to men, since men dominate the ranks of high-income earners. For every dollar in tax cuts that goes to women, men get $2. That's why Labor has said very clearly that we see merit in supporting the first stage of this tax plan, the measures due to take effect on 1 July this year. In fact, we don't just support them; we're bettering them. We're offering more-generous tax cuts for 10 million Australians, under a Shorten Labor government. Those earning from $50,000 to $90,000 will see a tax cut under a Labor government nearly twice as generous as that which they would receive under the government's tax plan. Households earning from $50,000 to $90,000 would be around $400 a year better off. There are some, notably the Australian Greens, who don't believe that 10 million middle Australians should receive a tax cut. They're wrong because, at a time when we are seeing real wages flatlining, middle Australia is doing it tough. The most recent wage price index is up only 2.1 per cent over the year. The quarterly number is the second lowest since the Australian Bureau of Statistics started calculating the wage price index in 1997. So most workers haven't seen any real growth in pay. Drivers are also doing it tough as a result of increases in the cost of petrol in Australia. Analysis by economist Shane Oliver calculates that there's been around an $8 a week rise in the average cost of petrol in Australia, with petrol prices going up from around $1.25 a litre to $1.45 a litre and potentially rising another 3c or 4c a litre in the next week or so. Were that to occur, that would consume the entire benefits for a middle-income household of the government's proposed tax increase. Labor will always be the party of equity. But we are also the party of productivity and growth. The way in which you get growth and productivity is by making sure that you are focused on the effective marginal tax rates of those who are on the margin and moving from welfare into work. That's why Labor make no apologies for focusing our tax cuts on middle Australia. We will not be following the Irving Kristol, Grover Norquist, George W Bush, Donald Trump, Tony Abbott playbook for taxes. We will not be offering middle Australia a short-term bauble and giving long-term, massive handouts to the top end of town. 17:06 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Except that Labor will be! That's the whole problem now with what the member for Fenner has been saying. He spent a good 15 minutes and three seconds telling us how bad tax cuts are, but Labor will have bigger and better tax cuts than the coalition. In fact, I was so concerned by his obsession with size that I wondered what was going on. In order to justify why his tax cuts are better than our tax cuts, he quoted from the Grattan Institute at great length. One was wondering where the Australia Institute was today—or the Whitlam foundation or indeed any of the other front groups that the Labor Party have set up over the years to justify their policies. Then of course we had the coup de grace—but I'm afraid he buried it—with Ross Gittins. He quoted Ross Gittins. Now, we know that the member for Fenner is somewhat upset that he has not yet had an opportunity to appear on the front pages of GQ, but I assure the member for Fenner that there is one person who will never bump him off the front page of GQ, and that's Ross Gittins, both in economic theory and in fashion. But, of course, he buried the lead. He quoted Rolling Stone. If I too may quote Rolling Stone—and I say this sincerely to the member for Fenner: You can't always get what you want But if you try sometimes you might find You get what you need. An honourable member interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 That's right. I'm a crooner not a singer. Honourable members interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 None of us will, although I have to say that the member for Reid does an awesome karaoke night and it's not to be missed. I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have seen you at a couple of those nights, and you've done very well—very well indeed. I think what we have here—and the member for Fenner touched on it—is actually an ideological and philosophical issue for both sides of parliament. Do you believe that you create a fairer society when you cut taxes? We on this side would say, 'Yes; the answer is absolutely yes,' and we would point to the same experiences that the member for Fenner speaks of. When you look at the United States in the 1980s and the 1990s and you look at the United Kingdom in the 1980s and the 1990s, they had governments on both sides of this divide who instituted tax cuts—both personal and corporate tax cuts—which massively improved equality and fairness in both of those societies, both in the United States under Ronald Reagan and then Bill Clinton and in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher and then under Tony Blair. Tax cuts are the principle of improving equality of opportunity and fairness in our society. That's why the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 is so critical for what we do. If you want to reduce inequality and you want to quote the Royce-Walinksi model and know that you are going to improve matters, then you need to know that reducing taxes improves inequality in Australian society. Why do we say this? Because it's the only way inequality has ever been reduced anywhere in the world. If you want to go in the other direction—and the member for Fenner knows about this man but he dare not speak his name—just look at the policies of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela: massive taxes and massive government subsidies, and they have a refugee problem. Their people cannot wait to get out of the country, and every day neighbouring countries in South and Central America open their borders so the people of Venezuela can actually buy food across the border. Why? Because of high taxes and government interference. The Labor Party used to know this too. Under the Hawke-Keating government, they realised that as well, and the member for Fenner knows this as well. He wrote an entire book on it. I just looked up the index and not once did he reference Rolling Stone, Ross Gittins or the Royce-Walinksi model. I don't know, maybe it wasn't a well-researched book. Dr Leigh BU8 It's the Reynolds-Smolensky model! Dr Leigh interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 That's it, thank you—that one! There are some simple questions. Do you believe that this parliament should allow people to keep what they have earned? Do you believe that any tax system should incentivise work and effort and risk? And do you believe in fairness? If you believe in any of those things—much less all of them—then you need to vote for this law. The Labor Party are saying that they will oppose this tax cut because it's not big enough. Well, let's see them vote for a tax cut that isn't for foreign backpackers. Let's see them vote for a tax cut that's for Australians. Despite claiming to be progressive, Bill Shorten is succumbing to the archaic class warfare of centuries ago. Over the past five years, we've witnessed his efforts to snatch hard-earned money and relocate it to those apparently deemed more deserving. The Leader of the Opposition essentially seeks to align our democracy with redistributive ideologies, threatening our economic equality and wellbeing. However, any reasonable person would see that Labor's plan to further redistribute income is without valid justification. Australia's top 10 per cent today already contribute almost half of the total net tax paid. Moreover, the top one per cent, about 90,000 individuals, are liable for approximately 17 per cent of the government's income tax revenue. There is absolutely no need to propagate this existing inequality. There is also no need to increase income tax for any Australian, regardless of wealth. Our country needs lower, fairer and simpler taxes for every Australian. This bill, which seeks to impose the Personal Income Tax Plan, outlines a threefold strategy to alleviate household budget pressures and provide certainty for most working Australians. The changes strike the right balance between lower tax and equity. Simply put, this bill ensures that the top 10 per cent pay their fair share of tax without compromising their entitlement to lower rates. We have to remember that this is the money of everyday Australians and not of the government. Taxpayers earn every dollar of income through laborious work and labour. They have the right to spend it as they wish with as little exogenous interference as possible. This seven-year plan allows them to do just that. In addition to lowering taxes, we are providing Australians with the certainty that they will face the same tax rate over the majority of their working lives. Unlike anything proposed by those on your left, Mr Deputy Speaker, this plan is affordable and fiscally responsible. Each dollar spared by taxpayers is not compensated by another increased tax, but also isn't the cause of a budget deficit. In fact, our federal budget is set to return to surplus in less than two years time. Whilst Labor has already announced over $200 billion of taxes in opposition—the housing tax, the savings tax, the family business tax and the retirees tax—we as the government have successfully sought to reduce our taxpayers' burden. At the same time we've put an end to the debt-creating machine initiated by the Rudd government. As I mentioned earlier, this bill improves the welfare of taxpayers via three steps. Step 1 is to provide tax relief to low- and middle-income earners and thus help ease cost of living pressures. The bill will introduce the low- and middle-income tax offset, a new non-refundable tax offset for the 2018-19 to 2021-22 financial years. This counterbalance will provide a maximum benefit of $530 to 4.4 million taxpayers and assist more than 10 million Australians overall. The maximum $530 benefit will be distributed to those earning between $48,000 and $90,000. The offset will also provide a benefit of up to $200 for taxpayers earning up to $37,000. On the other end it will phase out at a rate of 1½ cents per dollar for those with incomes between $90,000 and $125,000 a year. Step 2 of the personal tax plan combats bracket creep. From 2018-19 the top threshold of the 32½ per cent bracket will be extended from $87,000 to $90,000 per annum, thereby reducing the taxes by up to $135 for those with incomes between these two figures. From 2022-23, the top threshold of the 32½ per cent tax bracket will be further increased from $90,000 to $120,000 while the upper threshold of the 19 per cent bracket will be increased from $37,000 to $41,000. Further, the low-income tax offset will be extended from $445 to $645. Such augmentations guarantee endurance of the benefits outlined in step 1. Finally, the third step proposed in this bill is the simplification and flattening of the tax system. From the 2024 financial year the upper threshold of the 32½ per cent bracket will be further extended from $120,000 to $200,000, consequently removing the 37 per cent tax bracket in its entirety. This results in a greater probability of a person remaining in the same tax bracket for their entire working life. Note that the top marginal rate of 45 per cent will remain, but only for those with incomes exceeding $200,000. As a result of these changes, more than nine in 10 taxpayers are projected to face a marginal rate of 32½ per cent or less in 2024-25. Compare this with the estimated 63 per cent under current settings and you'll notice that our tax plan delivers a utility-maximising equitable scheme for all Australians. This bill can be summarised as a long-term sustainable plan to reduce income tax payable for nearly every Australian. It puts an end to bracket creep and provides long-lasting certainty in our tax system. The Personal Income Tax Plan is a package. We ask that the complete package, the complete promise, be legislated by this parliament. It is an all-or-nothing deal. If it is passed, taxpayers will be significantly ameliorated. If it is not, parliament will have failed the people it seeks to represent and will deepen it's budget deficit. Australians need this plan. They need lower income tax and stability in the same way that businesses need an equitable corporate tax system with decreased rates. The Turnbull government has listened to the needs of taxpayers. We are providing relief where relief is needed and stricter policy where severity is due. Through legislation—both niche and expansive—our government is creating a prosperous economic environment. We are fulfilling our purpose as the great enabler not the great enforcer. To see how this is the case one need only look at any of the government's recent propositions. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill, for instance, aims to introduce criminal offences for the production, distribution, possession and use of electronic sales and suppression tools to falsify tax records. It proposes a specific method by which government can knuckle down on the underground economy. Fiscal crime such as sales suppression contributes to a black economy potentially as large as three per cent of GDP. This is $50 billion in unreported income, which results in approximately $4 billion of lost government revenue and abuse of our welfare system. It is thus highly significant that our government is tackling such a perverse market. Instead of targeting the compliant wealthy, we are knuckling down on lost revenue from those who rort the system, manipulate the cash economy, launder money, phoenix companies, commit fraud and underreport income. In addition to such expansive bills, the government has proposed a number of nitty-gritty policy amendments, such as the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill. This incoming legislation aims to combat the ghastly cost of the statutory marketing levy by allowing R&D corporations to undertake marketing activities with funds raised by voluntary contributions. For rural industries, this reduced regulatory burden results in more time spent on productivity-enhancing innovation. For individual Australians, the removal of the levy, and thus lower costs, engenders lower prices. For this government, as always, reduced regulation results in more resources being devoted to higher priority areas. It is not difficult to apply elementary economic theory to government policy. As we have just seen through the examples I have outlined, lower rates and tightened loopholes lead to an equitable taxation system which allows for increased consumption and investment. This is what drives our economy, and this is what drives Australia to a better future. 17:21 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Looking at the speakers' list today for this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, you would have thought that the government had given up on this tax plan weeks after it was introduced. We've seen the same kooky IPA robots get up in this place and talk about trickle-down economics. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 I'll take the interjection from the member for Mackellar. He's insulted about being described as an IPA supporter. I would take offence too. But I want to start straightaway by acknowledging what has already been placed on record by my Labor colleagues who spoke before me. As we have heard from speakers today, including the member for Fenner in his address to the parliament half an hour ago, Labor will support the government's proposed changes, which are to take effect on 1 July 2018, to lower taxes for millions of Australians by introducing the low- and middle-income tax offset, a non-refundable tax offset of up to $530 per year for taxpayers earning up to $125,333, and increasing the top threshold of the 32.5 per cent personal income tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000. We said right from the start that we would support these measures, and we were up-front with the Australian people on budget night about that. The Leader of the Opposition, in his outstanding budget reply speech, made that crystal clear. I want to say tonight that, contrary to popular belief in some circles, the Australian Labor Party is the party of lower taxes. In fact, when it comes to the overall tax-to-GDP ratio, the facts are startling, and I do hope those opposite are listening. The seven highest-taxing Australian governments since 1980 have been Liberal-National coalition governments—not the lowest; the highest. According to the Treasurer's own budget papers, by the time 2021 rolls around, the LNP coalition government will lay claim to having the top 10 all-time highest-taxing governments. That's not a party or a government of lower taxes, nor, certainly, is it a government of jobs and growth. In complete contrast, the top 10 lowest-taxing governments since 1980 have all been Australian Labor Party governments. Let me repeat that. By 2021-22, the top 10 highest-taxing budgets will all have been from Liberal-National governments, while the top 10 lowest-taxing budgets will have been courtesy of the Australian Labor Party. That's why when it comes to providing real tax relief to low- and middle-income Australians we will go further than the Treasurer and those opposite. I was proud to see that a Shorten Labor government will not only match the raising of the $87,000 tax threshold to $90,000 but will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 I understand that the member for Mackellar is not interested in real relief for working Australians. His concern while he serves in this parliament is about looking after the top end of town—the millionaires and billionaires of this country. I have a different perspective when I come into this place and the communities that I represent. My priorities are the hardworking men and women of Australia who have helped build this country—people who have gone out and set up businesses, people who have been teachers or nurses, people who have provided the essential services that our country has been built on. I understand that for members like the member for Mackellar that is not their priority. From listening to the speeches tonight from speaker after speaker, they are interested in one thing: the so-called voodoo economics of trickle-down US-style economics. That has not been proven to be successful in any country in the world. But we're supposed to take their word for it that the Trump-style policies that this government has will somehow benefit the hardworking men and women of my community. Well, they can say all they want. They can get up and go on about it. I would suggest that the member for Mackellar and other members here tonight take a walk in their supermarkets, go down to their shops, talk to shopkeepers, talk to patrons buying a coffee and say: 'Do you feel you're better off under this government? Do you feel that banks and the millionaires of this country are not getting a fair go?' I'll tell you what the answer will be. It will not be that we need trickle-down economics. It will not be that the billionaires and millionaires of this country are doing it tough. Nonetheless, I am pleased to see that everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under a Shorten Labor government compared to the Liberal-National government and be better off by $398 a year compared to the Liberals. With Labor's tax refund a teacher on $65,000 will receive a tax cut of $928 a year and a couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively will receive a tax cut of around $1,855 a year. This is achievable because the Labor Party has made tough calls but they've made the right calls. This includes dividend imputation reforms, negative gearing reforms and not going forward with the $80 billion handout that those opposite, like the member for Mackellar, are obsessed with. They have a laser-like focus on making sure the corporations and banks in this country get a tax break before the working men and women in my community get a tax break. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 We know that your priority is looking after the special interests of this country—making sure the ultra-wealthy are looked after. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 We know that's your policy. That is what you want to fight an election on. The member for Mackellar is welcome to come to the communities in Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Redbank and Redbank Plains—suburbs he would never think to visit or even know where they are. If he had a minute to visit the great communities in south-east Queensland that you and I both represent, Mr Deputy Speaker, he'd have a dose of reality given to him. I don't have a lot of millionaires in my community. I say good luck to someone making a million bucks. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 If the member for Mackellar believes they deserve a $16,500 tax cut, he's welcome to come to my community and explain that—because I can let them know what this government's priorities are. The government wants to be trusted with this bill; but we've heard no reason why it should not should be separated, why it has to be done in full. It will cost over $13 billion over the forward estimates and, according to the government, $140 billion over the medium term—which has received very little scrutiny. The truth is that they cannot be trusted with the Australian economy. Since coming to power, under their watch, net debt has doubled. They don't really talk about that a lot anymore. We don't hear about net debt. We don't hear about debt anymore. So, thanks to this government—thanks to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, members of the cabinet and members of the backbench—the net debt in this country has doubled to more than $350 billion. Gross debt has now crashed through half a trillion dollars. That's right—half a trillion dollars on their watch, for the first time in history. Time and time again, we heard about the dangers of debt and deficit—the debt truck driving around the country. Well, the wheels have fallen off that debt truck. It's parked behind someone's house, never to be seen again. It's locked up for good. Now that the debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars, we know that both types of debt are growing faster under this government than under any previous Labor government, which had a global financial crisis to contend with. And this year's deficit, in 2017-18, is six-and-a-half-times bigger than the Liberals predicted in their first horrific budget of 2014. All of this was confirmed through a recent OECD report which stated that the Australian government has added more to their debt over the past five years than almost any advanced company. So not only have we gone through the debt charts and delivered the highest amount of debt in Australia's history but we're now leading the globe in terms of how high our debt is. Throw in the fact that we now know that, by 2022, the top 10 taxing governments will all be LNP governments, and the evidence could not be any clearer that their economic credentials are an absolute shambles. This must be the reason why they're now holding low- and middle-income Australians in some sort of hostage scenario as they try to ram through this $140 billion tax package. Australians deserve better than this. I now speak to the amendments moved to the bill by the shadow Treasurer that reflect Labor's current position on the government's legislation—namely, removing all elements of the bill that commence on 1 July 2022 and 1 July 2024. Australians deserve full certainty on tax, which is why the government should split the bill, and then the tax cuts scheduled to start on 1 July 2018 can pass without delay. We, as representatives in this place, are often asked by our constituents why we can't show more bipartisanship. Well, here is the evidence on the table, right here, right now. Both sides of parliament can work together to deliver immediate tax relief. If the government split the bill, we could vote for the 1 July 2018 changes only. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have made it clear that it will receive our full support and this could past instantly. The offer is there and remains on the table for both sides of politics to work together to achieve this for the Australian people. But, like most times when offers of good faith are made, I won't be holding my breath. We know those opposite will always show their true colours when they're playing their political point-scoring games. They're looking after a certain element of the community, the top end of town. We see that in question time after question time, whether it is the Prime Minister or the Treasurer: they're unable, unwilling or deliberately hiding specific details of the plan, including the year-by-year cost beyond the forward estimates. Either the Treasurer doesn't know the answer or is refusing to provide that information. Yet they want the community in Australia, when they haven't released any true details of the overall $140 billion tax package, to just give them a blank cheque. This is a sign of a government that is desperate and, I believe, out of touch with the community. I'm pleased that our senators have asked Treasury for more detailed financial information—the year-by-year breakdown of the tranches and the individual components of those tranches—so we, the Australian parliament and the community as a whole, can have better information about what the government is proposing. We've also asked for a breakdown by gender, as electorate based information, to ensure we have the best possible information before us, but of course that information has not been provided by the government. Rather than keeping the Australian people in the dark, we need to know what this will mean in the long term. We've already seen analysis by the Australia Institute that the bottom 30 per cent of income earners will receive only seven per cent of the tax cut, which includes the bottom 10 per cent of income earners receiving a mere 1.5 per cent of the tax cut. A simple way to look at it is to say that someone on $40,000 per year will get a tax cut of $445 while someone on $200,000 per year will get a tax cut of $7,255. Sure, those opposite are going to say, 'Well, that's because the person on the bigger salary pays more tax,' but consider this: while someone on $200,000 earns five times what someone on $40,000 earns, their tax cut will be a whopping 16 times bigger. Senior economists have gone further and said that these figures show how inequitable this tax plan is: Even groups like the IMF and World Bank are warning of the detrimental effects of inequality, including hampering economic growth. At a time when Australia is suffering record low wages growth and historically high inequality the government has proposed a radical plan to increase inequality. That's why I was pleased to see that this bill has been referred to a Senate inquiry which will report back on 18 June. I'm hopeful that the inquiry will be used to garner further information from experts on the package. In particular, I believe the inquiry should assess the fairness of the three stages of the package together, with the fiscal risks associated with each stage of the tax cuts, given stage two and three will occur in several years time without an understanding of the prevailing economic conditions. But, considering this government now has a deficit 6½ times bigger than what was predict in their first budget in 2014—that's only four short years ago—how on earth can they be trusted to implement an unscrutinised $140 billion tax plan six years into the future? If the Turnbull government wants to be judged on the fairness of its so-called package, the government should provide the distributional analysis in the year the full package is in place. 2022 is a long way away; 2024 is further away. For this government to say they're certain they can deliver those taxes in 2024 when they're barely able to hold the government together from week to week is just a joke. I believe the government's budget fails the fairness test, it fails the families test, it fails the infrastructure test, it fails the health and hospital test and it fails the education test. We need to make sure a tax package delivers for all Australians, not just the wealthy few. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241067 I thank the honourable member for Oxley. I'm led to believe the south-east corner is a very spectacular part of the country. 17:37 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I am delighted to speak on Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 today, because this bill and tax plan more broadly for business and personal income tax cuts really demonstrates very clearly the large difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in our approaches. I don't think we have seen such a clear distinction between our parties on a core issue for hardworking Australians for some time. The Liberal Party, we on this side of the house, the government—we want hard working Australians to keep their hard-earned money and spend it as they see fit. Those opposite want to take their hard-earned money from them. They want to take the hard-earned money made by hardworking Australians and they want to spend it on behalf of those Australians. I would much prefer that hardworking Australians decided how to spend their money themselves than that it be done by those opposite, who would like to spend it on their behalf. So I'm very pleased to support this legislation that will ensure that the government takes less money away from hardworking Australians and leaves more in their pockets so that they can spend it out in the economy in their local communities, in their local newsagent or clothes shop, employing someone to renovate their house—whatever they might be doing to create economic growth and prosperity for all Australians. As I said, I'm pleased that we're seeing such sharp points of differentiation between the government on this side and those on the other side, because we do believe in low taxation, personal freedom, small government and economic growth, and it's in stark contrast to the plan of those opposite for high-taxing, high-spending government were they ever to get back into government—and we'll be working very hard to make sure that they don't. I am very happy to be going into an election with this as the point of difference between our parties, because this is about, as I said, letting hardworking Australians keep more money in their pockets so they decide how to spend their money. The government do have an excellent record. I was delighted to see that just late last week it was announced that we have now created over one million jobs since coming to office, with the highest rate of jobs growth since the Howard years just over a decade ago. Our personal income tax plan will build on our good work by making personal income taxes lower, simpler and fairer. In doing so, we will providing tax relief for millions of Australians, especially low- and middle-income earners. We're doing so while repairing the budget bottom line that we inherited from those opposite, which was disastrous, to say the least—a record deficit, some $48 billion deficit. Ms Owens E09 And then you doubled it! Ms FLINT 245550 We're not even talking about the debt; we're just talking about the deficit. Mr Hart 263070 You should talk about the debt. Let's talk about the debt. Ms FLINT 245550 We can talk about the debt that you left us, if you like. We inherited terrible debt and deficit and it's made it very difficult to get the budget heading in the right direction, which we are, so we can provide essential services for all Australians. And this achievement cannot be understated. We have some important but very expensive programs that we are managing to fund whilst establishing and creating more growth in the economy such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for example, that Labor did not fund. We have also introduced true needs-based school funding that Labor never fully negotiated or funded, as we know. They had done something like 27 different dodgy deals around Australia. We have commissioned dozens of naval vessels to be built in Australia which will encourage and create much needed local jobs, whereas those opposite commissioned zero. And we're still in a position to forecast a surplus within the forward estimates while also providing for and budgeting for our personal income tax and business tax cuts. All the while, we have: record funding for hospitals; thousands more home-care packages; record infrastructure investment, including for my home state of South Australia, with some critical infrastructure upgrades in my electorate of Boothby, including the Oaklands crossing rail underpass, which is a welcome relief for my residents, who have been waiting some 40 years for this to occur; and $1.7 billion to continue the South Road upgrades. The government has even begun establishing our own space agency, which is really exciting. I attended an Adelaide University function on Friday night and heard from a wonderful Adelaide University graduate who is working very hard on the space project and she's quite an inspiration to women in the science area. We have been able to achieve all this not because we're trying to tax our way to prosperity, like those opposite, or because we believe the government can solve all of society's problems, but because of thoughtful public policy research and debate, which creates good economic management. Because we have stuck to our promise of job creation for our citizens and economic prosperity for our nation, Australia is now better placed to reach new heights over the coming years. The Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services have taken to the task of implementing our 2016 election platform with great enthusiasm and great skill, and I commend them all for their incredibly hard and careful work and for the results they're achieving. Our personal income tax plan will be delivered in three steps. The first step is immediate tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, the second is protecting against bracket creep, and the third is making taxes simpler and flatter. This is an affordable plan and it is a responsible plan. From 1 July, the low- and middle-income tax offset will provide relief of up to $530 for low- and middle-income earners, covering 10 million Australians, with 4.4 million Australians receiving the full benefit. The next step will protect middle-income earners from bracket creep by immediately raising the top threshold of the 32½ per cent tax rate from $87,000 to $90,000, delivering modest relief of $135 to three million Australians. In 2021-22, we'll continue this relief by increasing the top threshold of the 19 per cent tax bracket from $37,000 to $40,000. And, from 2022-23, the 32½ per cent tax bracket will be raised from $90,000 to $125,000, providing a tax cut of $1,350. This money will flow straight back into the economy, spurring spending, further growth, investment and job creation. This is what a real stimulus package looks like: public policy that gives more money to hardworking Australians who will spend it wisely, responsibly and productively. This tax relief for hardworking Australians and the economic activity it will create are both desperately needed in my home state of South Australia. Only yesterday, I spoke in this place about the record number of homes having their power disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their bills and about a recent spike in families needing to use support organisations like Foodbank South Australia because of record high power prices. We have been clear that this income tax plan is a package. That is how the legislation has been drafted, and it is guiding how the government—we on this side—plan our policy decisions for the next 10 years. Too often we receive feedback that governments don't look far enough into the future, that we're only planning for the next election cycle or three years in advance or over the forward estimates of four years. We are being responsible and setting out a long-term plan for hardworking Australians and to provide them with tax relief. Enshrining this whole tax plan in legislation provides certainty for taxpayers and, importantly, creates an important barrier to those opposite or, worse, the Australian Greens, with whom they have formed partnerships in the past, changing the goal posts for hardworking Australians if they are ever re-elected to government. Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I know that you and I and my colleagues on this side, will be working very hard to make sure that's never the case. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I'd just remind the member for Boothby that the chair is an independent. Ms FLINT 245550 Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. Thank you for that reminder. As I mentioned, our Personal Income Tax Plan is just one part of a broad approach to taxation reform in our nation. We are also doing a range of things to encourage businesses to grow, and are trying our very best to cut the tax rates so we're internationally competitive for businesses. We have already passed legislation that sees the company tax rate for our small and medium businesses drop to a more competitive rate of 25 per cent for around 3.2 million businesses, who employ more than 6.5 million Australians. We're doing a range of other things as well, like opening up new markets for Australian exporters through comprehensive free trade agreements, investing $75 billion in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, implementing significant reforms to improve competition and choice for Australian consumers, protecting our revenue base through some of the world's toughest anti tax-avoidance laws for big business and stopping the tax burden in the economy from growing past 23.9 per cent. I want now to reflect on the Personal Income Tax Plan in a slightly more philosophical manner. Today we heard a very fine speech from the Prime Minister about the remarkable contribution that Sir John Carrick made in his service to our nation. Sir John Carrick served during World War II and was held as a prisoner of war by the Japanese. He, along with his fellow soldiers and the 100,000 service men and women and their families who have served in all conflicts and made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, fought for our freedom, and we owe them our freedom. I was particularly interested to hear from the Prime Minister today that Sir John Carrick was a protege of Menzies, another very fine Australian who made an incredible contribution to our nation. Today just happens to be the 76th anniversary of Sir Robert Menzies's radio address The Forgotten People, which he delivered on 22 May 1942. There are a few parts of his speech that are worth reflecting on in the context of this debate and the approach of those opposite, because it's funny how history tends to repeat at times. In his speech Sir Robert Menzies said: Quite recently, a bishop wrote a letter to a great daily newspaper … He sought to divide the people of Australia into classes. He was obviously suffering from what has for years seemed to me to be our greatest political disease—the disease of thinking that the community is divided into the … rich and the relatively idle, and the laborious poor, and that every social and political controversy can be resolved into the question: What side are you on? Now, the last thing that I want to do is to commence or take part in a false war of this kind. In a country like Australia the class war must always be a false war. But if we are to talk of classes, then the time has come to say something of the forgotten class—the middle class—those people who are constantly in danger of being ground between the upper and the nether millstones of the false class war: the middle class who, properly regarded, represent the backbone of this country. I think that this is where we find ourselves in the tax debate at the moment. Those opposite want to take money from hardworking Australians who, through their own enterprise, through their hard work and through their ambition, effort, independent thought and readiness to serve—again, all words from Sir Robert Menzies—are doing their very best to earn money, provide for their families and give back to their community. Those opposite want to take that money from them. They want to spend it on their behalf. These are the sorts of people who Robert Menzies described as 'salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on'. He called them the 'backbone of our nation'. Hardworking Australians are the backbone of our nation. Whether you're a chef, a waitress, a paralegal, a lawyer, a plumber or an engineer, possibly you're an employee, and that's why we are attempting to pass these personal income tax cuts, so that we can support these hardworking Australians to spend money as they see fit, as opposed to those opposite, who want to take their money from them and spend it on their behalf. It's about encouraging people to earn as much money as possible and to be rewarded for that effort, by keeping personal taxes as low as we can whilst also providing for the important social services that we provide for the nation, like education, health and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, helping those who really do need our assistance, but balancing that by also rewarding people who have done the hard yards, through their ambition, through their effort, through their independent thinking and through their service to the nation, to earn money and to succeed. I sincerely hope that we see these personal income tax cuts fully passed by the parliament, because they are going to reward hardworking Australians. 17:52 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley When we get to the point of talking about tax cuts—and I was thinking about this in the lead-up to my contribution today—it's probably worth thinking about where we've come from, because it's nearly 10 years since we were affected by the global financial crisis. Time does fly and people do tend to forget that stretch of time and how far we've come. When Labor were in government during that period, we had to undertake some fairly big moves to protect and shield our economy from what was affecting countries all over the world, and the economy wasn't quite the same after that time. Growth wasn't the same; it wasn't responding in the same way once things stabilised and it did take a while to get out of it. But, besides what Labor had done, it's also worth remembering what ordinary wage earners did through that period of time as well. Bear in mind that, to help ensure that unemployment didn't go through the roof, you had Labor in government making sure that stimulus was provided to keep the economy going, but, in workplaces around this nation, ordinary Australians were also playing their part. Remember, they cut back on overtime; they cut back on the number of hours that they would work—they made big sacrifices to ensure that their workmates were able to stay in a job. They did that with the view that this was the right thing for the firms that they worked for and the friends that they worked with. They made these sacrifices. The return for that was they would hold onto their jobs and they'd be able to make sure that their families didn't have to live through much worse times. Certainly my family and, I think, many others in the chamber would recall those up-and-down periods when Australians did suffer recessions and when parents lost work for stretches of time, where they had to bite into their own savings to hold themselves up, hope that they went through a boom and see what happened with the recession. Fortunately, in this country, over a period of time, we've gone through a quarter of a century of uninterrupted economic growth, even in spite of a global financial crisis which in some parts of the world, like the US, was referred to as 'the Great Recession'. People made sacrifices. Things started to stabilise. We weathered some of the worst things. It's worth remembering that in some parts of the world, in Spain for example, youth unemployment in 2007 stood at just over 17 per cent and then grew to a phenomenal 56 per cent by 2013. Fifty-six per cent of Spain's young people were out of work. Now, we did have to deal with youth unemployment here, but nowhere like that. So we sidestepped that type of economic impact. We saw the economy stabilise. But what happened afterwards? What happened afterwards was a very uneven return to normality, because capital seemed to go well; labour didn't. Capital, in terms of profits, was up. Corporate profits were up. Dividend flows to investors were up massively, by billions. Dividend flows between, for example, 2014 and 2017—off the top of my head—jumped from $40 billion to $70 billion. Again, investors were doing well. In terms of top professional income brackets and what was being scored by CEOs and professionals in companies, those were going up as well. And don't get me wrong. I know that there are people who will point to the bonuses or the salaries and the remuneration of CEOs and the like, and they will always be contestable, but you do understand that some CEOs will attract a pay packet commensurate with the skills and the experience that they bring. But people couldn't understand how things went out of whack so much, because—remember—while capital was doing well, ordinary wage earners were experiencing flat wages for years. Wages growth was pretty much mirroring inflation. And people were being told, as I recall the Reserve Bank saying that they believed at that point in time, that unemployment, because it was high, was a sort of pressure keeping wages down. That was what was occurring. Then it became obvious, as wages kept getting stuck, that nothing else was moving, and people were getting frustrated by that. Unemployment was still at the same level. Mind you, when those opposite talk about unemployment, they never talk about the percentages; they only talk about numbers. But unemployment has still remained the same over many years. Underemployment is a big issue. And then the coalition extend more sacrifice. They expect that the people who've sacrificed before have to sacrifice more through some of the budget cuts that they've undertaken in terms of income support, social investment in schools, hospitals et cetera, child care and the like. People are being asked to do more. While people were feeling the pinch, what was the government's big answer? The government's big answer was corporate tax cuts—corporate tax cuts that would puncture an $80 billion hole in the budget, with very little proof that, by making that huge shift in money from federal finances to corporate coffers, there'd be any longer term benefit to the economy in terms of growth, in terms of jobs or in terms of wages. In fact, Treasury revised down the economic impact of their own package. So we had that. When they knew that it was a hard sell, what happened? This plan happened. This plan by the government to provide income tax cuts has come because they realise that, where people have been feeling the pinch for so long, where they don't feel like they're getting ahead, where their wages aren't moving, where capital is doing well and the government announces that it will give a big corporate tax cut, no-one wants to support that other than the business community. So they think, 'The only way we're going to get this through is to deliver a tax cut.' And they can't even do that right. At the heart of their tax plan, for example, is the thing for which conservatives lather themselves up for years, which is to create essentially a flat tax, right in the heart of it, by changing the tax scales. They go for a flat tax arrangement. A play straight out of the Newt Gingrich playbook of the mid-nineties comes back and resurrects itself right here. So you can tell why people aren't necessarily cheering in the streets about what's being offered, because they see an $80 billion tax plan where corporates do well, and they see a plan being offered by the coalition that doesn't address all of those things that I mentioned earlier where people are feeling the pinch. I pick up on the point from the member for Boothby, who was saying that she was happy that there was a divide and a difference between us and them. She's right, but the difference isn't favourable to them, because, when you look at the tax plan that has been put forward by this side of politics, the Labor opposition, people with up to $125,000 in earnings get up to $928 as a tax cut, compared to roughly $500 from the coalition. It's not just about a tax cut; it's also what Labor in government would be prepared to do in terms of social investment to help people with the things that they really want to see in their community—for example, restoring school funding, on which there is a $17 billion commitment by us; improving the way that we support TAFE, something people have been wanting to see after $3 billion has been cut by the coalition in government and another $300 million put on top of that; and a commitment to restore funding to hospitals and health, where the budget has a $2.1 billion cut by the coalition that we counter with a $2.8 billion investment in health. So from Labor you have bigger, better, fairer tax cuts, and you have a better option in terms of social investments across schools, TAFE and health. If you want to talk about contrasts, as has been invited by some coalition MPs, one of the sharpest contrasts was delivered in the Leader of the Opposition's budget-in-reply speech where he quite simply, in the most devastating of lines, said, 'Well, if you want, we'll put $17 billion into schools and you can give $17 billion to the banks.' That's a pretty tough choice, because people know they want to see not just a tax cut but also what you can do in terms of the broader economy and, importantly, the broader community and that you have a longer term plan—because, given the changes that will happen down the track, how can you conceivably argue that cutting school funding, TAFE funding and university funding will help position us for the longer term? As I said, it's simply inconceivable. So, by way of contrast, we have a very thorough contrast that's been put right before the Australian people. But having said that, and bearing in mind that they're the government and we're the opposition, we've been up-front since budget night. We've said we'll support the proposed changes that are to take effect from this year—no problem—but the government would need to split the bills. So it could vote for the cuts this year and it would get our support, and that could certainly pass instantly, but we do need details for the other tranches that are coming. What's it going to cost for tranches 2 and 3? The government has not been forthcoming in telling us how much it's going to cost. For a plan that costs $13 billion over the forward estimates and, according to the government, $140 billion over the medium term, I reckon you'd probably need some detail to be able to back that up. We have repeatedly pursued senior figures within the coalition government, from the Prime Minister to the Treasurer, asking them to be able to come up with that detail, and they've refused to do so. So how are you supposed to back a plan that is so big without the details for various components of that plan? It makes no sense. We're quite happy to say, as we have indicated earlier, that we'll back the first part—no problem—but you're going to have to come up with the detail. To be honest, I don't think most people in the general public would have a contrary view to that in any way whatsoever, and what I think is becoming apparent to the coalition as well is that there'll be people in the other place that will be asking the same question and will exert a great degree of influence to see that type of detail coming. Again, taking the point from the member for Boothby, we relish the opportunity for difference. People often complain that they think that the two parties look too much the same. I don't think that's been the case for quite some time. I think there have been quite clear differences between our respective parties, and there could be no clearer difference in terms of our approaches than the way in which we tackle the nation's finances. We are in the position where we haven't put forward an $80 billion corporate tax cut. This has limited the options of those opposite. They can't walk away from it, they know the public's not buying it, and now they have very little flexibility in terms of trying to come up with a different or better proposition in terms of tax cuts for ordinary Australians. The best they're going to do is what they've got right now. We'll cop the heat that has been extended to us so far by the coalition in terms of some of the positions we've put forward, but bear in mind that for some of the things that people thought would be too difficult to advance in the public space, be it negative gearing reform, changes to superannuation and the like, the reality is that Labor has been able to secure greater support for its reforms in terms of those things. The things that were screamed at by the coalition when we first announced them are generally finding favour in the public. You'll also find there will undoubtedly be some people who do not like the idea of making reforms to dividend imputation, but a lot of other people understand you can't get a tax refund if you're not paying any tax. This is the type of thing that is going to find favour in the public, but it also strengthens our ability to do a number of things: (1) make sure we're in a position to bring the budget into surplus at the same time as the coalition; (2) make sure we're able to deliver stronger surpluses in the years ahead; and (3) be able to combine tax cuts that are better than the coalition's and also fund the social investments that people expect. That's what we've been able to do. It's done with a long-term view. The coalition is always having to basically scramble together one thing after the other to find favour for some other plan that didn't find favour—corporate tax one day, these tax cuts the next, with no detail provided on the personal income tax side. So the contrast couldn't be clearer. We certainly do support to amendments moved by the shadow Treasurer. We welcome the difference. Again, as the Leader of the Opposition says, if it's a difference that comes down to this, we're happy to do it—we'll put $17 billion into schools, and those opposite can put $17 billion into banks, and we'll see what plan the public supports. I think they know and we know exactly which plan the public will support. 18:07 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker It's always lovely to follow the member for Chifley in this place, but it was a little painful to sit through what was effectively a 15-minute lecture on magic pudding economics. To summarise, I think the member for Chifley was saying, 'We will tax less, we will spend more and we will have more left over.' Forget about trickle-down economics—which is something they want to talk down as well—that's a recipe for magic pudding economics. You can't tax less, spend more and have more left over, unless they've found a money tree out the back of the building. I've spent a fair bit of time walking around the grounds and I haven't found it yet. I love it when a plan comes together. When I came to this place for the first time in September 2013, we talked about a plan. We had a plan for a million jobs. We were going to transform the economy and take people from welfare to work. Those opposite don't want us to talk about that plan because—guess what?—it's coming together. We have the flexibility to do what we need to do in relation to the personal income tax regime in this country because our plan has come together. There are over a million people who woke up this morning and got ready for work who were looking for work this time five years ago. In fact, there are 415,000 people who got up this morning who were looking for employment one year ago. Now those people—those 415,000, not to mention the million in total—are adding to revenues of this government. They are providing tax revenues to the government in circumstances where they were previously receiving Newstart and other benefits. In sport we call that a two-goal turnaround. In this place we probably call it prudent economic management, which has let to this. So what are we attempting to do? Well, in the short term, we want to give, if you like, personal income tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, and that's where you should always start, because, despite the fact that high-income earners in this country contribute most to the tax receipts of government, they are the people best positioned to do that because of, by their very nature, the high incomes they earn. So we're focusing first where the cost-of-living pressures hit hardest, and they hit hardest low- and middle-income earners. Just like in your electorate and my electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, those are people earning middle incomes, and we're providing to them a tax relief of up to $530 as a low-income tax offset. That's step 1 of the plan. Those opposite are supporting that proposal but don't want to lock into other elements of the plan. The second element of the plan is to increase the threshold of the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $87,000 to $90,000, and that will also provide relief to those on those incomes. Long term, though, we want an income tax regime that rewards effort. I'm sure many in this place can think of individuals or couples, who look at their individual or combined incomes and think to themselves: 'You know, I could do that extra bit of overtime. I could do that extra shift. I could take on more work'—in the case of independent contractors—'but where's the incentive, quite frankly? I seem to be working for government in that circumstance.' My own sister, who works in the disability sector, is someone who recently bemoaned to me the fact that she seems to be working a lot and, when she sits down with the accountant, it doesn't seem to make economic sense to put in all the hours she does and do all the overtime she does. So what we're seeking to implement is a program that over time will see that top threshold for the 32.5 per cent tax bracket go from $120,000 to $200,000, effectively abolishing the 37c-in-the-dollar step in the income tax system. It's an incentive for people to continue to work hard and earn additional income. Those opposite are running bit of a myth about this around the community. They say, 'Why should someone on $200,000 pay the same tax as someone earning a small fraction of that amount?' That's a really cute argument, but let me debunk it. The rate might be the same, but the amount of taxation is nowhere near the same. If I'm paying tax at 32.5c in the dollar on $200,000, I'm paying something in the order—forgetting about the lower tax brackets—of $60,000-odd in taxation. If I'm paying 32½c in the dollar on $100,000 then I'm paying $32½ thousand. The rate is the same; the amount of taxation is not the same. This feeds into the argument about relief that can be offered. What we need to understand is that the overwhelming majority of income tax receipts that come in come from those on high incomes. Those on high incomes pay significantly more in taxation, so some small reduction in the income tax rate is going to deliver a stronger benefit to someone on a higher income than someone on a lower income. For those opposite, this is really a kind of respectful request. Don't seek to hoodwink the Australian people by saying someone on $200,000 under our plan is scheduled to pay the same amount of tax as someone on $60,000. They might pay the same rate, but they certainly aren't paying the same amount of taxation. The member for Chifley effectively threw down the gauntlet and said, 'I'm looking forward to there being a substantial difference between us and them'—presumably he means those on this side of the chamber—'in the lead-up to the next federal election.' So am I. I share the energy that my good friend and colleague the member for Boothby has for this impending dichotomy. The reality is that those opposite want to run a big spending, big taxing government. None of my colleagues likes that approach. None of my colleagues came into this place and wanted to run big government or big taxing operations—quite the opposite. Certainly, I didn't. My colleagues and I share the view that taxes should be as high as necessary but as low as possible—and that's the situation. So when the member for Chifley says he's looking forward to that debate and the forthcoming federal election, well, so am I. I don't share his optimism about issues like the dividend imputations being prohibited, and I don't think it's finding favour as he says. Equally, I don't think the idea of disallowing negative gearing is something the wider community supports. The member for Chifley comes in here and says, 'Our unbelievable plan is to offer middle-income earners additional tax relief.' What he should say is 'Oh, by the way, if you happen to be negatively gearing an investment property, we're going to be taken away that opportunity'—which, let's face it, is one of the only mechanisms to get ahead if you're earning a wage. I encourage the member for Chifley to speak to people working hard investing in his electorate and tell them, 'You won't have the ability to do that.' If you are so confident that this is a measure that is going to find favour, then don't grandfather it. Your proposal is to grandfather those investment properties currently subject to negative gearing. That is to say you're not going to take away an existing entitlement from someone who actually has it but you're going to prevent people from taking up that opportunity prospectively. If you're so confident that this is a measure that will find favour, then don't grandfather it. Go around the country and speak to every person, every couple, every nurse, every police officer, every council worker, every baker and others and say to them 'We're going to take away your ability to negatively gear that investment property.' You won't do that because the reality is you know this won't meet with favour. Can I say to the member for Chifley and those opposite that if you think older Australians are happy with the idea that you're going to undermine their ability to seek a refund for dividend imputations paid on their behalf on shares in their name then you haven't spoken to the people I have spoken to, some of whom are on very small incomes. I met a gentleman whose total receipts were in the order of $26,000 or $28,000 who was scheduled to lose something in the order of $6,000 depending on the performance of shares in his name. That is a significant whack. Talk about a regressive approach! Frankly, that has him petrified. He asked me what to do about that and I told him he ought to speak to everyone he knows. He told me I was the first conservative politician he'd ever spoken to in his life; he'd certainly never voted for one, but he couldn't see himself voting for his beloved Labor Party at the next election. This is the kind of thing that shows the member for Chifley is wrong to think these measures have been met with favour; they haven't; they're being met with vitriol, to be honest. And we're turning these otherwise fairly passive members of our community into political activists. I'm meeting more and more low- and middle-income earners who say to me, 'You know what? I've never been that politically active but I will be in the lead-up to the next federal election because I can't believe this is happening.' Our plan will see 94 per cent of all taxpayers facing a marginal tax rate of 32½ cents or less by 2024-25. What those opposite need to consider is that 94 per cent of Australian taxpayers will, by 2024-25, not pay a cent more than 32½ cents in every additional dollar they earn under this plan. Those opposite don't want to have a discussion about this. They don't want to lock into an academic argument about a flat tax rate and how it incentivises individuals to work harder, to work longer. They don't want to lock into that. They just want to run around the country on a 'Mediscare' type of campaign and say, 'Oh, those members of the government, they want you to pay the same tax as someone earning $200,000.' No, we don't. We want them to pay the same rate because guess what? I want someone earning $50,000 to earn $200,000. I want them to take that extra shift, to take up another opportunity, and I don't want bracket creep to disincentivise people, to punish people for getting a wage increase. This is part of our overall plan that I spoke about. It's part of a plan which has been facilitated by the fact that, when we came to government in 2013, we said we would create a million jobs, and guess what? That plan has come together. It's delivered additional resources to government. It's allowing us to reinvest in lower, fairer, simpler taxes, and those opposite hate it. They hate it! Those opposite absolutely hate it because it speaks to the Australian people. Australian people don't elect their members of parliament to turn up here in Canberra and be chauffeured around in white cars and put taxes up. By the way, I should say to those opposite that if any of their constituents want to donate additional tax to the Treasury, they can do that—there are provisions to do that. I encourage those opposite who find those people to encourage them do that. They don't want to. The reality is they don't want us to talk about lower, fairer taxes because they want higher taxes and a bigger spending government and we don't. 18:22 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The government's proposal is a con job. Their taxation Treasury laws income tax plan is nothing more than a con job. We know what the government are really interested in. The centrepiece of their tax plan is the corporate tax cut. This is the tax cut for big businesses, including the big banks that have been involved in the scandals and rip-offs of millions of Australians in the financial and banking sector in this country. That is their priority. They want to give big business a corporate tax cut, of which most of the benefit will flow to overseas investors because of the operation of dividend imputation. But the government worked out that their enterprise tax plan was so unpopular and, by the fact that they were actually increasing taxes on Australians with an increase in the Medicare levy, they needed to do something about it. This is what they came up with: a tax plan that gives a rebate to taxpayers, a very small rebate, in the immediate years. But the bigger impact will be in 2022 and 2024, down the track, and, of course, it's a con. It's a con in asking the Australian public to again vote for Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister for another two occasions before there will be any benefit. Labor, of course, sees through this con and has offered a much fairer and more reasonable package of tax reform and tax cuts that would provide more immediate relief, particularly for low- to middle-income workers and families in this country, and would be a larger tax cut for those people. Ours would be about $928 for people in the $50,000 to $90,000 income bracket compared to the government's $530. Ours comes into effect every year. This income tax plan of the government is really a con job and they're trying to lay off some of the criticism that they're getting from the general public about their corporate tax plan and cutting corporate taxes at a time when most Australians are doing it tough—when pensioners are struggling with the fact that taper rates have been changed by this government and the fact that they're trying to remove the energy supplement, and when workers are facing record low wages growth in this country and are struggling to meet the cost of electricity bills, private health insurance, child care and education costs, which are going up for their families. Yet this government wants to give a corporate tax cut to the wealthiest corporations in this country. With respect to the bill that we're debating here tonight, the shadow Treasurer has moved an amendment, which I'm of course supporting. It would give effect to the government's Personal Income Tax Plan. Labor's already indicated that we will support the first stage of that tax plan—the tax cuts that take effect on 1 July 2018. A Shorten Labor government, if elected, would deliver bigger tax cuts on 1 July 2019 and ours would be permanent. That's a fairer tax cut for 10 million working Australians. It's clear that, if the government split this bill, as proposed by the shadow Treasurer, we would be able to vote for the 1 July 2018 changes only. It would have our full support and we could pass that right now. We're ready to go. We could provide that income tax relief for many Australians. So, for full tax certainty, the government should consider splitting this bill and the tax cuts scheduled to start on 1 July 2018 so that they can pass without delay. A plan that costs over $13 billion over the forward estimates and, according to the government, $140 billion over the medium term, does deserve some scrutiny. The shocking track record of this government on key budget measures means that they don't get a leave pass on this issue. Labor will do the job of proper opposition and will scrutinise and ask questions about the actual cost of their proposed plan over the medium term. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been hiding specific details of this plan, including the year-by-year costs beyond the forward estimates. They're hiding and Labor is seeking. Our senators have been asking Treasury for more detailed financial information in estimates—the year-by-year breakdown of the tranches and the individual components of the tranches—so that we, the parliament and the Australian people as a whole, can have better information about what the government is proposing and how much it's actually going to cost the Australian economy. That's not an unreasonable ask. In fact, it's incumbent upon good oppositions to ask those questions. That's the purpose of question time: to hold the government to account for the expenditure of public moneys that they are undertaking on behalf of the Australian people. That's what we've been doing in question time and in budget estimates, but we've not been getting answers from the government. We've asked for a breakdown by gender as well and by electorate based information to ensure that we have the best possible information to make a decision on this. The fact is that 2022 is a long way away and 2024 is even further away. For this government to say that they are certain that they can deliver tax cuts in 2024 is a pipe dream, and it's somewhat irresponsible. And 2025 is even further away. Australians are giving up on this Liberal-National government when it comes to providing transparency and accountability in some of their policies and how much they'll cost. The government, led by the Liberals, have no vision for the future of their party, let alone the future of our nation. We're taking time to consider our position on these proposed tax cuts because we need that information to make an informed decision. At Senate estimates, as well as at a separate Senate inquiry on this bill, we will ask the necessary questions to hopefully be given the information that the government, quite frankly, are unable to give us. Labor's already announced our personal income tax policy for the next term, and that's what governments and oppositions should be doing instead of playing silly games about what we might do in the foreseeable circumstances in 2024. Most people aren't sure what the international economy's going to look like in 2024, and the Treasurer doesn't know either. Maybe the Liberals' self-appointed asset trader, the member for Warringah, who wants to buy and sell power stations on the government's book, has a better idea of what global markets are going to look like in 2024, but I must say it's not likely. The fact is the government's income tax plan is fiscally reckless. Now is the time to be strengthening our fiscal buffers and building Australia's resilience to a shock. This is something that's been recognised by international agencies that work in the economic space, most notably the International Monetary Fund, which just last month said: Decisive action is needed now to strengthen fiscal buffers, taking full advantage of the cyclical upswing in economic activity. Yet here we have a government committing billions of dollars on the back of temporary global economic upswing conditions, and we've seen how this plays out before. The government is locking in policy commitments that don't come into effect for seven years, and it won't provide the information about how much it will cost over that period. That is irresponsible. That is a reckless fiscal approach to budgeting in this country, despite the government's own budget papers stating very clearly: While … risks appear more balanced in the short term … In the longer term, the global economy faces … challenges. For the first time in his own budget papers, the Treasurer has acknowledged there are snags with the medium-term forecasts. The Treasurer is now saying that there are 'drawbacks' with his medium-term forecasts, but he wants us to sign up to tax cuts in seven years—not likely. We know that wages growth is stubbornly low, stuck at around that two per cent figure on the wage price index, and that real incomes for many Australians are going backwards, and the assumptions that have been built into the budget and the forward estimates about wages growth are now looking shockingly unreliable. They are looking overly ambitious and will not deliver the revenue that the government says they will, and this is something that's beginning to be recognised by many economic commentators. The responsible thing to do is to provide the information about how you're going to fund this tax plan in the immediate term but also in the five- and seven-year period that you claim. A Shorten Labor government, if we are elected at the next election, will make sure that we provide that information but also that more working Australians get a tax refund. Under our plan, every person earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor than under the Liberals. That's more than four million people who will be better off by $398 a year compared to the Liberals. With Labor's tax refund, a teacher on $65,000 a year would receive a tax cut of $928 a year. A couple earning $90,000 and $50,000 respectively would receive a tax cut of $1,855 a year. Again, that choice is clear. Yet we've still heard from government members, dutifully reading from their talking points, about how their tax plan makes things fair. When you compare it to what Labor is proposing, it's not fair at all. As I mentioned at the beginning, it's no more than a con job to hide and try to smooth over the fact that their real intent is to provide a large tax cut for big corporations. In conclusion, this proposal that we're debating here today is a ruse. It provides a tax cut as a shadow for what is really their main intent, and that is the corporate tax cuts to provide a big handout to some of the biggest businesses in the country, including the big banks. They won't provide the necessary information for this parliament and the Labor Party to make an informed choice about the costs of their tax cuts going into the future, particularly at the five- and seven-year period. Without that information it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we do all we can through budget estimates and questions in the parliament to deliver that information for the Australian people, so that they can make an informed choice. In the meantime, people have a clear choice, under Labor, of paying down more of the debt and deficit, ensuring that we're investing in services like Medicare and TAFE, putting $17 billion back into the school system, reversing the cuts to hospitals, investing in infrastructure and at the same time delivering fairer and larger tax cuts for middle-income earners. I urge all members of parliament to support the very sensible amendment that's been moved by the shadow Treasurer. 18:35 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. I note the strong budget that we released a couple of weeks ago, through Treasurer Scott Morrison, and our strong five-point plan under that budget, instead of Labor's one-, two-, three-, three-, four-, not quite five-point plan. By growing our economy and delivering back to people through tax cuts we're incentivising people into jobs, helping people to aid their kids into what they aspire to achieve and helping everyday businesses—people who are working in their own businesses and as employees—and more. Not only that, we will be delivering a surplus in 2019-20. Under Labor we've seen a situation where our grandchildren and your great-grandchildren will still be paying down the debt. Instead we are finally getting back to surplus after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. We were in surplus in 2007, in the last year of former Prime Minister John Howard. In fact, I was five years old when Labor last delivered a surplus, so Labor doesn't have a very strong record in this regard. This offset will assist over 10 million Australians, with a maximum benefit of $530 being provided to around 4.4 million taxpayers. Taxpayers earning between $48,000 and $90,000 will benefit, and will receive the maximum benefit of $530. For the average working couple or working family that means a potential $1,060 extra in the pocket each year for food, for school uniforms, for petrol, for sporting activities, to go towards their mortgage or rent, for car repayments and more. These changes also mean that around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of a maximum of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024-25. Let's look at some local examples in my electorate. If you're a high-school teacher on $75,000 in Dunkley you'll have an extra $740 in your pocket from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,740 in your pocket over the first seven years of in tax plan. If you're a hairdresser, like Wayne at Colour Collections in Frankston—let's say you're on $50,000 a year—you'll have an extra $530 in your pocket from the budget year onwards and, as I said earlier, an extra $3,740 in your pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan as the tax relief increases. This is in addition to other changes, such as the higher rebate and higher threshold for childcare costs for those on low-to-middle incomes, in particular, which benefits 5,618 families in Dunkley, not to mention our relief for small businesses, where we're reducing the tax rate down to 25 per cent over time. That is not backed by Labor, who want to make the 16,000 small businesses in Dunkley pay more. These changes strike the right balance between improving the system for all Australians and ensuring that the top earners pay their fair share. We are helping people to manage their household budget pressures. We are providing certainty for most working Australians that they will face the same tax rate over their working lives. In comparison, the Australian Labor Party have already announced more than $200 billion of taxes in opposition. We've had the housing tax, the savings tax, the family business tax and now the retirees tax. Labor are, indeed, for higher taxes. They are part of the high-tax club. John Billing, a local resident in my electorate, originally established and used to head up the 3199 Beach Patrol, which has done and continues to do a lot of great work cleaning up our local beach. I asked him, via Twitter, what the budget would mean for him. He told me that his situation is that he is on $800 a week take-home pay, with child support needed for one, and rent, utilities and living expenses to pay. His gross income is between $50,000 and $60,000 a year. For John, this measure would mean $530 extra in his pocket from reduced personal taxes. With one child, if that is his combined total family income, that would mean up to 85 per cent in rebates for child care, meaning additional savings of at least $1,000 per year on childcare costs. Plus, the implementation of our National Energy Guarantee would mean an extra $400 in savings. So, for John, that makes over $2,000 a year that he will save. That applies to others in my electorate in a similar situation, of whom there are many thousands. Let's say you're on $50,000 a year. By 2024-25, you'll get an extra $3,740 back. If you're on $80,000 a year, you'll get $3,740 back in personal income taxes alone—not to mention, as I said, other savings in child care, small-business benefits and much more. But, of course, everyone on the tax spectrum benefits by us reducing bracket creep and reducing the overall tax burden on all taxpayers over time. I must raise a number of other things that are worth noting regarding the benefits of this budget and personal income taxes in my electorate. Our strong economic management means we can deliver more, such as these personal income tax cuts, while paying down our debt. By paying down our debt, it means our grandchildren and great-grandchildren won't have continuous debt over time and we won't be continuing to pay interest on our credit card. By having less debt, it means we can spend more on important services. For example, in the recent budget, we increased spending towards health. For example, Spinraza has been recently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to treat people with spinal muscular atrophy—people like Ally in my electorate. I've mentioned this a number of times before in parliament. She's a person I've advocated for who lives locally, in Seaford. As with many other people with spinal muscular atrophy in my electorate and across Australia, access to Spinraza would mean that her family won't have to pay over $300,000 per year for this treatment. They can get it at a very low cost and it is a life-saving treatment. It means that Ally can go from a position of her health deteriorating over a quick period to, potentially, living for many, many decades and living a strong and fulfilling life. Our economic management of also means increases in education funding across the whole electorate, not to mention the quality education review that we recently announced and was recently finalised. We hope to introduce further changes that will provide for not only an increase in funding but also higher quality education. We are also providing for those in aged care and for retirees by not, by example, introducing measures that will see franked dividends taken from retirees. There will also be more than 14,000 additional home-care places, and more. It also means an investment in my electorate of $225 million towards the Frankston to Baxter train line duplication and electrification, which will provide much crucial connectivity to people in my electorate. This goes towards what will be the largest infrastructure investment in my electorate's history. It will connect Frankston via metro rail to Frankston Hospital, Monash University, Karingal, Langwarrin and Baxter. It will mean park-and-ride options, potentially, at both Baxter and Langwarrin, meaning that people living on the peninsula won't have to travel as far. They won't have to go to Kananook or Seaford or Frankston to get to the train; they will be able to go somewhere much closer to their home and won't have to drive around looking for parking. It will also mean that people won't have to queue up to park at the local hospital. They will have greater accessibility by a train service to the hospital, reducing parking pressures there and meaning that families can visit their relatives in hospital. That is a project that we're also calling on the state government to co-contribute to in an amount matching our $225 million. It is an important connectively project that will mean at least 4,000 jobs created in the Dunkley electorate—connectivity, jobs, education, community connectivity and more. These are some of examples of what we've been able to achieve through strong economic management. At the same time, we are introducing these personal income tax changes, paying down our debt over time and, therefore, spending more on crucial services like infrastructure, health and education. Thank you. I certainly do commend this bill to the House. 18:45 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018. I do so with eagerness because this bill allows us to talk about the centrepiece of the government's hopeless and already discredited budget and the philosophical underpinnings of that budget. The philosophical underpinnings of this budget are twofold. First, it's a reaffirmation of the discredited 1980s economic theory of trickle-down economics. Secondly, it is a bizarre commitment to an arbitrary limit on the size of government at 23.9 per cent. That is not grounded in any analysis other than the Treasurer plucking a figure out of the air. I will go to the first one, which is trickle-down economics. That's the premise of these tax cuts: you give tax cuts to the rich, and somehow they will spend the money in the economy and low- and middle-income earners will receive some benefits down the road to stimulate the economy. This was tried by Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s and it failed . It absolutely failed then and it will fail now. As the saying goes, something trickles down, but it's not money, that's for sure! I will go to the income distribution of this a bit later. If you want to stimulate the economy, you're much better off targeting tax cuts at low- and middle-income earners rather than the wealthy. The second part of the philosophical underpinnings for this bill and this budget is a commitment to keep the size of the government at 23.9 per cent of the economy. Why they've plucked 23.9 per cent out of the air I don't know. I don't know why they didn't plump for 23 per cent or 24½ per cent. It just seems incredibly arbitrary and seems to be premised on a view, a very mistaken view, that we're a high-taxing nation. I want to inject some facts into the debate that were absent from the member for Dunkley's contribution. I'm going to start with regard to whether we are a high-taxing nation. Look at OECD nations, our comparator countries. It's fair to measure us against OECD nations. There are currently 39 members of the OECD. Where would we rank in terms of gross government revenue as a percentage of the economy? If you believe the Treasurer, we'd up the far end, next to socialist nirvanas like Denmark or France. We rank 11th lowest out of 39 countries, barely above countries such as Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Lithuania and the United States. And, if the Treasurer gets his way, we'll move further down to the left and be amongst the countries like Mexico and Indonesia on the size of the government compared to the size of the economy. There is no reason for this. Taxes are good or bad depending on how they work and what you use the money for. I would submit that it doesn't matter particularly whether the size of government is 23½ per cent of the economy or 27½ per cent of the economy; it's how you raise the money and then how you spend it. Labor's alternative approach is to give more targeted tax cuts and greater tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners where they're needed, to reinvest in services and to pay down the debt and deficit more rapidly. Look at the government's budget. How are they paying for these tax cuts we're talking about right now? They're paying for them through $17 billion of cuts to schools, which is having a direct impact in my electorate. My electorate will lose $33 million in schools funding over the next two years, and that's a great tragedy. I've some of the most resource needy schools in the country. One school—St Pius X Primary School in Windale—draws its student population from the lowest-SES grouping in the entire state. One way of saying it is that St Pius X is the poorest school in the entire state, and it's in greatest need of needs based funding. They've done phenomenal work with the early years in needs based funding, as the latest NAPLAN results show. They came first in the country in their cohort in key tests around mathematics, writing and reading. And they did this because they used their early-years funding to invest in more teachers. The budget and these income tax cuts are based also on: $700 million in cuts to hospitals, including $37 million in cuts to hospitals in my area; $2.2 billion in cuts to university funding, announced in December last year; a $270 million cut to TAFE; an $84 million cut to the ABC; and cutting infrastructure funding against the long-term average by a third. The 10-year historical average of Commonwealth infrastructure funding across the Howard and then the Labor governments was 1.5 per cent of GDP. Over the four-year average of this government, that's fallen to one per cent—that is, cutting Commonwealth infrastructure funding by a third. This budget also confirms the government will cut and abolish the energy supplement for new pensioners, costing a new pensioner couple $550 a year, and they will increase the pension age to 70, the highest in the western world. All this is to pay for these personal income tax cuts, some of which are justified, particularly stage 1, but I would submit stage 3 is completely unjustified and certainly not justified when you look at the impact of it. The median worker in Shortland earns $47,300, according to ABS statistics. That worker will receive a tax cut of $9.80 a week or $509 per annum. I will repeat that. The median worker in Shortland—if you lined up every single worker in the electorate, 50 per cent earn less and 50 per cent earn more—earns $47,300. They will get a $9.80 a week tax cut under this miserly government. In contrast, a lawyer living in my electorate earning $200,000 a year will get $7,225 in tax cuts in stage 3. Let me repeat that. The typical worker gets $500, the $200,000 lawyer gets $7,225. How is that fair? The answer is it's not. When you look at the impact of that, my typical worker will see an increase in their disposable income of 1.3 per cent whereas someone on $200,000 will increase their income, courtesy of this tax cut, by 5.4 per cent. Sixty-two per cent of the income tax cut goes to the top two million taxpayers. Another way of looking at this is through changes in the share of income tax paid by each income decile. By 2024, if all these tax cuts are legislated, for the people in the third-lowest income decile—the decile in our economy between 20 and 30 per cent—their share of income tax paid in this country will increase by 75 per cent, a full three-quarters increase in the share of income tax paid by the 20 per cent to 30 per cent decile. In fact, every decile between decile 3 and decile 8 would increase their share of income tax paid in this country. The middle of the Australian tax paying population is being hit by this tax cut. And why are they being hit? They are being hit to cut the share of income taxes paid by the top decile. The highest 10 per cent of income earners in this country will end up paying five per cent less in their share of income tax paid by the entire tax paying population. And who bears the brunt of this? Services and low- and middle-income taxpayers. It's clearly inequitable. NATSEM, who are, according to the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, the premier economic modelling outfit in this country, found the median household in my electorate earns $65,000 a year in income—again, line up every household in my electorate; 50 per cent earn less, 50 per cent earn more. Their increase in disposable income because of these tax cuts will be 1.3 per cent. For a household on $300,000, their increase in disposable income will be five per cent so a four-fold increase in disposable income against my particular median household. It underlines the fallacy behind this entire budget, which is: if we're going to stimulate the economy, we need to give the tax cuts in this particular way. It rejects conventional economic theory where, when you talk about the marginal propensity to consume—a term pioneered by John Maynard Keynes—you give tax cuts, you increase the income of low- and middle-income families. Why do you do that? Because they struggle to save a single dollar. If you give them additional income, they will have to spend that money to keep clothes on their kids' backs, to keep the lights on and to stock the fridge. That immediately injects money into the economy. It circles around and employs more people. It injects more money into the economy. If you give the same amount of money to a high-income family or household, they're as likely to save their money because they don't have to spend every cent they earn to survive. Therefore, money will actually be withdrawn from the economy, and the economic impact will be much lesser. If you opposite are serious about stimulating the economy, even leaving aside the equity aspect I talked about previously, you would give the tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. What's the cost of all this? We don't quite know. This is the fallacy, the ridiculousness of this debate. The government is asking the Parliament of Australia to vote to approve their seven-year tax plan across all three stages, without giving us annual breakdowns of the figures over all seven years and without giving us a breakdown between stages 1, 2, and 3. That is lunacy. That is an abrogation of the government's responsibility. In fact, they're asking the parliament to abrogate our responsibility to steward the Commonwealth's resources as finely as we can. How can we vote for something when we don't know what the finite costs are? It's a complete disgrace that the government is approaching this way. They're happy to talk about the cumulative impact of all the tax cuts. We hear government members trying to bulk up the moderate tax cut for typical workers to try to counteract the $7,000 figure for those on $200,000. So they talk about the cumulative impact, but they won't give us the proper cumulative impact of each stage of these tax cuts. Luckily, other independent think tanks have had a go at it. Grattan Institute is a middle-of-the-road economic think tank. They're often critical of Labor's policies; they're not in alliance with the Labor Party. They estimate that when these tax cuts mature in stage 3, the annual cost of these tax cuts will be $25 billion per annum. Of that, $20 billion will be for tax cuts for those earning over $90,000—double the median income in my electorate—and $15 billion will go to the top 20 per cent of income tax payers in this country. That is an incredible amount. That is an absolutely extraordinary amount. Labor has got an alternative. I can proudly go to the next election and say there is a clear choice. No-one can claim the two major parties are the same. There is a clear choice being proposed for the Australian people. On one hand is the government, the triumph of trickle-down economics, the triumph of small government, the triumph of giving tax cuts to those who need them the least. On the other hand is Labor's approach, which is about almost doubling the tax cut for low- and middle-income earners who need that cost of living relief and who are suffering from stagnant wage growth in this government. The median worker in my electorate on $47,000 won't receive a $509 tax cut; they'll receive a $928 tax cut—an increase of $398 compared to the plan of those opposite. Secondly, we'll reinject money in vital government services, with an extra $17 billion for schools, $2.8 billion for hospitals, $2.2 billion for universities, $80 million for MRI, maintaining the energy supplement, rejecting lifting in the pension age, and paying down debt and deficit faster. How can we do all that? Because we have made brave and visionary decisions to cut down on loopholes in the taxation system. No longer will we cop tax minimisation using family trusts, where lawyers or surgeons will employ adult children or spouses and funnel money through them to minimise tax. No longer will we allow negative gearing and capital gains tax to be used to prop up a property bubble. Instead, we'll restrict negative gearing to new property, where it'll add to housing supply, while grandfathering proper arrangements. No longer will we cop corporations paying zero tax on their profits, which is what you have when you have cash refunds for dividend imputation. No longer will we cop other loopholes in the corporate system, such as multinational tax evasion. All of those are brave moves—it's brave for an opposition to put forward such a concrete plan—mean that we can afford greater tax cuts for those who need it most, retire debt and deficit faster and invest in vital services. So this is a really good opportunity, in this debate and in the year ahead, to have a debate about what Australians want. Do they want an economy ruled by the top, where trickle-down economics is par for the course, or do they want to invest in services? Do they want to invest in the Australian people through increasing human capital? Do they want to get debt under control—because we had a debt emergency in 2014, but it's disappeared, very conveniently, now that the government's been in power for five years—and give real tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners? That's the debate that we're having right now. It behoves the government to split this bill, to get stage 1 quickly through parliament because they have strong support for that, and to park the other stages until we have a proper debate. I'm proud to stand for an alternative, fairer approach to the budget that rewards low- and middle-income earners as well as restoring vital services. 19:00 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's great to be able to rise and speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018, and I support the bill. I support the bill the way it is, the way the Treasurer delivered it in the budget just a week or so ago, because it delivers a fairer Australia and a better Australia for 94 per cent of taxpayers. Ninety-four per cent of taxpayers will benefit, and I've got to say that the government has a strong plan here: a plan to help the people we represent, to help all Australians, to build infrastructure, to create more jobs and to let Australians keep more of their own money. It's their tax, not the Australian government's tax. Those opposite think that what the Australian people earn they have a right to take, and they want to keep increasing taxes. The other thing I learnt as a seven-year-old when I started judo in Bracken Ridge is that you never lie even if it means punishment for telling the truth. That was one of the golden rules in judo: you never lie even if it means punishment for telling the truth. I did judo for about 20 years, but I'm amazed that I hear opposition members from the Labor Party come into this place every day and fabricate the truth. We hear members opposite talking about cuts to health, cuts to schools and cuts to whatever. The fact—for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and for the people in my electorate and the people listening—is that health funding is rising every year. Every single year, health funding goes up, and we're doing some great things in health. We're not doing what the Labor Party said 700 days ago that we'd do, selling off Medicare. In fact, Medicare is strengthened. Bulk-billing is up. State governments right around the country, including in Queensland, are receiving more. We have more funds for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and for schools in my electorate. We hear those opposite talk about a $17 billion cut. What I learnt in judo is never to lie even if it means punishment for telling the truth. The actual fact is that schools funding is being increased by $24 billion, and every single one of the 50 schools in my electorate gets an increase, not last year or the year before but every year. It goes up in 2017. It goes up in 2018. It goes up again in 2019. It goes up again in 2020. For those listening, I just really want to get that point across—that we should be telling the truth. The fact is that those things go up, and we're only able to do that because the Turnbull coalition government and the budget delivered by the Treasurer, the Hon. Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, have delivered on increased jobs. We know that there have been a million jobs created in the last five years. We've seen increases in income tax come in. We've seen company tax revenue come in, despite the fact that the opposition voted against multinational tax avoidance measures before the 2016 election in the 44th Parliament. So we've had this plan around jobs, the economy and bringing the budget back to surplus, which is important for future generations. All that's being delivered in the budget. That's in stark contrast to what the opposition are delivering and what their plan is. The people of Australia have a clear choice: lower taxes, better management of the economy, a plan to create jobs, making sure that we have reward for effort for those wanting to get ahead and eliminating bracket creep, or the Labor opposition with a plan for $200 billion in new taxes. They want to continue to keep people down. They want to keep them dependent on the government. I don't believe that. I believe everyone has the potential to do well, and I'll come back to that soon. The $200 billion that the Labor Party want to increase is right across the board. It's on housing, it's on family businesses, it's on large businesses, it's on retirees and it's on income taxes on individuals. That's just some of what they want to do. They're not happy with what we're paying today or the revenue we have today; they want to increase it by another $200 billion. What does it mean when the Labor Party puts new taxes on housing? Does it mean it will push rents higher for the people in my electorate who are renting—in Deception Bay or in Clontarf where I live? What does it mean for the family that's on $60,000 a year and currently paying $400 a week—or $20,000 a year— in rent, which is a third of their income? Does that mean their rent will go up when Labor scraps all these changes, as it wants to do? Will it lower house prices? What does it mean for a young couple that's newly married that's bought a house for $350,000 and put down a $30,000 deposit and owes $320,000? Let's say the husband or the wife gets a transfer and they need to sell. Is their house still going to be worth $320,000 when these changes come in under Labor or will it go back to $300,000 when they've got to sell, so they make a 20 grand loss? These are the things—policy on the run like the NBN on the back of a coaster that Kevin Rudd did and so forth—that the Labor Party doesn't think through. How will the Labor Party's attack on family businesses and trusts work out? We heard the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, say, 'Adult kids are rorting the system with trusts.' This is the way the Labor Party thinks: that everyone is out there rorting the system. Running a family business—and I've run businesses—can be tough, and both partners chip in. Children can chip in too; they letterbox drop and so forth for the family. The parents help out with bookkeeping, finances or babysitting. But the Labor Party go, 'No, we're just going to whack up taxes on trusts.' What does that mean for the mum-and-dad family businesses out there that are listening to this broadcast? I'll tell you what it means. It means that they've got a clear choice at the next election not to vote for Labor but to vote for the coalition, which is managing the economy well, and a Prime Minister and government with a plan that we're committed to. What does it mean for large businesses under the Leader of the Opposition's $200 billion in new taxes? What does that mean for jobs? We know that the statistics don't lie. The statistics show that since we've reduced company tax for businesses under $50 million we've seen 415,000 jobs created in the last 12 months. Do you think we just want to give away tax for the fun of it? We really believe that by reducing company tax and making it more in line with what's happening in other countries, like our nearest neighbour Indonesia on 25 per cent—remember, we're on 30 per cent and all we want to do is lower it to 25 per cent—or the US on 21 per cent or the UK on 17 per cent, it'll help people in my electorate. It'll help with more jobs. It'll help with more investment, more equipment and more building on the premises to help the plumbers and the tradies and so forth. It helps keep those large businesses onshore too. We want to see more businesses remain onshore. They're already battling higher electricity prices and fairly high wages in Australia, which is good. We don't want to see more businesses go offshore to lower company tax rates overseas. We want to keep them here. The government's aware of that, and that's why it's reducing company tax. So when the member opposite and others get up and say, '$80 billion worth of tax cuts,' they're darn right. We are the party of lower taxes, not just in company tax but in income tax. Ninety-four per cent of Australians will benefit from the coalition government's income tax plan that I'm speaking on here, and that's really important. I haven't finished on Labor's $200 billion yet. They also want to hit the self-funded retirees—the people who have been saving. They want to hit the retirees as well. I had a lady come up to me in North Lakes the other day. She's one of those people who have done the right thing: she's saved, she's got money in the bank, she owns her own house and she gets about $14,000 a year from shares that she was left from her parents when they passed. That $14,000 a year, she'll lose the lot under Mr Shorten. She's going to lose all of it. Not some of it; the lot, because she earns under $18,200, and that's what the tax-free threshold is. She said to me, 'Luke, what am I going to do?' I said: 'Don't vote Labor, for starters. Vote for me. I'm sticking up for you.' This will be the impact of what the Labor Party wants to do with their high-taxing, high-spending agenda. I'm not for it. I don't support it. I'm saying to the people in my electorate: 'We have a much better plan. We believe in you and that everyone can get ahead.' They also want to hit high-income earners. They think, 'Oh, well, people on high incomes can afford it.' If you're a family earning $190,000, it doesn't matter that you're already paying $58,732 in tax plus the Medicare levy; the Labor Party want to charge you another two per cent, because $58,000 is not enough. They love to use the example of millionaires—'All the millionaires out there in Australia, they're all getting away with it.' If you're earning $1 million, you're currently paying $428,000 in tax plus Medicare. But $428,000 in tax isn't enough; the Labor Party want to hit you again. Whether it's housing, family businesses, large businesses, retirees or individual income tax, the Labor Party's going to hit you. That's all you need to know, okay? They want to tax and they want to spend. That's what they want to do, whereas we believe in lower taxes and making sure that 94 per cent of Australians will be rewarded for their effort. What the Treasurer brought down the other night was lower, fairer and simpler. It's in three stages, as we know. There's immediate tax relief in the 2018-19 tax year, the next 12 months, that will deliver up to $530 a week extra to low-income earners. That all adds up. Another $10 a week—if your rent goes up $5 a week, you've still got $5 extra left over. That's what we're delivering right now, and that will affect 66,000 people in my electorate alone. Consider the rest of the country. We're also making sure that bracket creep is annihilated. We know that after $80,000 it used to go up to 37 cents on every dollar you earned. The Turnbull government has already increased it so that you're still on the 32½ cent rate up to $87,000. We're now going to increase it to $90,000. Then, in 2024, six years from now, we want to make sure that 94 per cent of Australians pay no more than one-third of their income in tax. I know a guy who lives in my electorate that just eight years ago was earning about $40,000 a year, and today he earns $80,000 a year. He's doubled what he earns. There's no reason why people currently earning $70,000 won't be earning $130,000 six years from now. I believe in people and the potential to work hard to get ahead, and we know that the Labor Party don't. If you earn over $110,000 or $120,000, you get nothing. Nothing for you; they're just going to tax you more. Under our plan, it's about lower taxes and reward for effort—after all, it's your money, not ours. I often hear stories of students or a husband or wife that are working, trying to provide for their family. They have a day job and they might do a bit of extra work—they might do a night job, a weekend job or overtime—and they go: 'Sometimes it's not worth it, because I get hit with higher taxes. They're taking a whole lot more out of my pay packet.' Well, our plan kills that. We're saying that you can earn up to $200,000 and pay no more than a third in tax. That's fair, because even if you're earning $50,000, and it was a third—it's not a third, because you get the first $18,200 tax free and so forth—you will pay a lot more even if it's a 32 per cent rate if you're earning $180,000. Those over $200,000 will still be on the 45 per cent tax rate. It's a vision that we're laying out. It's been well thought out by the Treasurer. We've seen the benefits of our plan in relation to jobs and cracking down on multinationals. We've increased revenue, balancing the budget next year so we're not leaving future generations—my children, your children and younger Australians—with future debt and deficit. That's still on the agenda, but it's making sure that we deliver now immediate relief for those most in need—the 66,000 in my electorate. It's about the government saying to the people listening: 'We believe in you. We don't want you to be dependent on the government. We want you to get ahead. We're not going to keep hitting you with higher taxes and more effort.' Finally, in summing up, I remember when I was seven being taught at judo the golden rule: never lie even if it means punishment for telling the truth. The next opposition speaker who gets up and says that we're cutting education and health should remember that golden rule. 19:15 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler From listening to a number of speakers from the government side in this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 you'd think that the centrepiece of this budget was delivering tax cuts to working families. Time after time they've been saying that this is the priority of this government, but, quite frankly, everyone knows that that is a myth. Everyone knows that the centrepiece or the signature policy of this government is the $80 billion tax cut to big business. They don't like talking about health, education or pensioners, because they are all cuts. What is happening to families out there are all cuts. This is an exercise in smoke and mirrors. They're trying to say that they are going to give these tax cuts from 1 July this year. They are projecting our economy for another seven years. They are saying that they are going to make this plan and that wage growth will average 3½ per cent. No economist has come out to endorse the government on any of that. Not even the conservative media have come out with that—not even Sky News. Nobody has come out to say that this is based on any real or proper foundation. This is a pie in the sky. They are trying to sell as the centrepiece of the government's budget plan these tax cuts for Australians. If that's really what it is about, we have a far better plan for them. The Leader of the Opposition in his budget in reply speech actually spoke of it. We will double what the government is proposing to put out on 1 July this year. We would deliver double that by 1 July 2019. What the government is talk about is a modest increase of about $10 a week for workers in this country. We're not going to stand in the way of any increase, but that is a pretty modest increase. You only have to spend a little bit of time at McDonald's to realise it's going to get swallowed up pretty quickly, particularly if you have got a family. In addition to that, they're going to project what the economy is going to be like effectively for the next seven years. No reputable economist that I've read has come anywhere near that and given it any credit. They say that you don't know what will occur that far out. I will go to what the IMF, for instance, had to say about it. In terms of the budgetary position, they said: Decisive action is needed now to strengthen fiscal buffers, taking full advantage of the cyclical upswing in economic activity. That's the IMF's position: think about where you are now and make some plans for the future by having that buffer. I would have thought that it was almost conservative logic to do something like that. I think John Howard had a bit of a view about that at one stage, although he didn't want to spend much on infrastructure when he was there. Also, talking about conservative commentators, Peter Martin, the economics editor in The Age,said: We've been given a budget for the good times that rewards us as if those good times will last, even though they may not. The world did not see the coming of the global financial crisis in 2008. We all saw when Lehman Brothers went under, and then it started cascading. It caught out just about every international economy, except Australia. I think we handled that pretty well. The member for Lilley was regarded very highly over the way he took decisive action and actually insulated Australia's economy from that. You never hear people over there talk about the global financial crisis. What they do like to talk about is debt and deficit. Mr Dick 53517 Not anymore. Mr HAYES ECV They like to talk about budget emergencies and all that sort of stuff, although you're right, they're not talking about that now; they've decided to give that away. They almost tripled the debt at that stage. We are now moving past half a trillion dollars in gross debt in this country. So they are moving forward on this all right, and yet they want to give $80 billion to big business. They say that, if we do that, it's going to trickle down to workers. When you think about it, big business in this country has been making reasonable profits over the last five years. Those profits haven't trickled down to their workers. The banks, under the Treasurer's plan, are about to get a tax cut of $17 billion, but the banks over the last 12 months made about $34 billion in profits collectively. That hasn't trickled down to workers in the financial system. It hasn't trickled down to the workers in the big banks. I can't speak for the executives up there, as to what they're getting paid. Bear in mind that this is the government that fought tooth and nail for a royal commission into financial management institutions generally. They didn't want it. As the Treasurer pointed out to us on many occasions, 'It's not going to tell us anything that we don't know about the financial institutions.' Now they don't want to know a thing about it. We are seeing a litany of things coming out about how the banks have exploited customers and about companies such as AMP, which is almost without a board now because of mismanagement and the way they deal with customers. For children, there is the Dollarmites Club. I always thought the 'Dollarmites' was where I would like to go skiing one day! The bank made sure they artificially stimulated the Dollarmites Club so that the executives could still get their bonuses from operating accounts. These are the people that this government is wedded to looking after. The centrepiece of the government's budget was to give $80 billion to big business and multinational companies. Simply giving $10 a week to workers—as much as anything is going to be helpful for people, particularly those with families—doesn't really measure up to this. I have just one piece of advice for those opposite. I've been married a long while—in fact, 42 years today—and we've had to manage our household budget. When we couldn't afford things, we didn't buy them. If the government really cannot afford to give an $80 billion increase to big business, don't do it. It's as simple as that. Don't do it on the backs of pensioners, on the backs of families, on the backs of hardworking Australians. There is the hyperbole they go on about over there: 'We want to recognise hard work.' They seem to be outright penalising people who are working hard for this country. Pensioners in my community—and, as a matter of fact, all of the government's pensioners over there as well—including age pensioners, are going to lose their energy supplement of $14 a fortnight. The government reckon that they don't need it now, even though we're seeing record electricity prices at the moment under their watch. Even though that's all occurring, they're going to take that from pensioners. These pensioners aren't about to work some overtime. They're not about to work another shift or anything like that to pay the difference, because, in most cases, they are age pensioners or disability support pensioners and they don't get any extra income. We see a government that's committed to wanting to take money out of education. It wants to take $17 billion out of our schools. I would have thought everybody in this place would understand the value of a good education. Most people in this place have had a good education. An investment in education is an investment not only in people who are going to either school or tertiary education; it's an investment in the future of this country. It's a matter of actually believing in where we want to be in the years to come. That is why you put money into education and into our universities and our TAFE colleges. In my own community here in Western Sydney, we are building the Badgerys Creek airport, and the government keeps talking about that, which is great. We need infrastructure to support it, but I'll tell you what we really need. We need young people who are trade qualified to work there, yet we see another $260 million is being taken out of TAFE. That means fewer apprenticeships. We need to start being smart about this. We need to look at building a country that is going to be able to work towards the future. We need trades. We need to be skilled. We need to be smart. We've got to be that smarter nation. We can't be the ones who are just, as former and now current Prime Minister Mahathir said, the white trash of Asia. We've got to be there, outcompeting all those in our region and all those on the globe. We need a smart country, and that's going to be underpinned by smart people. We've got to ensure that our young people have the skills to compete for the future. I want to get back to the tax plan. Whilst we will support, clearly, an increase for workers—and, at $10, it is a modest increase—I would have thought the smarter thing for this government to do would be to break up this bill into three components. We would allow the first tranche of this to go through. But, in terms of what's due to come in part 2 and part 3 of it in another four years and another seven years, let's see what the financial information that's current for that time is going to be. The government benches are called the Treasury benches. If they're the Treasury benches, you should know what you're going to be budgeting for if you're going to start making outlays that will apply in seven years time. It seems to me that there's just too much happening at the moment around finances and budgets and things like that for people to comprehend. Only today, believe it or not, we learnt about this secret deal with Pauline Hanson. I was here when John Howard was Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, I got along quite well with John Howard. He made it very clear when he was here that he would put One Nation last. The Liberals would not preference them. We don't even know what's in this deal. Mr Deputy Speaker, you heard today, time and time again, the Prime Minister being asked: what is this deal which Senator Cormann has already validated as existing, what's in it, what has Pauline Hanson been able to get from the government, and is it in the budget? Clearly, they can answer that, but they won't. I don't know whether they've gone to your party room and told you guys what's happening. I know most of my colleagues over there on the government side. I wouldn't accuse any of them of being racist, but you're really getting into bed with a racist party. If you're going to start doing secret deals and you're not prepared to admit to them in this House and not prepared to admit to them to the Australian people, is this going to be the basis upon which we're going to have budgets in the future? As I said, I would have thought the smarter thing for this government to do would be to agree to amend the legislation to allow the first tranche of it to proceed on its own merit and for the further aspects of it, the second and third tranche, to be subject to financial information, including the year-on-year costings. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Budget 72 19:30 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor This government's budget shows a blatant disregard for education. This budget attacks child care. This budget attacks four-year-old kinder. This budget means our youngest Australians' educational journey will not get off to the start that our four-year-olds deserve in a modern, First World country. On child care, come 2 July, the government will make it harder for the most vulnerable families in my community, in the electorate of Lalor, to access early education. There are 4,337 families in my community set to be adversely affected despite the trumpet blaring from those opposite about their great new childcare package. That is almost one in four families. The complex set of rules that families will need to satisfy to qualify for government assistance will knock thousands of low-income families out of the system, and children out of early education and care. The activity test views early education as a child-minding occupation, and the Liberals seem to think if you aren't working in a full-time capacity, your child shouldn't have access to early education. In the federal electorate of Lalor, nearly 10 per cent of people work between one and 15 hours. Not only does that demonstrate a shift towards casualised employment, it demonstrates the Turnbull government are seriously out of touch when it comes to their new unfair childcare package and their unfair hurdles that will keep kids out of early education. The activity test provisions require families to use an online system. That's a joke in itself with this government's track record with anything online. It requires families to report to Centrelink, where the government have cut thousands of staff. What this government fails to understand are the practical applications of its policies. It has crunched the numbers alright but without thought for lived experience. Early education and childcare places are not flexible in the way this package suggests they are. Reduced or increased need for places or days or hours will cause mayhem for centres and for families every quarter when they do their predictions. The 1 July date is fast approaching and the government is asking centres to assist registration processes on an online system with no support, with no funding to support them to do the government's work. The government has given no consideration to the management of the new system in the real world. This government also does not have a policy when it comes to preschools. In Lalor, 5,348 children are set to be worse off under the Turnbull government, because it has failed to invest for universal access to preschool beyond 2019 and has abolished funds for the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care. Australia-wide, 350,000 kids will be in limbo as a result of this government's inaction on the one hand and action on the other. To further disappoint, in the budget there was no commitment to extend the national partnership funding for the national quality framework, which has seen 50 per cent of services improve their quality rating when reassessed. But now, through shock cuts, the government has shifted the cost of implementing and regulating the quality framework wholly onto the states and territories—a surprise for the states and territories. It's disappointing the Turnbull government is actively boasting about its 10-year plan to cut the taxes for big business, but don't have a one-year plan for early education and kindergartens. We have a Prime Minister who doesn't understand the value of education. It is disappointing but not surprising that the government are walking away from quality early childhood education. Since 2013, they have managed to take the word 'education' out of the phrase we use. They are now walking away from quality as well as from education. They have cut funds, which will in effect cut the capacity for inspections. In essence, they have abandoned quality. Since taking office they have disregarded the educative value of preschool and have locked out the most vulnerable four-year-olds in my community from the start they need. They've done this to fund their $80 billion handout to big business and the banks. I'm proud to be part of a Labor team that, unlike the Liberals, understands that, when it comes to education, money spent is an investment in both the future of our children and the future of our nation. I call on the government to see sense, to review their budget and to include funding for early education, childhood and kindergartens. Corangamite Electorate 73 19:35 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure to rise and discuss tonight the incredible turnaround we have seen in the Geelong regional economy in the almost five years since we were elected in September 2013. At the time we were elected, things were looking fairly bleak. A few months previously Ford had announced—under Labor, of course—that it was closing shop and ending manufacturing in Australia. This was a real blow for the people of Geelong. The Q&A program came down a short time after I was elected and we did a program. Q&A regrettably tried to paint a fairly bleak picture of Geelong as a city on its knees. I have to say that through incredible hard work, investment, a great vision for the city and the Corangamite electorate and incredible effort investing in job creation programs we are seeing a city transformed. We've just announced that we've reached more than one million new jobs in five years, and that is a wonderful achievement of the Turnbull government. It comes some five months earlier than we had promised. In the Geelong region between September 2013 and February of this year the number of people in work increased from 124,000 to 141,000—an increase of 13.2 per cent—and Corangamite's unemployment rate has fallen to just 3.4 per cent. We're also seeing some really important ground being made up in youth unemployment in Geelong's north, which is in the adjoining electorate of Corio, where unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular, is coming down. As I say, this is all because of the incredibly hard work we are doing, backing small business with tax cuts, encouraging exporters with new trade agreements, investing in congestion-busting road and rail infrastructure, working to make power bills more affordable and fixing the budget to get Labor's debt burden off our backs. We're also working very hard encouraging people to move into work. We believe, of course, that the best form of welfare is a job, so we're investing in all sorts of programs encouraging people to seek work. Some incredible projects are happening in my electorate and in the Geelong region, projects like the NDIA headquarters, which is now under construction. Even WorkSafe, a state government enterprise, is coming to Geelong—following a Liberal commitment, I might add. It is being funded by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to the tune of $68 million. Thousands of new jobs are being created, particularly in manufacturing. Companies like Air Radiators, Boundary Bend, AKD Softwoods, Australian Lamb and Carbon Revolution are going from strength to strength, all of which have been supported by our government. Carbon Revolution is an incredible story. It has just announced a carbon fibre wheel supply agreement with Ferrari in Italy. It is supplying its wheels to Ferrari and becoming a global leader in carbon fibre wheels. Backed with $7.5 million from our government and another $10 million in equity from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Carbon Revolution is now on track to become bigger than Ford. It's an incredibly exciting story. We are growing. We've put $150 million into local rail infrastructure for the duplication of the South Geelong rail track between Waurn Ponds and South Geelong. We are hoping to see some money from the state government. It is very disappointing that there has been only $10 million from the state. Other parts of the electorate like Torquay and Ocean Grove, Queenscliff and Colac and all through the Colac district and the Otways—all of those areas—are booming through tourism, through our investment in incredibly important infrastructure projects like the Princes Highway duplication, which is in total more than half a billion dollars. We are opening up new markets and bringing new industries to the region and, of course, supporting tourism, backed by our strong belief in investing in the Great Ocean Road. We're incredibly proud of the way in which we are seeing our local economy transformed through very strong investment backing small business and building a stronger economy. (Time expired) Trade, Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility 74 19:40 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I will speak on the NAIF proposals. Having watched politics from the inside over a period of nearly 45 years, I mean no disrespect to the last speaker, but they get up and they tell you how wonderful everything is because of their side of politics. I've been known to do that myself on many occasions, so I'm not denigrating the previous speaker. But I am asserting that this we know: the free market policies were introduced originally by Mr Whitlam. He had a 25 per cent cut on all tariffs in Australia and, according to the trade union movement, wiped out 150,000 jobs in Australia. Mr Keating, of course, was the great free marketeer of this country. I remember getting out of bed one morning and listening to the ABC—I think it was the last time I ever listened to them—and he said: 'This country will be the most free market economy on earth. We have taken away all subsidies, all tariffs and all embargoes, so, whereas once we were a sort of extended sheep run and some sort of quarry, now we will look forward to a very bright future in other areas of the economy.' Well, he was sort of right because he most certainly got rid of the extended sheep farm. In the irrigated wool industry, we went from 6,000 million down to 2,000 million. Oh, boy, that was a marvellous achievement of the free market system! It was a big coincidence because, when the free market was abolished and we went into the marketing scheme proposed by Doug Anthony, that wonderful man who led the Country Party in those days, it increased threefold. When the marketing scheme was taken away, it collapsed to one-third of what it was. It was funny: it was a coincidence then; it was a coincidence later on! It was no coincidence at all. If you aggressively market your product collectively, you get a much better outcome than if you go out there and have something like 12,000 or 15,000 sellers all doing their own thing. We've closed down all manufacturing in this country. The last white-goods factory closed in Orange two or three years ago. The last motor vehicle plant closed last year. So we've made our last motor car. We've made our last fridge. We've made our last stove. The country has no manufacturing base now, and I think everyone here would understand that and know that, unless they are complete hypocrites. The manufacturing base has gone. The agricultural base cannot survive. The OECD did a landmark report in about 2007. It said that, on earth, a farmer gets 41 per cent of his income from the government, except in two countries, and almost of the subsidy levels are between 36 per cent and about 56 per cent, except in two countries where they have no support base at all. We're out there trying to compete against these people. The NAIF fund was introduced. Peta Credlin—I saw her on television—said that $5,000 million was put away 5½ years ago, and not a cent has come out of it since. Well, yes, $27 million has come out of the $5,000 million in 5½ years. The government thinks that they can line up for a third election telling northern Queensland—where, I might add, there are four marginal seats—'Oh, we're going to develop northern Australia,' meaning North Queensland because no-one else is living much in northern Australia except in North Queensland. 'We're going to open it up. We're going to give $5,000 million and $500 million for water development.' We have not seen one single project—not one. But there's still time for the government to do something, and we hope that the NAIF, not the government, will do something. Swan Electorate: Infrastructure 75 19:45 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Tonight I rise to speak about the Belmont community centre and upgrades to key roads in my electorate of Swan. I've spoken many times in this House on the need for this project to replace the ageing facility that used to be at Faulkner Park, but I must take this opportunity to rebut one of claims made by the member for Lalor during her adjournment speech. In contrast to her claim, more than 13,000 families in the Lalor electorate will actually benefit from the coalition government's childcare reforms. I am just putting the facts out there. Not long after I became the federal member for Swan, discussions began on a Belmont community centre. After close discussions with the City of Belmont and councillors on the design and plans for the project, I began advocating for federal funding to be allocated to help support the construction of this community asset. The place was in such disarray that the roof was collapsing and the place was locked up. The coalition government answered the call at the 2016 election and invested $9.67 million to support the construction of this $37 million project in my electorate of Swan. Again, contrary to the MPI this afternoon moved by the member for Grayndler, the coalition does do projects that Labor have not even thought about or even supported. This funding from the coalition meant be that the project was a go-ahead, which then saw it secure further funding of $3.837 million from the former Barnett state government. This is a once-in-a-generation construction project for the City of Belmont, and I'd like to thank the former member for Belmont, Glenys Godfrey, who was and still is a strong advocate for residents of Belmont, both during her time as mayor and as the local member, in getting this project off the ground. I remember many meetings with Glenys and the City of Belmont, hashing out what I could do to help them get this project off the paper and underway for the community. When I was first elected, I recall visiting that Belmont centre. As I said before, the roof was just about falling in; you could see the bowing in the roof. It was later shut down or it was shut down at the time due to safety concerns. We didn't want aged people going in there and having the roof fall in on them. The building was from the 1960s and was no longer fit for purpose for our growing community in Belmont. The new Belmont community centre will include an expanded library, a senior citizens centre and a Belmont museum. This funding will also ensure that vital community services within the area of Belmont will be housed for free within this community centre. Many of the services they provide assist locals within the Belmont community, which is the second-lowest-SES-rated community in Western Australia. These vital community services are currently operating in facilities well past their use-by date. You might not believe this, Mr Speaker, but, sadly, Labor did not support this project, and their local MLC actually wrote to the City of Belmont to advise that they did not support the project and would not fund it if they won government. It was absolutely disgraceful. Those opposite claim to support the community but would not support a much-needed development in the area of Belmont. They didn't think that the city deserved a community facility that will improve access to services and quality of life for many residents in Belmont. Luckily for the residents of Belmont, Labor isn't sitting on these government benches, and those in my community will see the project go ahead with a funding agreement with the City of Belmont. The Belmont community centre project is currently ahead of schedule, and just last week I had the opportunity to attend the sod-turning ceremony. I'd like to extend my thanks to the City of Belmont for their hospitality and must say I'm very keen to watch the progress on this fantastic facility unfold. And, even though Labor opposed it, one of their MLAs turned up for the sod turning. Would you believe it? After they opposed it in writing, they turned up for the sod turning with their shovel and their cameras and everything like that. Unbelievable. According to the City of Belmont, the construction phase will create an additional 67 local jobs and, once complete, will create 17 new permanent jobs. We can now say that this government has helped create 1,000,067 new jobs since being elected. On a separate note, I'd also like to update the House on the great separation of Kalamunda Road and Roe Highway, which is going forward with $68.8 million in federal funds and is due to be complete at the end of 2020. This is another infrastructure project which wasn't ever mentioned by Labor or ever funded by Labor. This project is based right on the edge of my electorate and that of my electoral neighbour, Minister Wyatt, the federal member for Hasluck. With this project going ahead and with the other separation, of the Great Eastern Highway bypass and Roe Highway, it will mean more jobs to add to the one million jobs that this coalition promised in 2013 and has achieved. Indigenous Health 75 19:50 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari This evening I want to talk about something which causes a great deal of concern to me and, I know, many others, particularly in the health sector. Currently, the rate of Aboriginal people infected with syphilis is 173 per 100,000, compared to 15 per 100,000 for the broader population, driven largely by an outbreak commencing in Queensland in around 2011—and I'll come to that in a moment. Principally, this outbreak is affecting young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, predominantly aged between 15 and 29 years, living in the north of the country. Commonwealth, state and territory governments have, as you'd expect, a responsibility to address these issues in a holistic and appropriate way and in ways that have resonance for young Aboriginal people. In February of this year, the Department of Health revealed in additional budget estimates that the Commonwealth had convened an enhanced response group and committed $8.8 million in funding over three years for this enhanced response. I understand that this funding is being allocated for testing and treatment, in the main, and for the supplementation of a surge workforce. The short-term disease control interventions that are being implemented or enhanced include, among others: opportunistic and community screening and testing, particularly among young sexually active people aged less than 35 years—and we need to comprehend here our lack of understanding of how sexually active some young adolescents have been and continue to be across the bush; immediate treatment of people who are symptomatic—that is, have genital ulcerations—have tested positive for syphilis or are sexual contacts of cases; reinforcement and focus on antenatal screening for syphilis, with particular attention being paid to recommended guidelines for the at-risk population; and public health alerts, health protection education and campaigns, and active follow-up of cases. I can't stress too much the importance of education and early interventions. I say that because we've seen some real tragedies. In the 2018 budget, however, I'm concerned that there was no indication of any increase or further funding for investment in this surge response. Here is a tremendous problem. It is very important to understand that this started as a result of the Newman government in Queensland cutting funding to public health programs. He axed 2,700 jobs in the health department, so the response to this outbreak, which commenced in 2011, was delayed even further because at the time public health services, particularly in remote and regional parts of North Queensland, were being dismantled by the Newman government. Consequently, this outbreak has been ongoing for more than seven years and could have been prevented had these funding cuts by the Campbell Newman government in Queensland not occurred. Since the outbreak, in Queensland alone, six of 13 infants with reported congenital syphilis have died. I don't think the broader community understands the traumatic nature of what's happening here. The failure to provide proper health services in the first instance and to provide good public health programs that prevent the occurrence of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases in remote parts of this country, particularly in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, is not properly understood or comprehended. I don't think there has been enough significant effort made by the public health experts in this country to address ways in which we can overcome this problem. We need to understand that it demonstrates very clearly that if you cut public health initiatives and public health programs then it may have, and in this case has had, enormous implications which are deleterious and impact upon the community in a very negative way. We need to do a lot more thinking outside the square on how we address STIs. A basic principle of any communicable disease outbreak is quickly responding to diagnose and treat all cases. The ongoing syphilis outbreak and the sustained rates of STIs in remote Australia are a case in point where an urgent long-term public health response is required. While the short-term responses which the government has made are welcome, we need to ensure that an outbreak like this never occurs again. This requires long-term planning and a long-term response with sufficient funding being allocated. We need to do a great deal more, and I urge the government to do so. Nuclear Energy 76 19:55 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes This evening I'd like to talk on the subject of nuclear power. Our nation hosts about one-third of the world's total uranium deposits. We're the third largest producer after Kazakhstan and Canada. There is no other nation in the world of Australia's economic size or larger that is without nuclear power. In fact, we stand alone amongst the world's 25 top economies in excluding nuclear power's use for base-load power. I believe that the time has come for us to remove the prohibitions preventing the development of nuclear power plants in this nation. I do not say we should be out building nuclear power plants tomorrow but, if we are going to have truly technologically neutral policies, we must look at including nuclear power. We must be able to look at the new developments in this field, of small nuclear modular reactors that have great potential in the years to come. If we look around the world today, 11 per cent of the world's electricity comes from about 450 nuclear power reactors, which, of course, emit zero CO2. Civil nuclear power can now boast more than 17,000 nuclear reactor years of experience, and there are over 30 countries worldwide where nuclear power plants are in operation. In fact, many more countries actually get nuclear power, especially in Europe, where their grids are all interconnected. For example, countries like Italy and Denmark, although they have no nuclear power stations, still get almost 10 per cent of their power from imported nuclear power. Around the world today, there are more than 60 nuclear reactors under construction, equivalent to 16 per cent of the existing capacity, with an additional 150 to 160 planned. Across the world, 16 nations depend on nuclear power for at least one-quarter of their electricity. France gets around 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power. Countries such as Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine generate more than half of their electricity from nuclear power, whilst Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Switzerland, and Slovenia get more than one-third. South Korea and Belgium normally get more than 30 per cent of their electricity from nuclear power, while the USA, the UK, Spain, Romania and Russia get about one-fifth of their energy from nuclear power. Among the 50 power plants around the world currently under construction, we see new plants being constructed in Bulgaria and Brazil. In China there are now 38 reactors operational on the mainland and 20 more under construction. In Finland, they have their fifth nuclear reactor under construction. India has 22 nuclear reactors in operation and six under construction, Pakistan has two under construction. The list goes on. Even countries that do not have nuclear power have looked at the options and decided that it is the best option for them. We have seen Belarus building two nuclear reactors. The United Arab Emirates is building four 1,400-megawatt-equivalent reactors to be ready by 2020. Other emerging countries are committed to nuclear, including Lithuania, Turkey, Bangladesh, Jordan, Poland and Egypt. Yet Australia, the nation that has the most resources of uranium in the world, still has a ban. I believe it is time that we relook at this. In our nation last financial year, 109,000 Australian households had their electricity disconnected because they couldn't afford to pay their bills. That's close to 280,000 Australians living in households without electricity. How do those kids do their homework at night? How do they keep food fresh if they have no refrigeration? How do they cook dinner at night? As the richest energy nation in the world, we owe it to all Australians to open up the possibility of nuclear power for this nation. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 77 NOTICES

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) took the chair at 12:15.

BILLS 78 BILLS Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 78

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Second Reading 78 12:16 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo As I was saying in the House, hidden in this budget on budget night was what the Treasurer did not tell Australians: the cuts to pensions. It is not just that this government is raising the pension age to 70—working until 70 will make it very hard for anybody working in a trade. It's hard for a bricklayer and it's hard for a carpenter to work until they're 70, or even for someone like a nurse or a teacher to work until they're 70. Yes, Australians are living longer. However, when it comes to working age and profession, that's what needs to be considered when we talk about the pension age. Lots of people in my electorate understand that and are opposed to the government's push in this budget to increase the pension age to 70. But what was also hidden in the budget was a cut to the pension. The government is cutting the energy supplement. That is a straight pension cut; that is $7 a week for people trying to survive on the smallest of incomes. Now, let's just remember who our pensioners are. When a lot of our pensioners started working there was no such thing as super. It didn't exist. They paid a higher rate of tax than all of us, and it was a commitment—a social contract—that when they retired there would be decent retirement income: a pension for them to live on. With the government now cutting the energy supplement and cutting the pension it will hit these families and households hard. They will struggle to pay their energy bills if this measure proceeds. It's just another example of the cruelty and the meanness of this government's policies. But the Treasurer promoted, loudly, that he'll allow pensioners to take out a loan. These are people who they acknowledge need support and income, so they're saying, 'Let's let them take out a loan that they may never have a chance of paying off.' That is just pure cynicism from this government. Another area where this government should be condemned is their con around the commitment to aged care and home care packages. There are over 100,000 people currently on the waiting list for home care packages, including lots of people in regional areas. People who are waiting for a home care package level 4 in my part of the world have been told that they will be on the waiting list for longer than two years, and to try to take a level 2 package. There's confusion in households where there's a couple and one might be assessed at level 2 and the other at level 3. They can have access to the level 2, but not access to the level 3. These are complaints that we are hearing time and time again from people in our electorates. Yet what the government did on budget night was to commit funding to 14,000 extra places only over four years, not the 100,000 that are waiting. And they're taking that money out of residential aged-care services to fund those packages. What a disgrace! Yesterday, we had aged-care workers here in Parliament House talking to MPs and senators about the crisis occurring in aged care. Overnight, it is becoming a for-profit sector, and we are seeing the quality of aged care go downhill very quickly on this government's watch. United Voice, HACSU and HSU brought their members here to tell the story. I was actually quite shocked. They weren't asking for a pay rise, even though these workers are undervalued and therefore underpaid. Their first priority is their residents. There are some people who are allocated—as the Bupas of the world and other for-profits have said—$6 per resident, per day to be spent on food. That's the price of an expensive cup of coffee in Melbourne. There is a crisis in our aged-care sector on this government's watch, and they're doing very little to meet with the frontline workers to understand that crisis and to work with those workers to resolve it. It's not just aged care where the government has let the community down when it comes to this budget. There's also a hidden attack on early childhood education. The National Quality Framework has delivered real reform in the ECEC sector. I note the contribution that Deputy Speaker Gee made last night in his House of Representatives adjournment speech about how important those quality years are, particularly for those in the regions—and he is right. That is why it's disappointing that this government is cutting the funding that underpins the National Quality Framework. We know that access to early childhood education really makes the difference, yet in this budget—hidden on budget night—is a funding cut to the organisation and structure that sits underneath and underpins the National Quality Framework. I did have the opportunity last week to actually meet with early childhood educators—people who, in fact, work in a centre in the Prime Minister's electorate. Their comments are quite compelling. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has not been back to this centre to meet with those workers to learn firsthand their story. Take Luke's case: Luke has had to move back in with his parents. He said he simply can't afford, on the wages of an early childhood educator, to support himself in Sydney. It's just not possible for a single person working in early childhood education to survive in Sydney. He is someone who is weeks away from completing a degree in early childhood education—that's a fantastic effort. Luke is about my age. He has worked in early childhood education since he was at university, and he really enjoys his job. He's very good at his job and, through the years, has upskilled to the qualification that he now has. Yet he has not received any extra support from this government when it comes to closing the pay gap that exists. Educators received zero dollars from this government in the federal budget. There are people throughout Australia educating our next generation, and their skills are not being recognised, their qualifications are not being recognised and they are being paid the minimum wage. Urgent action is needed. The government also should be condemned for their cuts to TAFE in this budget; $270 million cut was from TAFE. If we are ever to get a chance to close the gap between the jobs that we have, with the skills that are required, and having to recruit overseas workers, then we need to train people up. I was horrified just to go out into my community and discover that some of our advanced manufacturers have turned to backpackers—people who are here on a working holiday and 457 visas—to help fill gap shortages. These are fitters and turners, boilermakers and the good old-fashioned trades where we used to have apprenticeship schemes and systems established. Once upon a time, you could go to the railway yards and you could go to ADI in Bendigo, where they had a cohort of apprentices and we trained up the next generation. Because of the funding cuts to TAFE under this government and the funding cuts to skills and vocational education under this government, we have seen a collapse of our apprenticeship sector. Now we have good, local Australian companies who are increasingly looking overseas to recruit workers. Why would you, when we know we have a skills shortage, cut money from TAFE? It's just a disgrace. There's also the continued funding cuts to our schools. In Bendigo, in next year alone, that is worth just under $19 million to schools in the Bendigo electorate. We have a large Catholic footprint in Bendigo that gives every child who wants a Catholic education such an education. They ensure that it is not about your parents' wealth that determines whether you have a Catholic education. The same can be said about our public schools in Bendigo. They ensure that every child receives an education, regardless of the money that their parents earn. We have a school like Lightning Reef, which, under this government, had its funding slashed to $34,000. That's what the government's version of Gonski means for this school. Yet Girton Grammar, which is up the road—a great school; nobody wants to take away from that school—will get $500,000 from this government. That's not a school in need. Lightning Reef is a school in need. I do want to acknowledge that in the budget the government did make an effort to help increase the medical places with the Murray Darling Medical School. They are looking at helping people stay in the regions from their first day of studying medicine to their last day of studying medicine. They will now be able to do that in the regions. They will also now be able to do their next stage—the registrar positions and the junior doctor positions—in the regions. This is welcome, because in the long term it will help encourage people to stay in the regions to work in our GP practices. However, it doesn't make up for the university places that the government have cut from regional universities, because of the cap that they imposed at the end of last year. The cap that they imposed on universities disproportionately affects regional universities. It limits their ability to grow. It limits the ability of a town like Bendigo to become a truly university based city. It is narrow-sighted by this government. It is just a blunt instrument. This government is letting down areas like Central Victoria terribly. This government is engaging in horrible political rhetoric and character assassination as opposed to engaging genuinely with our communities in areas of health and education and ensuring that we have apprenticeship opportunities and well-funded TAFE opportunities for young people going forward. This government is letting down our aged care sector. It's letting down our early childhood education sector. It's letting down our pensioners. And it's letting down working people. This government has again delivered another budget shocker, and I ask again that it engages properly and listens to the people of Central Victoria. 12:27 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest The Turnbull government's continuing economic plan for a stronger economy includes tax relief for hardworking Australians, backing business to invest and create even more jobs, guaranteeing essential services, keeping Australians safe and ensuring that the government lives within its means. For those reasons, there are now over one million extra jobs in the economy since the government was first selected. Whether it's the $75 billion infrastructure spend outlined in the budget, the $24.5 billion more being invested in schools right across the country—$24.5 billion more based on genuine need—or the $78.8 billion in this budget that the government is investing in the nation's health system, they are all really critical parts of our strong economic plan. In my electorate of Forrest and across the south-west, the specific story is one of a once-in-a-generation type of investment. I'm very proud of this. I've fought hard for my community and, because of the government's strong economic policies, we're in a position to be able to invest in rural and regional areas like my own, in projects like the Bunbury Outer Ring Road. This is a $560 million investment. You can only do that, Mr Deputy Speaker, with sound economic policies to get you to the point where you can invest in this type of critical infrastructure. The RAC in my state listed this road as 'critical infrastructure', given the amount of traffic that is there and expected in the years ahead. I fought for this for many years. I know that stages 2 and 3 will be completed, and this will be a massive boon in the south-west. It will help improve road safety and travelling time, and it will also facilitate the development and the expansion, in time, of the Bunbury Port and south-west industry. The other project that I'm particularly pleased about is the funding for the Myalup-Wellington water project. Given the dry nature of south-west Western Australia, water, as we know, is one of the most precious commodities we have. This project will divert high saline inflows upstream from the Wellington Dam for desalination. It will improve the quality of the water stored in and released from the dam for agriculture and industry and other purposes. This is a real major project, and another one that I've worked on for some time. With the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, the efficiencies in the supply chain are critical—as we know on our side of politics—especially with the number of free trade agreements that the government has completed. This is a very sound investment. We also need to connect to the other investment we've made in the Busselton-Margaret River airport. These are a critical part of our freight networks, and we have invested nearly $10 million into that airport, to get it up to international freight standard and to be able to take tourists. Everybody wants to come to the Busselton-Margaret River region, but, equally, the amazing produce that comes out of the region needs to get to the rest of the world as well. The Myalup-Wellington project will actually create jobs as well. It'll provide economic uplift in what is the underdeveloped Collie River Irrigation District and further out to the broader region. Anyone who understands irrigation understands the capabilities of irrigated agriculture. Currently, just 6,500 hectares of the available 34,600 hectares of the Collie River, Harvey and Waroona districts are irrigated. This project is an industry-led initiative. It will see saline water from the east branch diverted from the Wellington Dam into a mine void, and it will be desalinated. A new, smaller Burekup Weir will be built upstream to enable environmentally sound, gravity-fed water to be delivered. The irrigation channels will be replaced with new pressurised pipe networks. It's a simple concept: it's about desalination, it's about piping, it's about a delivery network with fit-for-purpose uses. When I look back on the history of the dam, it was built in 1933—with Commonwealth funding. This particular upgrade is very important, and a real key part of the history of what this dam has provided right throughout the region. When you seriously look at it, each year the east branch is delivering between 60,000 and 110,000 tonnes of salt into the Wellington Dam. That's really a key part of this project—that is, the desalination—and it is so important to the quality of what can be grown beneath the dam. There is a proportion of farmers who don't actually irrigate their properties, or irrigate as much of their land as they could or should, because the productivity just isn't there. As a result, the quality of their pasture and production is different to that further north in the irrigation sector. This piping system will make a huge difference, and I can see greater production and greater productivity coming out of the region. Around 10 gigalitres a year of potable water from the desal plant will be sold to Water Corp's Great Southern Towns Water Supply Scheme and stored in the Harris Dam. This is a really good, sound result. This is a fantastic irrigation system: a series of dams in the hills with water delivered in a gravity-fed pipe and channel system. It's simple, it's effective, it works, it delivers, and we're going to see more development with the $190 million between a grant and a concessional loan. It is a very sound investment. I also want to talk about the very good investment—$175.3 million—in new listings on the PBS and the Medicare Benefits Schedule, guaranteeing the essential services that everyone around Australia relies on. This means that new life-saving drugs and services are going to be provided for thousands of Australians. Since October 2013, when we were elected, 1,741 new or amended PBS items have been, or soon will be, listed at an overall cost of around $9 billion. That is an extraordinary commitment by this government— Mr Craig Kelly 99931 It's a dividend of good management. Ms MARINO HWP and it shows a dividend of very sound economic management. This means the government is averaging 31 new and amended listings per month—approximately one a day. If you're an Australian person out with your family, living in my rural and regional area or wherever you are in Australia, this is fantastic news, because it saves lives and gives access. That strong economy allowed the government to subsidise life-changing breast-cancer medication Kisqali. That treatment would have cost $71,820 per year. Now it will be covered by the PBS, so those who need it most will be able to access it. This is a life-saving budget. That's what I call it. From 1 November this year the Australian government will include two new time limited items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule for three-dimensional breast tomosynthesis, often called 3D mammography. The proposed MBS fees for the interim items are $202 for both breasts and $114 for one breast. Approximately 240,000 patients each year are expected to benefit from the new items. The existing mammography items on the MBS will still be available; the 3D mammography items will be used for diagnostic testing of women where malignancy is suspected, and that's often identified through a screening mammogram. This is the sort of decision we can make through our sound economic dividend. This is a critical part of the budget itself. We can do this only through our strong policies and sound economic decisions—not always easy. In this budget we've also invested even further in regional education. For families in regional areas—as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee—there's an additional significant cost when a student has to leave to study in the city. We saw some dreadful decisions by the previous government, where students from what was deemed to be inner and outer regional areas often missed out on any government support. We've done an extensive amount of work and made some significant changes. There are even more improvements in this budget: $152 million for the Regional Student Access to Education Package announced in the 2016 election. Part of this is the Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships. We're increasing opportunities for students to enjoy education in the city where they need to and have to travel. We're going to increase the parental income cut-off for youth allowance. I've worked on youth allowance since coming into this place. To me it's an equity-of-access issue for young people in rural and regional Australia. I was devastated, as were families, when Labor made the changes it did during its time in government. So many of our young people could not follow and pursue their higher education dreams. We're going to increase the cut-off in the independence criteria from $150,000 to $160,000, plus a $10,000 increase for each additional child in the family. It's expected that 75 per cent more regional students will qualify for independent youth allowance under this criteria. That's a great result if you're a young person whose family lives in a rural or regional area. I know these measures will be welcomed by families and young people in my electorate. It will go a long way towards enabling students to attend university. Sometimes they're the first in family to do so. Many of these young people in my part of the world have no choice but to leave home to study. The courses are not available in regional areas. We are focused on this issue. We even reduced the amount of time that a young person can use to qualify for independent youth allowance from 18 months to 14. That means in a single year they can qualify for youth allowance and head off to university in the subsequent year. That is the best news for young people in rural and regional Australia. I know they have to work when they get away to university. They have a range of other needs. It's not just the accommodation costs; there are all sorts of additional costs for young people who have no choice but to leave home to study. These are very sound decisions by the government. All of the measures here are not possible unless you have sound economic management and sound policies. As I said, the extra one million jobs that we've seen—achieved ahead of time—are the dividend from sound economic decisions. So, our record on managing the nation's finances is outstanding. We've probably overdelivered, in a sense. When I look back, I was sitting in the parliament that night when the member for Lilley rose on budget night and uttered those—what will I call them?—infamous words. An honourable member: We all laughed. Ms MARINO HWP We did laugh then; we didn't realise the joke was on the Australian people, though. The member for Lilley said, 'The four budget surpluses I announce tonight …'. As we all know, the last time Labor delivered a surplus budget was in 1989, when the Berlin Wall still divided Germany. That was the last time a Labor government actually delivered a surplus. As the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said, the promises of the opposition cannot be trusted. We saw that with the member for Lilley. That was a promise that was never, ever delivered and was never likely to be delivered. It was an amazing hoax, and I can remember how supportive the members of the other side were for it. But we, as a government, are living within our means. We are continuing to back business to invest and create jobs. We're guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. And the government is keeping Australians safe. We should never, ever underestimate the importance on this role. These are the hallmarks of a coalition government: sober and prudent economic management which leads to an overall strengthening of the economy. I commend the budget bills to the House. 12:42 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan This government likes to talk—a lot—about aspiration. I've listened rather intently every time somebody from the coalition government talks about aspiration and aspirational Australians, and the contexts within which those terms and those phrases are used. I am the daughter of a migrant bus driver, who became a single parent on welfare, who became a casual worker on minimum wage, who became a professor with an international reputation, who stands in this chamber today. I think I know a little bit about aspiration, or at least the kind of aspiration that people like me contend with every day. Let's talk about aspiration. Let's talk about Roxanne. Roxanne suffered some horrific injuries as a result of a car accident, but she's a determined and gutsy woman and she's now, finally, realising her dream of studying psychology at the University of Western Australia. Roxanne called the Prime Minister's office after the budget speech, concerned about her ability to finish her studies. The response from the Prime Minister's office was to tell her to either leave university or get a job at Coles. Let's talk about Callum, who aspires to finish his university degree while working in retail. Callum has had his penalty rates cut, which means that he'll have to put on hold his dreams of finishing his university degree while he increases his hours of work. Let's talk about Tim, who I met the other day. Tim is in his 60s and he aspires to retire in a few years time, but is now facing the prospect of having to work until he's 70. And let's talk about Jackie, who suffers from cystic fibrosis. She doesn't aspire to much. She aspires to live long enough to marry the love of her life, to have children and to grow old watching over her grandchildren. And let's talk about Lara. Lara aspires to also grow old, with dignity, within an aged-care system that looks after her best interests and after her health. So when this government talks about aspiration and about aspirational Australians, what exactly are they talking about? They are talking about the aspiration to be able to pay an accountant a million dollars to reduce your tax bill to nothing; the aspiration of the big banks to pay less tax; the aspiration of multinationals to continue to pay no tax; the aspiration to give an $80 billion tax cut to multinationals and the banks. But I know of a different kind of aspiration that dwells in the hearts of Australians. It's the aspiration that I see in the faces of the children in Cowan, my electorate. An aspiration to become a teacher, a doctor, a police officer or nurse, a footy player or a dancer. It's the aspiration I see in the faces of new Australian citizens at citizenship ceremonies in Wanneroo, Joondalup and Swan. It's the aspiration to contribute to the social, political and economic life of their adopted land; the aspiration to be and to be accepted as Australians. What does this government think of their aspirations? What does this government want for Roxanne, Callum, Tim, Jackie and Lara? First of all, they want to axe the energy supplement for pensioners. On top of that they want people to work until they're 70. The majority of people in my electorate of Cowan are employed in the trades and in professions like teaching. It might be okay for a banker to work until he or she is 70, but what about a roof tiler or a carpet layer who is on the waiting list for a knee replacement? What does this government want for people like Lara, for older Australians? Yesterday I met with aged care workers, and they told me stories of the challenges that they are facing in our aged care system, where they have just two aged care workers to 35 residents in residential care. This government is offering 14,000 more home care packages over the next four years. That won't even put a dent in the waiting list of 100,000 people waiting for home aged care. There is no more funding for aged care at all—no more funding for those extra 14,000 places over the next four years. That is money siphoned off from residential care. What does this government want for Jackie? When my son was nine years old we were faced with the prospect that he might have cystic fibrosis. He was showing some signs and some of the side effects that are carried with cystic fibrosis. In the two weeks that it took to wait for his tests to come through, I learnt everything I could about this terrible disease. I scoured medical journals and the internet and read through piles and piles of journal articles about cystic fibrosis. I thought I knew everything there was to know about this disease until last week, when I attended the Conquer Cystic Fibrosis ball in Perth. It was there that I met people like Jackie and Taryn: Jackie who was living with cystic fibrosis, and Taryn, whose two-year-old son has cystic fibrosis. I got to see the human side of this disease. I was honoured, because it was a very eye-opening experience. Taryn and Jackie have been lobbying for access to a life-saving drug called Orkambi. But they have got nothing from this government—no assurances from this government that the $250,000 it costs for them to access Orkambi, which will increase their life expectancy by 23 years and improve their quality of life, will be made available to them. That evening I also met not just an aspirational Australian, but an inspirational Australian. I got to meet Adam D'Aloia, who has lived with cystic fibrosis all his life, and who recently got a lung transplant. But Adam continues to live with the side-effects of cystic fibrosis and continues to face the prospect of a life cut short by a terrible disease. But what about students? What about those who, like me, aspired to social mobility through education? Indeed, there were opportunities afforded to me through education, doing first a postgraduate degree and then a master's degree, and then eventually, after some years, a PhD. One might say that I'm a bit addicted to education—just a little bit. But what about those students? What about those young people who aspire to improving their lives through access to education? Unfortunately, under this government's funding freeze, announced in December 2017, the University of Western Australia will lose $38 million in funding. Overall, universities across Western Australia will lose $208 million, and that's going to force students to pick up the bill. According to this government, TAFE is only for basket weavers and energy healers. Well, there was once a time when I worked at TAFE. In fact, I worked with aged-care trainers in helping to ensure the success of quite a number of newly arrived migrants in the Certificate III in Aged Care. I think we saw about 30 new aged-care carers graduate through a six-month program—and, I can tell you, they weren't studying basket weaving or energy healing. As for schools, as for all the thousands of kids in Cowan who aspire to be something and the millions of young people in Australia who aspire to more than just having rich parents, well, this government ripped $17 billion of funding that was allocated to fully fund schools and handed it right back to the banks. On all accounts, this budget fails the fairness test. But it also fails another test. It fails the test on the merits of it providing any kind of assistance to aspirational Australians. It is uninspiring to millions of Australians who looked to this government for leadership and instead got a Prime Minister who is held to ransom by the right wing of his party on the issues that matter to the everyday lives of Australians—of hardworking Australians and aspirational Australians. But it's not enough for me to just stand here and talk about what the government doesn't do. I think it is also my responsibility to talk about what Labor can do and what we're putting forward as an alternative to this government's budget. We can do better. We can do better than the government on delivering a better future for our children and for our children's children. Labor can deliver on these commitments because, unlike the government, we are not committed to giving $80 billion in tax handouts to big business and to the banks. A Labor Shorten government will achieve budget balance in the same year as this government has said it would. It will deliver bigger cumulative budget surpluses over forward estimates as well as substantially bigger surpluses over the 10-year medium term. And it will put the majority of savings raised from our revenue measures over the medium term towards budget repair and to paying down debt so that our grandchildren don't have to pay it. We will also be guided by clear fiscal principles, including repairing the budget in a fair way that doesn't ask the most vulnerable Australians to carry the heaviest burdens, more than offsetting new spending with savings and revenue improvements and banking changes in receipts and payments from changes in the economy to the bottom line if this impact is positive. That's because Labor has made the tough and big calls on tax reform, on negative gearing, on CGT, on trusts, on dividend imputations and refundability, in order to close loopholes to those who need them least. I often remark that I'm astounded that the percentage of my wage that went to tax when I was a single parent working in the casual labour force on a minimum wage could be actually less than the percentage of my wage that I pay in tax now as a high-income earner with the privilege of being able to negatively gear some properties and take advantage of all the loopholes that this tax system offers us. Labor's plan is for a fair and more responsible budget. That's because we've made the big calls and because we've got them right. More importantly, it's because we understand aspiration. We know what it means to be aspirational. We know that it doesn't mean having rich parents— An honourable member interjecting— Dr ALY 13050 Thank you. I'll take the member's interjection that this is inspirational, because I hope it will be. We understand that aspiration towards social mobility doesn't mean wanting to pay less tax or find more loopholes in the tax system. It means the things that I hear from young people, middle-income earners, families and older Australians in my electorate every day—the ability to contribute and live a life that means more than just how much you earn and how much money you've got in your pocket, being able to live a life that is meaningful to you, your family and your community. 12:56 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt It certainly gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak about the fantastic job-creating budget Treasurer Scott Morrison delivered in the House. No doubt those opposite will disagree. That is what they do. Through deceit and by peddling mistruths they like to scare people into voting for them. I will give more on that a little bit later. One of the key measures announced in the budget is tax relief for hardworking people in my electorate. More than 75,682 people across Cairns and Far North Queensland will benefit directly from these tax relief measures. Hardworking Far North Queenslanders will receive immediate tax relief of up to $530 a year under our plan to reduce cost pressures on the household budget. We want Far North Queenslanders to keep more of their hard-earned wages. Our plan is responsible and, most importantly, it is costed, unlike the plans of those opposite that rely solely on raiding the pockets of our self-funded retirees. I have been in this place for more than two decades and I can say with confidence that, when those opposite run out of money, they'll come after yours. You can bet your bottom dollar that we'll still be paying for these Labor promises in a generation. Since the change of government in 2007 we have been trying to solve those problems. I personally wouldn't trust those opposite with a church collection, let alone a nation's multitrillion dollar economy. An honourable member interjecting— Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Ouch! This budget also includes record funding for hospitals and schools. Only recently our esteemed deputy opposition leader rolled into town for about two hours, I think. She proceeded to peddle mistruths and deceit about education funding. However, she looked a little bit like a goose the next morning when the local paper ran a story that showed funding per student in that particular school that she targeted actually will increase substantially over the next four years. I'm sure that the member for Sydney didn't care too much about that fact. The whole objective of her visit was to basically scare people into voting for the party that she represents. Far North Queenslanders are no mugs and they can see through the proverbial from a mile away. She was the latest in a whole line of no-name shadow ministers who have recently paid a fleeting fly in, fly out visit to my electorate. I suspect that has got something to do with the change in the temperature, with the onset of winter. We always get this migration heading north. Technically, the member for Whitlam was the last one to visit, but absolutely no-one knew who he was. That was a rather interesting visit, which in no way whatsoever had any substance. I don't mind the no-name shadow ministers coming up to my neck of the woods for their fly-in fly-out visits, because the next morning my phone rings off the hook, with constituents saying to me, 'Warren, you must do something, anything possible, to ensure that Bill Shorten doesn't become Prime Minister.' It really frightens them. It frightens the children up there when these guys fly in for five minutes and make outrageous claims. However, I think it really strengthens our position. My constituents often say to me that they can't afford Labor to be in charge: 'Look at what they did to our economy last time. Our country can't afford to have them back in charge.' So I say: 'Please keep coming. I think we can really showcase to you how to do things in Cairns and Far North Queensland.' We can highlight the stark difference in prosperity with the cranes. We've got about eight cranes in the skyline now—the first in 20-odd years. So there's a really positive feel in Far North Queensland now; it's a stark difference to the years 2007 through to 2013. The announcement in the budget was extremely well received in my electorate. There were a number of things in there that were specific at the time. There was the announcement of the $50.9 million investment for the Indigenous ranger groups across Cape York and the Torres Strait. I travel right through these areas and see what this work does in the communities. I've certainly seen firsthand the work they do on a day-to-day basis. There are ranger groups such as the Eastern Yalanji Rangers, the Yirriganydji Rangers, the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers and the Lama Lama Rangers—just to name a few. The work that they do not only on country but also in the adjoining sea is quite amazing. They do a lot of work in relation to ghost nets, for example. These nets take a terrible toll on sea life. The rangers are doing work in relation to feral pigs and their predation on turtle nests and things like that. They also do a lot of fire management up there. There have been major changes, particularly in Cape York, with over 57 per cent loss of our grasslands because of changes in fire regime. You get this proliferation of broadleaf tea tree and narrow-leaf tea tree coming into what was originally open grasslands. By re-establishing those traditional fire regimes, we are starting to help manage the integrity of that landscape. The funding will allow some 23 Indigenous ranger groups to continue their great work in protecting and conserving threatened species, marine systems and cultural places. As I said, this will also address environmental threats caused by feral animals, invasive weeds and, of course, marine debris. The work also continues to be done across the Cape; it goes right across to the Torres Strait. We see the work that is being done up in the Torres Strait area, with all the rangers there in each of the communities. This investment provides real skills and employment opportunities in all of these areas. As you can appreciate, being the home of two World Heritage areas, plus Torres Strait and Cape York, people in my electorate are extremely passionate about environmental issues, especially given the two iconic natural wonders that are in our backyard. Sadly, there are various internationally-funded groups and inner-city organisations that continually talk down the reef and use emotional blackmail to try and get the opposition leader back into The Lodge. That's why I was absolutely overjoyed and immensely proud that this government has announced the biggest single investment towards the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. This investment will protect thousands of jobs, improve water quality, tackle the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish and scientific reef restoration. It's certainly a game changer in the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef, and reinforces the environmental, economic, social and environmental importance of the Great Barrier Reef. I have to say, while I welcome this investment and it's great that we are doing this as a means of continuing to build our credential as being the world's best—not one of, but the world's best—managers of a reef system, I think it's also important that we realise this is not about saving the reef: this is about the ongoing conservation and management of a very, very healthy ecosystem. Only a year or so ago, we announced a $2 billion initiative; this is another half a billion dollars. Most of this has been targeted at land users—at farmers, for example—and it's always about the run-off into to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. This has been great, but the farmers have done a massive job over an extended period of time and really need to be acknowledged for the work that they've done. It has been absolutely brilliant. There are other areas and, as I say, we need to look outside the square a little bit here too. One of the biggest contaminants into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon comes from our coastal cities and from the flow of our sewerage systems and urban drains, et cetera. We need to take a broader view rather than just continually targeting the agricultural sector. As I said, the agricultural sector is one that has been doing the heavy lifting for a long period of time in addressing environmental concerns. We recently launched an initiative in Cairns where we're focusing on stormwater—that is, measuring the contaminants in streams that are coming within the city boundaries and what they contain. This is a fabulous initiative. By measuring the water quality of these streams—this is continual measurement, not just occasional sampling—we know exactly what has been flowing into there. That will then allow us—through the wonderful work of James Cook University, which is a partner in this—to be able to actually create a process where we can capture those and improve the water quality coming out of these watercourses that flow through our city. It's good to see that we are focusing on something other than agriculture, because this is a major area as well. I'd also like to see onshore facilities being considered and made available for reef operators in areas where we have large reef fleets where, at the moment, all the disposal from their toilets is basically disposed in the ocean as they are returning back. Now, again, nutrients—as you can appreciate—end up in the lagoon. The reason that they have to do that is because there's no onshore sewerage facilities and the current onshore sewerage facilities aren't able to take it, because they use saltwater and that would contaminate it. There needs to be a new system. With this amount of investment, it would be good to investigate the prospect of putting these in those areas in Cairns, Port Douglas, Hinchinbrook, Townsville, Mackay and the Whitsundays. Those are areas where you have reasonably large reef fleets where they have the option of being able to tap into an onshore facility for the disposal of sewerage waste rather than, as they do at the moment, dispose it into the sea. All of these things will help us to build our recognition as the best reef manager and also would have a significant positive impact on the reef. I think we have an important obligation to do that. Another investment I was pleased to see in the budget pages was the ongoing support for the Junction Clubhouse. The Junction Clubhouse, which is very capably run by Dorothy Dunne, is a clubhouse for people who have gone out of intensive mental health rehabilitation. It's basically a transitional clubhouse that supports them back into the mainstream community. It's a fabulous initiative. The Cairns community actually owns our own clubhouse up there. It is very, very strongly supported by its club members. But it will be a couple of years before we will see a full run-out of the NDIS, so it is important that we continue to support the amazing work of Dorothy and her team. It is amazing to see that we've got there. I would also like to say that there are about 19,600 Cairns and Far North Queensland businesses that are going to benefit directly from business tax measures we announced in last week's budget. Everybody, except those opposite, obviously, knows that small- and medium-sized businesses are the driving force of our economy. I have to say that Cairns and Far North Queensland are home to some of the most fantastic family-owned businesses. Last week Craig Laundy, the Minister for Small and Family Business, and I visited one of those marvellous family-owned businesses, Cairns ZOOM and Wildlife Dome, which is an amazing part of the CaPTA Group, which is the Woodward family, who have an amazing array of tourism products. Charlie Woodward, who was the head of the family, sadly passed away a year or so ago, but his legacy lives on in our city. The instant write-off was another one—the $20,000 instant write-off, which I think is absolutely fantastic. This is a great opportunity to speak on this, but unfortunately we don't have enough time to go through all of it. But I have to say that the budget was extremely well-received in my electorate. I think most people see it as a very responsible budget, a budget that sees us living within our means for the first time in a long time, in that all of our obligations are being paid for through the budget and not through borrowing additional funds. That's the confidence that we're looking for—my people are looking for—as we move forward. 13:11 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam A budget is a statement of the government's priorities. What we have in this budget is an example of how the government thinks it is more important to deliver $80 billion worth of tax cuts to the biggest companies in Australia while leaving our schools, our hospitals and our TAFE system struggling, unable to provide the services that Australians expect of them. And off the back of the best global and economic environment that the Australian government has seen in decades, we see a government that is making no inroads into net debt. In fact, net debt at the end of this budget period is going to be double the level of debt that they inherited when they came into government. Debt is growing faster under this government than under any previous Labor government. Their economic credibility is completely and utterly shredded. I want to talk about tax for a moment. When you give $80 billion worth of tax cuts to some of the biggest companies in the country, you have less money left over to do other things that people expect of you. I want to talk about aged care. In my electorate at the moment, there are over 900 people on waiting lists who have been assessed as needing an aged care package so that they can continue to live in their homes. They have been assessed as needing it, yet they are unable to access those packages because there are none available. In fact, looking at the situation around the country, there are over 105,000 people in exactly the same position and that number is increasing as an additional 5,000 people every year are assessed as needing a service but are unable to get one. Every year, another 5,000 people are assessed as being in need but are unable to get a package. So the government expects us to give them a pat on the back for putting a measly 3,500 additional care packages in the system each year? Frankly, we're not going to do that. And to make matters worse, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul; they are pinching money out of aged care—the residential system—to pay for the additional Home Care Package places, ensuring that the needs of both the home care and the residential sectors are not being met. Frankly, the older people of Australia expect more from this government, and are getting much less. They should not be surprised because, if you look at the other initiatives that are baked into this budget, you can see that that the government are persisting with their reckless plan of ripping $14 a fortnight away from single pensioners in the form of the clean energy supplement. That $14 is helping pensioners pay for their electricity bills, which are going up and up and up, particularly as we go into winter, yet this government wants to reduce their pension payment by up to $14 a week for a single person pensioner. In addition to that, in every single budget this government—which thinks it's got the locked-on support of pensioners—has sought to cut pension payments. This is on top of the plan this government has to ensure that Australia has the oldest retirement age of any country in the Western world. Only a bloke who's spent his life in merchant banking thinks that you can work to the age of 70 and not have your body give up on you. Well, I tell you, there are a lot of labourers, there are a lot of people who have worked in the mines and a lot of people who have worked in manufacturing and construction in my electorate who can tell a different story. By the time they hit their mid-60s their back is starting to go, their knees are starting to go, arthritis is starting to set in and there is simply no way that they're going to be able to continue on doing the same job until they're 70. It might be okay if you're pushing numbers around a page as a merchant banker, but people who are doing real work, with their backs and with their bodies, know that this is not the case. We're calling on the government to deliver a better deal for the pensioners and the seniors of this country—a better deal than the one that is on offer. We are seeing another round of budgets with another round of cuts to hospitals. The Liberals are already cutting $11 million from hospitals in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven area. Hospitals are under stress. We need a better deal from the government. It's why, in his budget reply, Labor leader Bill Shorten announced that a Labor government would invest in over 500,000 more places for scans funded by Medicare over a first Labor budget. Labor would invest $2.8 billion in more beds and shorter waiting times for surgery, and Labor would also be investing over $80 million to boost the number of eligible MRI machines around the country and approve an additional 20 new licences. So, while the Liberals are cutting $11 million from the hospitals in my region and much more from hospitals around the country, we see Labor willing to invest over $2.8 billion in a fund to reduce waiting times for surgery and put more beds in hospitals, to invest in new MRI licences and to ensure more people can get the scans and the healthcare services that they need. There is a clear distinction. This government likes to talk a big game about its investment in infrastructure, but when you look through the details of this budget there is not one new cent for investing in infrastructure throughout the country. And at a time when rail experts are saying that the Illawarra line between Sydney, Wollongong and Nowra will reach its capacity by 2021, there is not a plan from the state government, and not a cent from the federal government, to improve rail services to the people of the Illawarra and South Coast. There was not even a mention of the Maldon-Dombarton rail link, though report after report said that it is essential to getting freight off our roads and freight off the Illawarra line to ensure that we can have better passenger services and better freight rail services to the people of the region and to western New South Wales. So, they talk a big game on infrastructure, but they are delivering very little indeed. I have not been surprised to see members from regional areas—whether they are Liberal Party members, whether they are National Party members or whether they are Labor Party members—condemning the failure of this government to include funds within the budget for another Mobile Black Spot Program. We had the minister telling people that the job is already done. Well, there are over 10,000 black spots on the publicly listed database identifying the mobile phone black spots throughout the country. The government's funded a little over 800, and yet they say the job is done. Well, our message to the government is that the job is far from done when it comes to delivering better mobile services to the people of Australia. People are keen to ensure that we bring the budget into balance, but that where we have the capacity to return money to wage and salary earners that we do it in a fair and equitable way. At a time when wage increases have been flatlining, through policies for which the government is directly responsible, we're seeing penalty rates cut from ordinary workers who are working over their weekends, and we're seeing immense pressure on wages. We think that there is a need for a better deal for ordinary workers. That's why, under Labor's alternative tax proposal, everyone earning under $125,000 a year will receive a better tax cut. More than four million Australians will be better off by over $398 a year than they would under the Liberal Party plan. A teacher, for example, who earns $65,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $928 a year. A couple earning $90,000 a year and $50,000 a year respectively will receive a tax cut of around $1,855 a year, leaving them clearly in a better position under the Labor proposal than under the Liberal and National Party proposal. The reason that we're able to do this is that we aren't giving $80 billion to the biggest companies in the country. It's why we're able to do more in terms of schools, hospitals and aged care. I want to talk about TAFE, because this budget has seen yet another attack on TAFE, with $270 million ripped out of the TAFE system. The minister describes it as 'the basket-weaving section of the education system'. We think it's something very different; not basket-weavers, but plumbers, electricians, carpenters—in fact, the tradespeople who people throughout Australia are relying on. It strikes us as absolutely ridiculous—it is absolutely ridiculous!—that at a time when we are having to import skilled tradespeople from other countries, the government is attacking the very institution which will enable us to train the next generation of skilled tradespeople. So, by contrast to the government, which has cut well over $3 billion from the TAFE sector since it has been in government, Labor will scrap up-front fees for around 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn skills that the Australian people need the most. Labor will also invest another $100 million in modernising our TAFE facilities right around the country after conservative governments, federal and state, have ripped the guts out of those TAFE campuses. And Labor will ensure that one in every 10 jobs are created to be filled by Australian apprentices on every Commonwealth priority project. So we will walk the walk and talk the talk. We will ensure that when the federal government is investing in large-scale infrastructure projects, that one in every 10 jobs on those projects will have to have an Australian apprentice on it. This is the way you address a skills crisis, by ensuring that one in every 10 jobs on a priority project is for an apprentice. This is the way you address a skills crisis, by ensuring that you reverse the cuts that the government has made and by investing money to scrap the up-front fees in 100,000 TAFE student places. The government thinks the TAFE sector is full of basketweavers; Labor thinks the TAFE sector is absolutely essential to ensuring that we are training the next generation of skilled tradespeople, whether they are carpenters, electricians or builders. These are the trades that Australia needs and these are the trades that we should be investing in. If you want a rolled-gold example of the government's priorities, if you want to look at the difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to budget priorities, it's here: $17 billion in tax cuts to the disgraced big banks; $17 billion in funding cuts to our schools. In my electorate today there are more than 115 classrooms that are temporary demountables; there are schools that lack the specialist teachers to help those kids that are struggling get up to standard and reach their full potential. It's why Labor will return every single cent of that $17 billion that has been cut from schools and ensure that we fund that by getting our priorities right. So we'll give $17 billion to our schools, not $17 billion in tax cuts to the big banks, which have been utterly disgraced by their appalling behaviour to Australian consumers over the past decade. We will deliver a budget that is more in tune with the priorities of ordinary, everyday Australians. Contrast that to the budget that has been delivered by the Turnbull government, which is arrogant, out of touch and not meeting the basic needs of everyday Australians. When it comes to a fair tax cut, when it comes to decent hospitals, when it comes to decent schools, universities and a TAFE system, this is what the Australian people expect from a budget and from a government, and they'll get it from a Labor government. 13:26 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I move: That the debate be adjourned, and the resumption of debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of this day. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 In accordance with the resolution of the House yesterday, this meeting of the Federation Chamber is suspended and the chair will be resumed at 4 pm. Sitting suspended from 13 : 27 to 16 : 00 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 88 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Parramatta Electorate: Ramadan 88 16:00 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta For my Islamic community in Parramatta—and for communities all around the country—it is Ramadan Kareem. It is once again the holy month of Ramadan, the ninth month on the Islamic calendar, which commenced at the sight of the first crescent of the new moon on 16 May. For Muslims, it represents the month in which the Koran was presented to the Prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. Ramadan will continue for 29 to 30 days, until the sighting of the next crescent moon around 14 June, and during those 29 to 30 days Muslims around the world will engage in a ritual fast from dawn to sunset, with complete abstinence from food and drink. In Parramatta, we celebrate the sighting of the crescent moon at the end of Ramadan with the Chand Raat festival, the biggest one in Australia, at Rosehill. It's an event I've been attending for a number of years, and I'm really looking forward to it once again. Ramadan is a particularly holy month for Muslims. It's a time of charity, being the best you, spending time with family, and showing compassion and communal spirit. But one of the stories that I recall every time Ramadan comes around is a conversation I had with a Muslim man, named Omar, in my electorate. Omar's eight-year-old son wanted to fast with him; he wanted to do what his parents did. He's eight, so it's not really a good thing for an eight-year-old. His father was saying to him, 'Okay, you can just eat breakfast an hour later, or you can skip lunch.' He was just giving him a little taste of it. Omar said to me: 'He's learning restraint. That's what Ramadan is. It's when we, as people, learn to say, "I want that. So what?"' It's an extraordinary sort of concept for improvement. And now every time I see my Islamic community celebrating Ramadan, I wonder what these people who have done this year after year, all their lives, have learnt about themselves through that month of abstaining both from food and drink for the daylight hours—particularly in our summer months. In winter, it's a long time; in our summer months, it's an incredibly long day. I'm in parliament for three of the four weeks of Ramadan, so I'm going to miss a lot of the iftars, but I just want to mention many of my organisations that will be marking Ramadan this year. Of course there's the Parramatta Mosque, and I'll be joining them for an iftar; Nabi Akram; the Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn; there's a prayer room in Merrylands; and the Ismailis and Ahmadiyyas, who have mosques just outside of my electorate. But to all of the people from all around the world—from Sri Lanka, from Somalia, from Indonesia—who have made Australia their home, to the descendants of the cameleers that were practicing Muslims in the 1880s, and to the descendants of the Muslim traders to the north: this is your month, and I'm delighted to be able to share it with you. And to all of those whose iftars I can't get to, I'm sorry; I'll see you next year. Budget 88 16:03 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee We've just handed down a budget, and in that budget the federal government have put $78.7 billion towards health. I just want to put that into perspective for people: if you take the total gross domestic product of the 40 poorest countries in the world and add that together, that is still less than what we spend as Australians on health. That's quite a phenomenal thing. One of the things that the federal government has recently done is sign a five-year supply agreement to put $1 billion towards wiping out hepatitis C. Hepatitis C can now be cured. This is a miracle. There are more than 200,000 Australians with hepatitis C. The five-year supply agreement has some nice clauses in it, including the fact that the more people we treat, the price is capped. So if we can encourage more people to present to their doctor, to present to their GP, to get treated, and the more that get treated in those five years, then the less that will cost us as taxpayers. We in this parliament are here to talk about things to break down stigma, to confront things like hepatitis C. A lot of people who have had hepatitis C have been drug users. They've got off drugs, but they might still have the disease. In the electorate of Mallee, looking at the statistics, we do have a higher than usual rate of hepatitis C, at 1.12 per cent of the population. Can I encourage you to put any stigma you might have aside, go and see your general practitioner and go and get treated. We can wipe this out. We can make you healthier. It's a great thing that, now, in this First World country, we can cure you of hepatitis C. I say to our GPs: can you be very proactive in encouraging people and make sure that you're talking to your colleagues about being aware that the federal government has done this. The federal government has delivered a great initiative. We, as members of parliament, need to use ourselves as microphones—as megaphones—to talk about what can be done. There are people in your community, I'm sure, Deputy Speaker, and in other members' communities, who would have this disease, and they're probably not aware that we can now knock it over and knock it over for good. There is a five-year agreement funded by $1 billion. The more people we can treat, the less it costs us. Our great vision is that, by 2030, hepatitis C will no longer be a disease that Australians have. I think we can do this if we talk about this good agreement. I commend it to the people who live in the electorate of Mallee. Go to the doctor, get treated, and get well soon. Herbert Electorate: Palm Island 89 16:06 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand in this place today proud to represent the Bwgcolman people of Palm Island as their share journey in this, their centenary year of the first forced placement of people on Palm Island. The centenary commemorations provide an opportunity for the people of Palm and visitors alike to reflect on the hundred years past, to celebrate the present and to invest in a new future. Between 9 and 11 March this year, the island commemorated becoming Bwgcolman, focusing on the past. The commemoration reflected on the island's past 100 years, and the Bwgcolman people shared their stories of endurance and, certainly, resilience. 'Bwgcolman' translates to 'many tribes, one mob'—people who have lived and died on Palm Island and whose ancestors were deported there from all over Queensland following its inception as a penitentiary. The dates of commemoration marked a cyclone that hit the Hull River Aboriginal settlement on 10 March 1918, triggering the first forced placement of people on Great Palm Island. The Deadly Didge N Dance Festival, which celebrated the present, was held between 20 and 22 April. The island's present was celebrated with music and cultural festivities. The festival also included a symbolic burning of the bell. People's lives were dictated by the bell. They awoke to the bell, they went to bed by the bell, they ate by the bell, they went to work and came home by the bell, and they were punished severely with jail time if they failed to obey the bell. This was both a meaningful and a deeply emotional experience, especially for the elders. The Palm Island residents and visitors came together to attempt to also break a Guinness world record for the longest corroboree. I was both honoured and privileged to be in traditional dress and painted up to participate in this corroboree. We unofficially broke the record, with just over 250 people dancing nonstop for five minutes. On 7 June and 8 this year, the Deadly Futures event will be held. This will be focused on the next hundred years for Palm. Deadly Futures will focus on the young people and include conversations with inspiring Indigenous and non-indigenous people, a health focused sports carnival and a careers expo. However, I must say I am beyond disgusted that the Turnbull government has completely walked away from the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, especially at a time when Palm Island is looking to its future, because this means seven apprenticeships will be lost on Palm, not to mention the risk of increased homelessness and health issues that are related to further overcrowding. If this government is fair dinkum about closing the gap, it would certainly not be cutting $245 million over two years from the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, which has been a huge success in Queensland. This means jobs for remote communities and, more importantly, jobs for Indigenous people. Budget 89 16:09 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright What a cracker of a budget! I want to get to selling the million jobs that we've put on since coming— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 and I expect to take a lot of interjections from those on the other side. Before I get to the budget, I acknowledge the National Fire Industry Association. There are about 12 delegates in the parliament at the moment, trawling around and catching up with guys. The National Fire Industry Association work in manufacturing, engineering, supplying and installing fire protection systems under the guidance of CEO Wayne Smith, commonly known to me as Frank. I'll see you guys very soon—pour me a red! I'm here to speak about taxation and jobs. Those on the other side love to talk about this topic and on a daily basis attempt to claim they have a better record on jobs and growth and tax relief to families. Let's have a look at that record. On this side of the House we've just ticked over the one million jobs created since forming government—one million more earning income, providing for their families, putting food on the table, supporting their local businesses and reducing welfare lines. Just in the last 12 months under the guidance of the coalition 332,000 jobs have been created. In contrast, guess how many jobs those so-called friends of the workers on the other side produced in their last 12 months. We produced 332,000. Do you reckon they produced 300,000? No. Did they produce 200,000 when in office? No, they did not. Did they get to 100,000? They could not even do that. I inform the House that in the last 12 months of a Labor led government, they produced a dismal 89,000 jobs—a disastrous 12 months under Rudd, Gillard, Shorten and then Rudd, a period of absolute anarchy! We hear the rhetoric of how this side of the House is deserting families and giving $17 billion of tax cuts to the big banks. By the time the big banks start paying, over four years they will have already paid $16 billion worth of levies back to the government. If the opposition looks closely, they would see that these banks in 2015-16 paid a combined company tax bill of $10 billion as reported by the Taxation Office on data.gov.au. Why do Labor want to drive down jobs and growth by stifling those businesses that want to employ Australians? With Australia's current tax competitiveness at one of the poorest rates across a range of measures, Labor want to drive the nails even further into the coffin, and signal to the world, 'Invest in Australia, and you'll pay some of the highest taxes in the world.' As Chris Richardson from Deloitte said about the company tax rate: This is the federal tax that hurts the economy more than any other. It shrinks the economy. Diabetes 90 16:12 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Last week I had the opportunity to chat with an inspirational young advocate from the McEwen community, young Tayte, one of 6,000 Australians aged under 14 living with type 1 diabetes. Tayte knows firsthand the benefits of in-depth research in making much-needed medical advances. He told me about the difference his new insulin pump has made. This little pump has saved Tayte from multiple daily injections. That's why he and his mum are working hard with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to push for better funding for medical breakthroughs. Organisations like the JDRF are critical in connecting people in our local communities in order to boost their fundraising impact and promote the importance of further research into juvenile diabetes. By continuing their hard work the JDRF can make life-changing breakthroughs in curing, preventing and treating type 1 diabetes. Thanks to their hard work they've already made groundbreaking discoveries in diabetes research, like being able to identify babies who will develop type 1 diabetes in future. This kind of early detection means early intervention, which could help thousands of people better cope with the implications of diabetes. This side of the House recognises the importance of properly funding life-saving medical research. We first established the Insulin Pump Program to provide means-tested subsidies for young people throughout Australia to access revolutionary technology. Going into the last election Labor committed to fully fund continuous glucose monitoring devices for over 6,000 Australians. We put $80 million in funding so that we could change the lives of children and young adults with type 1 diabetes, but we didn't stop there; we also put $4 million towards expanding access to programs which provide subsidised access to insulin pumps. These CGM devices literally save lives. Unlike other devices, CGM technology gives vital early warning signs of low or high insulin levels. Tayte showed me how living with juvenile diabetes forces kids to grow up faster than they should. The kids take on challenges well beyond their years. That's why CGM technology is so important in lessening anxiety and helping kids better monitor their conditions. While GCM devices remain unavailable under Medicare and even through private health insurance, it's important now, more than ever, to listen to kids like Tayte. We need to do better for Tayte and provide appropriate funding for life-changing diabetes research. I'm looking forward to having Tayte and his fellow JDRF spokespeople here in Canberra to lobby the government for better funding that will make a real difference to thousands of Aussie kids, who I know will benefit from the technology and the support available. If you have ever seen someone with juvenile diabetes, you will know that when they sit down to a meal they play with their little pump and get their insulin. It's amazing. The ability and the knowledge these kids have got are unreal. The only thing I won't promise Tayte is to join him in a floss dance. He showed me how it's done. Bugger that—that's not for me. Defence Equipment 90 16:15 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan It may have been a drizzly morning on 14 March in Brisbane, but nothing could dampen the spirits of the Prime Minister, Minister Payne, Minister Pyne and my Queensland colleagues, along with the Chief of Army and troops, at Gallipoli Barracks in my electorate of Ryan, because on that particular morning the Prime Minister announced that Rheinmetall was the successful proponent to deliver Australia's new combat reconnaissance vehicle, the Boxer, the Land 400 phase 2 mounted combat reconnaissance capability. During the 30-year life of the vehicles Australian industry will deliver two-thirds, or $10.2 billion, of the acquisition and sustainment, which will create up to 1,450 new jobs right across Australia. The new Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle replaces the ageing Australian light armoured vehicle that has been in service since 1996 and has seen extensive operational service. Rheinmetall, the manufacturer, will base their manufacturing hub in South-East Queensland and will utilise the services of local Australian-based companies. More than 40 manufacturers Australia-wide will benefit from this major announcement. Rheinmetall's CRV Boxer will deliver our troops the best possible capability, including increased safety, mobility and firepower. As one soldier recently said to me, this vehicle will offer troops greater lethality as well as the best possible safety to ensure their safe return to base. The combat reconnaissance vehicle started 2½ years ago with five per cent Australian industry content. When we recently announced that Rheinmetall was the successful bidder, that content was at 55 per cent of acquisition out of $5.2 billion and 70 per cent out of the life of the project at $15.7 billion. This is real money going into the Australian economy and creating more jobs. The decision to award Rheinmetall this contract based in Queensland was purely on merit. There were two competing vehicles in the tender process: one obviously being the CRV from Rheinmetall and one from BAE. As Minister Payne stated during the announcement, these vehicles were tested to the nth degree. They were shot at and blown up. They were tested in the heat, in the cold, in the tropical wet, in the dry of the desert and in every possible scenario. Ultimately, the Rheinmetall vehicle, which will be manufactured in Queensland, was by any measure the leading candidate. Rheinmetall will provide our troops with the best possible capability, including increased safety, mobility and firepower. With these new CRVs being used at facilities in Puckapunyal, Bandiana, Adelaide, Townsville and Enoggera, troops will be well placed to learn their new vehicle's capabilities. The coalition released our first Defence Industrial Capability Plan, which provides the government's vision and objectives for the development of Australia's defence industry over the next decade. Australia's defence industry has a range of world-leading capabilities and is well positioned to meet Defence's current and future needs. The Turnbull coalition government is ensuring that our ADF, whether it is the Army, the Air Force or the Navy, has the capabilities to keep us safe in the 21st century. Budget 91 16:18 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton The Turnbull government's latest budget, like every other Liberal budget, has failed the people of my electorate of Gorton. Under this budget, big business gets more but working-class and middle-class people, like my hardworking constituents, will miss out on the services they rely upon. Big business and the banks will get an extra $80 billion in the form of tax handouts, but ordinary Australians will pay for it with savage cuts—cuts to education and cuts to health. This budget is still cutting $17 billion from schools. In fact, it's quite remarkable to think that this government wants to provide $17 billion to banks and yet cut $17 billion from schools. Indeed, it's also cutting $270 million from TAFE. These budget cuts will leave residents of Gorton stuck on hospital waiting lists for longer and longer. The government's freeze on the rebate for specialists means that Australians will pay even more when they visit the doctor. This budget fails pensioners by cutting the energy supplement and costing pensioners $14 a fortnight. It is forcing people to keep working until they're 70. Can you imagine, Deputy Speaker, having to work until you're 70 before you can get access to the pension? Any budget that gives a handout to big business but hurts pensioners is a bad budget. The government's budget has failed in many ways, but it has particularly failed the residents of Gorton when it comes to infrastructure funding. Melbourne's west is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. With this growth comes a strain on our resources and existing infrastructure. Despite lobbying from local community and, indeed, the Melton City Council, no funds were made available for an upgrade to the Western Highway between Caroline Springs and Melton. The required upgrade to the Western Highway, including a new interchange to service the Melton West area, is genuinely needed to service not just the local community but the more than 50,000 vehicles that travel in each direction every day. Unfortunately, the government is ignoring this need. Additionally, the Calder Park Drive overpass is a desperately needed piece of infrastructure upgrade that residents in my electorate have been calling out for for years. No commitment has been made by this government to see it happen. Labor recognises that Melbourne's western suburbs are experiencing significant growth and, indeed, my electorate, the electorate of Gorton, remains one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country. Labor will improve our schools, fix our hospitals and save Medicare. Labor understands that working-class and middle-class people like the constituents of Gorton are struggling, and indeed they're struggling to deal with cost-of-living pressures. Unlike those opposite, Labor will deliver a genuine tax cut—genuine tax relief—for working Australians, and it will stop penalty rate cuts, protect pensioners and improve the budget bottom line. 16:21 Mr GEE 261393 Calare One of the great unfinished road projects in central-western New South Wales is the road link between Orange and Mudgee and the crossing at Dixons Long Point. Indeed, I often refer to it as the 'Holy Grail of unfinished road projects', because people have been trying to get that crossing built and that road fixed for 100 years—and it hasn't been done. It's a very important link, because, if we can get it paved and get a new crossing over the Macquarie River, it will drastically reduce the travel time between Orange and Mudgee, which at present takes about two hours and 20 minutes. At the moment, most of the trip on the crossing is dirt. To get across the Macquarie River, you literally have to drive through it, which means it's four-wheel drive only. I crossed that river a week or two ago and, although the river is low, it is very hazardous. Four-wheel drives often come adrift and, indeed, there are some famous pictures of them floating upstream. If we can get this road fixed and a crossing installed, it will link these two great regions. It will link them for tourism, for health services and also for mining services. Both Orange and Mudgee are world-renowned wine-producing areas. It would complete the wine trail, so folks will be able to come out from Sydney, go to Mudgee, and then take the link across to Orange, or do it in reverse. A lot of work has gone into getting this link prepared for a concerted push for funding. I think we have a window of opportunity to do that now, especially with the Roads of Strategic Importance announcement recently in the budget. A consultant's report has been prepared by Cabonne Council. In fact, two of them have been prepared. A lot of work has gone into it. I will be meeting with Cabonne Council next week to go through that report. After we have the meeting with Cabonne Council, it's then a question of drawing all tiers of government together. So I'm talking about the state government, the federal government and the local government, including Cabonne Council, Orange City Council and Mid-Western Regional Council, which are based in and around Mudgee. It's going to take a concerted effort. All parties will need to have some input and help to do some heavy lifting, because it's not just a simple case of installing a crossing; the road actually has to be made safe. If you put a crossing in there, without fixing the approaches, there is the danger that inexperienced drivers, particularly those from urban areas or younger drivers, may not be able to deal with the steep inclines on that road. So it's not just the crossing; it needs to be the approaches as well. I think we can do it. I think our window of opportunity is now, if all parties can work together. Now we have the consultant's report. The time to get down to brass tacks is fast approaching, and I can't wait to get this project moving. Domestic and Family Violence 92 16:24 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair Recently I attended a candlelight vigil held by the Domestic Violence Action Centre, DVAC, in Ipswich to honour victims of family and domestic violence and to say, along with those attending, 'Not Now, Not Ever'. Tackling these issues is a community effort and we in Ipswich are blessed to have such a hardworking team of social and support workers at DVAC. DVAC provides community information and education across Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs region to enhance community awareness of and support for people suffering from the impact of family and domestic violence. This encourages the community to engage collaboratively in responding to domestic and family violence issues. The centre offers, from a feminist perspective, a range of services to women and children in Blair who are experiencing family violence, as well as supporting men who are actively committed to changing their lives. I want to thank Queensland Police Service Superintendent Brian Huxley, Inspector Keith McDonald and the many members of the Queensland Police Service who were there on the night. I also want to thank two great organisations in the Ipswich region—Zonta International and the Ipswich Lions Club—who were there in numbers. I thank the men and women of the Lions Club for the barbecue they provided—the sausage sizzle. I also thank local members of the Labor Party in Ipswich who were there and, along with many others, put their hands in paint and put it on the banner saying 'Not Now, Not Ever'. While violent crimes are perpetrated by men upon men, predominantly, happening in public places, women are more likely to experience violence in their homes by intimate partners. The overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are perpetrated by men against women and domestic violence is more likely to have had an adverse impact on women than on men. Intimate-partner violence is the greatest contributor to illness, disability and death in women between the ages of 15 and 44, more so than any other preventable risk factor, and it is the greatest contributor to women's homelessness. The financial cost of violence against women is immense—estimated to be over $20 billion per year. As a former family lawyer working in the area of family law and child protection for nearly a quarter of a century before I was elected to this place in 2007, I saw it personally each and every day. Exposure to family violence has a profound impact on children, affecting their future relationships, their propensity for violence and their behavioural cognitive and emotional capacity. I was pleased and privileged to be able to speak there and talk about Labor's plan and what Labor wants to do. I pointed out Labor's plan at the last election. I pointed out that a Labor government would legislate for 10 days of paid domestic violence leave per annum. We are committed to making sure this is a universal workplace right and to supporting those in our community to tackle this scourge. Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary Branch: Gordon, Ms Eileen 92 16:27 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar The motto of the Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary Branch is, 'Let us hold high the lamp of service for the welfare of our hospital.' Eileen Gordon has spent decades as president of the branch, living up to this motto through her incredible achievements and efforts to improve Mona Vale Hospital for the benefit of thousands of local residents. For her contributions, in 2010 Eileen was recognised as the Pittwater Woman of the Year. The Mona Vale Hospital Auxiliary Branch was formed on 30 June 2007, following both the Avalon and Narrabeen auxiliaries closing in order to form the new branch, with the ambition of making the hospital the best that it can be. Eileen served as president until mid-2013 and remains the public relations member. In 2010, Eileen and the branch helped to raise more than a quarter of a million dollars to support the hospital and to enable the purchase of new electric beds, self-locking medical trolleys for all wards and medical equipment for theatres and intensive-care units, this in the face of the Labor Party's efforts to close the hospital once and for all. In addition, Eileen and the branch achieved the release of $240,000 from the dormant hospice trust fund for the extensions to the palliative care day hospital, an effort that was opposed at the time by the nurses association. I'm proud to recognise Eileen as an outstanding member of the Mackellar community and to pay tribute to the great contribution she has made to Mona Vale Hospital. Community service underpins Australian society, and I urge all of you to take from Eileen's example and do your best to give back to your community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 93 BILLS Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 93

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Second Reading 93 16:30 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019. Under this coalition government, the electorate of Mackellar is strong. For nearly two years I have represented the great people of Mackellar in this place and on the streets of the Northern Beaches. In my maiden speech in this House, I said that governments should do less, but that what they do they should do much better. I'm proud and humbled to say that this government is doing just that. We are providing smaller government and creating more equality of opportunity, because a fair society is a society that gives back as much as it takes. Under this government's policies, our country is getting fairer. The coalition government has delivered on education, health, transport, veterans' affairs and Medicare, while delivering much-needed upgrades to sporting facilities and roads, and, of course, backing small businesses and their employees. I've also fought hard and have secured over 21 community grants for Mackellar community groups, and I am constantly working to deliver more. I'd like to start off by pointing out some of the wonderful community organisations in Mackellar who have benefitted from government grants. There are too many to name, but I would like to point out a few which I believe deserve a special mention. We provided important funding for new computer equipment for the Tibetan Community in Australia. This will make it easier for them to learn English so that they can better take advantage of all that our great country has to offer. There was a $10,000 grant to The Burdekin Association, which has established a youth hub at Avalon. This will provide support for young people in Mackellar who are struggling with mental illness. Youth mental health is a serious issue which affects many in the community, with one in seven young people experiencing a mental health disorder. I helped to secure funding for a much-needed station upgrade to the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade. Thank you to Trent Dowling and his team, and to all the volunteers at the RFS, for their work in keeping our community safe during summer and in all seasons of the year. A grant was awarded to Easylink to purchase a much-needed new vehicle. Easylink is an organisation, largely volunteer based, which provides taxi-like transport options for the elderly and disabled around the Northern Beaches. Thank you to Susan Watson, John Wilson and their team, who do an excellent job. Just a few weeks ago they took me for a ride on a bus to meet members of the community, and to take them— An honourable member interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 That's not true! I get on buses all the time! Just ask Barry Unsworth! The Scotland Island Rural Fire Brigade, under the leadership of Captain Peter Lalor, received funding for new community fire unit boxes. The Marine Rescue Centre in Terrey Hills had an upgrade to their radio room so that they can continue to do their job of keeping our waterways safe for the residents and tourists who use them. The Manly Warringah Women's Resource Centre received funding for the installation of new appliances in their building. And I will just make a special mention of Tracy Sheedy and the team there, who do an excellent job in providing crisis accommodation for the victims of domestic violence. There are simply too many community groups in Mackellar to name, and not enough time to name them all today. But each of them provide unique service and support to the people of the Northern Beaches, and I am proud to be able to do what I can to support them. We are fortunate to have numerous schools which offer a high standard of education for our children. This government places great emphasis on education and the need for strong funding models which will help to give the next generation the best platform to succeed. Over the 10 years from 2018 to 2027, non-systemic independent schools in Mackellar will receive a total of $788 million in Commonwealth funding. Under the coalition, local schools now have more certainty, with an increase in funding. Over the next 10 years every public school in Mackellar—there are 25 of them—will receive 51 per cent more funding per student. Unlike Labor, we don't just talk about education policy; we deliver on it. There are numerous independent and Catholic schools in Mackellar who will also benefit from funding increases. Pittwater House students will benefit from a funding increase of over 11 per cent between 2018 and 2021, so that under the leadership of Dr Nancy Hillier those students can continue to receive one of the highest standards of education in the world. I'd also like to make special mention of a few principals who I have met with and toured their schools recently. These principals are just some of the most excellent school leaders in Mackellar, who are consistently delivering outstanding results for their students. Mrs Leesa Martin of Elanora Heights Public School; Dr Peter Downey, who was just here last night, of Oxford Falls Grammar; Mrs Jodie Hoenig of the Sydney Japanese School; as well as Mrs Susan Tickle of Narrabeen Lakes Public School. I was also fortunate to attend a play they held there a few weeks ago, so thank you to Susan and the students for having me along. I also look forward to meeting with the school captains of all the senior schools in Mackellar in a couple of weeks to discuss politics and how we, the current crop of politicians, can continue to engage with the next generation of leaders. As someone who started his own small business many years ago, I understand the daily pressures and stresses of a small business owner, and so does this government. In Mackellar there are over 23,000 small and medium-sized businesses, which employ locally and support the local economy. Over the past few years, I've held a number of small business forums, where small business owners have been able to express to me and the Minister for Small Business some of the big issues which face them on a day-to-day basis. This is why the coalition government has provided an instant asset write-off to invest in machinery and equipment, which will help grow their businesses and will allow them to employ more local staff. Small businesses are getting a fair go at long last, through amendments to the competition law to stop big businesses from abusing market power. The government has also established the small business ombudsman. I would also like to make special mention of local businesses AL and JA Barber, who received a business growth grant. Pat Labs received a grant under the Entrepreneurs' Program. This government's initiative to keep defence industry manufacturing here in Australia, and not overseas, has seen local businesses thrive, including HI Fraser based in my electorate. HI Fraser is a hydraulics engineering firm, who recently won a multimillion dollar contract to supply parts to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Based in Warriewood, under the leadership of managing director Chris Williams, this contract will allow them to employ more people and further support Australia's economy and defence capabilities, while also adding to R&D expenditure in this country and making us the smart economy of Asia. Another defence contractor in Mackellar is Incat Crowther, which is now supplying the waterproofing seals for Australia's submarines. This is a very important thing, because it is important that submarines remain waterproof. So keep up the good work keep up the good work with Incat Crowther. I look forward to introducing you to Minister Pyne when he visits in a few weeks. This government is also providing the energy security that Labor failed to provide. This government is building Snowy Hydro 2.0, creating 5,000 jobs and providing cheaper, more reliable energy for the people of Mackellar. This government is also giving Australian consumers priority access to our natural gas before it is exported, ensuring Australians no longer have to settle for the leftovers and inflated prices. Mackellar is finally gaining access to the NBN. Under Labor, only six premises were connected, but today I am proud to stand here and say that over 20,000 homes have been connected, and another 17,000 are under construction. All the homes will be ready for service by 2020. This is an extraordinary outcome, when you consider where we started. The NBN isn't perfect. I don't need to tell anyone in this chamber that. And, truth be told, it's not a policy that the Liberals desired. But we inherited a mess, a monumental mess, from a party that excels at monumental messes. And now the NBN will be delivered sooner and cheaper. If Labor's fibre-to-the-premises fantasy had gone ahead, it would have cost $30 billion more and taken up to eight years longer in comparison to this government's far more efficient alternative. In 2013, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott set the goal of creating a million jobs. We've achieved that goal in the last week. Like most things this government does, we have done it ahead of schedule. Because we on this side believe that the best form of welfare is a job, rather than handing out money to people we are creating jobs for them and their families. A record $75 billion investment in infrastructure over the next decade in major highway upgrades, congestion-busting roads, public transport rail projects, inland rail, improved local roads and a new airport have also benefitted Mackellar. This government co-funded the new and much-needed Frenchs Forest hospital. It helped to secure the much-needed B-Line and began upgrades on Mona Vale Road. There is still more to be done in my electorate. The people I represent deserve a government that provides equal opportunity and that always operates in the most efficient way possible, and that is what I will continue to advocate for this place. I look forward to continuing to work with the Prime Minister and my parliamentary colleagues to further push for smaller government, individual liberty, lower taxes, and the government services people need. 16:42 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur Budgets are like sermons. At their best, they can inspire and they can offer hope. Even the difficult ones can attract and sometimes hold the attention of the electorate. They can give us all pause for thought. Budgets and budget night are about more than the national accounts. They're about more than economic management. They are a political exercise, because they are about national priorities. And that's not an entirely bad thing. Budget week offers the government and the opposition the chance to reset the national agenda. The budget process should challenge both the government and the parliament to think afresh. The budget speech and the budget reply from the opposition leader are a chance to reconnect with the people and reassure those who have been doing it tough that they have not been forgotten. A good budget will offer hope as well as help. As I sat listening to the Treasurer's speech last Tuesday night, my thoughts turned to what it might mean for the people I represent—what they may make of it all. In particular, I wondered how many young Australians might be asking themselves, 'Why does this government hate anyone under the age of 50?' Younger Australians face a far tougher jobs market than people of my generation did. They'll find it harder to own a home or start a family. In increasing numbers, they'll be weighed down for years, paying off a HECS debt, despite the declining market value of many degrees. They are the generation that will have to bear the cost for the slow and faltering progress in addressing climate change over the last 40 years. In a country as rich as ours, it's a disgrace that, on average, over the last four years, over 270,000 of those aged 15 to 24 can't find work, no matter how hard they try. One in 200 Australians, many of them young, don't have a roof over their heads. And so many young Australians feel discarded or hopelessly left out of the system. This isn't, by the way, just a working-class problem. The sons and daughters of middle-class Australians are having a hard time and are up against it too. Times are tough all around. According to the most recent HILDA survey, real average household disposable income has actually fallen slightly since 2012. The sharpest decline in homeownership, according to the Melbourne Institute, since 2002 has been among couples with dependent children. In 2002, 55.5 per cent of individuals in this family type were homeowners, but by 2014 it had slid to 38.6 per cent. Homeownership amongst 18- to 39-year-olds has fallen from 36 per cent in 2002 to only 25 per cent in 2014, and it's still falling. Waiting lists for public and community housing are rising, further exacerbating the systemic housing issues and outright discrimination faced by young people. Even those with means and parental support continue to find it very difficult to rent a home near their work in most of our capital cities. I look back at what my own generation has done, and I wonder whether we might have served those who have followed us just a little bit better. Young people have every reason to believe that this government has closed it's mind to all of this. This government is just incapable of joining up the dots on multimillion-dollar cuts to TAFE, further turning the screw on HECS debts and repayments, and ignoring the plight of the hundreds of thousands of people who are reliant on Newstart and job seeker allowances that are below subsistence level. After a series of coalition budgets that have offered little, that have cut or pared back support for basic services like health and education and that have allowed the value of support to the unemployed and other victims of the economics of tough love to wither and that have conspicuously failed to address a deadening sense of economic insecurity that grips many, I wondered whether this Turnbull budget might offer at least some sign of being better attuned to the needs of young Australians and their families. Will the damage inflicted on those who've had to wear most of the pain of the last four coalition governments be eased? I'm afraid not. Was there nothing to be done for young people in this budget, other than the vicarious pleasure of handing an $80 billion tax cut to the banks and multinationals and income tax cuts spread over the next decade that will favour most of those who are on incomes over $200,000? There was nothing—not even in what's called an election-year budget. This government, which claims to be the low-tax party, has never delivered an Australian worker earning less than $80,000 a year a tax cut or tax relief. The best that this government could offer was $10 a week, which won't actually be paid out until July 2019 at the earliest—well after the next election. What we witnessed during the last sitting week was the Treasurer handing down a typical Liberal budget. This is a budget that, above all else, fails the fairness test. This is a budget that supports the big businesses and the banks and lets down the residents of my seat of Macarthur. The Macarthur electorate has been let down time and time again by this coalition government, and local residents are understandably fed up. The people of Macarthur—the young families, the small business owners, the students, the grandparents, the migrants, the shift workers, the job seekers, the unemployed and the people with disabilities, who I have the distinct honour of representing, will see very little from this budget. The reason for that is very simple. It's because the hardworking people of south-west Sydney are not necessarily from the big end of town. Having been elected to this chamber to represent these constituents, I'm not here to represent the interests of CEOs or the big banks. I should have a couple of nice things to say about them, if I could find it in my heart to do so, but I can't. If this budget were delivering projects to the tune of $80 billion in my electorate of Macarthur, I'd be jumping up and down and singing the government's praises—but there's nothing. This budget does very little for my community. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and their government fail to understand the needs of the people of Macarthur. I have a few key issues in mind where it is particularly disappointing to see that the government continues to drag its feet. Firstly, I want to speak about Appin Road. As many members of this chamber would be aware, as I have spoken on this subject a number of times, Appin Road is a secondary highway which serves as a thoroughfare connecting south-west Sydney through Campbelltown to Wollongong and the Illawarra. There is one word that comes to mind when speaking about this road, and that is 'notorious'. It's notorious because so many people have died on this road. It's notorious because traffic levels are increasing rapidly, including large trucks and semitrailers. In my electorate it has a truly frightening reputation, and I was most pleased that, following Labor's commitment of $50 million to begin the upgrade of Appin Road, the coalition jumped on board, agreed that it needed to be done urgently and matched our commitment. However, progress has been far too slow. At the previous federal budget the coalition provided a mere $5 million for 2017-18 for Appin Road, just 10 per cent of their commitment. The remainder is supposed to trickle through until the end of 2021. Very little has been done other than removing a few tree stumps. What this means for my constituents is a longer, drawn-out process in which little has been achieved. Instead of investing in a well-thought-out project that creates a dual carriageway, this government is dragging its feet. The government needs to stick by its previous commitment and make these upgrades a priority. While we're on the subject of infrastructure, we again see in Macarthur a lack of any real action by the federal government to link the Western Sydney Airport with a rail connection to my electorate. In spite of me talking to all the transport experts around the country, who agree on the need for a rail link through Macarthur to Western Sydney Airport, through the Leppington line and the north/south line from Macarthur through the new airport and on to St Marys, nothing has been done. We have failed to get any commitment to complete the Leppington-Airport line or to complete the north/south line from Macarthur to the new airport and beyond. We are now told we have to make a business case. We know that that's not the case for many other infrastructure projects, such as the northern part of the rail link to the new airport, but nothing for the south-west. It's really been politicised, and the government has, once again, failed the electorate of Macarthur. The surrounding electorates of Werriwa and Hume et cetera have similarly failed to get proper infrastructure spent—infrastructure that might have seen the completion of the Maldon-Dombarton rail line, which connects the Illawarra through Wollongong to the electorate of Hume through Picton and then on to the Macarthur electorate. The airport must be connected by rail. We know that. Every expert says it must, and it must happen soon. But there is nothing from this government. The government's City Deal has been very elaborate, a politicised hoax, and unfortunately, to Macarthur there's nothing. It is irresponsible of the Liberal National government to continue to shirk their responsibility to the most rapidly growing electorate in the state. What the government has done time and time again is put this project in the too-hard basket and send in their public relations experts to create more spin. Without adequate infrastructure to serve the new airport, my constituents will not be able to access the economic and social benefits that this project offers. Labor, for some time now, has been committed to investing in this project, on which the government appears determined to continue to avoid taking any real action. In addition, this government have maintained their $17 billion cuts to our schools, and they're keeping their cuts to our hospital funding. This has meant that in our schools vital resources to fulfil the full Gonski plan have been lost in some of the most disadvantaged schools in the state. This has meant that our hospital waiting lists for things like elective surgery such as cataract surgery have blown out to amongst the longest in Australia. Our waiting times in our emergency departments are blowing out in an electorate that is facing a rapidly increasing population, an older population, and in an area where there have been cutbacks to after-hours services by general practitioners, putting more and more stress on our local hospitals. It beggars belief that this is apparently what the Prime Minister calls 'responsible government'. Any man who can preside over a government that could consider a harsh cap of $3.35 million from Campbelltown Hospital as 'responsible government' is clearly out of touch and in dire need of a new dictionary. The government has continued to do things that are really setting up our future to be even more difficult. Cuts to the ABC—it is very hard to fathom why this is happening. The government appears to have fallen in with the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in attacking the ABC and in destroying a vital Australian institution. Is there nothing that can be done to stop this government on its destructive course? Unfortunately, this government—a decade after the global financial crisis—is continuing to put stress on our much-needed community resources such as the ABC and on our local, state and federal infrastructure and yet it gives big tax cuts to multinational businesses. It really is relying on what they call a trickle-down economy to make things better for the people who are struggling the most. There's no evidence that this works, we hear time and time again from economists that it doesn't work, but they have persisted with their cuts. I don't call this trickle-down economics; I call this siphon-off economics. This is the economics of siphoning off desperately needed money from vital public resources, such as schools, hospitals and the ABC, to big business and wealthy shareholders. Household debt in Australia is at record highs. What people are paying for their power costs, their council rates, their schooling costs, their health costs is blowing out further and further, and it's putting young families that I've cared for for many years under increasing stress. The economic consensus is that the task of budget repair is proceeding all too slowly, and yet the government continue with these huge tax cuts. Also, promising workers tax cuts that are so far off into the future they may or may not come into effect long after this government is gone is also irresponsible and undemocratic. Is there a plan with this government? I doubt it very much. The government is clearly attracted to some form of budget planning, but the planning has been distorted by it's want to give many billions of dollars to big business and vested interests. Listening to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about the government's plans for jobs and growth, you'd think we'd all been transported back to some eastern satellite of Soviet Russia, circa 1962. Unfortunately, while they do have some totalitarian ideals, we are not attracted to the Soviet system. The good news is that planning is pretty minimal and the jobs and growth mantra is just that, rather than any real plan. The Treasurer's budget speech brought to mind a passage from Donald Horne's 1964 seminal critique of Australian society, The Lucky Country. When it comes to claiming credit for things not of its making, this government is indeed a worthy successor— (Time expired) 16:57 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I'm pleased to add my voice to those speaking in support of these appropriation bills, which are part of the 2018-19 federal budget. I've spent the last week out in my community on the southern Gold Coast speaking with locals about the budget, what's in it for them and, more importantly, what's in it for the future of our nation—because that's really what we're all here for: to ensure we can make Australia an even better place for generations to come. The feedback has been very positive—extremely positive, in fact. People see this as a budget that's responsible, fair and balanced. It reflects where we are as a nation and the values that are important. That's because this budget is all about doing the right thing: staying the course to bring the budget back to surplus; ensuring the government lives within its means; and guaranteeing the essentials we all rely on, particularly seniors, those with a disability, those who need help the most. It's about ensuring hardworking Australian taxpayers can keep more of their earnings and have incentives to get ahead and earn more, if they choose to. It's about ensuring that small and medium businesses can grow, succeed and employ more people. It's about the aspirations we share to make sure our kids and grandkids can do their very best and not have to struggle or rely on the government. We want to help create the conditions that encourage enterprise, endeavour, free thinking, independence, self-development and community contribution in the knowledge that reward is not a bad thing, getting ahead is not a bad thing and doing well for yourself is not a bad thing. It's exactly what we hope for our kids and our grandkids. Today, I want to outline some of the positives that are in the budget for my constituents. There's one issue that has been raised with me more than any other since I was elected, and that's upgrading the M1 all the way through to the border to reduce congestion and travelling times on the southern Gold Coast. As a community, we've lobbied for this for many years. I spoke about it in my first speech in this place. Many thousands of local residents signed my online petition, calling for funding to finally complete the upgrades. So, I'm absolutely delighted that we have been able to announce—and it's in the budget—that there will be $1 billion of funding available to upgrade the M1 from Varsity Lakes through to Tugun, and to fix bottlenecks at Eight Mile Plains, further up the M1. That's part of the $75 billion infrastructure investment to strengthen the economy and create jobs. This funding comes on top of the funding that we provided to upgrade the section from Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes. We announced that at the last election—back in 2016. Work on that section of the M1 is now underway. There were some preliminary works that took place prior to the Commonwealth Games, but now that the games are over we have now been able to commence the upgrade, and, with the additional funding that has been made available from the Turnbull government, it is my aim to ensure that we have a continuous build from Varsity Lakes all the way through to Tugun, to make sure that we can capture the economies of scale. We're looking at upwards of 10 kilometres of build just in that section alone, and, of course, whilst we have a continuous project there will be economies that form part of that as well. I have indicated throughout this very lengthy process that I will work with the state government to make sure that Queenslanders, and particularly those who live in my electorate on the southern Gold Coast, do not have to remain in the M1 carpark for a second longer than is absolutely necessary. It is an absolutely huge win for our local community, and it's recognition that our government, the federal government, understands the frustrations of being stuck in traffic when you'd rather be at home with your family or at work earning a living. We know how important decent transport systems are, and that is clearly reflected in the many infrastructure projects funded in this budget. Making our tax system fairer and simpler is also a large part of this budget, and I'm delighted that over 69,000 taxpayers in McPherson stand to benefit from the low- and middle-income tax relief this budget delivers in the upcoming 2018-19 financial year. And, over the coming years, they will benefit even more from our plan to tackle bracket creep and restore incentive to earn more. In fact, from 1 July 2024 the government will increase the top threshold of the 32½ per cent tax bracket from $120,000 to $200,000, removing the 37 per cent tax bracket completely. The plan means that around 94 per cent of all taxpayers will have a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024-25. This compares with a projected 63 per cent of taxpayers in 2024 without change to current settings. Australians who work hard, take extra shifts, or earn pay rises or promotions will be encouraged and rewarded. Workers can plan ahead, knowing they will pay one consistent rate of income tax. That's an incredibly positive change that I know is being welcomed by my constituents. One of our other positive tax measures is extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses. This is a really great incentive for businesses to invest in the things they need to grow and expand. Over the last week in particular, I visited many of the local businesses in McPherson. Some had already taken advantage of that instant asset write-off for the small businesses; others are continuing to take it up in the future. I have spoken a number of times in this chamber about how the Gold Coast is the small-business capital of Australia. We have so many thriving and growing businesses on the coast. The entrepreneurial spirit is very much alive and well in my electorate. So far, 2,250 McPherson small businesses have already taken advantage of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. The further extension will allow even more businesses to continue to invest. One of the most important aspects of the budget is that, through responsible economic management, we have been able to guarantee the essential services we all need and rely upon. We have delivered record funding for hospitals. Queensland public hospitals will receive more than $29.5 billion over the next five years, delivering an additional $7.49 billion in funding compared to the previous five years. This is a funding increase of some 34 per cent. We're providing a fully funded NDIS to help those with a disability. Once fully rolled out the NDIS will directly help an estimated 2,572 people and their families in the electorate of McPherson. These people need our help and support the most, and I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering that support and not just talking about it. We're making child care more affordable. On 2 July our new childcare system will come into place, with 7,556 local families in McPherson benefiting from our reforms. We're guaranteeing universal access to preschool. This ensures that this year 2,267 children in McPherson can access 15 hours of quality early learning in the year before school. We are absolutely safeguarding Medicare and bulk-billing, as we always promised. Australians are now well aware that there was no truth whatsoever in Labor's 'Mediscare' campaign at the last election. We're listing more medicines on the PBS to help Australians, including new medications to treat conditions like spinal muscular atrophy and breast cancer. Since coming into government the coalition has helped improve the health of Australians by subsidising more than $8.3 billion worth of new medicines. As part of our plan to ensure the essentials we're delivering affordable and reliable energy with the National Energy Guarantee. There are many more benefits for my constituents on the southern Gold Coast. There's increased funding for in-home aged-care places, access to a range of new programs so seniors can supplement their incomes, positive health initiatives to help seniors live longer, and a funding increase to continue improving DVA services so our veterans are given the respect they deserve. I'm delighted that we're funding another round of grants for the Stronger Communities Program, which makes a direct impact in our local community, helping local groups with infrastructure and projects that assist in their great work. We've had some fantastic local projects funded so far, and this is about delivering a social dividend and giving back to the community in a practical way. There are so many other positives: funding to protect the Great Barrier Reef, measures to crack down on welfare fraud, measures to ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax, and a range of other initiatives designed to further trim wasteful spending. That's the responsible and balanced approach that the coalition has taken with this budget. Importantly the coalition government is committed to building the skills to meet Australia's needs not just now but into the future with the commitment of $1.5 billion to the Skilling Australians Fund. This was first announced and formed part of last year's budget, but we have confirmed that in this year's budget, and I can inform the House that we are well on the way to finalising an agreement that will ensure the $1.5 billion goes towards addressing skills shortages, with a focus on boosting the number of apprentices in training. The figures that we are quoting are around 300,000 additional apprentices in training. I'm speaking about Australian apprenticeships, so that includes apprentices and trainees. We're looking to build a pipeline into the future. The 300,000 figure includes pre-apprentices, apprentices, those who are completing technical or workplace based training at the certificate III or IV level, and what we're calling higher apprenticeships at the diploma and advanced diploma levels. That is for sectors such as advanced engineering or finance, for example, where we've already run a couple of projects and pilots that have indicated a need for us to provide, effectively, the dual system of training that the Germans have in place. Quite frankly, I believe Australia has a system that is equally as good as the German model, because we are training technically and we are training on the job as well. So we will be creating that pipeline. We have indicated to the states that we want to enter into a further national partnership agreement, but it will be very different to the last national partnership agreement, which was a $1.75 billion fund over a five-year period. But, of that $1.75 billion, only $600 million went towards direct training outcomes. We are now looking at a total of $1.5 billion over a five-year period that will go to a direct training outcome. So I'm very confident that we actually have the policy right. We have said to the states that we want to work with them, and we have asked them to come back to us with some proposals for projects that they want to run in their states that will address the decline in apprenticeships that has happened over the last five years—particularly over the term of the last national partnership agreement. I guess in that context it's very important to note that there was a significant drop-off in apprentices in training that took place in 2012 and 2013; in fact, it was the largest drop-off in numbers that has been experienced. There's quite a bit of work to do, so we've said to the states, 'Come to us with your projects that you would like to put in place to halt the decline in apprenticeship numbers.' We want to see those projects working in some priority industries and priority areas. We've named some of those—they include manufacturing, health, the disability sector and agriculture. We've said to the states that we are absolutely open to looking at it on a state-by-state basis to address what their needs are and to work hand in hand with them to make sure we are addressing the skills shortages that exist in this country, both now and in the future. This budget is responsible and it's fair. We're balancing the books and we've guaranteed the services and infrastructure we need without plunging our nation into debt and deficit. We're not socially engineering outcomes; we're supporting local communities and providing support and incentives for everyone to do better. 17:12 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Plenty of Australians are struggling. They're families struggling with record levels of household debt to income. They're struggling with the cost of increasing electricity bills, with private health insurance, with child care and with education costs. If you're a worker, you haven't had a decent wage rise for six or seven years now, with the wage price index stubbornly stuck at a two per cent annual growth rate and most people's real wages—wages adjusted for inflation—falling behind. We've seen this government cut penalty rates and support the cuts to penalty rates for workers in the hospitality and commercial industries. We've seen this government introduce changes to the Fair Work Act which make it harder for workers in their workplaces to bargain for decent wages and conditions through an enterprise agreement. In fact, all the power now exists with the employers when it comes to enterprise bargaining. The system's been reformed to such a level that, if employees in negotiations with an employer can't reach an agreement, the employer can cancel that enterprise agreement and shift everyone back onto the award. That's not the way a decent bargaining system works. It's not the way Australians can maintain their wages—by allowing people to fall back onto the award. Subsequently, we're seeing very small wage increases being made in a minimum number of enterprise agreements. For the first time in many, many decades, the number of enterprise agreements that are being made in Australia is actually falling. It's not going up as a proportion of the workforce; it's falling because of the operation of those new laws. If you're a pensioner, you face cuts to the pension through changes to the taper rates, changes to the deeming provisions. It's this government's view that in the future people should have to work until they're 70 years old before they can access the pension. In this budget, there is still the cut to the energy supplement for pensioners, which is equivalent to about $14 a week. If you're a pensioner living in your own home on a very fixed income, struggling to make ends meet and struggling to deal with the cost of electricity, the cost of private health insurance and the cost of groceries on a weekly basis, this government wants to cut $14 a week from your budget through the energy supplement. Particularly as we're coming into winter, it's a pretty raw deal for pensioners. But that is exactly what this government is doing. So plenty of Australians are doing it tough. But the government's view is: 'Well, we think that big businesses deserve a tax cut. We think that those large multinational corporations'—many of whom, over recent decades, have been transferring profits overseas to avoid paying tax here in Australia—'deserve a tax cut.' And this includes the big banks. Yes, those organisations that we've found through the royal commission have been ripping off many of their customers and leaving them worse off over the last decade. It's to the banking royal commission that I want to turn my attention now. It should never be forgotten that Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, and his government, have opposed this royal commission into the banking sector for the last 600 days. They've said that there's no need for a royal commission into the banks, despite the pleas of the victims and despite the scandals and the rip-offs: the wealth management scandal at the Commonwealth Bank, the CommInsure scandal, the collapse of Trio Capital, the collapse of Storm Financial and the collapse of Timbercorp. Millions of Australians literally lost millions and millions of dollars—their hard-earned savings and, in many cases, their inheritance for their kids. Despite all of this being uncovered in numerous parliamentary inquiries and other inquiries, the government refused a royal commission. They said that there was no need for one and that there was nothing that needed to be done in the banking sector. Well, the revelations of the banking royal commission have demonstrated the hypocrisy of this government, and vindicated the Labor Party in pushing for a royal commission. Those shocking revelations of the scandals and rip-offs that have been perpetrated on Australian families, workers and pensioners that we're seeing uncovered are unforgivable. And it should never be forgotten that if this government had its way—if this Liberal government, this Turnbull government, had its way—most of the evidence and the revelations that have been uncovered by the banking royal commission would not be illegal. They would not be illegal, it would just be a bad look for the banks. The reason for that is that the Turnbull government and its members opposed the introduction of a comprehensive best-interest duty into financial laws in Australia when it was introduced by the Labor Party when we were in government. Believe it or not, there was no legal obligation for a financial advisor to act in the best interests of their customers prior to the Future of Financial Advice reforms being introduced by the previous Labor government. That is shocking! There was no legal requirement for a financial adviser to act in the best interests of their clients. And guess what? Many of them didn't. And we're seeing that uncovered now in the banking royal commission. The Prime Minister and members of this government opposed the introduction of that comprehensive best-interest duty into Australian legislation. And it didn't stop there, because when they got elected they actually tried—believe it or not—to remove some of the elements of that best-interest duty and water it down. They said it was 'excessive red tape'. Believe it or not, AMP gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry that looked at the Future of Financial Advice reforms and said that this was over the top, it was excessive and it was red tape, and that 30,000 jobs would be lost in the financial services sector in Australia. Well, we now know why, given the shocking and, in the words of the counsel assisting, 'illegal' behaviour that AMP was undertaking with respect to its clients regarding the evidence coming before the royal commission. When the Abbott government was elected, one of their first acts was to put into the parliament legislation that sought to water-down the best-interest test in the Future of Financial Advice legislation. They wanted to remove some of the protection that existed for Australian customers of banks and financial institutions to act in their best interests. They got it through the parliament, believe it or not. They got it through the House of Representatives and the Senate. They actually succeeded. It was only because of a rescission motion in the Senate that we were able to stop that occurring. Now we have these shocking admissions from the banking royal commission. Labor has been vindicated. We should never forget that if the Turnbull government had its way, much of the evidence and much of the behaviour being uncovered by the banks at the moment would not be illegal. It would just be a bad look. In that respect, the Prime Minister and this government owe every Australian bank customer and those that have been the victims of financial fraud a sincere apology for refusing to countenance a royal commission and holding out for so many years. This budget contains a number of cuts to services. $2.7 billion is cut from hospitals. $17 billion is cut from the schools budget. $80 million is cut from the ABC. There are $270 million in new cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. And $1.5 billion is being cut from remote housing through refusal to sign up to a national agreement. This is despite increases in revenue coming on the back of increases in commodity prices. The aged care announcement that this government made in the budget is an affront to seniors. There is a waiting list of 100,000 people for aged care packages in this country, and this government offers 14,000. And it's not new money—it's money that's being allocated from the existing budget and is likely to come from the residential aged care sector to pay for 14,000 additional home care packages. So no new money, and not dealing with the 100,000 waiting list in aged care services. Despite the fact that there are increases in revenue, they're offering meagre tax cuts to predominantly favour those on high incomes, and they're cutting services. Labor believes that there is a different way. We've pledged to not only cut income taxes, but we will keep the current rate of taxation on large corporations. We won't be cutting taxes for big companies in this country. We will be able to invest in services and reverse a lot of the cuts of this government. Labor is pledging a $2.8 billion better hospitals fund to reverse the cuts to hospitals to ensure that we can reduce those elective surgery waiting lists and emergency department waiting times and that we can have more doctors and nurses in our hospitals. We are pledging to restore the $17 billion that is being cut from the schools budget, so we can have a fair dinkum needs based system that ensures that the interests of kids are foremost in delivering quality literacy and numeracy and better education for our kids. In respect to the TAFE sector, we pledge to rebuild TAFE through a special fund that will be established if Labor is elected. Importantly, we will write off the fees for 100,000 TAFE students if they are going into areas of high demand for skills in Australia. I'm talking, of course, about areas where we've got 457 visa workers being imported into the country because there is a lack of skills in particular industries and occupations because this government has cut TAFE and apprenticeships to the bone. Labor won't stand for that. We will reinvest in TAFE, rebuild it, and ensure that 100,000 students get the opportunity to work in areas of high skill and high need in our economy. We will also be fiscally responsible. We've indicated that we will be able to pay down debt and reduce the deficit and bring the budget back to surplus in the same year that the Turnbull government is proposing. The reason we can do this is that we've listened to the Australian people and we've made some tough choices about tax reform and areas of policy that needed reforming, namely capital gains tax discounts, negative gearing, taxing family trusts in a fair manner, and abolishing the cash refund for dividend imputation. In these areas we're not only proposing tax reform, but we're dealing with some of the pressures I mentioned earlier, particularly on households. In my electorate, the cost of housing is one of the highest issues that is on the minds of, particularly, young families—dealing with the cost of increasing house prices and rentals every year. There has been 16 per cent growth, 20 per cent growth over the course of the last year in some of the suburbs that I represent. It's a big issue, and it's because we have some of the most generous tax concessions in the world for investors in property in this country. Labor will tackle that issue. We will reduce the capital gains tax discount that exists on the sale of investment properties, and we will reform negative gearing to ensure that it only exists for new properties and that anyone in the system is grandfathered, thereby turning down the heat that exists in the housing market today. That's Labor's promise: we will reduce the debt, we will reduce the deficit and we will continue to increase investment in important services around health, education and aged care, as well as investment in skills and infrastructure. At the same time, we will be able to offer targeted tax cuts through our working Australians tax refund, which, for most Australians in that $50,000 to $90,000 income bracket, means about $928 per year. Labor has a better plan that is fairer and will reduce the budget deficit and the debt but will continue to invest in those important services that all Australians rely on. 17:26 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax A fish rots from the head. I can only assume that the member opposite who has just spoken, the member for Kingsford Smith, has totally swallowed the Kool Aid from the Leader of the Opposition, in what was either a dishonest or an economically clueless presentation of the facts—or somebody else wrote his speech. I notice that he only left the last five minutes of his speech to actually talk about the budget, which is what this session is meant to be all about. Instead, he wanted to talk about another topic altogether. Once he got to talking about the budget, of course, his favourite word was 'cuts'. Yet again, the facts tell a very different story. As was mentioned today in the House, by both the Prime Minister and then the Minister for Health, there are ads being run by the Labor Party in the seat of Longman in Queensland—because there's a by-election looming—suggesting that there have actually been cuts to hospitals. Whereas—and the minister laid the facts down in the House—in fact the state Labor government has decreased funding to hospitals while the coalition has increased funding. But this is what the Labor Party does: absolute dishonesty. You can't have it both ways. Either you are economically illiterate or you are dishonest. I put to this chamber that the speech we just heard from the member for Kingsford Smith was full of absolute dishonesties, and the losers through that are, in fact, the Australian people who believe such concoctions: the very people who are vulnerable and who need assistance, whether it be in health, in welfare, in education. Once they swallow the rot that has set in, their fears escalate. Their anxiety escalates. It is the Australian people who are living decent lives who are affected by Labor's lies. Let's look at this budget, firstly from where we have come—and we've come a long way. We've come, of course, from the back of that disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. It almost sends a shiver down the spine when you think of what they did to this country. Of course, they inherited a $15.6 billion credit. There was no debt from the Howard government—we had credit of $15.6 billion. What did they do? They, of course, just racked up deficit after deficit on a spend-a-thon, leaving us with well over $200 billion in debt. Labor, of course, also left us endless commitments for the Commonwealth to oblige, and that, again, has put pressure on this coalition government. But, we are on track to bringing commonsense and economic stability back. The Australian economy is now looking strong in its 27th consecutive year of economic growth. GDP and government receipts are up. Our growth in spending is at its lowest rate in 50 years. As a percentage of GDP, costs are down and receipts are up. This means the deficit can narrow, then we are on path to a surplus. A $14.5 billion deficit is forecast for the next financial year. In the year after that will turn into a $2.2 billion surplus and then, at the end of the forward estimates, we're looking at $16.6 billion in surplus. We also know the strength of the Australian economy has seen us maintain our triple-A credit rating despite the fact that, compared to most other countries in the world, our borrowings are so highly exposed to the international market. Over a million jobs have been created since we came to office in 2013, and well over 1,000 jobs every single day over the last year. Business confidence is building, and it's no wonder the IMF has upgraded its ratings for the Australian economy. But there is no room for complacency, and the budget demonstrates an ongoing commitment at the national level. We're delivering tax relief to hardworking Australians, ensuring taxes will be lower, fairer and flatter. We're supporting business to invest and create more jobs with our enterprise tax plan. FTAs have been signed off under the Abbott government and then under the Turnbull government, along with our $75 billion transport infrastructure plan. We're guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely upon. We're talking about $24.5 billion in extra school funding. The opposition call that a cut, but most people will understand that, when more money goes into something, that's called additional funding, not a cut. We have record hospital and Medicare funding, new drugs added to the PBS, and nearly one million families supported by the government's new childcare package due in July this year. We're helping older Australians stay in their own homes longer, adding an extra 14,000 home care packages over four years on top of the 6,000 places last December. We're continuing to keep Australians safe with $294 million to boost airport security, including $50 million for specialised security upgrades at regional airports, and over $160 million to help law enforcement and security agencies fight crime and terrorism. I ask anyone in the chamber: did the Leader of the Opposition even talk about security in his budget reply speech? Did he mention the importance of protecting our borders? Not a thing, absolute silence! This again shows the priorities of the Labor Party compared to those of the coalition. Queensland is a big winner out of this budget: over $20 billion for infrastructure, and over $5 billion announced for new projects. That includes an extra $3.3 billion for the Bruce Highway. Up until the budget speech from the Treasurer, there was $6.7 billion of federal funding for the Bruce Highway. This contribution means we now have $10 billion for Queensland's Bruce Highway. Queensland hospitals will receive $29.5 billion over the next five years. That is a real funding increase of 34 per cent on the previous five years. There will be record levels of support for Queensland schools: $52.2 billion over 10 years. We're fully funding the NDIS, which will help support nearly 96,300 Queenslanders with a disability. Then there's that wonderful place in the world called the Sunshine Coast. Never before in our history has the Sunshine Coast been the recipient of so much federal government funding. Let me underscore that by saying it again: never in our history has the Sunshine Coast received so much funding from the federal government. This budget was almost custom-made for the Sunshine Coast because we saw an amazing trifecta of infrastructure spending for the Sunshine Coast. We saw that in over $2 billion of spending for our region. We saw $800 million go towards section D between Cooroy and Curra. We saw $880 million for between Pine Rivers and Caloundra. Of course, when it comes to rail, $390 million is contributed to the upgrade of the North Coast line between Beerburrum and Nambour. Over $2 billion in this one budget of this coalition government will assist the region of the Sunshine Coast. This comes on top of the existing $1.6 billion that is already being spent and is committed to that stretch of the Bruce Highway. This comes on top of the $181 million concessional loan for the Sunshine Coast Airport so it can become a fully-fledged international airport. There is nothing that growing successful regions need more from the federal government than assistance with vital infrastructure—infrastructure that not only gets people and products from A to B but attracts investment as a result to those regions. That is precisely what this government is doing for the region of the Sunshine Coast. In addition to that trifecta of $2 billion of infrastructure, 70 schools across the region of the Sunshine Coast are set to benefit with more money per student for the next 10 years. Yet again those 70 schools on the Sunshine Coast are being looked after by this Turnbull coalition government. What's more, there has been another commitment made in this budget to extend the chaplaincy services. I'm delighted about this because the chaplains play a vital role in schools across the Sunshine Coast. The Scripture Union runs the chaplaincy services in Queensland. The impact that those chappies have on young people in schools is nothing short of first class. Again this budget delivers because it ensures that young people in schools can always have a chat to a chappie, because that chappie is going to still be there. That commitment has been made right across the forward estimates. Nearly 40,000 small and medium businesses on the Sunshine Coast are already enjoying a company tax cut. As a result these businesses have either more money in their pocket, more money for investing in their business or more money for employing other people. This is where the rubber hits the road with the coalition's plans, because they are always pragmatic plans that work out in the real economy. We have seen 40,000 small and medium businesses enjoying company tax cuts on the Sunshine Coast. We saw in this budget the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. The number of businesses I've spoken to is extraordinary. When I have a chat, they say they want practical assistance. This instant asset write-off has been a miracle for some of them. Around 5,000 in my part of the world have already leveraged this, and, of course, it remains open to 40,000. Over 126,000 residents on the Sunshine Coast will enjoy immediate tax relief. With all the pressures on individuals and on families at the moment, this tax relief is going to count. Of course, we know that this tax relief for low- and medium-income earners is but step 1 in a three-step, seven-year tax plan that will ensure that we have a tax system in Australia that is flatter, simpler and fairer. I'm told that there are approximately 4,932 people with a disability on the Sunshine Coast. That's nearly 5,000 people, probably 5,000 families, who have the peace of mind of knowing that the NDIS is fully funded. It's a reminder that the economy is not the end game; it's the means to an end. Only with a strong economy do we have the ability to guarantee the NDIS. Only with a strong economy do we have the ability to guarantee health funding. Only with a strong economy can we guarantee the safety net of welfare. Only with a strong economy can we ensure that our students are educated, that our young people are given their best chance in the world; it is only with a strong economy. And so, with that, I am delighted to stand today to fully endorse the budget that the Treasurer has brought down. I look forward to seeing whether or not the Labor Party come to their senses and support the measures in it. 17:41 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Labor won't block supply. The member for Fairfax may be aware that we made that commitment. Speaking on the appropriation bill gives us an opportunity to highlight why it is the terrible budget that it is being described as. I first joined this parliament in 2013, so the first budget speech I heard delivered by a Liberal government was in 2014. It is fair to say that, like most of the people in my community, I am cynical now about budgets delivered by this government—and with cause. In 2014, all we heard about was the terrible, terrible state that the economy was in. We heard about debt. The opposite side suggested how poor Labor was in government, leaving with such debt. And now we're here, at the 2018 budget, and net debt has doubled. The deficit has spiralled out of control. We're in a situation where we have record-breaking company profits juxtaposed against flatlining wages growth. That's the context in which this budget has been delivered. I was listening on 8 May, and I was angry. I was angry that I was listening to a Treasurer outlining a budget that, again, unfairly disadvantaged members of my community so that big business and the banks can be looked after. I speak for the people of the community that I represent, and I know that they share my anger that this government continues to put the interests of the top end of town ahead of everyday Australians. There are a few points that I want to make very quickly and very early. This government didn't mention climate change. This government, in fact, didn't mention clean energy, unless, of course, you go to the point where the Clean Energy Supplement is being cut for pensioners, which will be a $14 a week cut for pensioners in my community and also a cut for other welfare recipients. Budgets are about priorities. They are a reflection of what we value as a society. For my colleagues and I on this side of the chamber, it is quite clear what we value. We value a society that is fair for all people, a society that invests in schools, hospitals and infrastructure and that gives a fair go for everyone, not just the Prime Minister's mates at the top end of town—big business, multinational organisations and the banks. The electorate of Lalor is a diverse and growing community. We have 88 babies born every week to low- and middle-income earners. Projections estimate that our population, which is currently at over 250,000 residents, making it larger than greater Geelong, will increase to over 435,000 by 2036. So, budgets matter to our community. Our community is diverse, and this budget affects all 250,000 people living within it. Young people, families, migrants and elderly people will all be disadvantaged. To its core, this is a Liberal budget that looks after big business and the banks by giving them an $80 billion tax cut while penalising people with cuts to health care, schools and investment in jobs. To bring further disappointment, the Prime Minister seems to think he is looking after working people with a $10-a-week tax cut sweetener. With wages flatlining and essential services being cut, this $10 a week is an insult. It is an insult if the Prime Minister thinks that for a mere $10 a week residents in my community won't mind that they can't get a decent internet connection, that penalty rates are being cut and that waiting times for elective surgery are extending in our hospitals. These are very real consequences that residents in my community are facing because of this government's failure of a budget. Labor is offering an alternative that is fair when it comes to taxation. Under Labor, taxes will be lower for 10 million working Australians. Under Labor, people earning up to $125,000 a year will pay less tax and more than four million people Australia-wide will get a tax cut of $928 a year. This is more than they would receive under the Liberals' proposals, and, unlike the Liberals, Labor can deliver on this tax cut. We can because we prioritise working people and won't be giving an $80 billion tax cut to big business and to the banks. Unlike this government, Labor will also deliver on the services necessary for a fair and inclusive society. We will take a responsible approach that will be guided by clear fiscal principles, that will repair the budget in a fair way, that doesn't hit vulnerable Australians the hardest, while offsetting new spending with savings and revenue improvements. Labor's plan for responsible economic management will see the debt serviced in order to shore up the country for possible future headwinds, without depriving working people of vital services. Unlike the Liberals, Labor has made the tough calls on the tax system, on negative gearing, on capital gains tax, on franking credit imputation and on discretionary trusts. Labor's plan is fairer and more responsible. We have made the big calls, we have made the right calls and we've made them for the right reasons. Looking at this budget you don't have to dig deep to see that it is all the Liberals' favourite cuts to fund its $80 billion handout to big business: there's a $2.2 billion cut from universities; continuing with a $17 billion cut from schools, which is beautifully juxtaposed against a $17 billion tax cut for the banks; and $2.8 billion cut from hospitals. The Liberals often talk about priorities. Well, this government has them all wrong. For young people in my community this budget fails the test of fairness. As someone who has worked with young people for the majority of my working life, I know the importance of investing in our youth. Education is a value-capture exercise, if you like. We need to be investing in schools, in universities and in TAFE. But the government, instead of investing, has cut $17 billion from schools, most of which has been cut from public schools. Their education program is not needs-based and it is certainly not sector-blind, with a cap of 20 per cent to state schools across the country. Locally, in my area this means $16.8 million will be missing over the next two years from my local schools. In government, Labor will restore this $17 billion and ensure fair, needs-based, sector-blind funding. For TAFE, the government is cutting an additional $270 million on top of the $3 billion already cut from TAFE. This cut, together with the comment by the Minister for Education and Training that TAFE is subsidised basket weaving, demonstrates clearly that this government does not value vocational training. And who can forget the $2.2 billion ripped out of our universities? Locally, nearly 19 per cent of residents in Lalor undertaking university or TAFE courses are going to be disadvantaged by this government's savage cuts. Unlike the Liberals, I am proud to be part of a Labor team that has a real plan for tertiary and vocational education. In government, Labor will uncap university places, which will see an extra 200,000 students have access to a university education. I look forward to a Labor government and to first-in-family students accessing education. Labor will also waive the up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students in high-priority sectors. Another of Labor's plans for young people is to take real action on housing affordability—something that this budget has absolutely failed to address. In 2018 Australia, young people saving to buy their first home are locked out of the market by investors purchasing their sixth or seventh investment property. Labor reforms to negative gearing are not retrospective and will continue to allow negative gearing on new dwellings. This is a carefully calibrated approach that creates future savings without causing dramatic shocks to the market but, most importantly, opens the door for first home buyers. This budget is most cruel, I think, to older Australians, who too have once again been short-changed by the Turnbull government. Their plans are to see Australians work until they are 70. They are cutting $14 fortnightly from the energy supplement for pensioners. They are spruiking an increase in home care packages, but the budget papers clearly show this to be a hoax. We all know that aged care and looking after our seniors is critically important. It is a test of who we are as a society, but this government doesn't seem to get this, despite spruiking prior to the budget that it was going to be a budget about aged care. The budget does not show an increase in the spend for aged care. It shows an increase of 14,000 home care packages, with no increased money to pay for them, which means the funds have to be taken out of the current budget. What this budget does in those terms is a cruel hoax. It is a cruel hoax to go out prior to the budget and spruik that you are going to be doing something in this space and then not deliver. Australians are not fools, and the elderly people in my community will not be taken in by this. Fourteen thousand new places in home care over the next four years will do very little to fix the needs of 105,000 people on that waiting list, with 20,000 new people joining that waiting list in the last six months. The government must be joking if they think that 3½ thousand places per year will be adequate, when this amount doesn't even keep up with the pace of demand. The Prime Minister's latest response to older Australians waiting for increased periods of time for home care is disappointing, to say the least, and it has real impacts on residents in my community. Thousands of people are moving to Wyndham every year across a broad demographic. There are over 18,000 people over the age of 65 living in my community. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia-wide nearly one in six people were aged 65 years and over, and that is 16 per cent of our entire population. This government needs to get serious, therefore, about making sure that it has plans in place to ensure that we can cater to the growing needs of a growing population of older Australians. Finally, I would draw attention to this budget's failure in the multiculturalism space. The electorate of Lalor is a place where people from all over the world have come together to create a unique mixture of culture, language and religion. We have a proud history of multiculturalism. In fact, ABS data reveals that 42 per cent of residents in my community were born overseas. The government's unfair changes to the Assurance of Support scheme, if they had been followed through with, would have meant that many of these residents wouldn't have been able to bring their parents to Australia; they would in fact have been priced out due to the changes to this support scheme. The government has withdrawn this measure in response to strong community outrage, and I would say to my community to continue to engage in political processes to ensure that, when measures like this are coming into the parliament, our community responds and responds loudly to ensure that they are heard. It would have been outrageous to have seen people be priced out of bringing their parents to Australia for a 12-month period or a three-year period on the grounds of income, on the grounds of doubling that assurance and pricing people out. It is also clear, from the waiting period extension for migrants to access welfare support that is hidden in these budget papers, that this government really is doing some sneaky things around migration, and it's sending some very mixed messages to my hardworking, aspirational migrant community. I will quote a highly successful local migrant I met with last week, who summed it up. She said, 'It makes more sense to support people when they first arrive.' She has been in Australia for over 20 years. She's a highly successful businesswoman, and she is mortified that we would be lengthening the times, because she knows, because of her own arrival and in supporting people over many years when they come, that people need the support in the early years so they can build successful businesses. Surely, after all the years of watching migrants arrive and build a life here, we in this country understand, and figures show, that multiculturalism works for our economy; that aspirational new arrivals work hard and create businesses that create jobs. That's what the figures tell us, and I would have thought that this government was up to making those statements loudly and clearly in this parliament. It frustrates me that the Prime Minister is showing a complete disregard for the people living in my community whilst giving big business and the banks an $80 billion handout in the form of tax cuts. It is $10 a week for most workers in my community, while planning thousands of dollars in savings for the wealthy. As an alternative government, Labor gets it. Labor has a responsible plan, guided by clear fiscal principles, that makes the big calls to repair the deficit, while investing in vital services for working Australians—for education, healthcare and infrastructure. 17:56 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, which I am very pleased to say delivers for all Australians, including those in my electorate of Corangamite and the broader Geelong region. This bill and our budget, very significantly, provides tax relief to encourage and reward hardworking Australians. It backs business to invest and create jobs. It builds the infrastructure that we need in Corangamite, across the Geelong region and across the nation. It also ensures that government lives within its means. I want to reflect on the member for Lalor's contribution. One of the things that the Prime Minister said in question time today is that repeating a falsehood over and over again doesn't make it true. One of the most disappointing things for me, being part of the political process in this House, is the constant misrepresentations and lies that we hear from those opposite. Of course we saw that in spades at the last federal election with the Mediscare campaign. It's no longer right and proper that Australians should tolerate any member of parliament, be they in government or in opposition, who is prepared to stand up and tell these falsehoods. I regret that whether it's schools funding, hospitals or taxation, the member for Lalor has made some very significant misrepresentations. I want to reflect a little on hospital funding and the news locally that Healthscope has announced today that it's closing the Geelong Private Hospital. That is quite a shock and very concerning news. I understand the company is working very hard to deploy staff and provide for the orderly transition of patients. We're very fortunate to have University Hospital, run by Barwon Health, of course, and many other fine public and private hospitals in our region, including the St John of God Hospital and Epworth Private Hospital. I'm very hopeful that Barwon Health will be able to investigate how it can use the premises of Geelong Private to offer a broader range of services in the Geelong community. One of the outstanding misrepresentations made by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply was that he was going to fix waiting lists. He obviously doesn't really understand how hospitals work in this nation, because of course waiting lists are a matter for the state government. I am hopeful that these premises may be used by Barwon Health to combat unacceptably long waiting lists for elective surgery in the Geelong region. That has to be higher priority for the state government. I also want to note that the Commonwealth government—our government—is proudly providing record funding to Barwon Health and to Victorian hospitals. The Commonwealth has increased funding to Barwon Health by $36.2 million, or 23.8 per cent, between 2013-14 and 2016, and funding to Victorian hospitals increased by 36 per cent between 2013-14 and 2016-17. This is in comparison to the Andrews government, which has delivered growth of only 13.9 per cent. And going further forward: under the coalition, the Commonwealth is increasing funding from $3.2 billion in 2012-13 to $7.1 billion in 2024-25, a massive increase to $7.1 billion for Victorian hospitals. This means record numbers of surgeries, more doctors and more nurses. I also want to reflect on the very significant commitment that we have made to infrastructure. In Victoria, this is very, very significant. We have invested a record $17 billion in productive infrastructure, including new spending in this budget of $7.8 billion for Victoria—and this does not include the $3 billion for the East West Link. I think it is regrettable that the member for Lalor, who represents a safe Labor seat, and the members for Corio and Gellibrand, about whom I was speaking earlier in my contribution in the MPI, take their electorates for granted. The members for Corio, Gellibrand and Lalor, who all represent either Geelong or Western Melbourne electorates, have failed to stand up for their electorates when it comes to investing in infrastructure. Daniel Andrews cancelled the East West Link—vital, critical infrastructure for our region. That cost Victorians $1.24 billion. And what did those Labor members do? They did nothing. They didn't have the courage to stand up for their constituents and to say that we are growing at a very fast rate, which we are. Geelong and the Geelong region is now the fastest-growing region in the country. We desperately need this infrastructure and it is absolutely horrendous to see a state Labor government waste money like that and not progress the infrastructure we need. The West Gate Tunnel is a small part of the East West Link. It's not enough; it's a poor cousin, and it's very regrettable. We've also invested $1.7 billion across Victoria for regional rail, most of which, of course, is coming from the Commonwealth, with only a very small amount from the state. Again, we've seen a paltry contribution from federal members who don't seem to be mindful of the second-rate rail service that we are being delivered by the Daniel Andrews government. For instance, we have contributed $150 million to the Geelong rail duplication project and state Labor have put only $10 million into that project. It's an incredibly important project for the City Deal. Rail and road infrastructure in a fast-growing region such as ours is absolutely vital, and we have seen a pathetic contribution from Labor. Again, those Labor members showed a lack of courage in their ability to stand up and say that we need greater investment. It's an absolute indictment on Jacinta Allan and Daniel Andrews that of the nearly $274 million being spent on the Geelong-Colac-Warrnambool line through to Melbourne to deliver faster and more reliable services, only $20 million is coming from the state. So I call on the state government to get its act together, to deliver its business plan and to start delivering the money that we need for rail infrastructure. The other outstanding failure in our region by Labor members is their failure to stand up for Avalon Airport. In 2008, unbelievably, the Labor government shut down Avalon Airport by refusing to allow it to build an international terminal. That happened on the member for Grayndler's watch and the member for Corio's watch. Unbelievably, the member for Corio justified that decision by saying it was not in Geelong's and Australia's interests to have Victoria's second international airport. So that is an astounding failure—an astounding failure by all Labor members, but particularly by the member for Corio. Very proudly in this budget, as I mentioned, we've delivered another $50 million for the Geelong rail duplication project and, proudly, another $20 million for the new international terminal at Avalon Airport. We announced the funding on the Tuesday. The following Saturday, the Treasurer visited Avalon and we turned the very first sod. That terminal is now being constructed. That will be delivered before the end of the year, when AirAsia starts its international flights. We are very proud. We announced the funding on the Tuesday and on the Saturday construction began. Not only are we fixing Labor's mess but we are also getting on with the job of providing vital infrastructure for our region. I note the member for Lalor has returned to the chamber. There are a couple of other messes that she has failed to stand up for. The Regional Rail Link has turned into an absolute disaster. There was very significant money contributed by the previous Labor government—it was their project—and it has now become a second-rate service. It is overcrowded and unreliable. It is an absolute disaster, and I would have thought that the state Labor government would have put some money into its budget to fix the Regional Rail Link. It has done absolutely nothing. In fact, I don't even remember if the member for Lalor stood up for her community when Werribee lost its direct line back to Geelong, so there is now no direct line between Werribee and Geelong. We've seen a real failure by Labor to deliver the services that we need on the Regional Rail Link. I say to state Labor: get on with the job and fix this rail service. We deserve much better. There is all this rubbish about a bullet train between Geelong and Melbourne, and they can't even fix the basic rail services. I'm very pleased that, as part of our budget, we have announced tax relief for low- and middle-income earners. By 2024-25, around 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less, as compared with 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged. This is a huge win for Corangamite residents. There are 64,558 taxpayers who stand to benefit from the low- and middle-income tax relief in the upcoming 2018-19 financial year. For instance, a high school teacher on $75,000 will have an extra $530 in his or her pocket from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. I have to say, this is in stark contrast to the 'bigger and better' tax plan that Labor announced in its budget reply. It was a bit like hearing the Leader of the Opposition selling steak knives. It was very hard to believe when you look at what the Labor Party intends to do in terms of how it's going to fund these tax cuts. It is going to slog and hit the most vulnerable people in our community. Some pensioners and self-funded retirees will be hit with the shocking retiree tax. It's a $10.7 billion hit on those pensioners and on those self-funded retirees. It is the biggest single hit, and Labor members opposite think this is something that they want to justify. It is absolutely shocking. The Labor Party have deserted these people in our community. With this $10.7 billion hit, it has no regard for senior Australians. When we speak about our home packages and the provision we're making for older Australians, including the 14,000 home packages, we're very proud of how we're standing up for senior Australians. We will fight for seniors every step of the way. This retiree tax is a shocking piece of policy. It is whacking the most vulnerable people in our community, the Labor Party, including the member for Lalor, should be absolutely ashamed to be defending this shocking policy which leaves older Australians high and dry. I'm very proud of our real tax cuts, as distinct from the economic jumble that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply. I also note the member for Lalor's comments in relation to supporting business. We've very proudly already delivered small- and medium-sized business tax cuts which will benefit many millions of businesses across Australia. That is for businesses with turnovers of up to $50 million if they're incorporated and up to $5 million if they're not incorporated. That impacts almost 17,000 local businesses in my electorate. This is coupled with the very significant instant asset write-off benefit for small businesses, which has been extended for another year. As part of this $220 billion tax grab that the Labor Party is proposing if ever it got into office—and God forbid if ever that happened—it's now proposing to increase tax on small- and medium-sized businesses by reversing some of these tax cuts that we've already introduced. It's very disappointing, and when the Leader of the Opposition declares war on business—he's said very clearly that he's declared war on business; he's got no interest in standing up for business—then I think that says it all. Whether you run a small, medium or large business in this country or you work in a small, medium or large business in this country, the Labor Party is no friend of yours. The Leader of the Opposition has made that very, very clear. The other very significant part of our budget is that we will be returning to balance, a small surplus, in 2019-20. Also, through sustainable budget management, and for the first time in a decade, the government is no longer borrowing to pay for everyday expenses. We're incredibly proud of what we are doing. It's a responsible, measured budget for all Australians and to benefit all Australians, including the people I represent. I very much commend this bill to the House. 18:11 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you, along with all of us, will have today received a statement from the UNHCR. The UN refugee agency wrote to us all to tell us it is profoundly saddened by the death of a Rohingya refugee on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, today. The statement said: The tragic loss of yet another vulnerable person under Australian 'offshore processing' again underscores the need for proper care and immediate solutions. It's not good enough that people who need care and who have come to us seeking help are left in unsafe and uncertain conditions. The government needs to act swiftly to end the suffering of people who have fled persecution and have come looking for help from Australia. The government needs to get people settled on both a safe and permanent basis. It needs to be done urgently. This government's failures when it comes to refugees are there for all to see. People have been left in unsafe conditions. Enough is enough. The government must settle people permanently and safely now that they've obtained refugee status determinations. I wanted to talk briefly to the parliament about the loss of a Queensland statesman and Queensland legend, and that person is former Deputy Premier of Queensland the Hon. Terry Mackenroth. I was greatly saddened when I heard about the loss that the Mackenroth family suffered, because it was a loss that our entire community suffered. Terry was not just a friend of mine but also a constituent, and someone who was a political hero to so many of us in the Labor movement in Queensland. The respect that he was afforded was not just from our side, and that was very obvious at the funeral that was held in Carina after his death. There was such a good representation from both sides of politics, as well as from the community, from his family and from the sporting world. He made an indelible mark on the life of Queenslanders, and his legacy will be carried on every time someone goes to Lang Park or every time someone goes to the new gym that's been opened at the Clem Jones Centre at Carina. The Premier said when she gave the eulogy at his funeral, citing the testament that's been made to Christopher Wren, 'If you seek a monument, look around you'. That is absolutely the case. I know this year at the State of Origin and when we're at Lang Park, we'll be looking around thinking of the contribution that Terry Mackenroth made to rugby league, to netball, to the community, to disability, to aged care, to support people who are elderly and to our state. We're very sad to have lost him. I also wanted to raise the Greenslopes Red Cross Hall. This is a Commonwealth-owned parcel of land across the road from the veterans' hospital, the Greenslopes Private Hospital, on Newdegate Street. This is a property that has been sitting vacant for some time. Unfortunately, the government, more than a year ago now, put up a security fence and started commissioning security patrols, but has been sitting on its hands in disposing of this property. The reason it's of such concern to my constituents is the obvious risk, that anyone can see, from the asbestos on the property. This is an old crumbling building, vacant, seemingly abandoned, but the Commonwealth still owns it. It has an asbestos roof and nothing's been done—or at least nothing obvious—in the period it's been sitting vacant. It's not good enough. The Commonwealth needs to act urgently to deal with this property and to remove any risk to residents from the presence of asbestos there. I want to speak briefly in this place about the Bulimba Barracks. As you would be aware, the Bulimba Barracks are situated in my electorate on the Bulimba Peninsula. A sale of the Bulimba Barracks has been imminent, supposedly, for some years now. The department has appointed a real estate agent, so I anticipate that there will be a sale in coming months. It is absolutely crucial to our community that the master plan that the Labor representatives locally—that's me, the honourable Di Farmer MP, Councillor Shayne Sutton and now Councillor Kara Cook—have fought for is respected by any purchaser of that land. This is a massive parcel of land, about 21 hectares of north-facing river front land. The department must do its bit to ensure that prospective purchasers are aware of the importance of complying with the master plan. I'm also very concerned about the presence of contamination at that site. There was a contamination report done quite some time ago now, and it identified a range of actual and potential contaminants. My community is very concerned about them. We've been asking for answers for about two years now from the Commonwealth about what has been done to remediate the contamination. The Commonwealth has been evasive. The Commonwealth needs to come clean and the Turnbull government needs to come clean with the community about what precisely has been done to remediate the contamination of this Defence site and what will be done to ensure that the prospective purchaser is aware of what further remediation will be required. This government has cut schools funding by $17 billion. In Griffith alone government schools lose $14.1 million over just two years, and Catholic schools lose $57.1 million over two years. Parents and families in my electorate are right to be concerned about the cuts to school funding. Why is it that the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government can find the money to give corporate tax cuts to big business and the big banks in the vicinity of $80 billion in value, but can't find the money to fund schools properly? It's a stark difference between Labor and the Liberals: $17 billion to the banks or $17 billion to schools? I think most parents and families would rather see the funding going where it's sorely needed: into school education in this country. This government is cutting funding to universities. In last year's MYEFO, released in December, there was a $2.2 billion cut to university funding. It's the equivalent of 9,500 university places, and it was an end to the demand driven system. Universities in Queensland are losing $436 million. Under these cuts, Griffith University will lose $92 million, the University of the Sunshine Coast will lose $34 million, and UQ and QUT will lose $100 million each. It's not good enough. I'm so proud that Labor, in our budget reply, announced that we would be reinstating the demand driven system. When the demand driven system was created, what that meant for people living in my electorate of Griffith on the south side was that there were 2,400 more university places. Under our new policy of bringing back the demand driven system, we'll see around 2,300 more students on the south side living in the electorate of Griffith. University education is important. Vocational education is equally important. Recently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I, along with the state minister the honourable Shannon Fentiman MP, visited the Mount Gravatt institute of TAFE. We were so lucky to be there, along with Jo Briskey, Labor's candidate for Bonner, and to see the advanced manufacturing work being done at the TAFE at Mount Gravatt. They have a fashion speciality. While we were there looking at what students were doing with textiles and design, one of the students spoke to us. She said that the funding cuts meant everybody was being asked to bear more of the cost, and that it was becoming more expensive to go to TAFE than it was to go to university. She felt that it was getting to the point where people just couldn't afford to go to TAFE. She said, 'I hope that your being here means we'll be seeing more money for TAFE.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, 'Absolutely it will, to the tune of more than $600 million.' Labor has committed to restoring to TAFE more than $600 million of funding that the Liberals have previously cut. It will also be committing $100 million for equipment improvements at TAFEs. Since then, this government cut a further $270 million from vocational education in this year's budget. It's not good enough. If we want to be a high-skilled, high-wage nation whose firms can be at the top end of global value chains and have the sorts of expertise and experience to make them able to contribute in that way then we can't keep relying on immigration and temporary skilled migration; we have to train our own people. It is ridiculous that at the very period of time in which more people have started to come in on temporary skilled visas, there has also been a decrease in the investment needed to ensure we have a properly functioning vocational education system. We must fund TAFE as a nation, and Labor will fund TAFE in the event that we're elected in future. I also want to talk about kindies. On the weekend I visited a beautiful kindy in my electorate, Stones Corner Kindergarten. It's a gorgeous place. There were so many people there raising money, organising raffles and cooking food. I had a great time drawing the raffle. The kids were so engaged. Shortly after I got there, one of the mums said to me that she's worried about universal access kindy funding. She is right to be worried about it, because this government has committed to funding kindies only to the end of 2019. If you have a young child, a baby or a toddler, and you're right now thinking about what's going to happen with their kindergarten in 2020 or later, you have no certainty. You have no idea what it's going to cost. Despite the fact that Labor has been calling on the government for several years to commit to longer term funding for universal access, the government has failed to do that. I can't believe it. I thought in the 2018 budget the minister and the Prime Minister might finally commit to five-year funding for universal access to kindy. No, not there; 2019! How is that supposed to give certainty not just to the families but to the staff of the kindergartens? How are directors and teachers meant to plan for their lives beyond the end of 2019? What must management committees be thinking, not knowing the source of their funding after the end of next year? The management committees are volunteers. They're parents with busy lives. They have to worry about raising $300 to improve a piece of equipment at the kindy, organising a sausage sizzle or cake stall at Bunnings, and this government is making them worry about whether there'll be universal access funding beyond the end of 2019? It's ridiculous. It needs to be funded. Early childhood education could not be more important. It is absolutely fundamental that Australian kids get the best possible education at a very young age if we want them to be able to succeed at school, post school and in the jobs of the future, yet this government has not and will not fund universal access to kindy beyond the end of 2019. I think that's a disgrace, a real shame and a real missed opportunity. I might also mention in passing that, when it comes to long day care, more than 2,000 families in my electorate alone are set to be worse off under the Turnbull government's childcare package. It's an absolute disgrace. This government should fund education properly, it should fund kindies and child care properly, and it should fund schools and post-secondary properly. I want to raise an issue very important to people in my electorate—that is, the issue of out-of-pocket costs for going to the doctor. My electorate of Griffith has the dubious distinction of having the highest out-of-pocket costs for visiting a GP in the whole of Queensland. It's very disappointing when you see this government's attempts to continue to push up out-of-pocket costs for going to the GP. We also have the fourth highest out-of-pocket costs in Queensland for visiting a specialist. The government, in freezing the MBS rebate, has exacerbated out-of-pocket costs for people to go to the doctor or a specialist. I'm very proud that, in the by-election that I fought in 2014 as Labor's candidate, we were able to defeat the GP tax that the government proposed. I'm very proud that Labor has stood strongly in support of Medicare for the entire history of Medicare and, of course, before it. I'm very concerned that the government seems to be willing to allow the benefits of Medicare to be eroded through constantly shifting the cost of health care onto the shoulders of families and households. No-one wants to see the Americanisation of our health system. No-one wants a situation where it's your credit card, not your Medicare card, that determines the health care you're able to obtain. That's where we're headed under this government. Labor will always stand up for Medicare; the Liberals will always erode and damage Medicare. If you want to make sure that we have a good Medicare system in this country, the only way to do that is to vote Labor. I want to raise the issue of hospitals in my electorate. There are large cuts to hospitals. I look forward to being able to be part of a future Shorten Labor government to ensure that hospitals are funded properly and that there are no further cuts to hospitals. I note the minister's attempts to deny hospital cuts today. Those cuts are there. 18:26 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning Today I raise a matter before the House that is of great importance to the Australian people. It is a matter that poses a threat to our democratic tradition, particularly the freedom of the press, and our national sovereignty. I refer to the threat of foreign interference in our political institutions. In doing so, I have considered closely my responsibilities as a member of the Australian House of Representatives. The beauty of our political tradition is that we protect the free speech of our parliamentarians. That tradition extends back to 1689, when the parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Bill Of Rights, enshrining free speech in article 9 of that bill. Section 49 of the Australian Constitution and the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 declare our present-day link to that tradition, and I take hold of it today. We live in a rapidly changing world. We are watching the rise of authoritarian states. Those states are conducting foreign interference operations across Western democracies. In Australia it is clear that the Chinese Communist Party is working to covertly interfere with our media and universities and also to influence our political processes and public debates. In the United States, Britain and France we have seen Russia attempt to undermine the integrity of democratic political processes. The Director-General of ASIO, Mr Duncan Lewis, has publicly stated that espionage and foreign interference is being conducted in Australia on an unprecedented scale. On 7 December 2017 the Prime Minister introduced legislation into the parliament designed to protect Australia from this threat. I refer to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. This legislation is designed to reinforce the strengths of our open democratic system while reducing its vulnerabilities. The central pillar of the government's counter foreign interference strategy is sunlight. That's why we're seeking to introduce a new Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The principle is simple. If a person or entity engages with the Australian political landscape on behalf of a foreign state or principal, they must register accordingly. This will give the Australian public and decision-makers proper visibility when foreign states or individuals may be seeking to influence Australian's political processes and public debates. Both of these bills are before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am the chair. I take my obligations as chair very seriously. I acknowledge the concerns that some have raised about the potential consequences of the bill. We are working through these issues on a bipartisan basis. But the threat remains. It's time we applied sunlight to our political system and a person who has featured prominently in Australian politics over the past decade. This story begins in New York, USA. On 6 October 2015, Sheri Yan was arrested for the transmission and laundering of over US$1 million of bribery money from China to United Nations officials from 2011 to 2014. Officials who accepted the bribes included the 68th President of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe. Yan's arrest and subsequent conviction in 2016 is also significant because of her long-standing connections to Australia through her husband, Roger Uren, a former assistant secretary in the Office of National Assessments. Yan built an extensive network of Australian and Chinese political and business leaders. ASIO raided her Canberra residence the same month of her arrest in 2015 and recovered a cache of classified Australian government documents. All this has been previously reported on, and I do not wish to cover the intricate details of each offence here. But I will now turn to an unsealed indictment, tendered by the Southern District Assistant, United States Attorneys, and focus on one offence that links back to a prominent Australian. I seek leave to table that document and a US state department cable from 2007. Leave granted. Mr HASTIE 260805 I make specific reference to pages 30 and 32 of the indictment, which details how, in 2013, Yan and her associate arranged for a US$200,000 payment to be made to the United Nations General Assembly President Josh Ashe in return for his attendance, in his official capacity, at a conference in China organised by a Chinese real estate developer, referred to in the indictment as co-conspirator 3, or CC-3. Yan and her associate acted in concert with CC-3, arranging the payment of the US$200,000 to Josh Ashe and also a US$25,000 payment for the travel arrangements of his entire team to China. The invitation to Ashe from CC-3 to attend the Guangzhou conference read as follows: After attending this summit, I wish that you would remember that you have sincere friend in Guangdong Province—the economic powerhouse in China. And your friend here has the pleasure to offer you a permanent convention venue for the UN meetings on the sustainability and climate changes in the efforts to fully realise the Millennium Development Goals, as well as for the 193 members of the UN to convene for multilateral discussions on the topics of priority concerns. In the correspondence documented in the indictment, it is clear that Yan had a relationship with CC-3. Yan's associate wrote to Ashe, describing CC-3 as 'an old friend of Sheri who is extremely wealthy'. Yan herself recommended to Ashe that the payment of US$200,000 from CC-3 be arranged through her. Ashe appointed Yan and her associate as his 'Advisers on Economic Matters', with a backdated letter referring to the appointments in an email as 'outstanding requests'. On 4 November 2013, John Ashe confirmed receipt of the US$200,000 from China from one of CC-3's companies. On 17 November 2013, John Ashe attended the Guangzhou conference and gave a speech at the conference. CC-3's real estate company, Kingold, posted a photo of the Chinese and foreign leaders who attended the global summit in Guangzhou. In the photo, CC-3 and John Ashe are standing next to each other. For reasons that are best undisclosed, the United States government did not seek to charge CC-3 for his involvement in the bribery of John Ashe. The bribery does, however, raise the question: what were the objectives of CC-3 in securing Ashe's attendance at the conference? It is not the first time that CC-3 has appeared in US government documentation. The answer may lie in a sensitive US government cable from 2007 that details a conversation between the Guangzhou US Consul General, Robert Goldberg, and a Chinese real estate developer known by his Mandarin name of Zhou Zerong. Zhou was described as 'the well-connected head of the Kingold real estate group' and 'one of China's wealthiest individuals'. Zhou is CC-3. In 2007, he had just become the new head of the Guangdong Overseas Chinese Businessmen's Association. Goldberg wrote that the association's founding meeting clearly had political implications, with participation from several Chinese Communist Party figures, including the director of the United Front department. The United Front is a platform of the Chinese Communist Party that is tasked with influence operations for the People's Republic of China. It aims to influence the choices, direction and loyalties of its targets, with a particular focus overseas on foreign political and business elites. The primary objective of the United Front is to shape thinking and attitudes in a way that is favourable to China. Mao Zedong, for good reasons, described the United Front as one of the three magic weapons of the Chinese Communist Party. Zhou, or CC-3, was no stranger to the United Front. He had assumed leadership of an organisation intimately involved with it. In the final paragraph of the cable, Goldberg wrote that the Guangdong Overseas Chinese Businessmen's Association was essentially a creature of the Chinese Communist Party's United Front program. What do we know thus far? We know that CC-3 was willing to participate in the bribery of the 68th president of the United Nations General Assembly, in 2013. We also know that Zhou, or CC-3, was in close contact with the United Front, the influence arm of the Chinese Communist Party, in 2007. So, what is the connection to Australia? CC-3 is a Chinese Australian citizen. He has also been a very significant donor to both of our major political parties. He has given more than $4 million since 2004. He has also donated $45 million to universities in Australia. The Australian press has reported these matters, and others, and has been sued for defamation by CC-3. CC-3 disputes a number of the reported allegations. The merits of these defamation cases are appropriately left for a court. My concern is that defamation cases can have a chilling effect on our free press. Any attempt to silence our media from telling the truth, provided it is the truth, through a defamation claim cannot stand. Our democracy works only if we have a free press that can publish information that serves the public interest. We don't always like what the press writes, but they are essential to a free and flourishing democracy. The Australian people deserve the truth. As chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I led a delegation to the United States last month to discuss our espionage and foreign interference legislation with US counterparts. During discussions with United States authorities I confirmed the long-suspected identity of CC-3. It is now my duty to inform the House and the Australian people that CC-3 is Dr Chau Chak Wing, the same man who co-conspired to bribe the president of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe, the same man with extensive contacts in the Chinese Communist Party, including the United Front. I share it with the House because I believe it to be in the national interest. My duty first and foremost is to the Australian people and to the preservation of the ideals and democratic traditions of our Commonwealth. That tradition includes a free press. I thank the House. 18:38 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to speak on the appropriation bills that constitute the budget of the government. At the outset, my concern with this budget is that the whole is actually, and perhaps remarkably, rather less than the sum of its parts, bad as most of those parts are, because at the centre of this budget is a void. This is a budget of narrow vision and still lesser purpose. It fails to articulate a sense of where we should be as a nation and as an economy. So, unsurprisingly, it fails to chart a path to shared prosperity, or even to grapple with the task, which should be that of our national government. In place of a plan for growth that is inclusive, this budget represents a commitment to racing to the bottom. When the member for Wentworth auditioned for the role of Prime Minister he was full of optimism. He spoke of innovation and agility, as watchwords for what would be his approach to securing our future prosperity—or 'what would have been' I should say, because his optimism didn't last. It's remarkable how quickly our Prime Minister was diminished as soon as he assumed that great office, but it's unforgivable that he has transposed his own weakness onto those he should be governing for. Australians today are no less capable than then. They are just less supported, less encouraged and less secure, and that is down to him. That this is so represents I believe a moral as well as an economic failure on the part of this government. This is recognised in the alternative contributions to debate on these bills on this budget. On the one hand we have the National Press Club address of the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, which started with a reference to a remote Indigenous community in Central Australia and our responsibility to secure decent lives and agency for the children and all members of that community. On the other hand the Treasurer started off by asking three questions. Members may have missed those three questions because the first one evoked a fair amount of mirth. He asked, rhetorically I believe: 'What have you achieved? What are you going to do now? What is it going to mean to me?' They were the questions he believed Australians wished to have answered. I don't think they were the right questions. The budget ultimately is a statement of where we are and where we should be going. It's not so much, 'What's in it for me?' that Australians want answered. It's: 'What's in it for us? How can we chart a pathway to prosperity that is secure and that is shared? How can we chart a pathway to decent lives? How can we give every Australian an equal chance of fulfilling their potential in life and allow older Australians to enjoy the retirement and the dignity in retirement that they deserve?' At the core of this is an extraordinary piece of symbolism. We see on the one hand cuts to schools—$17 billion—baked in in this budget. These mirror a $17 billion gift to the big banks that's also attempted to be baked in in this budget. This starkly shows the dividing line between the two sides of Australian politics today: blind faith in neoliberalism and blind faith in trickle-down economics on the one hand in defiance of everything we are seeing every day in the banking royal commission, apart from everything else—and I'll get to the 'everything else' later—against a plan built on evidence to invest in the capacity of Australians. I was here for the conclusion of the member for Griffith's speech when she spoke so effectively about the importance of early years. When we talk about the cuts to schools it's important to also focus on the fact that we have a government that continues to put bandaids over early learning when instead we need long-term commitment. Again in this budget, in these appropriations, we have another bandaid. We don't have a secure pathway to ensure that every Australian child starts school having had the benefit of high-quality early years. Again the contrast between our vision for Australians and the capacity of Australians if given the chance to realise their potential and this government, which is so dismissive of them, mirroring their own lack of confidence, is absolutely stark. The shadow Treasurer in his budget reply speech spent a bit of time focusing on things that the Treasurer should have focused on—in particular our broader commitment to investing in human capital and seeing that as absolutely key to unlocking our productivity challenge, mirroring our moral commitment, our faith in Australians and our belief that every Australian is entitled to have the education, the skills and the training to fulfil their potential as well as to make an economic contribution, but recognising that that is our pathway to higher productivity as well as some other investments. That's the other thing that's missing. Today's MPI on infrastructure showed a gaping hole in this budget. The Prime Minister managed to generate some fantastic front-pages in newspapers about infrastructure projects, but it's all smoke and mirrors. Off-book equity finance arrangements are no way to deliver the sort of congestion-busting public transport that our big cities—particularly Melbourne, as I'm sure the member for Lalor will agree—need if we are to do the two things that we need to do in the most urbanised country in the world. The first thing is to make sure that we continue to realise the benefits of agglomeration and of having extraordinary productivity in and around our CBD. That's the first challenge, and that is absolutely hamstrung at the moment by the break on productivity that is the difficulty that my constituents and the member for Lalor's constituents have in accessing those jobs and amenities there. The flip side of this is, if we don't get the infrastructure challenge right in our big cities, we are condemning people in the outer suburbs to live as second-class citizens, to not access the labour markets that they should be able to access and to not access the amenities that they should be able to access, dividing our cities in a way that is simply unjust, as well as a ridiculous break on productivity. I reflected more generally on the Treasurer's second reading speech, and it's interesting that he sets out quite up-front five things that he says we must do. When you scratch the surface, these things—and I think that is an appropriate descriptor—aren't plans and aren't policies; they're just empty words. They are rhetoric. What we have from the Treasurer is a budget by talking point. It is not by theory, other than this blind faith in trickle-down economics and in tax cuts as the only driver for greater productivity. There's no goal at the end of it either. I said that the worst bit about the budget is the absence of a vision for the sort of country he would like to see. Again, the contrast could not be starker, when we look at the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. For us, the appropriations we would make are not an end in themselves. They are a means towards a fairer society and a more equal society, because we see that as a good in itself; but we recognise the economic benefits of reducing the excesses of inequality that we are headed towards under this government. What is particularly egregious—and other Labor speakers have commented on this—is the way in which this rhetoric and these talking points attempt to wrap around a defence of the things that, from conservatives in Australia, are indefensible. Their claims to attach their tax cut agenda to securing Medicare are risible. They are risible on their record and even more so in the face of cuts that, again, are found in the appropriations that constitute this budget. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have set out a clear alternative to this narrow, dark, depressing and unconfident vision of this government. It's not just an alternative to this budget, as I've said before. It's an alternative vision for the country, founded in optimism in the capacity of Australians to compete in the world economy and to look after each other. In Labor, we recognise that this trajectory towards extreme inequality is a problem, and we commit ourselves—and we have committed ourselves, in the detailed work of the shadow Treasurer in particular—to solving this problem. It is a problem at two levels: morally and instrumentally. For me and for all of us on this side of the House, it is bad in and of itself that gaps between the haves and have-nots have increasing dramatically in Australia. We see that particularly as the suburbs in our big cities segment and people lose touch with experiences of life that aren't exactly like their own. We see this in social mobility becoming less and less achievable, with people's destiny being overly shaped by the postcode into which they are born, and our society more generally becoming more stratified, segmented and separated. That's how we think in the Labor Party; that's how we see the world. We think these are things that we should do something about, because they're not good things. We also recognise that beyond our understanding, and beyond our ideological world view, that inequality is a drag on growth, as the IMF have recognised and as the OECD have recognised. This is why we are investing in Australia, through physical infrastructure, and investing in Australians, through developing our human capital. We are putting the money back into schools—that's every cent of the $17 billion this government has cut. We are reopening uni places to kids who are being cut out of uni and priced out of uni by this government and its arbitrary caps and plans to increase fees to unsustainable levels. By the way, that is without—and I'll give credit to the member for Sturt—even having a plan to try to compensate the universities for this. It's cutting without offering the carrot. Their plan for universities, if it can be described as such, is a complete abandonment of a sector that's so important to Australia and to the city I live in. The commitment about abolishing up-front TAFE fees for 100,000 students is a critical driver of skilling young and some not-so-young Australians to equip them for jobs of the future. There is so much in this budget, but I'd like to talk about a couple of things in the time remaining to me. The Treasurer boasts of setting a speed limit on the tax-to-GDP ratio. He can't explain why 23.9 per cent is a magic number; the fact is, it's not. This is his way of cloaking an ideological argument in language less confronting to Australians. He is seeking to commit us to shrinking the state, our vision of the role of government, and our vision of how we support each other—the sorts of things that have characterised Australia's social compact. If he is interested in having an argument about what constitutes the Australian social compact, I think that's a good and respectable argument to have. We will stand up for our strong social wage, we will stand up for our vision of the entitlements of citizenship, and we look forward to having that contest of ideas. It's an important one, which I think we will win. This commitment is a polite way of baking in inequality, of confining people's life choices, of committing people to lives that are less secure and offer less agency than they are entitled to. We see in this budget a reflection of who we are and who we can be, an optimistic vision based on recognising all of our common humanity. Our belief is that talent is shared equally, and it's part of the role of government to ensure it can be equally revealed, because it is becoming increasingly evident that opportunities are not being offered up in any meaningful way to too many Australians, whether it be those kids in Central Australia that the shadow Treasurer has spoken about, or too many kids in the electorate I represent. I want to talk about a particularly vulnerable cohort of people, many hundreds of whom live in the Scullin electorate: asylum seekers awaiting assessment, who have effectively been rendered destitute by decisions of this government. Despite rhetoric from Minister Tudge about finding jobs, the government cut $68 million from jobactive programs for those who have had their claims accepted, which would enable them to equip themselves for the reality of the labour market. This government talks about self-reliance and giving people the capacity to compete in this economy, but then denies it to them. There is almost nothing in this budget for electorate of Scullin. I've talked about infrastructure generally, and I make the point that the state budget offers a very stark contrast, investing in the growing communities I represent, roads, rail and, critically, completing the trail from Diamond Creek to Hurstbridge, a vital bit of active transport and tourism infrastructure that should be completed. The fact that the Liberal government will not support it is a disgrace. I urge government members to think about what's in the Treasurer's second reading speech, what it says about the country that we live in today, and what it says about their vision for the sort of country that he and they are setting out for tomorrow. (Time expired) 18:54 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Following the member for Scullin, as I have, I was sitting here thinking, 'Maybe he's talking about an Australia I don't know.' That might be right, but he wants to paint a very dark and dim picture of Australia and Australians in May 2018. I don't share his pessimism. I'll tell you what is dark and dim: 12 months ago today 415,000 Australians were getting up and embarking on a job search. Those very same Australians, 415,000 of them, are today in employment. That is a product of the plan that we began, the very difficult journey you and I began, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, when we came to this parliament together in September 2013, and we're starting to see the dividends of that very difficult work. The member of Scullin also wants to talk about inequality. I think it's his second-favourite subject after those in his electorate and otherwise in the country who are seeking asylum. His view of equality and mine are very different. He wants to argue for an equality of outcome. I'm passionate about equality of opportunity, and my own family is a great example of this. My parents came separately to this country in 1961—my father, in particular, with a suitcase, nothing more. He has eked out a life for himself. He's educated three children; he has the privilege of grandchildren. While I'm rounding out on the member for Scullin's contribution, we saw there, if you like, the subtle messaging that's going out to Labor Left supporters, and maybe also those in the building. They want to tell us they're on a unity ticket with us in relation to border security, but you hear it every day—anything but. We heard it from the member for Batman in her maiden contribution. We hear it again— Ms Ryan interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 Well, maybe for you. It will always be a maiden contribution for me, Ms Ryan. In that context, let me talk, in this appropriation bill debate, about the budget that was delivered by the Treasurer the last time this place met. What's it about? It's about delivering a stronger economy, an economy that creates yet more jobs—more than the million that we've created since 2013. It's about guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on. In our budget plan, we're delivering tax relief which will encourage and reward hardworking Australians. It will create more jobs by backing small business, boosting exports, building vital road and rail infrastructure, and making energy more affordable. It guarantees essential services like Medicare, hospitals, schools and care for older Australians. It's a budget that's focused on keeping Australians safe. And, of course—and in my view most importantly—it's a budget that ensures government lives within its means. The Australian economy is pulling out of a tough period, but it's making real progress. I've mentioned the 415,000 jobs that have been created in the last 12 months alone, three-quarters of which are full time. As a result of the budget delivered last sitting week, it is expected that the deficit will arrive at a surplus a year earlier. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 If those opposite want to engage in a debate with me, I'm happy to, because, quite frankly, I think we should be proud of this budget. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 The member for Moreton can chime in all he likes, but those opposite hate our plan because that plan is delivering outcomes. Our plan is the very document that's going to deliver us government in 2019 and a further term of opposition to those opposite. Why do I say that? I say that because the member for Scullin in his contribution talked about a dark place, with no opportunity for people in his electorate. Well, maybe that's because he's been speaking to people who are negatively gearing. Under a prospective Labor government, that is a dark prospect. Maybe he's been speaking to people who enjoy refunds via dividend imputation. That's a dark prospect under a Labor government. I don't represent those people; I represent people who are bullish about their prospects, who are enjoying the recovery of the Australian economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I won't bore you with contributions about our tax plan, because it's a tax plan to incentivise Australians, to provide immediate relief to low- and middle-income earners, to deal with the scourge of bracket creep in the medium term and, in the long term, to get into a position where 94 per cent of Australians pay no more than 32.5c in a dollar. Why is that important? It's important because we want to incentivise people to work more. Why is that important? It's important because we want to incentivise people to work more. We want to incentivise people to do the training, to upskill, to become a more valuable contributor to the economy and from their own personal perspective. What about the business tax cuts that those opposite are so opposed to? In my electorate there are 19,201 local businesses with turnovers of up to $50 million. That's 19,201 businesses that would benefit from medium business tax cuts. The member for Scullin, in his contribution, said that there's nothing for his electorate in this budget. That's certainly not the case in my electorate. An honourable member interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 The member opposite bemoans, nothing for her in her electorate in Tasmania. I'm looking forward to the return of Brett Whiteley for Braddon, because he achieved outcomes for Braddon in your state of Tasmania. I know those opposite are very nervous about the outcome of that election. I'm very happy looking forward to the return of Brett Whiteley. But let me talk about my electorate for a minute. Agriculture is so important for my electorate. There's $51.3 million contributing to Australian exports. Honourable members interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 I'm laughing because the contribution of those opposite is so laughable, with respect. Enjoying as I am the contribution from those opposite, I want to highlight forestry. There is $20 million to support the forestry sector. That is very important to my electorate. There is a further round of the Building Better Regions Fund, something my electorate has benefited from significantly in round 1, and let's hope in round 2. Regional health is a real issue for those of us who live in rural, regional and remote communities. The budget strategy will deliver around 3,000 additional doctors and more than 3,000 additional nurses. I welcome the additional funding to Lifeline, which disproportionately services constituents in rural, regional and remote Australia, and of course the funding for mental health research at $125 million over the prospective 10 years. Aged care is a real focus of this budget. There is a lot more to do, I accept that. Those opposite, quite frankly, dropped the ball. They forget that they were in government from 2007 to 2013. Sadly, those opposite don't realise that the damage they wreaked, their inactivity in this space, can't be corrected in a short period. It needs to be corrected long term. Honourable members interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 You know when you've scratched an itch, because those opposite are like the salmon that grabs the worm. They jump on the hook for you. I need to mention my good friend, Brett Whiteley in the seat of Braddon. I'll probably get another one if I throw it out there. He is someone who knows about aged constituents and fighting on their behalf. The people of Braddon won't be hoodwinked this time by Mediscare, I can tell you that much for nothing. The National School Chaplaincy Program is back, I'm pleased to say. It's a fantastic program that deliver pastoral support into schools throughout the country, particularly in my electorate. It's something that school principals were very keen to see reinstated, and it has been reinstated. The program of $3.5 billion for upgrading key freight corridors in the Roads of Strategic Importance program is something I'm focused on squarely. I'm sure those opposite would agree with me about the Stronger Communities Program—it's rolling out yet again a further and fourth round of those small community grants that we can give to not-for-profits, sporting and other groups in our communities that make such a significant difference, whether it's soup kitchens like the Sunset Community Kitchen in Mount Gambier in my electorate, or for example the East Gambier Football Club to ensure they can drought-proof their football oval via rainwater tanks and the water savings that come with that. This is, as I have said, a dividend in this budget that is being been delivered on the back of five years of difficult work. How can we do this? In fact, some in my electorate have said: 'How can you be so generous in this budget? How can you offer the tax relief you are offering and yet return to surplus a year earlier than was planned?' Quite frankly, because we're enjoying the benefits of over a million Australians who— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 when we came to government for those opposite, were unemployed. Over a million Australians who got up this morning were previously unemployed. Indeed, 12 months ago there were 415,000 Australians who were getting up and looking for a job. They were in receipt, no doubt, of some sort of support, as they should be in those circumstances, but today they contribute to the tax receipts of this nation. Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr PASIN 240756 For those opposite, it's a two-goal turn around: no longer are we paying them a benefit to look for a job; they are paying income tax to government, which allows us the flexibility to do the kinds of things that are important to Australians. To list more drugs on the PBS; to invest in infrastructure; to secure more regional doctors and nurses; to provide for further rounds of the Building Better Regions Fund: to do all of these things and yet return to surplus a year earlier than what was planned. Those opposite have a different plan. I think it's probably best described as magic pudding economics. They want to tax less, spend more and have more left over, and you wonder why we think that's a little unbelievable. It's unbelievable. Those across the way think they had found a plan. They say, 'We're going to tax you less, but we're going to spend more and we're going to have more left over.' You know what? I call that rubbish. It's absolute rubbish. It was just like Kevin Rudd in 2007: 'I'm a fiscal conservative.' Sadly, too many Australians fell for that rubbish and we ended up with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. We then saw a proliferation of spending announcements, the kind of unfettered spending that just kept rolling and rolling and rolling and rolling. Mr Perrett interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The member for Morton is warned. Mr PASIN 240756 On the other hand we have a plan. We have a plan that delivers tax relief. We have a plan that creates more jobs and that will back business to create yet further jobs. We've got a plan that will guarantee essential services. We've got a plan that will keep Australians safe. And we've got a plan, most importantly, to ensure that the Australian government lives within its means. I commend the appropriation bills. 19:07 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This budget is so full of smoke and mirrors and hoaxes that I don't even know where to begin. There are so many hoaxes in this budget—whether it be infrastructure, whether it be health, whether it be education—but I think I'll start in my shadow portfolio of aged care. We just heard the member for Barker speak, and we've heard so many on the other side in this place talk about how they've done something wonderful for older Australians in this budget. We know that is not true; they have not. There is not one cent more in this budget over the forward estimates than there was previously. Not one cent. They've come into this place, and they've gone out publicly, suggesting that somehow there's an extra 14,000 homecare packages. And it gets worse, because I've since found out they're spending $8 million of taxpayer money on an advertising campaign that will go out there and say there are 20,000 additional homecare packages available when they know—and they're on the record with this—that they have already put in 6,000 packages as at December last year. It's nothing to do with this budget, but they're going to spend $8 million of taxpayer funds on an advertising campaign that is not true, that says there's an additional 20,000 homecare packages when there is not. There are 14,000 additional homecare packages over four years only. That will not even keep up with demand. There are still 105,000 older Australians sitting on a waiting list for home care packages as at December last year, according to the government's latest figures. That's the government's own figures. The average wait time for a level 3 or 4 package, according to the government, is more than 12 months. More than 12 months! So the government's response is to take some money out of other aged-care services—residential aged care and other services—to fund some more home care packages. And they are funding 14,000 over four years, so an average of 3½ thousand per year. We know that the wait list for home care packages grew by 20,000 people in the last six months of last year. We do not know how many more people have been added to that list this year. The government's data will not be released until June for the March quarter, but I suspect that it has grown yet again, which means, of course, that what the government has done in the budget will not even keep up with demand. We know that there is no new money for aged care and that, in fact, they've taken $8 million out of services to pay for an advertising campaign that is not telling the truth. How is that fair on older Australians? What they're actually going to do is create more demand with fewer services and not be able to fix the problem. They are going to encourage older Australians to apply for services they know they can't deliver. It's outrageous! It's unfair on older Australians, it's unfair on their families and it's a cruel hoax that this government keeps perpetuating. I've called it out in this parliament; I've asked the minister questions in this place and we still keep hearing this ridiculous notion that, somehow, people are going to be waiting less time for their home care packages. And we know it's not true. The minister knows it's not true, the government knows it's not true and it should stop trying to tell older Australians something that is not true. Older Australians are vulnerable enough without the government trying to pretend that it has done something that it hasn't. They are taking money from residential aged care after this government has had three aged-care ministers and ripped billions of dollars out of aged care previously without any consultation with the sector and without any modelling done on how this is going to affect the industry. Quite frankly, it is not okay. And that's just in aged care. We then, of course, still have the zombie measures that affect older Australians in this budget. We have the removal of the energy supplement for new people applying for the aged pension and Newstart. This government wants to take the energy supplement from older Australians who are applying for the pension. It wants to remove it. That measure is still in the budget. And the government, of course, still wants to have older Australians wait until they're 70 to receive the aged pension. That measure is also still in the budget. So how is this good for older Australians? It's certainly not good for my state, which, of course, is the state with the oldest average age in Australia and is also the fastest-ageing state in Australia. But it's also not good for the low-income earners of Tasmania, or of Australia. This government is saying that they've got this great tax plan for individuals and that they're going to provide a tax cut. What they don't say, of course, is that they're also giving big business $80 billion in tax cuts and that they're giving individuals very little at all. People will have heard that Labor has said that we will actually provide more of a tax cut for those low-income earners who have been doing it tough. And they've been doing it tough because wages growth is at the lowest it's been in a generation—the lowest it's been in a very long time in this country, because of this government. This government comes in here and crows about the number of jobs it's created. The truth is that the number of jobs that have been created by this government over the period is normal growth of jobs. It's nothing really spectacular. It is a target that any government could have set and that any government would have met. They haven't done anything spectacular with that either. It is, again, another hoax. Infrastructure: this is another great hoax, where the government is trying to pretend that it's doing something great on infrastructure. Actually, what's happening over the forwards is that there is less investment. We've seen this government underspend on infrastructure when compared to its own estimates over the last three years. In my home state of Tasmania it is really quite dire. We've had no new rail, no new bridges and no new roads in five years under this government. And here we are, on the eve of an election, and the government is trying to pretend suddenly it's got $461 million—or whatever it is—for the Bridgewater Bridge. Tasmanians are not going to believe this, because, before the last election, they came and they said, 'We're going to fix the Hobart Airport roundabout and fund $24 million for that, with $6 million from the state.' We heard today in Senate estimates that that roundabout is not going to be completed until 2022 at the earliest, which shows you how incompetent this government is when it comes to delivering infrastructure. We asked about the Bridgewater Bridge and found out that the Tasmanian state Liberal government only put in a draft business case in January this year. We have no money over the forward estimates for this bridge. The government has no idea when it is going to be built. Quite frankly, Tasmanians have had enough. They've had enough of a government that overpromises and underdelivers and pretends that it's actually doing something for our state, when clearly it is not doing anything for Tasmania. It's almost as if this government has punished Tasmanians for not voting for them at the last election. What we saw at the last election was, of course, Tasmanians remove the Liberals from the lower house. They were removed because the three people who were representing Tasmania could not deliver for our state, because this Liberal government ignored our state, and it continues to do so. The Treasurer has not been to the state of Tasmania in two years. One might ask why that is. Why do you think the Treasurer hasn't come to our state? I suspect it's got something to do with the Productivity Commission inquiry into the GST. He delayed it for the Tasmanian and South Australian state elections from January until just last week when he got it. Now that he's got it, he's delaying the release of it publicly. Tasmanians are wondering why. They're wondering why the Treasurer never comes and they're wondering why the Treasurer won't talk to them about the GST distribution and the Productivity Commission report that he commissioned. I think Tasmanians are pretty concerned about it because, of course, Tasmania does rely heavily on the GST distribution; we do—there's no doubt about it. Tasmanians and the services that Tasmanians rely on are more expensive to deliver. Our state has less ability to raise revenue compared to some of the larger states. So we rely on that revenue to deliver essential services: to deliver police, to deliver education, to deliver health services. Without that GST money it's going to be very difficult for any state government to deliver the services that Tasmanians need, that Tasmanians deserve and that Tasmanians, like the rest of Australians, require to be treated equally as Australians. We want nothing more than to be treated like everybody else in Australia. That is the whole point of being part of a federation. Being part of a federation means that all Australians have equal access to services no matter where they live. We already know Australians in regional and rural areas get less access to essential services, but this is going to be made worse if Tasmania cannot have access to the GST funds that it relies so heavily on. The Treasurer should come down to Tasmania, make the GST report by the Productivity Commission public, and explain to Tasmanians, prior to the Braddon by-election, exactly what the plan is for GST for Tasmania. The people of Braddon have a right to know what is going to happen to our state with the GST distribution, because the biggest risk to Tasmania and the services Tasmanians need is the GST report and what the federal government decides to do on it. We've heard from the state Liberal government that it's all okay: 'The federal government won't do anything. They need all the states to agree.' That is not true. The federal government can make a decision about the GST distribution. Yes, it has to consult the states but it doesn't need their okay and it doesn't need their consent. All it needs to do is consult. It does not need their consent to change the GST distribution and Tasmanians are extraordinarily worried about it. And so they should be, because the Treasurer has hinted there needs to be a transition plan. A transition plan indicates you have a plan to change something. Tasmanians are really worried about where this is headed. There are no assurances in this budget. There are no assurances coming from the government. We had the Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann, and the Prime Minister down in Tasmania last week. It's the first time we've seen a senior government minister in a very long time. As I said, they don't like to come to our state too often. They said, essentially, 'Well, you know, whatever is in the budget papers.' There is not actually very much in the budget papers when it comes to the GST for Tasmania. What they're insinuating is, 'We might just give you what you would have received, what's estimated in the budget papers for the next couple of years, and then we might do something.' That's all that essentially says. There's no guarantee they won't change the formula. There's no guarantee that they remain committed to HFE, horizontal fiscal equalisation, which is the thing treats all Australians the same as part of its distribution method. There are no guarantees that this government is not going to do something to the GST—absolutely none. Tasmanians are really concerned. Tasmanians are also concerned about the federal government's cuts to health and education, to TAFE and to universities. Tasmania needs to invest heavily in education if we are to overcome disadvantage. People will know in this place that Tasmania has a serious issue with children reaching the end of year 12 or equivalent. People would know that our retention rates are not where they should be compared to the rest of the country. People in this place know that Tasmanians and a large number of Tasmanians sadly are still illiterate. People would know that education is a very serious issue in Tasmania, and the only way to address it is to provide options for people close to where they live and to invest in education, to invest in the TAFE system and to invest in university education. For this government to cut all three of those is just outrageous. I cannot believe that the government of the day, when Tasmania is in such a difficult place and when we're striving to actually do better, would do something like this. Tasmanians are flabbergasted that this government wants to cut school funding, TAFE funding and university funding in our state. It will have devastating consequences for generations to come. We then have the health issues that I alluded to. There are cuts to the hospitals in Tasmania. These are hospitals that are already overloaded. We already have some of the longest waiting lists for elective surgery in the country. We already have ambulance ramping. That is where there are not enough beds in a hospital and the ambulance crews have to stay with the patients until they're able to be taken in. We have had really serious issues in southern Tasmania, particularly at the Royal Hobart Hospital, where ambulance ramping has got so bad that there is a risk that ambulances will not be available for people who are having a critical incident. That is how bad it has got in southern Tasmania. We then have a really serious issue with homelessness at the moment where we have a large number of Tasmanians who have nowhere to live. They are facing the intense winter out in the cold. We have a state government and a federal government that seems unable and unwilling to fix this issue. Tasmanians have had enough. There is nothing in this budget for older Australians, there is nothing in it for older Tasmanians and there is nothing in it for Tasmanians at all. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 24