2018-06-21 45 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 21 June 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, 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

Consideration of Senate Message 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG The— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG No! Both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Treasurer can resume their seats. I have a message from the Senate and I'm going to read the message. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, when I stood there was no matter before the House, and by going directly to the message— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat straightaway! I am not going to have a long debate on this. It is incumbent on me when I have a message to read it. I regret the fact that the Manager of Opposition Business has now raised this when there have been many occasions where he has reminded me of just this fact when messages have come from the Senate—let me be blunt—in different circumstances. Now, I have the call and I'm going to read the message. The following message from the Senate has been received. The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the bill for an act to amend the law relating to taxation and for related purposes, and informs the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill with the following amendments: (1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 14 (starting at line 3), omit the table dealing with tax rates for resident taxpayers for the 2024‑25 year of income or a later year of income. (2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 15 (starting at line 6), omit the table dealing with tax rates for non‑resident taxpayers for the 2024‑25 year of income or a later year of income. (3) Schedule 2, item 9, page 17, omit the table dealing with tax rates for working holiday makers for the 2024‑25 year of income or a later year of income. 09:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That the amendments be considered immediately. 09:32 Mr BURKE DYW Watson In speaking to the motion that has been moved— 09:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That the motion be put. 09:36 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [09:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 72 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 09:40 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be agreed to immediately. Mr Burke DYW No, Mr Speaker, that's not the motion before the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be considered immediately. Members must remain in their seats unless they're changing their vote or did not vote in the previous division, in which case they must report to the tellers.

The House divided. [09:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 73 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 09:44 The SPEAKER 00APG I understand it's the wish of the House to consider the amendments together. 09:44 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That the amendments be disagreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, you just said it was the wish of the House to consider the matters together. I've got no idea when the House decided that. I don't know where you got that from. We haven't been consulted on that. If that's the view of the House, in your view, I don't know how you've arrived at that, unless it's only come from the government. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer, on the point of order. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the motion is before the House as you've just stated it, and I move: That the motion be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order. I just have to point out, rather bluntly, that, as he well knows, this is the usual procedure that occurs. I've stated the question, which is that that the amendments be disagreed to. That's the question that I've stated. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer moved it and then I stated the question. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, you stated that it was the wish of the House that the amendments be considered together. I immediately took a point of order, asking where that came from. The SPEAKER 00APG No, that's actually not what happened. I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat. I'm happy to stand corrected, but I was following that very carefully. I did say, 'I understand it's the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.' I then heard from the Treasurer, who moved that the amendments be disagreed to. I then said, 'The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to' and then heard your point of order. So the question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to. I can't help that. That is the question that's before the House. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, how have you determined it's the will of the House to consider the amendments together? The SPEAKER 00APG Because that is the usual procedure. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, on a point of order: ordinarily, if the will of the House is being determined, there is some level of consultation with the opposition. A series of events are happening this morning that are different to how procedure is ordinarily run, and I do ask how on earth the will of the House can be determined without any reference to the opposition. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll hear from the Treasurer. Mr MORRISON E3L I move: That the motion be put. The SPEAKER 00APG No, I'm not going to accept that motion. The difficulty we find ourselves in is that an objection needs to be raised at the time. I called the Treasurer immediately and stated the question. I accept the Manager of Opposition Business then raised an objection, but it needed to be raised immediately. Ms Catherine King interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't need the member for Ballarat interjecting into my left ear. She's not helping me and I suspect she's not helping the Manager of Opposition Business either. The question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to. I can't roll back from that point. That is the question that's before the House. Mr Burke interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I don't feel that I can. I've stated the question. So the question before the House is that the amendments be disagreed to. This is obviously open for debate. The member for McMahon. Mr Bowen DZS Mr Speaker, the question before the House is whether we should submit to this blackmail by the government. The question before the House is— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer. Mr MORRISON E3L The mic's off, muppet. No-one's listening to you. They're not listening to you. Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The mic's off, you muppet. Sit down. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McMahon has the call. Mr Bowen DZS The question before the House is whether this government should get its way. Mr MORRISON E3L I move: That the motion be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [09:54]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 09:58 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

The House divided. [09:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments: Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate Senate Amendments (1, 2 and 3) The amendments proposed by the Senate remove step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan. Step three of the Personal Income Tax Plan simplifies and flattens the tax system by abolishing the 37 per cent tax bracket entirely, reducing the number of tax brackets from five to four. The Plan is a package that gives certainty to Australian families that they will keep more of what they earn in the future. It comprises three steps. Step 1, prioritises low and middle income earners by providing tax relief of up to $530 to help with cost of living pressures. Step 2, protects what Australians earn from bracket creep, ensuring that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours do not get eaten up by higher tax rates. Step 3, by simplifying and flattening the tax system, ensures that, by 2024-25, some 94 per cent of taxpayers will face a marginal tax rate no higher than 32.5 per cent based on projections. High income earners will continue to pay their fair share with the tax system remaining progressive under the Personal Income Tax Plan. For example, a person on $200,000 would pay around 13 times more tax than a person on $41,000. In 2015-16, the top 20 per cent of taxpayers paid around 61 per cent of all personal income tax. Under the Personal Income Tax Plan, this cohort is projected to continue to contribute a broadly similar share in 2024-25. In 2015-16 those on the top tax bracket paid 30.3 per cent of all personal income tax collected. Under the plan those on the top tax bracket will pay around 36 per cent of all personal income tax collected in 2024-25. The Personal Income Tax Plan delivers lower, fairer and simpler taxes to all taxpayers. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments. I move: That the reasons be adopted. 10:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move that the following words be added after 'adopted'— Mr Morrison E3L Mr Speaker— Mr BURKE DYW I'm in the middle of moving— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer can resume his seat for a second; I just want to hear what the Manager of Opposition— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr BURKE DYW I move that the following words be added after 'adopted': 'That the House further advises the Senate in respect of the bill: (a) that last night, in an act of gross incompetence, this government teamed up with Pauline Hanson's One Nation to vote in support of a bill which abolishes all income tax rates from 2024; (b) this is just the latest act from a government, consumed by chaos and incompetence, which has outsourced all economic policy to Pauline Hanson's One Nation; (c) for years One Nation advocated flat tax. Last night, the government adopted the policy and set the rate at zero; (d) the— Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the House has disagreed with the amendments proposed by the Senate, so what motion is the Manager of Opposition Business trying to amend? The SPEAKER 00APG He is moving an amendment to the question before the House, and that is that the reasons be adopted. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left aren't going to get to hear the rest of the Manager of Opposition Business if they keep interjecting. I'm just allowing the Manager of Opposition Business to simply move his amendment. Mr BURKE DYW Yes, Mr Speaker. (d) the government has also dealt with bracket creep by abolishing every tax bracket; (e) the bill which was supported at the third reading stage by the government and One Nation— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer? 10:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That the motion be put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion be put. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides will cease interjecting! I'm not going to have interjections of, 'He can't'. I'm going to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, there have been previous occasions when I have risen and where you believed I was rising on a point of order, and I have then sought to move a resolution. You have said, 'No, you were called for a point of order,' and have not allowed the motion be moved. I ask that the same rule apply to what the Treasurer just did. The SPEAKER 00APG I'm just going to address this point of order. I understand why the Manager of Opposition Business is moving this motion and, whilst I don't like bellowing interjections of advice, the House of RepresentativesPractice is very clear on this matter. I'm prepared to say I can understand why it's confusing for some, if not for many. I was hearing the Manager of Opposition Business move an amendment. The Leader of the House objected to that, but the Manager of Opposition Business is quite entitled to move that amendment. The Treasurer has now moved that the motion be put. The question before the chair is that the reasons be adopted. I will just read from page 308 of the Practice, which states: 'That the question be now put' may be moved while a Member is moving an amendment. It can, and that is what the Treasurer has now moved. Now, to the Manager of Opposition Business on his point of order. Mr Burke DYW The point of order is that you called the Treasurer on a point of order, and when I have been called on a point of order and have then sought to move anything, you have said, 'That's not allowed,' that if you're called for a point of order that's the only reason you get the call. The SPEAKER 00APG No. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I don't mind saying that I wanted to hear the Manager of Opposition Business's motion. The Treasurer didn't jump on a point of order; he jumped to move the closure and, whilst I might have preferred to hear the rest of the motion, the Treasurer's quite entitled to do what he did. He's moved the closure and the question before the chair is that the motion be put. Mr Burke DYW Just to the point of order: does that mean the ruling now is that if we do jump, that even if you believe it was a point order and we're jumping to move a motion that will now be okay? The SPEAKER 00APG No, the point is really quite different. Mr Burke DYW It's different for them? The SPEAKER 00APG No! I'm not going to have that reflection on the chair. I'm really not going to have that reflection on the chair. Mr Burke DYW Speaker, that is what you have just ruled. The SPEAKER 00APG No, what I have ruled is what the Practice states and what the rules are. It's very clear. I've tried to explain it as delicately as I can. I understand that while many members mightn't understand that procedure—I certainly didn't before I became Speaker—it's stated in black and white. You can move an amendment, and it can even be seconded, but, until that amendment is before the chair, the question is before the chair—in this case, that the reasons be adopted—and at any point the closure can be moved. I'm going to labour the point on this because I'm not going to have that reflection. Practice states: … 'That the question be now put' may be moved while a Member is moving an amendment. If this is agreed to, the question on the original question is then put immediately. The motion for the closure of question may also be moved while the Member who has seconded an amendment is addressing the House and, once again, the closure applies … I understand that's not widely appreciated, but it couldn't be more clear. The Treasurer has now moved that the motion be put. That is the question before the House. This has existed for quite a period of time. I'm not going to go through all the precedents, but there are certain members who are very familiar with it. The question is that the motion be put.

The House divided. [10:10]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:14 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the reasons be adopted.

The House divided. [10:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Katter, RC Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 64 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 MOTIONS 12 MOTIONS Taxation 12 10:15 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately: That the House (1) notes that    (a) gross debt has grown to a record half a trillion dollars under this government;    (b) last night, in an act of gross incompetence, this government teamed up with Senator Pauline Hanson's One Nation to vote to support a bill which abolished all income tax rates from 2024. This is the latest act from a government consumed by chaos and incompetence which has outsourced all economic policy to Pauline Hanson's One Nation;    (c) for years One Nation has advocated flat tax. Last night the government adopted this policy and set the rate at zero;    (d) the government has also dealt with bracket creep by abolishing every single tax bracket; and    (e) the bill which was supported last night at the third reading stage by the government and One Nation will open up a budget black hole of $240 billion every single year once implemented; and (2) condemns this government for its gross economic incompetence. Those opposite have now completely outsourced the economic policy of this nation to Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. We'll hear in question time today from the Treasurer and he'll say, 'Labor voted for this, Labor voted for that,' but he won't say what the government voted for last night. What he won't acknowledge is that last night every single one of their senators voted that from 2024 there will be no income tax at all, none—$240 billion wiped off the Commonwealth revenue sheet! They could now get from half a trillion to a trillion dollars in gross debt in just two years. The Treasurer has found a way of doing that in just two years. No wonder they wanted to shut down debate today! Have we ever seen a situation before where, for what is meant to be the centrepiece of their budget strategy, they won't even allow a single speech from the shadow Treasurer—not one speech? A government that's confident of its credentials doesn't need to shut down debate. A government that's not humiliated by teaming up with Senator Pauline Hanson doesn't need to shut down debate. Those opposite decided that they won't let working Australians have a tax cut unless they personally get one too. That's what Senator Hanson did, that's what the Treasurer did and that's what the Prime Minister did. They wouldn't let the workers get a tax cut unless they got one too. That's the sort of government that needs to shut down debate. But a government that's confident of the economy, a government that's confident of what it's doing, doesn't need to do what it did in this House today. For years we've heard One Nation argue this ridiculous position of flat tax, and we've heard the government talk about needing to get rid of bracket creep. But who would have thought that, last night, those opposite would've gone: 'Bingo! We've worked it out—let's just abolish tax; let's just abolish it all! That will work. That will be the option.' And every single one of them voted for it last night. So, today, when we've got the bill and we're giving the reasons to the Senate and telling them what they did, the government wants to hide the fact that what it did last night was the most extraordinary example of fiscal recklessness we will ever see. We've had people in this House come up with harebrained schemes before. We've had people on the crossbench in the Senate at different points come up with really wild ideas. But no-one has ever done what Liberal and National party senators did last night with One Nation. Nobody before has ever said the answer is to abolish all taxation, all these tax brackets. Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW They say it's been a disincentive. So what's the ultimate incentive? The ultimate incentive, from their end, is to abolish all taxation. There is a bit of a problem with that. The first problem— Government members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW You then make a choice. Do you abolish all the services that it was going to fund, or do you just let debt go all the way up? What's the government's answer to that? They have found a way to do both. Remember all the talk of debt and deficit before they came to office? Remember that they voted to abolish the debt cap? And where has that got us? Half a trillion dollars in gross debt. And now they have found a way to add an extra half a trillion dollars to it every two years. The level of incompetence from this Treasurer was marked from the time he got the job. When he got the job, he brought in a $107 million hole in legislation. He has been coming into this place without a shred of anything other than anger. Who needs argument, who needs rationality, when you can get really cranky? Who needs to put any sort of rational argument together when you have that one mode? Turn the switch, and then it is anger. What doesn't come over on the microphone when people watch question time at home—we feel for them, but there are some people who do it!—is all the interjections when the Treasurer gets up. They say, 'Mate, why don't you use anger this time? Why don't you get a little bit cranky this time?'—because that's the only mode he's got. The evidence is that he believes in getting debt and deficit higher than the nation has ever seen before. If he wants to do something about bracket creep, the answer he has come up with is not just to abolish one bracket but to abolish the lot. When you outsource your economic policy to Pauline Hanson's One Nation, be careful what you wish for. What happened last night is no accident. One Nation would have thought it was terrific, and the Liberal and National parties would have thought it's now just what they do. The way they have behaved this term has changed fundamentally since One Nation returned to the federal parliament. Before One Nation was in the parliament, can we remember a minister for immigration saying it was a mistake to let people into this country based on their race and religion? Once One Nation were here, that happened. Before the election, did we hear anything from those opposite about needing a university-level English test for citizenship? No. But One Nation arrived and, all of a sudden, that happened too. And last night we saw that it is not just their immigration policies; it is not just their citizenship policies: the government have now gone the full way and are adopting the economic policies of the One Nation party. Those opposite can be really proud, because no other government has managed to achieve what they have achieved. We are half a trillion dollars in debt now and another half a trillion dollars of gross debt will be added every two years. If we are worried about going too hard on the top end of town, they fixed that last night. It doesn't matter how much you earn; what they voted for last night is not one cent of income tax from 1 July 2024. Labor stood up in the Senate and moved a consequential amendment to fix this. We thought: it is probably reasonable that income tax exists; it is probably not an outrageous position! But what did they do? They said, 'We know what Labor's up to!' Immediately upon hearing that, they said: 'Quick, Senator Hanson. We're with you. We'll stop them. We'll make sure income tax doesn't continue beyond 2024'—and they voted to prevent it. So that was what we had in front of the parliament. Procedurally the government did everything they could to try to make sure this wasn't revealed when their own backbench was present. They went to lengths I haven't seen in the parliament before to make sure that people were unaware of what bill had reached this House. The bill that had reached this House was Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party to a T. It was a policy, before this House only minutes ago, that abolished all income tax revenue; that set the rate at zero; that added half a trillion dollars to debt every two years. I wish we had a Treasurer who at least had the courage to acknowledge that what happened in the Senate last night was a little bit silly—but no. No, he will respond in the only way he knows. Beware the anger, because there is no-one running the economy. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:25 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It is, Mr Speaker. I second the motion. It is a big day for the Turnbull government. It is a big day for this Treasurer. The government are doing what they do best: they are engaging in recklessness and engaging in unfairness, and they're not very competent as they go about it. This is a government which insists on its will. Last night the Senate carried legislation which provides income tax relief for all Australians from 1 July—a good thing. But the Senate said, 'Enough is enough; no stage 3. We're taking stage 3 out. We say we're not supporting legislation which has $42 billion in costs, which grows at 12 per cent a year and which then goes entirely to the top 20 per cent of income earners. The Senate said, 'No. Enough is enough.' And the government say, 'We insist.' And not only do they insist, but they are incompetent as they go about it. As the Manager of Opposition Business said, they voted for zero tax rates from 2024. That's what they did, with One Nation. The Labor Party and I pay tribute to the Greens for voting with us to protect tax in Australia—more economically responsible than the government of the day, the Liberals and the National Party, who said, 'That's okay.' No wonder the Treasurer wants the amendments disagreed to; he's realised what his senators have done in abolishing income tax. We know that this government is irresponsible, we know that this government doesn't want to fund essential services into the future and we know that it wants to give away this tax base for Australia's future. This is a Treasurer who says, 'This is so urgent. It is so urgent that we pass these tax cuts for 2024.' Well, the fact of the matter is that 1 July 2024 is 72 months away. It is two parliaments away. It is 12 budget and mid-year economic statements away. This Treasurer, more than anybody else, should know that a lot can change between budget statements. It was the last budget statement where he was telling us that we needed a $44 billion tax rise, that anybody who opposed it was un-Australian and that anybody who opposed it was irresponsible. Now, in between that budget statement and the following budget, we've gone from a $44 billion tax rise to a $140 billion tax cut—a $184 billion turnaround—but this Treasurer seems to magically know what he can afford in 2024. I'll tell you why he knows it: because he knows who it is going to. It's going to Australia's high-income earners, and that's his No. 1 priority. He has the gall, he has the hide, to go to the Senate crossbench and say, 'I will hold a gun at the head of tax relief for low- and middle-income earners.' It is moderate tax relief, $10 a week, but this Treasurer is willing to hold a gun to the head and say, 'I will not let that tax relief pass unless you give me the reckless policy of stage 3.' They even got stage 2 through, but that's not enough for them. Oh, no. They want the lot. This Treasurer wants the lot. I don't think this Treasurer will be in the House in 2024, let alone be the Treasurer of Australia. He is determined to deliver it now. I'm not sure that this Prime Minister will be here in seven weeks, let alone seven years. But they are determined to deliver this, because this says it all about their priorities. They are a government who are prepared to vote against Labor's better, fairer tax cuts but insist on their own. Under Labor's better, fairer tax cuts, I'll tell you who is better off: 73 per cent of taxpayers in New South Wales; 74 per cent of taxpayers in Victoria; 75 per cent of taxpayers in Queensland; 71 per cent of taxpayers in Western Australia—you might have heard of the voters of Perth and Fremantle, although you're not turning up; 76 per cent of taxpayers in South Australia; 77 per cent of taxpayers in Tasmania—many Tasmanians will have the chance to have a say about this in a few weeks; 75 per cent of taxpayers in the ACT; and 76 per cent of taxpayers in the Northern Territory. All those taxpayers will be better off under Labor's tax plan, and they don't need that tax relief held hostage so that this Treasurer can engage in his fiscal recklessness. History will not judge this government well. History will not judge this Treasurer well. When tax cuts are baked into the budget numbers, this Treasurer's incompetence, recklessness and addiction to unfairness will be judged by history. 10:30 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook They're not happy, are they? They're not happy. I'll tell you what they're not happy about. They're not happy that a million jobs have been created since this government was first elected in 2013. They're not happy that the unemployment rate is falling. They're not happy that we've turned the corner and we've wrestled Labor's runaway debt to the ground and we're turning that debt around. When we came to office it was running at 30 per cent a year. They're not happy that 3.1 per cent is now the growth rate of the Australian economy. They're not happy about that. They're not happy that the deficit has halved in the last couple of years and that it'll come back into surplus in 2019-20, a year earlier than had been projected. They're not happy the AAA credit rating has been retained when, all the way through, over the last few years, the shadow Treasurer, in particular, has been seeking to goad ratings agencies into downgrading Australia's credit rating. They're not happy that the jobs and growth that the Turnbull government pledged at the last election are being delivered, and are being delivered in spades. The Turnbull government has a plan for a stronger economy, and it's a plan that is working. That is demonstrated in the more than 10 per cent growth in non-mining investment in the most recent national accounts. This is five times the historical average, turning around the investment story in this country. Do you know how that happens? It happens because of lower taxes and understanding that, when businesses and individuals are given the opportunity to keep and invest their own funds, it gives them hope, it gives them aspiration, it gives them incentive and it gives them purpose. That is what leads to the results that we're seeing in our economy today. Our plan for a stronger economy is working. The plan for a stronger economy was set out in the budget, a strong document which sets out a strong plan to deliver the growth that we pledged and the jobs that follow from it. That plan has five key points that I set out in this budget. The first of those was lower taxes—lower taxes for personal income tax and lower taxes for businesses to ensure they remain competitive. Having lower taxes relieves the pressure on households, but it also empowers those households. The plan that has been voted on in this place today is a plan that the Labor Party voted for in full when it first came into the House, and now they've voted against it. They voted for it; they voted against it; they voted on at least two other options in the last few weeks. You cannot trust a party that cannot keep its line straight when it comes to tax. Who knows what the Labor Party believes on taxes? Ms O'Dwyer LKU Higher taxes! Mr MORRISON E3L I haven't got the faintest idea what they believe on taxes, except for one thing—as the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services reminds us—which is that they should be higher. It's pretty simple: under Labor, the taxes are going on; under the coalition, the taxes are coming off. That's what it is—tax on under Labor; tax off under the coalition. That's the simple contrast. Before the budget, I made it very clear that the contrast and the choice that will exist for the Australian people before the election is: do they want to pay more under Labor? Do they want to pay more in more taxes? Do they want to pay more in higher electricity prices with their reckless renewable energy targets and their reckless emissions reduction standards? Do they want to pay more for electricity? Do they want to pay more for private health insurance? They will pay more and more and more under Labor—for one simple reason: Labor cannot control their spending. They have no capability of controlling their spending. We are pleased that our plan for lower taxes—and, in particular, personal income taxes—has today gained the support of this House, and we look forward to it having the support of the other chamber today. That will be not only a message from this parliament that the budget, which is a strong plan for a stronger economy, is passing this parliament but also a message to Australians all around the country that there's tax relief for all Australians. This is tax relief that is provided for by a strong economy—not by taxing some more, but by ensuring that all will receive that relief. We believe that every Australian, no matter what job they have or income they pay, should get tax relief, because they're all putting in. It is true in this country, under our progressive system as we designed it and as we endorse, that those on higher incomes pay higher rates of tax, but, as the studies showed yesterday, the households that are in the top 20 per cent of income in this country pay more than 50 per cent of the taxes in this country—actually, it's closer to 60 per cent. That's how it is, because those who've done better and have greater means are ensuring that the benefits of hospitals, schools, pension payments, welfare payments and all of these can be provided for. That is largely done by them, and the burden of taxation is carried largely by those who do better—and they do so, pleasingly, in this country on the basis that they know that that's the fair society in which they live. But there's got to be a limit. There has to be incentive; otherwise, it's the image of that snake eating itself from the tail— Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Those opposite jest at this, but what they don't understand is that if you tax your economy too hard and too high it eats the economy. The shadow Treasurer used to believe this. He used to have as a mentor Paul Keating, who used to talk to him of aspiration and speaking to that aspiration. Ms O'Dwyer LKU Not anymore. Mr MORRISON E3L Not anymore. He's mystified by aspiration as much as the member for Sydney is. I've been wondering: why has the shadow Treasurer gone from supporting competitive tax rates for businesses to opposing them? Why has he gone from supporting personal income taxes based on aspiration to opposing them? Let's not make any mistake today: the Labor Party today is voting to cut in half a personal income tax plan that will deliver more than $140 billion in tax relief to Australians right across the country—to everybody paying tax. They want to cut that in half. That's what they're doing: they're taking a $140 billion plan and turning it into a $70 billion tax relief measure. That's what they're doing: they're cutting tax relief in half with this measure. What has caused this massive change from the shadow Treasurer? He's clearly got another mentor. That mentor must be the member for Sydney. The other week he was going out there and repeating that ridiculous line that, somehow, in the tax system you have pink forms and blue forms when it comes to introducing income tax! He was embarrassed to repeat it, but he dutifully went out there making an absolute embarrassment of himself—and he knows he did. It was absolutely incredible that he could drag himself to be so humiliated, to put such a ludicrous argument out in the public debate. So we know who the shadow Treasurer's new mentor is: it's the member for Sydney, the professor of economics and tax policy known so well around the country—and let's not forget geography. We're backing business to create more jobs. There is record jobs growth under the Turnbull government. The stronger economy is guaranteeing the essentials that Australians rely on. Those sitting up in Longman today, those sitting down in Braddon and those sitting out in Mayo, where the Liberal and National parties are with our candidates, know this— Mr Burke DYW What about WA? Mr MORRISON E3L And in WA, for sure, because it's important for them, too, that they understand this. They need to understand that, when you hear a Labor Party member say, 'We're going to do this on hospitals,' or, 'We're going to do this on education,' or, 'We're going to do this on disabilities,' or, 'We're going to do this', it means nothing unless you have a plan for a stronger economy. You cannot take Labor's promises to the bank, because when Labor gets into power there's nothing in the bank, because they cannot manage the budget and they cannot run a stronger economy. It's just not in their DNA. What's in their DNA is spend, spend and spend, which means tax, tax and tax—more than $200 billion in higher taxes, which they've added $70 billion to today by opposing this measure. How high does it go? When is too much tax too much for the Labor Party? The answer is never. The sky's the limit. The shadow Treasurer used to believe in a tax cut. In fact, he said we would be judged on if taxes rose above 23.7 per cent. Gone is the tax cap, because he is unable to control the spending of his colleagues. If he were to ever sit in the Treasurer's chair, the budget would go into disrepair, because he hasn't got the strength to manage it. We are living within our means as a government. We are creating the stronger economy that Australians need and that guarantees the essentials that Australians rely on. Our record speaks for itself. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

The House divided. [10:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 63 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ 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 Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ (teller) Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 17 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 17

Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018

First Reading 17 Second Reading 17 10:50 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Like so many millions of Australians, throughout my life I too have had multiple superannuation accounts. I had three accounts by the time I started my first full time job, and afterwards had four. And like so many Australians, by the time I really focused on it, I found I had five accounts, three of which had been eroded to virtually nothing through fees, charges and insurance premiums. The money that had come out of my wages had simply been consumed by the now $2.6 trillion superannuation sector. There was no benefit to me back then, and certainly none for my retirement. As Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, I am well aware of the widespread nature of this problem. Almost every week someone writes to me to express their shock and disappointment at realising their hard-earned retirement nest egg has been eaten away. Or that the growth of their children's, partner's or other family member's balance has been stunted before it had truly had the chance to start. The fact is, how well or how poorly your fund performs means absolutely nothing if your account balance is eroded to zero, or close to zero. In a compulsory system, it simply isn't good enough. And it's why the government, through this bill, is taking action to ensure people's hard-earned savings are protected from inappropriate fees, insurance arrangements and the inefficiencies which result from holding multiple accounts. This bill does so by amending the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953to improve the superannuation regulatory system. Firstly, the bill will address the negative consequences of Labor's 2013 abolition of low-balance protection as part of the MySuper changes. Low-balance accounts are particularly vulnerable to erosion by fees and charges. However, because of decisions made by the now Leader of the Opposition, there are no special protections in place to prevent low-balance accounts from being eroded. Under the current rules for MySuper products, fees are generally required to be charged to all members on the same basis. Unfortunately, doing so can lead to significant erosion for low-balance accounts, particularly where flat fees are imposed on small accounts receiving little or no contributions. Schedule 1 to this bill addresses this problem by preventing trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees exceeding three per cent per annum on the balance of accounts below $6,000. Based on the most recent data, it's estimated around seven million Australians will save around $570 million in fees in just the first year, thanks to the government's reforms. Schedule 1 also prevents trustees from charging exit fees on any superannuation product, no matter the member's balance. Currently, exit fees act as a disincentive for people to move money between funds when they wish to consolidate accounts. According to APRA data, approximately one-third of funds charged an exit fee in 2016-17, with all the fees collected across the industry totalling $52 million. In combination, this schedule will prevent erosion of low-balance accounts by high passively incurred fees, and will remove a disincentive to account consolidation or rollovers by members. Schedule 2 to this bill will address the provision of insurance through superannuation. The government recognises that insurance through superannuation is valuable for many Australians. Through the consultation process for this package, I heard of numerous examples of how people have benefitted from having insurance in times of need. However, what is not always mentioned, and what people continue to write to me about, are those circumstances where a significant proportion of their retirement savings—quite often their entire account balance—is eroded by insurance premiums. The now Leader of the Opposition's 2013 changes required trustees of default MySuper products to provide automatic life insurance on an opt-out basis. This has resulted in some members paying for cover they do not know that they have, that goes beyond what they need, or which they cannot even claim on. Insurance premiums can also reduce low-income earners' retirement balances by 10 per cent or more, compared to having no insurance, with the impact increasing with every additional set of policies held by an individual. Through this bill, the government will ensure that members who are at particular risk of account balance erosion will not have insurance provided on a default basis unless they have directed otherwise. We will put members first and give them the choice. Specifically, schedule 2 of the bill will require that insurance be provided on an opt-in basis only for: members with balances below $6,000; accounts which have not received a contribution for 13 months or more; and new members from 1 July 2019 who are under the age of 25. These changes will give around five million people the option to save up to an estimated $3 billion in premiums each year. The government of course recognises that many individuals already assess their insurance needs and make informed decisions to hold accounts with a certain level of insurance. To ensure this measure does not disadvantage those engaged members, the legislation allows for a member to elect to obtain or maintain existing insurance cover, and where they do so, they will not be affected by the changes in this bill. As a result of the deliberate decision to entrench superannuation within the industrial relations system in this country, when someone starts a new job, they are often directed—sometimes forced—to put their money into a different fund. For many Australians, this results in multiple accounts, multiple sets of fees and multiple insurance premiums. I recently met with someone who had seven accounts. After he heard the news about how much it could cost him in retirement savings, he consolidated them. But he had already been charged seven sets of fees and insurance premiums for far too long, costing him goodness knows how much. This is by no means an isolated example. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that as at 30 June 2017, of the 14.8 million people who had a superannuation account, 40 per cent had more than one account. Amazingly, around 1.2 per cent or about 176,000 individuals held six or more accounts. The Productivity Commission, in its groundbreaking draft report on the efficiency and competitiveness of the superannuation system, estimated that one in every three accounts were unintended duplicates. The government knows that multiple accounts mean multiple fees and multiple sets of insurance premiums, ultimately leading to tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars less at retirement. That is why, through schedule 3 to this bill, the Australian Taxation Office will, for the first time, be given the ability to proactively return the balances of inactive accounts, along with existing unclaimed superannuation moneys, to their rightful owner. The ATO estimates that it will be able to reunify amounts within a month of receiving the funds. Under this schedule, from 1 July 2019, funds will also be required to transfer all inactive accounts without insurance cover and with a balance below $6,000 to the ATO. Upon doing so, these accounts will be protected from fees and charges and the ATO can use data-matching techniques to reunify the amounts with an active superannuation account. As a result of these changes, in just the first year around three million members will be automatically reunited with around $6 billion of their own money. Importantly, the changes in the bill will not replace existing account consolidation processes, which will remain available to members. The changes will simply supplement the current arrangements and streamline consolidation for disengaged members, ensuring that Australians' superannuation savings are better protected. Consistent with the government's continued focus, the measures in this bill are deliberately targeted at improving outcomes for members. Following their announcement, the Financial Services Council said it 'welcomes the government's package of reforms to reduce the erosion of Australian's superannuation balances as well as promoting consolidation of super accounts as a positive policy step that will lead to better retirement outcomes'. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees labelled the new ATO reunification powers 'welcome measures for the efficiency of the super system'. While consumer advocates CHOICE have suggested the reforms 'will make a huge difference to the retirement savings of millions of Australians'. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who engaged with the consultation process. I appreciate from the industry's perspective this will involve some substantial changes. However, I firmly believe that this bill, which will benefit young members, members with low balances such as low-income earners and members with multiple accounts, is in the best interest of all Australians. After all, we must never forget the most important foundation stone in superannuation—your superannuation is your money. It is not the government's, not the industries', not the bank executives', not the shareholders', not the employers', and not the trade unions'. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme 20 Report 20 11:02 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report, entitled The provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—The committee has considered issues around the provision of hearing services in the NDIS for a considerable time. Initially it was a relatively straightforward inquiry, with the focus on how a reportedly successful, low-cost and efficient program could be adapted to meet the needs of the NDIS. However, the inquiry has exposed what the committee believes are fundamental issues within the scheme, specifically in relation to the provision of hearing services that go to the very design and operation of the scheme more generally. The development of a scheme like the NDIS will require adaptation and modification over time. No new scheme—recalling that the NDIS is the first of its kind in the world—is immutable to change. It is important to recognise, as early as possible, where change is required and to implement it. Such is the case with hearing services. In this report, the committee has examined a number of issues relating to the provision of hearing services, including guided pathway packages. The committee is of the view that the scheme should be adapted to suit participants, rather than the other way around, and that the continuing pursuit of a model of 'choice and control' may be at the expense of participants' outcomes. Considering that the lack of a guided pathway has the potential to cause lifelong disadvantage to children, it would be negligent of the agency to not provide families with a guided pathway. Introducing a guided pathway would not preclude families from choosing to divert from the pathway if they so desired, but it would ensure that, for those who desire prompt access to services, any unnecessary delays due to poor knowledge or uncertainty are mitigated. Guided pathways are intended to help newly diagnosed families with limited knowledge about disability understand their available support options and empower them to make informed decisions. The committee is not proposing to dictate a pathway to a particular provider. The committee wants to ensure participants have access through an honest independent broker to the information and the resources (adequate plans) to undertake transdisciplinary therapies to achieve the best possible outcomes with a specialist provider of their choice that is operating in their area. The National Disability Insurance Agency has the resources to undertake due diligence of the 10 or so main providers. In the committee's view, the agency's reluctance to carve a preferred pathway from the scheme is unreasonable. Implementing a preferred pathway at this time would not preclude the NDIA from refining it in the future, but the approach would at least guarantee that children with a hearing loss today are given the best possible chance to attain acceptable outcomes in the interim. The committee does not want to wait until the evidence that the new processes are delivering worse outcomes than the previous system until changes are made. The evidence for the effectiveness of the previous model is compelling. Outcomes data published annually by First Voice member centres demonstrates that children in members' organisations regularly match or surpass their peers, with over 70 per cent achieving age-appropriate results by the time they commence school. The results show that the majority develop into independent, contributing members of society, with high levels of education, social participation and full-time employment. The committee has made three recommendations in this report: Firstly, in relation to early intervention, the committee recommends that the NDIA contract Australian Hearing as the national ECEI partner for early intervention hearing services for families of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Secondly, in relation to transdisciplinary packages, the committee recommends that the NDIA reintroduce transdisciplinary packages quotes from specialist service providers for children who are deaf and hard of hearing and require access to early intervention services. Thirdly, the committee recommends that the Australian government put in place an arrangement similar to 'Jordan's Principle' in Canada to ensure that a child-first approach is taken in relation to the delivery of services for children with a hearing loss. I commend the report to the House. BILLS 21 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 21

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018

Second Reading 21 11:07 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. This bill proposes to extend the cashless debit card trial to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. If this bill is successful, all recipients of Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payments and other payments in the electorate of Hinkler, and who are under 36, will be forced to become trial participants. They will be forced. The cashless debit card quarantines 80 per cent of an income support payment onto a special debit card that cannot be used to purchase alcohol, gamble or buy gift cards that could, in turn, be used to purchase alcohol or gamble. It is expected that around 6,700 people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay would become trial participants. Labor does not support this bill. As we've said many times now, Labor supports genuine community driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. We believe they must be genuinely community driven, not driven from the top down. Labor does not believe in a blanket approach to income management. We do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Let me repeat that, because I know there is a lot of misinformation on social media about this issue. Let me be very, very clear: Labor does not support any nationwide rollout of the cashless debit card. Labor understands that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. We understand that income management simply isn't necessary for many people. Labor has said all along that it will talk to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. After hearing the evidence presented to the Senate inquiry, and speaking with people in Bundaberg, it is absolutely clear that the community in Bundaberg do not want to be part of this trial of the cashless debit card. They do not want it in their town. The mayors of both local government areas in the trial region—Bundaberg and the Fraser Coast shire—oppose the introduction of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. That is a very important point that Labor has considered in our decision. The Mayor of Bundaberg, former LNP stalwart and Queensland state minister Jack Dempsey, says his community has turned against the cashless debit trial after learning the cost. Key groups from the Bundaberg region felt ignored by the government's consultation process on this issue. This is another really important point we have considered. Representatives from the Gidarjil Development Corporation explained that Gidarjil is probably the largest Indigenous organisation in Bundaberg and there hasn't been any approach on any matter, including the rollout of this trial, from the federal minister. That is a very telling fact—top down. Representatives from a community advocacy group in Bundaberg explained to the Senate inquiry that there has been little to no public consultation, and what consultation has taken place has been done behind closed doors. Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the Liberals can show that they have agreed formal consultation processes with the community, as well as an agreed definition of consent. The flawed evaluation is another important point to consider. On top of that, the ORIMA evaluation into the effectiveness of the existing trials in Ceduna and East Kimberley is inconclusive at best. The evaluation has been criticised by leading academics, and there is insufficient credible evidence at this point to support the establishment of further trials. Janet Hunt, the Deputy Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University, said the evaluation showed that the cashless debit card had not actually improved safety and violence, despite that being one of the trial's objectives. Hunt is critical of the methodology used in the ORIMA evaluation. She argues that people interviewed for the evaluation may have told interviewers that they drank less than when the trial began but that such recall over a year is not likely to be very reliable. Furthermore, people had to give their identification to the interviewer. They may have said exactly what they thought the interviewer wanted to hear. They certainly would not have incriminated themselves. This is particularly true for the Aboriginal population, who, for historical reasons, are likely to view authority figures with deep suspicion. Yet last year the former Minister for Human Services described the cashless debit card trials as a huge success. And the Prime Minister himself has said that the card has seen a massive reduction in alcohol abuse, drug abuse, domestic violence and violence generally. But Janet Hunt made it clear that this was not the case. She stated that 'someone needs to tell them that the report does not say these things at all'. This is important because the government's argument for expanding the rollout of this card rests very heavily on this evaluation. When participants were asked about the impact of the trial on their children's lives, only 17 per cent reported feeling their lives were better as a result. To be very frank, I thought the ORIMA evaluation was substandard and I don't believe any government should be making significant policy decisions off the back of such poor-quality evaluation. Labor will only consider the further expansion of the cashless debit card trial sites when there is much greater evidence—and credible evidence—of its effectiveness. The cost of the rollout of the cashless debit card is a very important consideration in this debate. We know that the government has already paid $7.9 million to the debit card provider, Indue, and almost $1.6 million to ORIMA Research to provide a poor-quality evaluation. That is well over $8 million in total. Labor understands that the current accrued cost of the cashless debit card trial is around $24 million for the two sites to 15 March 2018. That is over $10,000 per head. There is a better way to achieve the objectives, and it is quite extraordinary that we are debating this bill today without any indication from the minister about how much it will cost taxpayers to roll out the card at Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. In fact, they still haven't said how much the trial at the Goldfields is costing, despite the fact that the trial has been operating there since early May. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a local council in Bundaberg did a survey which showed that when locals were told how much the trial program would cost to administer, support for the trial in the community dropped to just 26 per cent. So the government are deliberately avoiding telling us the cost per head for political reasons. This is simply unacceptable. The government must say how much the trial at Bundaberg-Hervey Bay will cost, as well as the costs for the trials in the Goldfields in Western Australia. It is important to note that Labor supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and supports them continuing until mid-2019 to allow more time for a reliable evaluation to determine whether they have been successful. In April last year, the shadow minister for human services, Jenny Macklin, and I went to the East Kimberley to meet with community leaders in Kununurra and Wyndham. We met with the Waringarri, Binarri-binyja yarrawoo, Gawooleng Yawoodeng and Ngonowar-Aerwah Aboriginal corporations, along with the Wunan Foundation, Kununurra hospital, St John Ambulance services, Kununurra police, the Moongong Sobering Up Shelter, East Kimberley Job Pathways and the then Department for Child Protection and Family Support—a fairly significant consultation in anyone's estimation. The feedback we received on the cashless card in the East Kimberley was mixed. Some people were in favour of the card and others were strongly opposed. Many people thought the card was just worth trialling. Ian Truss, head of the Wunan Foundation, described the card as a potential circuit-breaker for his people. St John Ambulance in Kununurra said the call-outs for alcohol related violence had gone down. At a Senate inquiry, the Western Australia Police Force released data on domestic assaults. The 12 months to 30 June 2017 saw 508 domestic assaults in Kununurra. For the 12 months previous to that, 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, there were 319. Now, that is an increase. I also had the opportunity to visit the women's refuge in Kununurra and to talk to some of the women staying there. They did not have a positive view of the cashless card. They told us that life had gotten harder with the card, that there was more violence and more crime as cash had become scarce. Others said that the sly grog trade meant that there were ways that people could easily get around the card if they wanted to buy grog. A common sentiment that I heard across the week was that things were so bad in the local community that they were willing to give anything a go. Essentially, they supported the cashless card not out of hope but out of despair. We've continued talking with people in the local community in the period since our formal consultation. So Labor takes a very clear-eyed view of this issue. We are not being ideological in our approach to this issue. We have a set of guiding principles and that determines our position on this debate. In summary, Labor does not support this bill. We don't support the expansion of the card to Bundaberg and the Hervey Bay area. The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry, as well as our own consultations, shows that people in the community of Bundaberg do not want the cashless debit card in their town. As I said, mayors of both local areas in the trial region—Bundaberg and Fraser Coast shires—publicly oppose the introduction of the cashless debit card in Bundaberg-Hervey Bay. The ORIMA evaluation into the effectiveness of the existing trials, which the government relies on so heavily, is inconclusive at best. And I have to say that I have read, very closely, that evaluation, and it is of a poor quality. It certainly should not be relied on by the government and it should not be misrepresented by the government as some raging success. The government knows very well that it is not. It says clearly that the card has had no effect, particularly in terms of violence in those communities. Labor believes that there is currently insufficient credible evidence to support the establishment of further trials. Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the government can show that it has an agreed, formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'. That is Labor's position. It is completely reasonable, if such dramatic changes are going to be made to so many people in that community, that there be a bottom-up approach so that it is owned by the community, not a top-down approach as we have seen here. Certainly, there has to be support from the local community. Labor opposes this bill. 11:21 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank the member for Barton for her contribution. I'd like to place on the public record an open invitation to the member for Barton to come to my electorate. Don't go to a meeting with the local union hacks. Come to a meeting with the people who are providing frontline services in my community. This is a trial extension, not a nationwide rollout. This is a proposal for one electorate and, can I say, one which is not an Aboriginal community. This is an area where the numbers are nowhere near the levels in the other three trial sites. This trial will be in a typical community on the east coast of Australia. It is strongly supported. I'd like to make these points. Firstly: the recommendation of the Senate inquiry was that the trial for the Hinkler electorate be commenced—that this legislation be passed. I've got to say, Member for Barton, I will assume that you've been misinformed, because the Senate inquiry very clearly stated that it supported the rollout in the bill. Secondly, in terms of the mayors of Fraser Coast and Bundaberg: the former mayor of the Fraser Coast Regional Council supported it publicly, and I have a two-page letter of support from the Bundaberg mayor. I would also say to the member and to those listening, particularly in the Senate on the cross bench: Brian Courtice is a former federal Labor member for Hinkler, and he is someone who has advocated for this card very strongly and very publicly. He is absolutely committed to his community still, and I commend him for it. There are any number of councillors who have provided us with letters of support and have told me and the Department of Social Services that this is something that we should trial. In regard to the cost, Minister Tehan stated in May that the cost will be less than $2,000 per person once these numbers in the Hinkler electorate trial are included. That is publicly available and publicly stated. So, once again, I would say to those on the crossbench and to my community: I'm sorry this has taken so long. This has been over a year's worth of debate locally. I accept that there are people who will be ideologically opposed, but, in terms of consultation, how much more can we do? The Department of Social Services had done over a hundred sets of consultation before this was debated last time. I'll have to check exactly how many they've done since then, but they've done extensive rounds of consultations, and not just with consumers, merchants and frontline service providers; they have been there for months and months and months, initially to get an idea of whether there was support. I sent out 32,000 letters. We had an over-10-per-cent response rate. It was very strongly supported. I know there are people in this place and outside who won't believe me. They'll think I have a vested interest. Well, that's not the case, and I would say to them: I'm disappointed that this is necessary, but the community strongly supports it. The local newspaper engaged ReachTEL. I'm sure this is an organisation that those listening, particularly people in this place, have heard of. ReachTEL is a recognised polling organisation, and it identified that less than 27.8 per cent of the population is opposed. It doesn't get a lot better than that—27.8 per cent. The majority support the cashless card. 'Bring on the cashless card' is the headline. How much more can we possibly do? We are out there talking to people who are dealing with difficult circumstances. This is not a broad-based rollout; this is a select cohort, as the member for Barton identified: those on Newstart under the age of 36, parenting payment single, parenting payment partnered and another type of youth allowance. The reason we need this amendment is that there are 6,700 people who fall into that cohort. The reason there are so many is that when we consulted with the community and when we talked to the front-line providers—when we did all of that work—they said to us: 'It is about children in our electorate. They are not getting fed. They are not getting the basic amenities of life.' That is completely unacceptable. I accept that this is not the panacea. This is not the only way to deal with this, but this is the only policy that is on the table. My community supports it. They support it strongly. We have been through all of the social media storm. We have dealt with those people from Sydney, Melbourne and Western Australia. I don't care what they think. This is down to the ones that live there. It is my electorate. I was born there. I have lived my entire life in that place. This is not acceptable to me and it is not acceptable to them, and they want to do something. I would say to the crossbench senators: this is the time to stand up. They're not your people, but it is something that they want. Now, surely in this place we can get to the point where we can accept what the community wants. We have done all of the consultation. I have had people come to me. I have had the local state member in Hervey Bay telling me how many children he's had to feed that have come through his front door because their parents waste their money on gambling and on alcohol. It is terrible. The people who work in our local schools—they can't come out; they are employed by the state government and are restricted from making comment—have told me that in the district they are feeding over 1,000 children a day for breakfast. This can't continue. We need to make change. Look at gambling: I had reports earlier last year of the average numbers in Hervey Bay and Bundaberg being almost $5 million a month in a small community like that. This is something which will make a difference. It will make a real difference. The Labor Party were in a bipartisan position earlier. They supported the trial in two sites, in the Kimberley and in Ceduna. They are very strongly Aboriginal communities; I think we both accept that. This is not. We can't say that it is only for those types of communities and not for this one. This is not a nationwide rollout. It is quite simply a trial of 6,700 participants. The Fraser Coast Chronicle reported that the latest electronic gaming machine statistics released by the Queensland government showed that $23.8 million had been lost just on the Fraser Coast, on 1,300 poker machines, since January. This is a card which does not restrict anything else. You can buy whatever you want. It can be used anywhere where EFTPOS is accepted, except for on alcohol and gambling products—and, of course, cash is restricted to restrict access to drugs. Surely we can trial this in one more location which is not an Aboriginal community. As I said, we did our own consultation very early in the piece to see whether there was significant support to even attempt to do the rest of the consultation and then a rollout in the original trial. We did 32,000 direct mail-outs, phone polling of around 500 and 5,500 emails—as well as the calls and emails into my office—just from my office, from our small team of four people. Here is some of the feedback from local constituents: I fully support this move. As the drug trade relies on cash, the move to a Cashless Debit Card will hopefully have a significant impact. And: Yes the Cashless Debit Card would assist small businesses in revenue and also reap more tax revenue, as Centrelink dollars go to genuine retailers, not to illegal drug sellers who do not have a tax file number for their illegal sale and revenue. They will not swap a six-pack of spaghetti for ice. This is about making a real change in our region, one which is wanted. As I said earlier, the local newspaper engaged ReachTEL. They polled 637 people, which is a reasonable-sized sample. Fewer than 28 per cent were against. As well as that consultation, I've said that the Department of Social Services has undertaken significant consultation. This is by the Public Service. I don't think that there is anyone in this place who would say that the Public Service are biased. The Public Service are here to act in the national interest. They are always fair and impartial. From July 2017 to September 2017, DSS conducted 110 meetings in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. As I said to the member for Barton, after the announcement of the site on 21 September 2017, the department continued to consult and engage with the community and conducted a total of 188 meetings to December 2017. We have consulted with business leaders, church leaders and heads of community organisations. They are all keen and eager to trial this for just two years. As I said earlier, I absolutely accept that there will be people who are ideologically opposed, but there is no other proposal. No-one has put forward any alternative—not one of the complainants, not one of the advocates, not one of the social media warriors. None of them have put forward anything else. It is time to trial this in the Hinkler electorate. My community is sick of talking about this. They just want it implemented. The overwhelming majority of them want this implemented in their region. Fundamentally, this is about kids. This is not about anything else. We have children who are not being fed. I want to do something about it. My community wants to do something about it. We have outstanding support. There are people who have stood up on their feet and said they support the card and have been criticised by people right across the country with access to a computer and Facebook. They have been threatened. They have been told that their businesses shouldn't be used because they support the cashless debit card. It is absolutely outrageous what has happened there. So I say to those opposite: this is a trial site for one more location. I don't know what more we can do in terms of consultation—I honestly don't. The department has been there for months. I once again say to the member for Barton: I have an open invitation for you to come to the electorate. I will put you with the people who provide these services, because what they have said to me is that they want to do this. They want to give this a go because they think it will work. If it doesn't work, we will know at the end of the trial. But, if it does not commence, we will not know a thing—nothing; there will be no change. I say to the crossbench: think very seriously about this before the vote comes to the Senate. I know that there are ongoing discussions with the minister and those who are looking to support the bill. Once again, I thank people like Brian Courtice. Having a former federal Labor member publicly supporting this type of policy should say to not only those opposite but also those in the Senate that this is not a stitch-up; this is a community which is asking for help. The government is trying to roll out something which we think will make a difference and it should be trialled. Once again, I say to the Senate crossbench: support the bill in the Senate. Consider what the local community wants, not what happens with your political masters or those who might have an ideological view. This is about one community. It's my community and we want change. 11:33 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I am strongly opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. In contrast to the previous speaker, I say there are alternatives to the cashless debit card, and that involves putting in proper social supports for families who have difficulties. This is a philosophical problem. It's quite ironic that, on a day when we're arguing about whether we should give tax cuts to people earning $200,000 a year, we're arguing about whether we should extend the reach of the cashless debit card. I have no problem with espousing my objections to this bill. It's paternalistic. There really is no evidence that it is going to change anything. In fact, for some families and some children, it is very likely to make things worse. If there is a problem with gambling, we should look at the gambling issues. Why do we have so many poker machines? Why do we allow people such free access to poker machines? This is a government that is happy to support the poker machine industry but not happy to support families in distress. I don't like it when politics becomes personal, but, to me, this is a personal issue. This is a government that is prepared to see the most disadvantaged families in our community being punished for being in the position that they're in and not support them. This is how I see the cashless debit card. There's no evidence that it works. There is very little effort being put in place to increase services for families in distress. In fact, we've learnt recently that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs is reducing support for drug and alcohol counselling for Indigenous families. It's no good for those on the other side to say there is no alternative; there is—that is, to provide proper supports for families in distress. In the Labor Party, we support the will of the community. From what I hear and see, there is no evidence that the community strongly wants the cashless debit card introduced, in spite of what those on the other side say. We have backed community-led trials in the past, but no real evidence has been produced to show that the cashless debit card is of benefit to these extremely distressed families. Yes, many of these families are Indigenous, but there are others. Indeed, in my electorate, many people are very concerned about the prospect of the cashless debit card being given wider acceptance. I think they are right to be concerned, because this is a government that looks at punishing the poor and supporting the wealthy. What I truly doubt is the cashless debit card's capacity to deliver substantial and lasting benefits over the longer term. I think that, before we introduce social security measures to the poorest in our community, we should be very sure that they work before we punish the poorest further. I've worked with these families for many years. They love their kids. They love their families. But they have difficulties. We need to change the argument. Families who have drug and alcohol problems have medical problems—these are medical problems—and we need to look at what we can do to support them. A huge issue in my community is homelessness and the difficulty of getting stable housing. That is one way the government could help these families. The ability to have a stable place of residence is extremely important for many of these very stressed families, particularly in terms of their children getting a stable education. I see families that have to move their kids' school all the time as their housing changes, and the lack of stable housing is a very important social determinant, not only of their health but also of their learning. Yet we see a government that's doing very little to improve housing, particularly Indigenous housing and particularly Indigenous housing in rural and remote areas. There is an alternative to this punitive measure, and that's to provide proper social supports—something that this government does not appear to acknowledge. We have increasing numbers of children, particularly Indigenous children, in out-of-home care. This government seems to want to argue that we should adopt all those children into other families. What they don't look at are wrap-around supports for these very distressed families. Once again, this is a government that's intent on punishing the poor and supporting the top end of town. The way the cashless debit card works is that it can be used for purchases except for gambling, drugs, alcohol, tobacco et cetera. It's run by a company called Indue. It can be used in any sort of bricks-and-mortar store that accepts the Visa debit card, unless the store has been blocked—and I believe a few have been—and it can also be used online. Eighty per cent of an individual's payments used will be on the cashless debit card, with the remaining 20 per cent being placed in their ordinary savings account. It is removing these families' ability to manage their own finances. So, rather than putting in place ways they can be helped to manage their finances, we're restricting how they can use their income and we're not giving them any training in the ability to manage their own finances. It is, again, a further punishment, without a solution. We are seeing the government wanting to roll this out, town by town, community by community. I am very concerned, as indeed are many people in my community, that the government will eventually roll this out around the country without any discussion and without any proper debate. What we see lacking in this government is any understanding of entrenched multigenerational disadvantage. I've worked in my community now for 35 years, so I've seen many generations of disadvantage, and I agree it is a major, entrenched problem in a very wealthy country like Australia. What I don't see is any understanding or any proposal from this government to deal with entrenched multigenerational disadvantage. It's all about punishment. It's all about personal responsibility and blaming people for being sick or disadvantaged. When we are having this debate about giving tax cuts to people earning $200,000 a year, it really is time for us to look at lifting up those who are most disadvantaged in our community. That is occurring in education, health, jobs and housing. We need an overall proposal to try to help people on this multigenerational level. Unless we do that we are going to continue with this piecemeal punishment, this blaming, them-versus-us type of mentality. I feel very sad about that, because I've been brought up in a very wealthy country, and there needs to be some acknowledgement that we need to be doing better for those that are most disadvantaged. We know that the vast majority of income support recipients can manage their own finances if they are taught to do so. In my electorate of Macarthur, the St Vincent de Paul Society, amongst many others, provides some fantastic financial management programs for the most disadvantaged. In fact, at their centre in Campbelltown, they're able to provide interest-free loans, teach people how to deal with their finances and show them how to manage their housing and manage nutrition for their children in an overall package. They do that by providing comprehensive support. They do it in a blameless way, a way that doesn't blame people for being disadvantaged. In spite of the Prime Minister talking about opportunity and reaping the rewards of hard work, things happen to people, often through no fault of their own, and they end up in disadvantage. We know that we've had increasing numbers of gambling outlets around the country, with poker machines, sports betting companies and online gambling. To me, gambling is a huge problem, and we know that it causes problems, often in those most disadvantaged. We have recently had the rollout of payday lending in my electorate. A machine is now available at Minto, in one of the very disadvantaged areas of my electorate. What the government should be doing is trying to prevent things like that, which will put people at more disadvantage, rather than punishing them by introducing the cashless debit card. It really is not about trying to improve things and help people; it's about trying to corral people who are already extremely disadvantaged in a continuing cycle of disadvantage. It is something I feel very sad about. We need to look at more radical ways of helping people. We need to look at wraparound services for these very disadvantaged families. One of my paediatric colleagues who works in a very remote rural area has spoken to me about not removing children from very disadvantaged families but, rather, having areas where these families can go and be given wraparound support—where they can stay with their children and be given help with things like drug and alcohol counselling, nutrition and medical problems. These families often have quite significant chronic medical disorders as well. So we need to look at a way of countering this multi-generational disadvantage. The cashless debit card is very likely, I believe, to compound and continue this cycle. At first sight it may well seem to be an initial way of preventing people from getting their drugs and alcohol. In fact, we know that people who have addictions—and don't forget that addiction is a medical problem—will get their drugs and alcohol in any way they can. That may well mean turning to crime or using the cashless debit card to get things and then on-selling them. This is not an answer, in spite of what those on the other side may think. I would counsel those in the Liberal and National parties to think about what they're doing and think about more comprehensive and more appropriate services for the disadvantaged rather than continuing to blame them. We have had enough of blaming the poor and of corralling those with social disadvantage in a continuing cycle of poverty and dependency. We need to look at more comprehensive ways of getting them out of that. I see the cashless debit card as being part of that cycle and I am strongly opposed to it. I would encourage members opposite to come into the most disadvantaged areas of their communities and ask them what they think they need. This paternalistic attitude of imposition from above and then not providing support services is becoming a characteristic of this government. We've seen this with cutbacks in Centrelink staff and the difficulty accessing Centrelink for very disadvantaged people. Not infrequently I have people who have no computer skills at all coming into my office to ask me and my staff to help them access Centrelink supports, including, recently, an 88-year-old lady asking for that support. They have no idea. That's very sad and a demonstration of a philosophical problem with the Liberal-National Party government. They do not understand the issues of the most disadvantaged, and I feel very sad about that. There has been a lot of research work undertaken by those who've had a lifetime in the field of social supports. We know there are social determinants of a whole range of things, including health and education. I would encourage those on the other side to have a look at the social determinants of these things and see what they can do to break the cycle. The continued extension of the cashless debit card is avoiding looking at solutions. (Time expired) 11:48 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. Isn't it interesting when we hear all the reasons that this bill shouldn't be passed? Those members from the Labor Party opposite are happy to have the trial—or to support the trial—in majority Indigenous communities but not in white communities. This bill seeks to implement the trial of the cashless debit card in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas in Queensland, the fourth trial location for this very important program, where people who are under 36 years of age and accessing Newstart or youth allowance, for jobseekers, or parenting payments will receive the card. This is about 6,700 people. The cashless debit card, or healthy welfare card, is about making lives better. I'm in this place to empower people to take control of their lives and the government, where it needs to, to co-invest in people's future, to help hardworking Australians reach their full potential—to help aspirational Australians reach their potential. Helping these Australians is my focus when we look at our social policy and welfare system. I remind the members opposite that the cashless debit card doesn't impact on a person's eligibility to access welfare. It doesn't change the amount of Centrelink a person receives. It simply means that they can't use all of their cash to buy alcohol or drugs or to gamble, and they can't withdraw cash. Otherwise, the card operates and looks like a normal bank card. In our communities, the lazy application of cash as welfare isn't working. In some cases, it's making lives worse. But the cashless debit card is actually making lives better, and the strong, independent evaluation results from the current trial communities are telling us how important this card is. The final independent evaluation of the debit card trial includes results from the first two trial communities, Ceduna in South Australia and East Kimberly in Western Australia, in my state. The cashless debit card has had a considerable positive impact for the people participating in the trial. Forty-one per cent reported drinking alcohol less frequently, and people are now seeking medical treatment for their conditions that were previously masked by the effects of alcohol. Forty-eight per cent reported using illegal drugs less often; 48 per cent reported gambling less; 40 per cent of participants who have caring responsibilities reported they had been better able to care for their children—better able to care for their children; 39 per cent of participants with caring responsibilities reported they had become more involved in their children's homework and schooling when compared to before the trial; and 45 per cent have been better able to save more money. This card is not a silver bullet, that is certainly true. We know and acknowledge that. But it's an important tool in the fight against alcohol and drug abuse, and the violence and crime that come with those. This careful and independent evaluation tells us that the cashless debit card is absolutely making lives better. I saw this firsthand when I visited Kununurra and Wyndham in WA's north. I met personally with many people who supported the card, and I met with those who don't. The number of pick-ups made by the Kununurra community patrol service for alcohol was lower. Admissions to the Wyndham Sobering-Up Unit were lower in September. Alcohol-related ambulance callouts were down, and sales at the Wyndham bottle shop—the only bottle shop in Wyndham—dropped. I visited the Wyndham supermarket, and I was told that because of economic conditions sales across the store had dropped, but that since the implementation of this card sales for baby products had remained at the same levels despite the drop in economic conditions. I met with community leaders who helped me get to the nuts and bolts of this policy. I sat with the mums at the Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre. I heard those Indigenous mothers talk about their aspirations for their children and the benefits that this card was having in their community. I met with the chamber of commerce and a number of health and cultural organisations, and I met with the police at Kununurra and heard about the issues that they have to deal with day and night. I was pleased to hear that alcohol fuelled callouts were down. I also spent a 12-hour shift with St John Ambulance—the shift that went from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am—and we were responding to calls. While I can't share with you the precise nature of those calls, for confidentiality reasons, every one of them on that overnight shift was related to alcohol. The living conditions of the individuals who we visited to provide support to, and to meet their medical needs, were shameful They were terrible conditions. The issue of alcoholism in those communities has not been addressed by the mere fact of giving easy money to individuals. It is starting to be fixed under this card, but this card alone won't do it. When you've got those ambulance volunteers at St Johns Ambulance telling you just how important this card is in dealing with alcohol illness and the consequences of alcohol fuelled violence every night, you have to take their word for it. I'm the government's chair of our social policy committee. You can read reports and you can talk to peak bodies, but to go and spend three days in these communities and see how lives are actually changing for the better makes you a very strong advocate for what we're trying to achieve here. Expanding the cashless debit card trial to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area will build on the positive, evidence based findings that we've had already. The Bundaberg and Hervey Bay trial is an opportunity to test the card's effectiveness under new parameters in an area with a significantly lower proportion of Indigenous participants and on a larger scale when compared to the current communities covered under the trial. There is concern that this card targets the majority Indigenous communities. I was told when I was in the East Kimberly that some people called this the 'white card'—the white fella's card restricting how an Indigenous individual can spend their money; they couldn't just go to the bottle shop—and that this was paternalistic. I am happy to accept that. But one of the things that was said to me by the Indigenous leaders in the East Kimberley was how they wanted this card to be seen not as a tool to deal with Indigenous issues but as a tool to deal with the issues at hand—alcohol in their communities, drugs and gambling in their communities. And the issues of alcohol, drugs and gambling are not racist. They don't care if someone is Indigenous or not. They don't care if they're white or black. That's why it's very interesting that this trial is opposed by the Labor Party. Why are they opposing the extension of this card to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay where there is a majority urban and a majority non-Indigenous population? It is something that I just can't understand. I hope these trials in these new communities will dispel this perception. It is actually very important, and very respectful to those Indigenous leaders in existing trial sites, that we actually do this new trial in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. This area has been chosen carefully to address social problems that were identified during the extensive consultations in the community there. Between May and December 2017, there were 188 meetings about the cashless debit card trial with a broad range of stakeholders, including the community sector, service providers, community members and all levels of government. Some of the big issues this area is facing are high youth unemployment and inter-generational welfare dependence, gambling and a high use of drugs, alcohol and gambling. The Wide Bay region has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment in Queensland. Data from March 2018 shows youth unemployment in the region is 27.8 per cent, which is an increase of four per cent since March 2017. You can't get a job if you're bombed out of your brain on drugs and you can't get a job if you're drunk—you certainly can't keep one as well. For all of those who are aged under 30 on welfare today, 90 per cent had a parent who was on welfare during the past 15 years. Consultations also revealed significant problems with alcohol and drugs and gambling among young families. Drug use data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows Bundaberg and the Fraser Coast have an estimated usage rate 15.7 per cent higher than the national average. If there is a place where this card needs to be trialled, it is this location. Queensland Health data indicated 1,547 incidents of care for alcohol and other drugs treatment in 2015-16. According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, people who are unemployed are 2.4 times more likely to use drugs such as ice and other amphetamines than those who are employed. Trialling the cashless debit card in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area will be an important investment by individuals and governments to stabilise the lives of these young people in the communities by limiting their spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling and by helping to improve their chances of finding a job, keeping that job or successfully completing education or training. A stable home environment during those early formative years is an imperative for positive lifelong outcomes. Setting the age at 36 means the government in this trial location can work with young people, their families and their children who are receiving welfare payments. Complementing the card in this trial location will be a further investment in community services of $1 million. That's very important. We learnt that in Kununurra and East Kimberly. The card alone doesn't work by itself; you need those wraparound services that the member for Macarthur was talking about. But you can have both. You can have those additional wraparound services and you can have the card. Are we trialling just the card? No, we're not trialling just the card. We are trialling the card and those services to see if they're sufficient. Already there are a significant number of services in place in this region, including 70 federally funded services in the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay area, which include drug and alcohol services, financial capability services, employment, and family and children programs. At a technical level, this bill also amends the list of restricted goods to include cash-like products. It has been the intention that participants should not be able to purchase cash-like products—such as gift cards, vouchers, money orders, digital currencies—that could be used to purchase alcohol and gambling products. This was one of the issues identified in earlier trials, and one of the issues that I identified when I visited Kununurra and Wyndham. The Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area is an opportunity for the government to test the card's flexibility as a tool to support people in urban locations and to help address the problems identified during the community consultations. I've updated the House on my own experience from where I've seen the intersection of welfare and drugs within my own family. I don't believe for a second that the life, if you can call it that, being lived by so many jobseekers with drug and alcohol dependence is one they choose to live. The cashless debit card is making lives better in the trial communities. We have an obligation to extend these trials to a non-Indigenous population and to a more urban environment to continue to trial the success of this card. I commend the work of the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Human Services. I commend the work of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who both previously held ministerial roles in this area and championed this trial significantly. The extension of the cashless debit card has my full support. The extension of this trial to this location has my full support. I have said many times in the past, and I will say it again: working-age welfare should not be compensation for where someone has found themselves in life; working-age welfare must and always should be an investment in where they can go. That's what it must be, an investment, and, if you are investing in something, you need to make sure that investment is getting the outcome that you desire. And the outcome that we desire is to have fewer people on drugs, fewer people on alcohol, fewer people wasting their money on gambling, and more people in work being exactly what they are, what I am—that is, an aspirational Australian, wanting to apply my effort to get ahead. The Labor Party see the lazy application of cash in our welfare system as the only solution. I say to them: the lazy application of cash is not working, but the cashless debit card is. The Labor Party should get on board and make sure we can work together to improve the lives of people in our community and to make sure that our welfare system does exactly what it should do—that is, to make lives better. 12:03 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I rise in this place today to make it very clear to the Turnbull government that the community in my electorate of Herbert will not support the cashless debit card. But what we will support is early intervention and prevention programs that would assist people to move past their desperate and often very complex circumstances. We are repeatedly witnessing attempts to expand the use of the cashless card across the country. I know that it won't be too long before the Turnbull government will focus on my electorate of Herbert, and, as I have stated, under no circumstances will we accept the implementation of the cashless card in my electorate. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018 seeks to extend the cashless debit card trial to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. If this bill is successful, all recipients of Newstart, youth allowance (other) and parenting payment who are under 36 in the electorate of Hinkler will be forced to become trial participants. The cashless debit card quarantines 80 per cent of income support payment onto a special debit card that cannot be used to buy alcohol, to gamble or to buy gift cards, which could in turn be used to purchase alcohol or to gamble. The evaluation clearly questions these measures. The ORIMA evaluation into the effectiveness of the existing trials is inconclusive at best. The evaluation has been thoroughly criticised by leading academics, and there is insufficient credible evidence at this point in time to support the establishment of further trials. It is expected that around 6,700 people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay would become trial participants. The mayors of both local government areas in the trial region, Bundaberg and Fraser Coast, publicly oppose the introduction of the cashless debit card in their areas. The community doesn't want it; the local council doesn't want it. So why on earth is this government rolling it out? Does this government think it knows better than the mayor, the local councillors and the local community? I fully support community-driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol misuse. That is why, at the last election, I committed $5 million towards the Salvation Army drug and alcohol detox facility for young people—a commitment, I might add, that the LNP did not match. That's how governments should be supporting communities. Community social problems will not be solved by a blanket income-management program. The vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. I do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. Labor has said all along that we will talk to individual communities and make decisions on a location-by-location basis. Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the Turnbull government can demonstrate that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the communities involved, as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'. The Hinkler area has said that they don't want it; that is why Labor will oppose this bill. The Turnbull government is hell-bent on targeting the most vulnerable citizens. The implementation of the card is an assumption that all those who are 35 years of age and under and receiving Newstart or youth allowance for jobseekers, parenting payment single or parenting payment partnered, are using their money inappropriately. I ask the members of the Turnbull government: how would each of you feel if you were labelled an alcoholic? How would the members of this government feel about automatically being labelled gamblers? How would members opposite feel if they were labelled drug addicts? I assume that they would not be very impressed at all. Essentially, this is what the cashless debit card is doing to those who are already struggling to survive. I represent the electorate of Hinkler, which includes the remote community of Palm Island. Palm Island is a small community of over 3,500 people. The island has an unemployment rate of 29 per cent and an underemployment rate of 20 per cent. According to the 2016 census, 24.1 per cent of households on Palm Island had a weekly household income of less than $650. The census also showed that, of the people aged 15 years and over on Palm Island, 74.9 per cent did unpaid domestic work in the week before the census. Palm Island is a developing community and a hidden gem in North Queensland. Given that Palm Island doesn't have a big economy, people look at the debit card as a way backwards, certainly not a way forward. The Palm Island council and the residents of Palm Island want job creation and economic development opportunities, because job creation is a much better option for the people on Palm Island than a cashless debit card. Townsville has an unemployment rate of over eight per cent and a youth unemployment rate of over 20 per cent. To date, we have seen no investment in our region by the Turnbull government, and, after nearly three years, we are still waiting on NAIF to actually move past announcements and put some money on the table for the projects that have been announced, as that will get jobs underway. Palm Island, Townsville and all of the communities in northern Australia need investment. Investment in infrastructure projects, tourism and education will not only kickstart our economies; they will be the catalysts for job creation in a number of industries. Labor's position on the cashless welfare trial has always been to support trial areas where the community has a desire to try something new to address drug and alcohol misuse. I am always open to considering genuine efforts to assist and support people in my community who are struggling with drug and alcohol dependency to access appropriate treatment. I don't believe that income support is best utilised to support a drug habit. However, vulnerable people's lives are very complex. As community representatives, we must remember that we are talking about people's lives. These are entrenched social issues that cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. We must address the core issues that contribute to drug and alcohol misuse. The vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances, and many of the people I have spoken to feel it would be deeply insulting to have such a regime inflicted on them. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill in 2015 and noted that the cashless debit card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and nondiscrimination. By reducing a person's choice in how and where they access and spend their social security payments, the Cashless Debit Card program limits the right to a private life. Labor has said that we never support a blanket approach to income management. We will not support a trial where the community insists it does not want a trial and also knows that it is not the solution it is seeking. That is why we do not support this bill. Labor will continue to consult with individual communities to ensure that their requests are met, while addressing social hardships. The Turnbull government released the evaluation of the trials on 1 September. The evaluation showed mixed results. There have been serious concerns regarding Kununurra and Ceduna particularly. If you look at the report, 78 per cent of the people said there had been little to no change, and some said they had in fact been worse off. The Senate inquiry committee heard from the people of Kununurra, who stated that the card isn't working. Police reported increased levels of violence, and the not-for-profit sector in the town reported that children were going hungry. You can't just put a card in place without other interventions and expect behavioural change to occur, particularly when First Nations people in that area stated that they weren't asked about the card and weren't consulted about what they thought were more appropriate solutions. I have received numerous emails and messages from members in my community who are against the implementation of the cashless debit card in Townsville. People have a grave fear of privacy invasion and that the cashless welfare card is a bandaid attempt to address a far more complex social matter. The people of my community would prefer the funds for this card to be invested in things like infrastructure that would actually create jobs. Townsville is in desperate need of water infrastructure investment. Federal Labor has committed $100 million towards securing a long-term solution to Townsville's water needs as well as $200 million towards developing hydroelectricity on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Labor has also committed $75 million towards our port expansion project. This single investment alone will generate more than $500 million for our local community as well as hundreds of jobs. These projects should be priorities for the Turnbull government, not implying that people who receive welfare supports are criminals who frivolously spend their money. The best way that we can address the situation that we find ourselves in, where people are struggling with alcohol and drug misuse, is to fund early intervention and prevention support programs—programs that focus on the social needs of families who are struggling in communities, programs that support kids to get to school and programs that ensure that young people get a good education so they can move into work. Funding infrastructure creates jobs. Pretending that working on an income management strategy will cure the ills of the world and get people into work is simply not clear thinking by this government. I urge the government to seriously consider early intervention and prevention and to consult with the communities it thinks will benefit from income management programs, because I am sure these communities can tell you loudly and clearly what they need to support people living in their communities. 12:13 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay It's always good to follow the hardworking member for Herbert, my friend Cathy O'Toole, who is always standing up on behalf of her constituents and indeed all the people right around this country who will be adversely affected by this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, which seeks to extend the cashless debit card trial to regions in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, forcing anybody under 36 to become a trial participant. We oppose this bill. Labor knows that the majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own income. This morning, I was over in the Federation Chamber, and I was listening to the member for Dunkley, a member on the opposite side of the House, talk about how he received income support when he was a university student. It's a great shame that the member for Dunkley isn't here, because I would be able to ask him how he would feel if, as a recipient of a welfare payment, he were told how, when and on what he was able to spend his own money on. Communities are not homogenous; they are inherently unique, with their own customs and circumstances. It is an absolute disgrace that this government is willing to paint with one swift brush all of the regional communities where it wants to roll this out. The government refuses to acknowledge not only the importance of consulting on a community-by-community basis and allowing communities to have some decision-making but also the need to support community-driven initiatives. But, again, is it really a surprise that this government, the government of the rich and plenty, wishes to take a top-down approach to the cashless debit card? I think not. The current limitations placed on the cashless welfare card trials are crucial to ensuring that this government does not overstep its bounds with rural and regional communities. As we've heard from the member for Herbert, there are some significant factors in the breaches of a person's human rights when it comes to these trials and the cashless debit card itself. Extending the trial to potentially include around 6,700 more people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay without the appropriate consultations is blatantly irresponsible. It brings the number of participants to over 15,000. Key groups from the Bundaberg region have been ignored. Ignoring the wishes of the Bundaberg community presented to the Senate inquiry is blatantly irresponsible. It's arrogant and it is out of touch—all the key themes of this government. It is clearer than crystal that this Turnbull government has mismanaged and bungled this entire process, and it is the people of the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions that will pay the price. Unlike in the East Kimberley and Ceduna trials, the lack of consultation in the Goldfields and Hervey Bay areas is symptomatic of this government, which doesn't listen, doesn't communicate and doesn't implement its promises. The lack of action in the East Kimberley is in stark contrast to the hope that the trial of the card was thought to deliver. Mothers hoped that their families would see support programs and training to help break the treacherous cycle that is disadvantage, but this never materialised. Labor will only consider supporting the introduction of a new trial site if this Liberal government can do its job properly and consult the communities it is planning on affecting. This government needs to show that it is willing to listen to communities and establish an agreed definition of consent. The trial of the cashless debit card has been viewed through a prism of suspicion and mistrust. It takes a great leap of faith for communities to commit to this implementation, and the government ought to respect that. That's why we on this side of the House have consulted closely with people in Ceduna and East Kimberley, listening to their views widely, discretely and with humility and compassion. We support genuine, intuitive, progressive policies that acknowledge the problems and opportunities that are unique to remote and discrete communities. We are talking about people who have suffered greatly already at the hands of government, their representatives and others. Yet the original problem of systemic inequality and domestic and other violence remains for the very reason we were told these trials were needed. This is hardly encouraging for potential participants in Hervey Bay and Goldfields areas targeted by this legislation. This government has paid $1.6 million to ORIMA Research to provide a weak and poor evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. The results were inconclusive at best and were torn apart by leading academics like Janet Hunt, who stated that people interviewed for the evaluation may have told interviewers that they drank less than before the trial began but that such recall over a year is not likely to be reliable. Importantly, her paper also notes the fact that participants were required to identify themselves prior to participation. This raises serious questions about how they would respond and, in some cases, understand the questions and implications of their answers. It would be surprising if someone with a drug problem who has been identified by the interviewer would suddenly open up and discuss their volume of usage. Only 17 per cent of the trial participants reported that they felt their children's lives were better as a result of the trial. The ORIMA research is not something the government should be basing its policy decision-making on. It is, at best, a poor quality assessment and, at worst, a demonstration of this government's negligence. These problems vary from community to community, from country to country and from state to state. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. We need to develop the levers that provide access to support where and when they are suitable and programs that address alcohol and drug related problems, as well as policies that seek to address the systemic inequality that has placed these communities in the vulnerable positions they find themselves in. These communities do not need empty promises or rhetoric and half-baked attempts that are more likely to hinder than to help them. They need to be heard and consulted with. We need to listen to communities to find out what assistance they require—and in their voices—and tailor programs to suit specific locations. One size does not fit all. This isn't a scarf, it's not a pair of gloves and it's not a beanie, Minister. This is not appropriate. To 15 March this year, the trials have cost around $24 million for those two sites. The cost per head is well over $10,000. I do not profess to sit in the Treasury coffers or with those boffins who spend our money for us, but I would assume that that $10,000 per head could have been better directed to things that all actually went to the heart and core of addressing some of the issues that these individuals find themselves in. We have no idea what this minister intends to charge taxpayers to roll out the cashless debit card in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and I don't know how the minister expects us to debate this legislation without this crucial information. This is symptomatic of the government's problematic approach to the way they run this country, which we saw this morning. Turnbull's mob doesn't want this parliament to be informed before making decisions, let alone the average Australian. We saw that on trial here this morning. The government needs to be honest with this parliament and tell us how much the trials at Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, and in the Goldfields in WA, will cost. The fact that they haven't already is an absolute disgrace. The government has spent around $24 million, as I said, on current trials alone, with $7.9 million paid to Indue to manage the payment system and $1.6 million for useless and unreliable research. They have mismanaged Australian taxpayers' money and they have damaged lives in the process. The 2016 census tells us that Australia's Indigenous population has grown by 17.4 per cent since 2011. That's an estimated 3.3 per cent of our total population, and, it is estimated, just slightly under 800,000 people, who are concerned about the implications of a rollout of the cashless debit card. We need to be mindful of the implications of an extension of these trials and the psychological impact they have on every Indigenous person, regardless of where they live. It is imperative that we take the actions of previous governments into account when we are discussing serious amendments and extensions such as the one before the House today. It is also important to note that these populations are also centred in the major cities, particularly in electorates like mine in Lindsay. These are people who have suffered from and been hurt by our collective actions, however well-intended they may have been. People need to be reassured of our commitment to the implementation of effective education, rehabilitation and training programs. They are essential to ensuring that the inequality, suspicion and historical dislocation are addressed in ways that are consultative, well resourced, well researched and effectively delivered. While we know that most people have the ability to self-manage their incomes, we also understand that some people do need a hand. Extending the rollout of the cashless debit card without appropriate consultation and research is not an effective way of giving people a hand. It also clearly demonstrates blatant negligence and the contempt that the Turnbull government has for some of our most vulnerable Australian communities and people. Labor opposes this bill because there is insufficient credible evidence to support the establishment of further trials. Who would have thought that you'd need evidence to make an informed decision! In this case, the government may have been a bit confused. Proper consultation means working together with communities to ensure they get the programs they need and desire. Proper consultation means not lecturing communities—you are consulting—but making a commitment to listening, discussing, acknowledging and acting on their aspirations. Systemic disadvantage cannot be solved by income management alone. This government needs to provide additional support to communities which elect to participate in those trials. That support needs to be targeted and it needs to be based on research and evidence. It is time for this government to sit down and listen to what these vulnerable communities are saying. Thank you. 12:24 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all of the members for their contributions to the second reading debate stage of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018. The bill, as is now well known, seeks to add the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area as a cashless debit card trial area under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The bill specifies trial participants in this site as persons under 36 years receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance jobseeker, parenting payment single and parenting payment partnered. The trial would cover around 6,700 people in the trial area, and the selection of the cohort in this area has occurred in response to significant consultation with the relevant communities. The bill would allow the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay trial site to operate until 30 June 2020, allowing time to implement the trial and for it to operate for at least 12 months. The cashless debit card aims to reduce the devastating effects of alcohol, drug and gambling abuse in our communities. The card operates like an ordinary debit card, with the primary difference being that it does not work at liquor stores and gambling houses and cannot be used to withdraw cash. Consequently, illicit products cannot be purchased with the card. The trial restricts what participants can spend their social security payments on but does not detract from the eligibility of a person to receive welfare, nor does it reduce the amount of a person's social security entitlement. The trial of the cashless debit card has been ongoing in Ceduna, South Australia, and in the East Kimberley region, in my home state of Western Australia, for more than two years. In February this year, parliament passed legislation to allow the program to continue in these communities and to be expanded to a third site in the Goldfields area, again in Western Australia, where the trial commenced in March 2018. The payment types and age group for this site were selected based on extensive consultation by the Department of Social Services. Between May and September 2017, over 188 meetings, including three community information sessions, were held across the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area. These canvassed views from a very broad range of stakeholders, including the community sector, service providers, community members, church groups, the business sector and all levels of government. These meetings demonstrated a clear need for support and intervention in the areas of youth unemployment, young families and intergenerational welfare dependency. As a result of those meetings with the communities of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, it was clear that many people in those areas wished to tackle the serious issues of youth unemployment and long-term and intergenerational welfare dependency. Ninety per cent of the people in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay under 30 and on Newstart or youth allowance had a parent or guardian who received income support at some point in the previous 15 years. Further still, of that cohort, around 13 per cent had a parent or guardian who had received income support at least once each year for the past 15 years. Further, research by the Australian Research Council indicates that risk factors such as attitudes to work and welfare, attitudes to alcohol and drug consumption and family influences contributed greatly to intergenerational welfare dependency. The Australian Research Council also found evidence that young people from welfare-dependent families were more likely to smoke, drink alcohol or consume illegal drugs, thus highlighting the relationship that welfare dependence has on a young person's outcomes in life. A stable domestic environment with limited exposure to risk factors during formative years is imperative for positive lifelong outcomes. The cashless debit card can help to stabilise the lives of young people in the new trial locations by limiting spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling and thus improving the chances of young Australians finding employment or successfully completing education or training. The government has also announced a second evaluation of the cashless debit card across all three current trial sites, to assess the ongoing effectiveness of the program. The second evaluation will use research methodologies developed independently by the University of Queensland and draw on the baseline measurements of social conditions in the Goldfields developed by the University of Adelaide. The initial and positive findings of the impact of the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberly have been encouraging. The expansion to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay will help to test the card and the technology that supports it in more diverse communities and settings. This will, of course, build on the evidence available to further evaluate the impacts and outcomes of the cashless debit card on all participants. The government remains committed to rolling this program out to the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area and addressing the issues of social and economic disadvantage in those areas. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [12:33]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Smith, ADH Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 62 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA 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, MMH Leigh, AK 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 Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 35 12:38 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018 35

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018

Second Reading 35 12:39 Mr HART 263070 Bass Today we have before us in this House the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018. This bill introduces a family income test of $250,000 a year for the carer allowance and the carer allowance (child) healthcare card from September 2018. To be eligible for carer allowance, applicants must be giving additional daily care to someone who either has a disability or severe illness. Carer allowance and its predecessor payments have never been means-tested. This makes these payments unusual within the framework of the Australian social security system. At the time of the introduction of the allowance, those opposite claimed that exempting carer allowance from a means and income test was reflective of their commitment to Australian carers. The language used by the government at that time was unequivocal and unambiguous. The government claimed: We will always have an ongoing commitment to people in this particular role. Nevertheless, the Abbott government's National Commission of Audit recommended applying an income limit to carer allowance of $150,000 a year. That measure, if it had been adopted, would have affected 35,000 carers. Perhaps we can assume that the introduction of income testing on this particular payment is indicative of a shift in this government's priorities. We know that caring can add substantially to usual household costs. The proposed income limit in this legislation is fixed and will not be indexed. Consequentially, its real value will decline, and any wage rises will see more families exceeding that static income limit over time. Indeed, it is estimated that, in 2018-19, some 6,500 current carer allowance recipients and 400 healthcare card holders will be affected. This represents about one per cent of all carer allowance recipients and around 2.4 per cent of carer allowance (child) health care only holders. Carer allowance is a fortnightly supplementary payment of $127.10 to assist people who provide daily care to someone who is sick, frail, aged or who has a disability. It is a payment to help meet the costs of caring. The carer allowance (child) health care card can be given to children who have a medical condition or disability that requires extra care of at least 14 per hours per week but not enough to provide their carer with eligibility for the carer allowance. Carers Australia is supportive of means-testing the carer allowance on the basis that the savings generated by this measure are directed towards funding for a new integrated care support services model. Ara Creswell, the CEO of Carers Australia, stated: We appreciate that when people have become accustomed to receiving a benefit, they can feel aggrieved when it is taken away. However, the income threshold is very generous compared to other pensions and allowances, reflecting the Government’s recognition that caring can add substantially to the usual costs of maintaining a household. Australian carers are meant to be able to benefit from the increased supports provided by the integrated carer support services from July this year. Instead, the ability for carers to access the new services through the Carer Gateway has been delayed until October 2018. The establishment of a network of regional delivery partners to help carers access a range of local services has also been delayed until September 2019. For months, Labor has been calling on the government to provide further details about what precisely these supports will be and when they'll be available given the linkage between the means-testing introduced under this legislation and the Carers Gateway's introduction. Given the importance of providing support to carers, if the government were serious about supporting carers, they could have and should have done the hard work to have this program ready to roll out well before this change, instead of forcing Australia's hardworking, unpaid carers to await the government's convenience. It's very important for us to remind the House that Australia's 2.8 million unpaid careers work tirelessly every day to care for children with additional needs, to care for sick or elderly family members and people with a disability. In my electorate of Bass, there are more than 1,600 carers doing their best for people under their care. I often receive representations from my constituents about the work of carers, who are often unrecognised or feel that they are unrecognised. These changes will also disproportionately affect women. Women are more likely to be carers. They are more likely to give up work in order to care and more likely to be the secondary income earner in a higher-income family. Women are more than twice as likely to provide primary care to a person with a disability. My constituent Marjory is one such woman. Marjory has cared for her daughter Karen for 51 years. I really cannot begin to imagine the burden and the responsibility which is contemplated by caring for another for more than 50 years. Now in her 80s, Marjory is concerned that she will not be able to continue to care for her daughter one day. The sense of anxiety associated with both contemplating your own mortality and the limitation upon your ability to care for a loved one should be obvious to all. Marjory is particularly concerned as to what will happen to her daughter when she is no longer here. This is the kind of mental pressure that Australian carers have to contend with on a daily basis. I'm acutely aware of the invaluable contributions carers make to our community. We should all be aware of the burden they assume. Whilst I've previously said that a carer is more likely to be female, there are many carers who are young in age, looking after parents or siblings who are affected by a disability or illness. It was only in the 1990s that the concept of a young carer began to be recognised. It's interesting to note, in that context, that a study was undertaken about 10 years ago which analysed some of the costs associated with caring, irrespective of whether someone was a young carer or fell within the usual definitions. This report, called Young carers in Australia: understanding the advantages and disadvantages of their care giving, was published some years before the NDIS was even contemplated. It observed: These costs include direct costs with respect to expenditure and costs to physical and mental health; and opportunity costs, concerned with possible disruption to education, training, labour force participation, income earning, and participation in social and friendship networks. The key question surrounds how the costs of providing care should be shared among individuals, within families and across society at large. Moreover, what is the most appropriate balance between formal and informal care, and to what extent will informal care be assisted by formal support? The Australian Bureau of Statistics most recently undertook a survey of disability, ageing and carers in 2015. There were, at that time, approximately 2.7 million unpaid carers in Australia. This represents a most extraordinary resource. But, like all resources, that resource should not be squandered; nor should it be taken for granted. Deloitte Access Economics estimates the value of these unpaid carers to the Australian economy was $60.3 billion. There are some more statistics. Around 856,000 carers—that is, 32 per cent—are primary carers, those who provide the most informal assistance to another individual. The replacement value of that unpaid care provided in 2015 was about $1 billion per week. The median weekly income of primary carers aged 15 to 64 was 42 per cent below that of non-carers. More than two-thirds of primary carers are female. The average age of a primary carer is 55, and 272,000 carers are under the age of 25, which equates to about one in 10. Almost all primary carers—that is, 96 per cent—care for a family member. More than half—55 per cent—of primary carers provide care for at least 20 hours per week. Fifty-six per cent of primary carers aged 15 to 64 participate in the workforce, compared to 80 per cent of non-carers. It is estimated, as I've said previously, that carers provided an extraordinary 1.9 billion hours of unpaid care in 2015. There are many personal stories in addition to the story of Marjory that I've recounted to the House. I'd like to finish by reading you a letter that was shared with my office for publication in our local paper just this week from one of my constituents, Mr William Ovenell. This letter, in my view, underscores the sense of frustration in our community associated with this government's priorities—indeed, their expressed priorities. Mr Ovenell writes in his letter: There is quite desperation from some family carers of aged disabled people at home, that so little has been done about the financial burden they suffer. These people have made a massive contribution. Their dedication continues to save the government billions. Family carers receive about $60 a week, 36 cents an hour for their seven days, 24 hours work— their devotion— There is a need for a substantial increase to their payment. The government approved providers ... can receive about $50,000 plus out of pocket fees from clients for a level 4 for between about 10 and 14 hours service. The case management can eat up to 30 to 50 per cent of the package, thereby reducing the front line services and equipment. Some improvement would allow home carers to nominate themselves as providers and receive funding for services rendered. This would increase the hours of front-line services. Mr Ovenell continues: It's disappointing the Prime Minister ... and Treasurer ... have not in the budget recognised one of their responsibilities includes an ability to distinguish between those in urgent need, than being domineered by wealthy elites who have more than they will ever need. I share Mr Ovenell's disappointment. This government has demonstrated its priority. It's handing out, indeed today, tax cuts which include tax cuts prospectively more than six years in the future to people who are on the highest incomes. It's also handing out an $80 billion tax cut to big business and the big banks, even whilst we have people like William Ovenell trying to provide for their loved ones at a rate of approximately 60c per hour. I would urge those on the other side to carefully reconsider their priorities, just as Mr Ovenell suggests. It's not, in my view, the case that the government should run their persistent line that we should only pay for things like the NDIS, that we should only pay for Medicare and that we should only pay for public education if we have a sound economy and the budget is in a sound state, because that ignores the fact that the government can and do make choices as to how they address the budget. The most significant failing of this government is the fact that, today, they have sought to bind—although they can't do so—a future government with respect to taxation cuts which are going to cost the budget of Australia billions of dollars every year, far more than is currently spent on either the NDIS or supporting carers. In my mind, that is an unconscionable choice. Similarly, this government should not put it to the Australian community that it's a case of choosing between properly funding Medicare and ensuring that the federal government meets the increase in cost, which should be shared equally between the states and the federal government. It shouldn't put to the Australian community that it's a choice between tax cuts and paying for properly funding public education. It shouldn't put to the Australian community that there's a choice between properly funding technical and further education or having tax cuts. I know that in northern Tasmania people value public health and they value public education. They understand the importance of TAFE. They understand the importance of ensuring that our public institutions are properly funded. This legislation deals with, in particular, the carer allowance and means-testing the carer allowance. I would not like to see this government use the means-testing of the carer allowance as an opportunity to means-test further benefits for carers. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the member for Bass and admire his ability to talk over those at the table. The question is that this bill is now read a second time. I call the member for Macarthur. 12:54 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018. In doing so, I want to briefly speak about the invaluable role that carers play in my electorate of Macarthur and, indeed, right across our nation and the pressures on them. In my role as the member for Macarthur and throughout my fairly long career as a paediatrician in the local area, I meet with carers every day from my community. They come from all different backgrounds: some caring for elderly partners, some caring for their grandchildren and others caring for their very disabled children with special needs. Each and every one of them deserve our accolades. They have a single characteristic in common, and that's selflessness. I have longstanding relationships with local families who act as carers for their relatives, often across multiple generations, and it never ceases to amaze me just how unique and giving these people are. They are the kinds of people from my community who I'm immensely proud and privileged to represent and who I'm driven to deliver better outcomes for every day. Our carers play an invaluable role in our society, and we must do more to assist them. Far too often I will be approached in my office by a Macarthur local, often known to me, who's having issues obtaining or accessing their existing carers benefits at Centrelink. Typically, a call from my office will bring resolution. However, people should not be forced into this situation, to have to go to their local member of parliament to obtain a social security benefit that they have every right to. We as a society owe these people a debt of gratitude. Yet, under this government, people are made to feel as though they cannot access government assistance without resorting to seeing their local politician. Far too many wives, husbands, daughters, sons, foster parents, grandparents and friends have come to me overwhelmed by the system and often distraught, because they are made to feel subhuman when dealing with the Department of Human Services. That is a great Australian shame. That is not a standard that I accept. We are in desperate need of a shift in attitude towards social security in this country. I apologise for feeling very emotional about this, but this is lived experience for me. These are families that I have come to love and, indeed, they have been very supportive of me. Part of my job as a paediatrician causes me to see children with some of the most severe disabilities one could imagine: children with cerebral palsy, children with chromosomal and genetic conditions, children with intractable epilepsy, children with cancer, children with severe intellectual disability and children with severe congenital malformations such as spina bifida. These children are no less loved by their families than others, and it's very important that we provide improved services such as respite care, early intervention and other supports to show that we as a society will help these families get by. I have very often been forced into the position of having to apply to support organisations—most recently, for a child with something called congenital lymphedema, for compression garments, which are not covered by Medicare—to help people live their daily lives. I've often been forced to go to other organisations to provide things like respite care, housing et cetera. We shouldn't have to be in that position for these most disadvantaged children and their carers. Life is not all about aspiration and reaping the rewards of that aspiration. Some things happen because of bad luck and by chance. Having a child with a severe disability is part of that. My unwavering belief is that we as a society should be saying to these families, 'We're part of your journey and we'll support you.' Having a child, for example, with intractable epilepsy imposes enormous stresses and burdens on the family in terms of costs for things like medications. Some children with some of the worst genetic forms of epilepsy may be on five or six different medications. It's very expensive. I recently met a family with a child, Mia, with Dravet syndrome, a very rare form of epilepsy. They actually sold their house so that they could move closer to our local hospital so that when the child was in status epilepticus, which is continuing, uncontrolled seizures, it would take less time to transport them to the emergency department for emergency treatment. So there are enormous costs involved with having a child with a disability like this. It would be remiss of me if I didn't mention this government's latest attack on Human Services. Many carers attempting to access a benefit for the first time are made to wait while their claim is processed, and this process is taking far too long. If someone is entitled to a benefit, it should be given to them. They shouldn't have to wait weeks or even months to get that benefit. It seems quite apparent to me that the government's decision to cut over 1,200 jobs from Centrelink is only going to exacerbate this issue. Surely this is unacceptable. Local residents should not have their calls continuing to go unanswered. This is not appropriate, yet every Centrelink agency around the country has thousands of calls that go unanswered every week. If there are 1,200 fewer staff at Centrelink to respond to and process claims, of course the quality of service will be reduced. Labor will be supporting this bill because it does seem that the vast majority of Australian carers will be able to access more support. But there are no guarantees in this, and I for one will hold this government to account. Payments of this nature are not— An opposition member interjecting— Dr FREELANDER 265979 I never get angry; sometimes I get upset, though. Payments of this nature have not previously been income tested, and this bill now aims to implement a fixed family income test of $250,000 a year. To the majority of families in my community, $250,000 is a relatively high family income. In fact, the median income for residents in my electorate of Macarthur is under $50,000, and 21 per cent of families have a family income of less than $21,000. Based on data from the latter part of 2017, roughly 6½ thousand Macarthur locals are in receipt of the carer allowance. Of those 6½ thousand, an additional 230 receive the associated healthcare card and just over 3,000 are able to get the carer payment. It goes without saying—but I think we need to point out the fact—that being a carer is very expensive. Being a carer often means one partner giving up their job. It's costly in terms of monetary value but also in terms of social capital. It means maybe never going on a holiday. If you have a child who's wheelchair-dependent with cerebral palsy or a congenital abnormality like spina bifida, it's sometimes very difficult, even in this modern world, to travel far, and many accommodation areas are not geared up to cater for children with severe disabilities. It's also important to understand that the carer allowance is not a huge amount of money. As we speak, it's about $127 a fortnight. That doesn't go very far when you're looking after a child who may be incontinent. The larger nappies are extremely expensive, running into hundreds of dollars a month, and often they're not subsidised. The healthcare card is also provided for children who have a severe medical condition or a disability, and that can be very useful because many of these children are on large numbers of medications—for epilepsy; sometimes for muscle spasms, in the case of cerebral palsy; sometimes, for gastrointestinal disorders, some children require special feeds and special formulas—and this is very expensive, and the healthcare card is an enormous help. These changes to the carer allowance will affect a very small number of people—in fact, less than one per cent of carer allowance recipients and healthcare card holders—and this is why we are agreeing to this bill. However, it is clear to me that we do need to do more. The amount that carers contribute to our society runs into billions of dollars. They play a vital role in providing care for people who may well otherwise require hospital or nursing-home care. Based on a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, it is estimated that about 2.7 million Australians are performing the role of carer and go pretty much unpaid. The carer's part in our society is invaluable. The replacement value of carers in our society has been estimated to run at close to $60 billion. Statistics have already been mentioned about the number of hours of unpaid care provided by carers, and it would be almost impossible for our medical or social support services to cope if a significant number of our carers stopped caring. We know they won't, because caring is in their nature. I've been blessed in my career to meet some really wonderful carers who have looked after their child or relative selflessly for many, many years. That's why I was so pleased with the rollout of the NDIS. One issue that was always a constant worry for parents who have a child with a severe disability, as they got older and may become less able to look after their severely disabled child, was where the certainty of care was going to come from. That's a really huge issue that the NDIS, which had bipartisan support, has addressed. The relief for these families is almost palpable. To know a child—for example, a child with Down syndrome—is going to be able to be cared for once their parents are gone is amazing. Whilst we have criticised some factors in the NDIS rollout, this has certainly made a huge difference to many of the families I see, and I am very grateful for it. I want to see, however, more investment in supporting carers. We need to have a better respite care system. It's physically exhausting sometimes to look after a child, adolescent or adult with some of the more severe forms of disability. Things like lifting them, bathing them, showering them and feeding them are very physically tiring, and many of the carers I see have orthopaedic injuries, back injuries or arthritis from the constant trauma of looking after people with severe disabilities. The love that they give their disabled relative only goes so far. The physical demands are very difficult. We need to be doing more to support them. Respite care is an issue, certainly, as is home modification. I've seen parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars modifying their homes to deal with a wheelchair-dependent relative. We need to be providing better services to help people do things like physically modify their homes or even get a bit of a break every now and again so they can go on holidays. Some of the families I see haven't been on a holiday in 30 years, which really is something that we should be helping with. We in Labor will certainly hold the government to account to make sure these changes are reflected in improved payments and improved resources for carers. As I've mentioned, waiting times for some of these benefits are really a major issue, and I would encourage the government to do what it can to reduce the waiting times for Centrelink benefits and, in particular, make communication with Centrelink much better for some of the very stressed families that I see. The government owes it to Australian carers to be diligent in providing support and services. If the government intended to be serious in its duty to support carers, it would have brought this program forward many months ago. Instead it opted to force Australia's hardworking unpaid carers to wait in the dark, concerned about what was going to happen. I remain very concerned that little is known about the new integrated carer support services. The fact that commencement has been pushed back suggests to me the government also knows very little about it. We owe it to our carers. I owe it to the carers of the patients I've looked after for many years. They are selfless and have not been particularly demanding, and yet they do a job that many would fail at. (Time expired) 13:09 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading stage of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payments for Carers) Bill 2018. Welfare is of course, as has been noted in this chamber many times, a massive area of taxpayer funded expenditure, presently representing about 35 per cent of the Australian government's total expenses. In the 2017-18 financial year, the government expected to spend $8.5 billion on payments for carers and that would include $5.4 billion on carer payment, $1.7 billion on carer allowance for those caring for an adult and almost $600 million for those caring for a child. Carers, as all of the speakers have acknowledged and detailed, play a crucial role and make significant contributions to those they care for and, in so doing, for the Australian community at large. The government is obviously therefore aware of the need to balance welfare spending with the provision of support services to ensure that both remain sustainable into the future. This bill introduces an income test for carer allowance and the carer allowance (child) health care card only from 20 September 2018. Carer allowance is currently not subject to an income test, meaning that people who do not require financial assistance can nevertheless still be eligible for the payment. That fact differs from the majority of social security payments in Australia, which are income and asset tested in order to target the payments to the people most in need of the financial safety net. Introducing the income test for carer allowance is consistent with the government's overall priority and policies of strengthening the coherence and sustainability of the welfare system and it allows funding to be directed to new services for carers without growing existing welfare expenditure. So setting a generous $250,000 income threshold targets financial assistance to those most in need whilst recognising the immense contribution carers make to our community. Around 99 per cent of recipients will have no change at all to their payment. The one per cent of recipients who would be affected by the income test evidently have family incomes in excess of $250,000. The fortnightly carer allowance payments that would be foregone would have a very small percentage impact on the household income for families above that threshold. These carers would continue to remain eligible for carer support services and can also access the Medicare safety net for assistance with medical costs. The savings from this measure of $85.6 million will be invested in new early intervention support services for carers. The national peak body for carers, Carers Australia, have worked with the government over a two-year period, and I would like to thank them for that good work, some of which I was a part of. They've worked with the government over a two-year period to design a new and improved model to deliver carer support services. The government is introducing new carer support services as part of the Integrated Carer Support Service, forming the third and final stage of the 2015-16 budget commitment to develop an integrated plan for carer support services. The introduction of the Integrated Carer Support Service represents the biggest reform for carers in over a decade. The new service system will focus on early intervention as opposed to the current crisis-driven approach and the reforms are the result of an extensive two-year consultative process with carers and with the sector as a whole. Given the growing demand for carers and the pressure of the caring role which may render carers vulnerable, it's crucial to ensure that payments and support services for carers continue to be provided into the future. Introducing what is, in effect, a generous income test threshold for carer allowance will help achieve these goals by targeting financial assistance to those most in need and align carer allowance with other income tested payments. Importantly, it provides capacity to fund services for carers without growing existing welfare expenditure, thereby yielding positive outcomes for carers now and into the future. For all those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 40 13:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 40

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 40 Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018 40

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 40 13:15 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018, which the opposition will be supporting. This bill relates to the annual appropriations for the Australian Research Council and serves the purpose of applying the annual indexation, CPI, to the various grant programs that the council supports. These increases are already reflected in the budget and the MYEFO forward estimates, making this a largely administrative bill. The bill will amend legislative spending caps in the act to allow for additional investment in the Australian research grant schemes of up to $758 million for 2017-18 through to $771.93 million for 2019-20. As previously stated, this is already reflected in the budget. Labor supports the updating of the funding profile for major Australian Research Council grant programs; however, this basic administrative change has previously been held up by the coalition's attempts to pass their very unfair and regressive $100,000 university degrees. When there's funding uncertainty, we know that there is a significant impact on the work of researchers. Professor Brian Schmidt, now vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, in 2015 opened his opinion piece on The Drum with the statement: Funding uncertainty makes it much harder for Australia to attract and retain research talent. One story about a disappearing job very nearly put me off ever coming to this beautiful country. Professor Schmidt went on to say: To reap the benefits of science, society needs patience. While political change can rise and fall in a day, the circle of research and development runs on a multi-decadal timescale between when a discovery is made and when society directly benefits. It is for this reason that the single most important part of science and research policy is stability. And yet, in my 20 years in Australia, I and other researchers in businesses, universities and government agencies have faced a continually changing landscape of short-term programs, strategies and political emphases. Uncertainty caused by this haphazard approach leads to huge inefficiency by stranding investments, making it impossible to strategically plan, and ultimately making Australia a less than preferred option for researchers from here and around the world. It's why clever Australians like evolutionary biologist Danielle Edwards are leaving their home country to work elsewhere. Because science is so international, and so connected, stories like Danielle's spread fast and wide. They make it much harder to attract talent from the rest of the world, and retain the talent we have. A similar story very nearly put me off ever coming to this beautiful country: one of my great astronomy professors at Harvard accepted a position in Australia in 1975, but the position disappeared just before he was to arrive, when the Whitlam government fell. Nineteen years later, his experience still coloured my view, and became one of my principal concerns about emigrating to Australia. Fortunately I had an Australian wife who could reassure me—but for many people, the story of that bad experience would have been enough not to come. They're the words of Professor Brian Schmidt, who won the 2011 Nobel prize for physics while researching in Australia. It makes one think about that bad experience in 1975 affecting the decision of a world-leading scientist to emigrate to Australia and raising doubt in his mind about the opportunities in Australia. The House should reflect on that experience, particularly when we discuss this bill, and we should acknowledge the importance of stability and of each side building on the progress of the other. We know that one of the drivers of Australian success in research is a provision of both competitive grant funding programs by the ARC and the NHMRC and a long-term stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research in ways that will foster its development. Research funded by the Australian Research Council allows Australian thinkers to produce outcomes that will help our country become more creative, productive, resilient and better equipped to face and understand the developments of the 21st century. We understand the value of the Australian Research Council and we understand what it has achieved for the nation when we properly fund science and research. When we reflect on the time Labor was in government and the good investments that we made—such as a 10-year innovation strategy in 2008, Powering Ideas—we saw a series of positive objectives to increase the number of Australian research groups performing at world-class levels. We wanted to boost international research collaboration by Australian universities. We wanted to significantly increase the number of students completing higher degrees by research over this decade. We wanted to double the level of collaboration between Australian business, universities and publicly funded research agencies. And we wanted to increase the proportion of businesses engaging in innovation and continue the improvement in the number of businesses investing in research and development. None of these things can come about without a government that is a tuned to the benefit that our nation gets from investing in science and research. Between 2007 and 2013, under Labor, expenditure on science and research increased by 49 per cent. For the House's benefit, that's $3.3 billion a year. We doubled the number of Australian postgraduate awards. We raised the stipend for the 10,000-plus researchers we supported. When a government fights for the big investments in science and research, the whole nation shares in the rewards—and sometimes the whole of humanity shares in those rewards. Government secured funding for the Square Kilometre Array—the biggest astronomy project of this generation and a multibillion-dollar international development in infrastructure. Investing in world-class research across the country means we now have a state-of-the-art national marine research vessel, RV Investigator, which can accommodate up to 40 scientists and support staff, go to sea for 60 days at a time and cover 10,000 nautical miles. This vessel enables researchers to head out to the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans to undertake deep sea oceanography—and that underpins resource exploration, monitors and better understands fisheries, and learns more about our weather patterns and large ocean processes. We now have a world-first carbon fibre production facility at Geelong. We now have two of the world's most advanced supercomputers. We have the world's most advanced biosecurity research facility. Labor in government helped businesses invest in the future by replacing the hold R&D tax concession with a new tax credit. And we established Commercialisation Australia, giving 440 entrepreneurs their shot at success with over $185 million in grant support. This is very important support for business and particularly for manufacturers who rely on the R&D tax credit—which used to be a tax concession. We secured close to a billion dollars in funding for clean technology in manufacturing—cutting waste and the costs associated for business. In 2013 the member for Port Adelaide and I visited a family business situated on the borders of our respective electorates. Mario Verasi runs a successful hydroponic farm and an extensive processing facility. He packs lettuce and other goods for other farms around the area and sells it on to supermarket chains to be consumed by customers in South Australia and around the country. He was successful in applying for a Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program grant, and that provided assistance and funding for a 99-kilowatt solar system. The system reduced the carbon intensity of that business by 47 per cent and also provided the business with significant savings in energy costs. That story was replicated over and over again in my electorate, with businesses examining the amount of power they use and, helped by the government, adopting sensible ways of reducing their costs and, of course, their carbon footprint on the environment. Mario and his family have operated the business for over 35 years. They described the program as being good for businesses, good for the community and good for the environment. There are similar stories of success from businesses around Australia. The recent budget saw the Australian Research Council Discovery Projects scheme, for basic or fundamental research funding, increased by only 0.3 per cent, and the linkage scheme, which is applied research, increased by 2.7 per cent in 2018-19. Under Labor, support for the Australian Research Council reached a high of $873 million in 2012-13. Under this bill, the support for ARC programs will be $758 million in 2018-19 and $771 million in 2019-20. The difference in funding is largely because this Liberal government has not continued funding programs for mid-level researchers, like the future fellowships, at previous levels. Under Labor, 200 fellowships were awarded in 2012, and yet now, in 2018, only 100 fellowships will be awarded. The coalition should reflect on the achievements made when investing in science and research and on their own record, like when they sought to cut over $900 million from science and research, including $75 million from the Australian Research Council, in their first budget. Labor knows that economies and societies which invest more in research generally show faster rates of growth in output and in human development. In his address to the Australian Academy of Science last year, Bill Shorten recommitted Labor to our three per cent R&D target. He stated: Our national goal should be to lift our investment in research and development—by government, by universities and by our private sector—and I suggest our goal should be moving the proportion of science expenditure to 3 per cent of our GDP by 2030. What at times can be lost on those opposite is that these programs supported by the Australian Research Council serve as an integral part of the Australian innovation system, along with the National Health and Medical Research Council and other national institutions. The Australian Research Council is a major funder of our national competitive grants system. Research helps foster our future. It helps foster progress, it helps foster economic growth and it helps breakthroughs in a range of different areas, and literally everybody wins out of that process. It's not something that you can say affects just one segment of the community. Breakthroughs in research and science really do ripple not just through one university; they ripple through suburbs, they ripple through hospitals and they ripple through scientific institutions. They are the great breakthroughs that help the whole country and, ultimately, help the whole of humanity. Research helps foster our future, and we understand, on this side of the House at least, that we have to help that process. We have to provide stability and predictability—that's one of the reasons we are supporting this bill. As outlined in Professor Schmidt's article, that predictability and stability can have a great effect for the negative or for the positive. If there's one thing I'd urge the House to consider, it is to maintain that stability and maintain that predictability of funding of our support for these great national endeavours in science and research. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 I thank the member for his contribution. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later date. The member will of course be granted leave if he wishes to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 42 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Macquarie Electorate: Breast Cancer 42 13:30 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie As I speak, family and friends are celebrating the life of 27-year-old Jane Bryant, a nurse from the Blue Mountains who last week lost her battle against metastatic breast cancer, having made the most of every single day that she had. My thoughts are with them in their grief. The last few weeks in my electorate of Macquarie seem to have been dominated by inspiring women like Jane taking up the fight against cancer. From the Biggest Morning Tea hosted by Trish and Mike at Total Hearing and Health Windsor to the Relay For Life trivia night fundraiser, there has been a big commitment to raising money for vital research and supporting people who are experiencing cancer. So often the people involved in raising funds and providing support have their own lived experience. And so it is for Jodie at Pink Finss, whose team of volunteers and health professionals now finally have a place to call home in Windsor. Women going through cancer treatment will have a safe, warm, nurturing space to go. I was thrilled to be at their opening. The Pendragons Abreast team are another example of inspiring women from the Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Penrith area—with a few blokes who come along for the ride supporting women with breast cancer. I know they share tears, but what you take away from any event with them is a huge feeling of hope. I wish them well at the international breast cancer survivor regatta in Italy. Hodder, Mr Tahj, Page Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 43 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Evans River K-12 School year 7 student Tahj Hodder has recently been selected to dance in the 2018 NSW Public Schools Aboriginal Dance Company. He attended a workshop in Lismore that was run by the Bangarra dance company. Videos of a short-listed group of students, including Tahj, were taken by the Bangarra tutors and evaluated by a selection panel back in Sydney. Tahj was the only year 7 student to perform and was up against year 11 and 12 students. His mum, Stella, dad, Roy, and sister, Honey, are understandably very proud of him. Tahj will attend dance rehearsals in Sydney in preparation for performing at the Schools Spectacular in November. Congratulations and all the best, Tahj. I'd like to offer my congratulations to Order of Australia medal recipients in my electorate. In the 1950s, Barry Oaten served in the 41st Battalion and is now a life member of the Northern Rivers branch of the National Servicemen's Association. He has been providing the service of cutting veterans' hair for free. He's obviously a barber and, indeed, cuts my father-in-law's hair. He has been a great contributor to the community over many years. Allan Thomas received his award also for commitment to veterans in the community, and Lucy Kinsley received her award for her dedication and contribution to libraries across the Northern Rivers. Congratulations to the three of them. Thank you for the contributions you've made to our community. Scully, Private William Jack 43 13:33 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon At the close of sittings today, I'll be attending a Last Post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial with Territorians Jack Nicholson and his granddaughter Christina, who are here with us in the gallery today. We are going to pay tribute to Private William Jack Scully. Christina is in year 9 at Darwin Middle School, and I thank her for preparing this speech about William Jack Scully. Jack Scully was born in 1919 into a family working on Willaroo station. He moved to Darwin when the family wanted to provide education for Jack and his siblings. He was an excellent football player. After the bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942, Jack joined the army and worked on construction and maintenance for the military build-up. On 20 June 1943, Jack was working near Winnellie when Japanese bombers attacked in what was to be one of the last bombing raids on Darwin. Despite being assaulted by Spitfires, the Japanese bombers managed to drop bombs on Winnellie and, sadly, William Jack Scully was hit and killed by a daisy cutter bomb. On 21 June 1943, Jack was buried with full military honours at Berrimah. After the war, he was moved to the Adelaide River War Cemetery. We remember Jack Scully with sorrow and respect 75 years after his untimely death. He was 24 years old. Lest we forget. Hughes Electorate: Rural Fire Service 43 13:34 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Over the past fortnight, I've had the great pleasure to visit many of the Rural Fire Service brigades around my electorate for their annual general meetings. I would like to congratulate all the brigade captains, the secretaries and all others that stood for office and were successful in those elections. I'd also like to congratulate Andrew Pinfold and Scott Deller from the head office at Heathcote for the great work that they have done in organising everything. Sandy Point brigade will very soon be moving into their new facilities that have been built at Sandy Point. They are long overdue, but are great new facilities that will really help make a difference in that particular area. I'd also like to again congratulate the Rural Fire Service in my region for their work during the recent bushfires back in April across the Sutherland Shire and the Holsworthy army base, and in the Wattle Grove area as well. It was truly remarkable that we had that much fire activity, that many acres burnt and such significant winds yet the only asset lost was one children's cubby house. It was a remarkable achievement, and it was only a remarkable achievement because of the years of, and dedication to, training of those volunteers in my area and their hard work and determination to keep our area safe. Again, I congratulate all those involved in the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. Cooper, Professor David, AC 44 13:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith On Thursday, I joined over a thousand people at a memorial service at the Sydney Town Hall celebrating the life and legacy of Professor David Cooper AC. David was an immunologist and a director of the Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales. But for many Australians he was a modern-day hero. David's life was dedicated to preventing, treating and curing HIV and other infectious diseases. After a research fellowship in Boston in the early 1980s, David saw some of the world's first cases of HIV and quickly returned to Australia because he knew that the epidemic would spread here—and it did. With his colleague, Ron Penny, he diagnosed the first case of HIV in Australia in 1982, and quickly established a treatment facility for HIV patients in Australia at St Vincent's Hospital. His groundbreaking research into HIV seroconversion led him to become the president of the International AIDS Society and the chair of the World Health Organization's HIV vaccine advisory committee. David also did a lot to reduce the stigma and homophobia associated with AIDS. There are countless people living in Australia today and throughout the world who wouldn't be alive if it weren't for David Cooper. That was recognised recently with a posthumous AC in the Queen's Birthday 2018 Honours List. I offer my condolences to his wife, Dorrie, and to his children, Becky and Ilana. May he rest in peace. Bowman Electorate: Infrastructure 44 13:37 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman After the Queensland budget last week, Redlands are the forgotten people. We're watching our state debt tick up to $83 billion and we're hearing promises of more bus and boat stops, but, in reality, Queensland Labor is delivering nothing to my city. We are at the point now where they announced the cleaning of drains as a deliverable, as well as artificial grass to a bowls club, or they find an ALP member somewhere on a sports club executive and promise them half a clubhouse in a location where you can't even build a clubhouse. This is complete confusion. There are major arterials in my neck of the woods that need upgrading to four lanes, but, of course, we get no work done on those. When the LNP offered to duplicate roads, like Cleveland Redland Bay Road and the Shaw Street roundabout, the Labor government actually refused to spend the money and do the upgrade. We have Mount Cotton Road, where Mick de Brenni dived in to announce traffic lights outside a school, and now he is having to put a second set of traffic lights 80 metres down the road because they failed to plan the intersection. Then Cross River Rail was trumpeted as saving Redlanders 14 minutes on their commute, but you actually have to change trains to get on the Cross River Rail, which chews up the 14 minutes. We need delivery in this area and we need MPs to stand up against a state Labor government that's basically ticking along, offending no-one, but getting nothing done. We're a growing state. We can do far better than what we've had so far. Redlanders are asking for the major arterials to be addressed—to stop spending money on boat and bus stops and to start remembering that public transport doesn't work if you don't fix the roads that are under it. Spain 44 13:39 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to express my concerns about aspects of the long-running political contest between unionists and separatists in the Spanish region of Catalonia. This is, of course, a complex debate around questions of political autonomy, self-determination and independence—questions, undeniably, best left to those directly affected. My concerns relate to the treatment of a number of pro-independence political leaders in the aftermath of last year's referendum. Several leaders of Catalonia's independence movement have been imprisoned on charges of sedition and rebellion. A number of others, including Carles Puigdemont, the democratically elected leader of Catalonia, fled Spain before Spanish authorities were able to detain them on similar charges. The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right that all states are bound to respect under international law. Efforts to extradite Mr Puigdemont and a number of his pro-independence colleagues on charges of rebellion signal an alarming preparedness to silence key political proponents of this independence movement. Attempts to suppress political beliefs by denying basic rights have no place in any modern democracy. Referenda in other parts of the EU have been successfully carried out without recrimination. Spain, committed as it is to the ideas of liberal democracy and pluralism, must continue to set a similar example. All states are duty-bound to respect the human rights of all political participants in processes like these. Failure to do so risks undermining the key tenets of our democracies and perhaps wider aspirations for lasting peace and settlement. Forrest Electorate: Australind 45 13:40 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Australind is one of the fastest-thriving coastal communities in regional Australia. Boarded by the Brunswick and Collie rivers and Leschenault Estuary, in 1840, the West Australian Land Company bought land in part to build a port and carry farm produce and horses from Australia to India; hence the name Australind—a combination of Australia and India. The venture was failing when Marshall Waller Clifton and his people arrived in four little ships in the 1840s, the Parkfield, Diadem, Island Queen and Trusty. The Australind Heritage Trail includes St Nicholas church, believed to be the smallest church in Australia. Built in 1840, the jarrah building is 3.8 metres wide and 6.7 metres long. Henton Cottage was originally a hotel for pioneers, and the cottage's two original rooms came on one of the ships. Upton House was built in the 1840s for Elizabeth Fry, the English prison reformer and sister-in-law to the Marshall Waller Clifton. It became the home of the Clifton family when Elizabeth decided not to come to Australia. A descendant of the Clifton family still lives there today. The Clifton family farm, Alverstoke, was signed over to Marshall Waller Clifton in 1842. Alverstoke has been lovingly preserved by John and Mary Clifton and their family. It is like stepping back in time, with the outbuilding sheds and the famous Clifton Area School, which was run by Miss Emily Clifton. There was a reunion of the families who are descendants of the original settlers on those four small boats, and they had a wonderful reunion at Alverstoke. Australind has a rich history and a strong future. (Time expired) Immigration Detention 45 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Ali—that's not his real name—is a 63-year-old man who has been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. Doctors have told him he does not have long to live. That's a devastating diagnosis for anyone, but, for Ali, there is a cruel twist: he is an Afghan asylum seeker from the persecuted Hazara minority and, right now, he is in an Australian detention centre on Nauru. He has asked to come to Australia to receive palliative care—palliative care!—but the Australian government has refused. Not only is this government leaving this man with late stage cancer in detention, where he cannot receive appropriate care, but, rather than bring him to Australia, the Australian Border Force has offered him $25,000 to return to Afghanistan, from where he fled and faces danger. This is obscene. What kind of country have we become? How can this government be so lacking in basic decency? This is the natural extension of the cruel detention system that Labor and Liberal governments have built. Last week, 26-year-old Fariborz K took his own life after years of long-term detention. He became the 12th person to die in Australian detention on Manus Island or Nauru—the 12th person to die! He experienced severe trauma in Iran, and years of detention left his mental health in crisis. He leaves behind his mother and 12-year-old brother, who remain in detention on Nauru. This World Refugee Week, I say: not one more; not one more death. We must bring here Ali and every one of the 16,000 asylum seekers in detention. (Time expired) Political Correctness 45 13:43 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I rise to raise the issue of the moralistic persecution being committed across our society. This persecution is not being committed against people for their heritage or their age, nor for their sexuality or location; this persecution is being committed on the basis of people's thoughts and words. Freedom of expression and freedom of thought are two ideals held as absolute by many Australians, which is why it is so disappointing to hear so many cases of the 'thought police' attacking Australians. Personal freedom is the purest example of what separates great nations like Australia from the brutal regimes we despise. Lately, we have seen institutions which should be castles that foster the contest of ideas taking steps to silence those who don't agree with the Marxist ideals of the Left. I, for one, am proud to stand in this place as a woman and do not take offence at anyone assuming that I'm a woman. Efforts to remove 'Father's Day' from our calendars, 'mankind' from our achievements and 'grandmothers' from our children are joining efforts by a noisy minority to wipe the pioneering history of this country from our collective memory. It is not good enough to inflict pain and shame on someone who has intended no harm, nor is it okay to deny the huge efforts of those who founded this nation. Our society is conducive to challenging debate and should certainly not be persecuting those who hold the traditional ideals that have delivered so much for this nation. Esso 45 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to commend the 200 Esso Longford workers who have been locked out of their place of employment for 365 days. That's right: it is a year since the Esso Longford workers were originally locked out of their workplace. They have been put through the mill for a year. These are Sale locals. These are men and women, 200 of them, who were asked to take a 40 per cent pay cut off the back of five people in Western Australia determining their work conditions. This is wrong. The pendulum has swung too far. I want to commend these workers who are in a fight not just for their own livelihoods but for the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers who don't want their work conditions and their remuneration determined by people on the other side of this country in a small, closed conversation. These people are brave. They are courageous. They work for a company that paid no tax in this country last year. These people are Australian heroes. For 365 days they have stood up for their working conditions, not only for themselves but also for workers across this country. I want to say to them: we on this side of the chamber support you, we understand why you're doing what you're doing and we're barracking for a win, not just for you but for all workers. Berowra Electorate: Pie of Origin 46 13:47 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra While at this time of the year many Australians are focused on the annual New South Wales-Queensland grudge match known as the State of Origin, there's another important grudge match, which is the battle of the bakers, known as Pie of Origin. For every pie sold during Pie of Origin, $1 is donated to charity, and whoever sells the most pies and raises the most money is declared the winner. Every year, Glenorie Bakery, run by my constituent Rob Pirina, from New South Wales, takes on a Queensland bakery. This year, Rob and his team are aiming to buy three intensive-care beds for the Children's Hospital at Westmead, valued at $33,000. Since Rob started Pie of Origin in 2012, he's raised nearly $100,000 for charitable causes—a truly remarkable achievement. Queenslanders always need a handicap, so they're getting five shops to our one. Queensland is represented by Brett Hoy and the team at Uncle Bobs Bakery in Belmont, in the electorate of my friend the member for Bonner, and they are attempting to defend Queensland's title. The scoreboard is currently three a piece, so this year's result is very important. I wish Queensland luck, and they're going to need it, because the pies at Glenorie Bakery are some of the best in Australia, and they've been voted as such. I can tell you from personal experience that they're absolutely delicious. Congratulations to Rob and the team for their incredible support of the kids' hospital. I urge everyone to go to Glenorie Bakery and buy a pie. Support your state, support your mate, support the kids' hospital at Westmead—and go the Blues. Esso 46 13:48 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen I also rise to talk about Esso's ugly dispute and what they're doing to 200 families in Gippsland. So far, these brave men and women have been out of work for 8,760 hours. Two hundred and thirty workers went to work, lost their contract and were told, 'You can stay in a job if you take a $45,000 pay cut.' This government is backing Esso-UGL and is supporting companies that don't pay tax in Australia while ripping the hearts out of families and taking food off the table of hardworking Australians who are only out there trying to earn a living, feed their families and make sure their kids have good opportunities. What we've seen when we've been there is Esso's thug actions against these Australian families. Security guards were hiding in bushes and taking photos of kids on picket lines. That is what we see under this government's watch because the government are backing large multinationals against Australian workers. We see 500 metres of illegally erected fences, and what do the government do about it? Nothing. They back the multinational companies against Australians. At a time when the government are cutting penalty rates and taking away winter supplements from pensioners, they're giving themselves and their millionaire mates an $11,000 tax cut—tax cuts for the rich; nothing for the workers. These people need to be congratulated for what they're doing at Esso— (Time expired) Pie of Origin 46 13:50 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner On Sunday the second game in the battle between the cane toads and the cockroaches kicks off. But instead of telling you all how New South Wales is going to bite the dust, I need all the Queenslanders out there to bite the crust! It's a competition of a different kind—state versus state, mate versus mate—and a battle for the ages. It's Pie of Origin! The competition pits Uncle Bob's Bakery in Queensland, in my electorate, up against Glenorie Bakery in New South Wales, and the aim of the game is for each state to bake and sell as many pies as possible to raise money for their respective charities and win the Pie of Origin. My very own local Uncle Bob's has their game face on. I spoke to the owner, Brett, last week, and he's pumping out the meat pies. I urge everyone in Bonner to do their bit and get down to the Belmont shops and stock up. Not only will $1 from every pie go towards the Brisbane Children's Hospital Foundation; it'll give us Queenslanders one more chance to rub our long-running winning streak in the faces of our southern counterparts. What is it now, member for Berowra, 11 out of 12 years? If you need a snack for the footy, buy a pie from Uncle Bob's. If you care about supporting children's health, get down to Uncle Bob's and buy a pie. If you're a Queenslander who wants to show New South Wales who's boss, you know what you have to do. So get yourself down to your local Uncle Bob's Bakery and show your support for a good cause. Winning is in our DNA. Go Queensland! Income Tax 47 13:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Question time starts in 10 minutes, and I guarantee the epithet of class war will be thrown about an awful lot from the government. It is true that a class war is happening right now. It is a class war being perpetuated by the government. They've declared war on the vast majority of Australians who don't earn $200,000 and upwards each year, the vast majority of Australians who struggle every day to pay their bills, to afford their kids' excursion, to put clothes on their backs. The tax changes that passed through the Senate today represent that class war, a class war where a lawyer on $200,000 will get a seven-grand tax cut whereas a typical worker in my electorate will get $9.80 a week. To justify this class war, they've made all sorts of ridiculous claims that forklift drivers earn 160 grand a year. Give us one example of a forklift driver who earns 160 grand a year. Principals are described as the typical educational professional in this country—head mistresses—when they are three per cent of the education workforce. The truth is the median electorate worker in my electorate earns $47,000. The median worker in the country earns a bit over $50,000. We have one in five kids in this country who at least once a year will go to school without a meal. That is a disgrace. That's where we need funding, not a seven-grand tax cut for the top end of town when people are going hungry. Moore Electorate: Local Government Week 47 13:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Earlier this week, I hosted visiting local government representatives from my electorate as part of national Local Government Week. From the City of Joondalup, Mayor Albert Jacob, Councillor Nige Jones, and Chief Executive Officer Garry Hunt; and from the City of Wanneroo, Mayor Tracey Roberts, Councillor Frank Cvitan, Councillor Samantha Fenn, and Chief Executive Officer Daniel Simms. The federal government provides strong support in the form of financial assistance grants to local government authorities across Australia for roads and for general purposes. The local government representatives from my community met with a number of ministers to outline a number of strategic infrastructure and economic development priorities, including activation of the Joondalup city centre, the redevelopment of the Ocean Reef Marina, expanding employment opportunities in the Neerabup industrial area and contributing to the road network and connectivity between the two neighbouring cities. Important priorities for our councils include federal funding for improving traffic management and road safety at hazardous roads and intersections through the Roads to Recovery and Blackspot programs, as well as additional funding to renew infrastructure and refurbish community facilities in older established suburbs. ExxonMobil 47 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Three hundred and sixty-five days ago, ExxonMobil's Longford maintenance workers were sacked by ExxonMobil and offered their jobs back with a significant pay cut. Esso, which is one of the largest companies in the world—yet paid no tax in this country last year and won't for the foreseeable future—awarded their maintenance contract to UGL. UGL said to these 200 workers, 'Sure, you can have your jobs back, but you're going to have to face pay cuts and a roster that is not friendly to family.' This happened 365 days ago. The agreement that they tried to force these workers onto wasn't voted on by these 200 workers. In a gaming of the system, it was an agreement that was voted on in Western Australia by fewer than five people. This gaming of the system has to stop. These workers have been out on the lawn for 365 days, yet their local member, Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland, has said things behind private doors but done nothing in this place to help them out. The Liberal-National parties have done nothing to help them out. They've not picked up the phone and called ExxonMobil and said, 'End this.' They've not stood with these workers on the picket line and said, 'We will work with you.' I acknowledge the work of the AWU, the ETU and the AMWU for standing with these workers, saying enough is enough. It's time that these people got their jobs back. Schools 47 13:56 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn In this year's budget, we secured funding for the School Chaplaincy Program. It has been locked in and supported by all in this House. It is vital funding for vital, effective programs. However, they still need more funding to fill that short gap. I attended a fundraising event at Gin Gin State School last Saturday to ensure that the work of the chaplains continues within our school groups, student services and support programs. Chaplaincies in Queensland schools are very important. They build positive relationships with students, work closely with other support staff and services to nurture and care for students, support at-risk students through behaviour management programs, support staff and families from the wider school community and provide spiritual support and direction to the school community. Through positive and supportive relationships, they help our young people with everyday life problems: substance abuse, relationship issues, family breakdowns, depression and low self-esteem. I wish all school chaplains throughout my electorate of Flynn all the best for the future. Income Tax 48 13:57 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton On Tuesday, we saw how this Prime Minister really looks at the world. He said that if a 60-year-old aged-care worker was wondering why she only gets $10 a week from this government, while an investment banker on $1 million gets $7,000, she should just get a better job. That's what he said. That's easy for him to say. Then again, everything has been easy for this Prime Minister. He's never seen the wrong side of disadvantage. He doesn't need Medicare, and that's why he's cutting money from public health. He won't ever need the pension, and that's why he's cutting the energy supplement for pensioners. He's never relied on penalty rates, and that's why we're going to see cuts to penalty rates on 1 July. Now he's teaming up with Senator Hanson to rob taxpayers and give investment bankers like him $7,000 tax cuts. That's what he's doing. He doesn't get it. He'll never get it. He's got more shares than anyone in the parliament, but he doesn't share the values of the Australian people. He was born out of touch, he's lived his life out of touch and he will always be out of touch. To all of those Australians who are working hard every day, who are putting in to help the vulnerable, you don't need some corporate spiv telling you to get a better job. You deserve a pay rise, you deserve a bigger tax cut and you deserve a better government. Australian Labor Party 48 13:59 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Mr Speaker, I'm afraid that the Australian Labor Party has become morally bankrupt. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Oh, their wailing cries and the crocodile tears of confected outrage! Aren't they good at it? We know that the Labor Party have become morally bankrupt, because they deploy a strategy where on the one hand they lie and on the other hand they tax. Lie, tax, lie, tax—that's their game. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fairfax will withdraw. Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Let me make clear, if I can, to the House that in Longman the Labor Party are running an unashamed untruth. On the one hand they're saying, 'Look over here; there's a problem with hospital funding.' Meanwhile, what are they doing with the other hand? They're picking the pockets of the people of Longman. That's what they're doing. They are reaching their hands into the pockets of every retiree, every worker and every family, and they're taking every dollar they can. That's what the Labor Party do. They take every cent they can to feed their habit of spending—to get their fix. They are not worthy and they are not fit to serve the people of Longman, let alone to govern this country. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Income Tax 48 14:00 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. This week the Prime Minister told a 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie to get a better job. Is he aware that 65-year-old aged-care worker, Elaine Smith from Devonport, has told— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Franklin will begin her question again. I wish to hear the question. The member for Franklin, if you could start from the beginning. The clock will be reset. Ms COLLINS HWM Thank you, Mr Speaker. This week the Prime Minister told a 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie to get a better job. Is he aware that 65-year-old aged-care worker Elaine Smith from Devonport has told the Burnie Advocate that the Prime Minister is 'putting people down because they are doing a low paid job'. Is this why the Prime Minister and Senator Hanson teamed up to give aged-care workers a tax cut of just $10 a week and to give themselves a tax cut of $7,000 every year? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The 65-year-old worker that wrote to the Devonport paper would expect a member of parliament not to begin her question with a falsehood. She knows very well that what she said about me—what she claimed I said—is not true. It is the Labor Party that says if you're 60 and you're an aged-care worker you can't aspire to earn more, to get a promotion, to get more training, to go from being a nurse to a manager, or to go from being a personal care assistant to a nurse. It's the Labor Party, the party the honourable member is a member of, that wants to keep those workers in their place. There used to be a time when the Labor Party stood up for workers. There used to be a time when the Labor Party was all about aspiration, when they weren't mystified by aspiration, and when they believed in people getting ahead. Now we have a Labor Party that has voted against Australian workers keeping more of the money they earn. They've described tax relief as a giveaway. Mr Speaker, do you know why? Because they think that every dollar Australians earn belongs to the government, so, when you reduce tax, the government is giving money away. Well, let me advise the out-of-touch members opposite that Australians believe the money they earn is theirs. It's their hard-earned money, and what they want to do is be able to keep more of it. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 What we've been able to achieve today is for them. This has been a win for hardworking Australian families, who will be able to keep more of the money they earn and who will be given every encouragement to dream, to aspire, to have high hopes and to know that when they earn a bit more they will only be paying 32½c in the dollar instead of going into higher and higher tax brackets. This is a massive personal income tax reform—the most comprehensive in a generation—and the winners are the hardworking Australian families the Labor Party has abandoned. Ms Collins HWM I seek leave to table Elaine's comments. Leave not granted. Income Tax 49 14:04 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's tax relief plan will enable working Australians to keep more of their money, including in my electorate of Dunkley? Is the Prime Minister aware of alternative approaches that seek to increase taxes? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Today we have seen a massive win for hardworking Australian families. They will be able to keep more of the money they earn. It's their money: they earned it, and we should take no more of it than the government needs to deliver the essential services Australians rely on. Because of the stronger economy that we are seeing right now, we have stronger government revenues and we are enabled to give tax relief to all Australians. We're able to guarantee essential services and infrastructure, defence capability, and health and education, and the government can live within its means, coming back into balance a year earlier. Everything depends on that stronger economy and ensuring that Australians have the incentive to get ahead, to realise their dreams, to aspire and to realise their aspirations. That is what the enterprise of our nation is all about. That is what drives Australia. And what has the Labor Party done? It has sought to block this change and voted against us. It regards any tax relief as a giveaway because it thinks that everything Australians earn belongs to the government. What our tax reform does is ensure that middle-income Australians—over four million of them—from this next financial year, starting on 1 July, will be receiving $530 back in a tax offset, and many middle-income families will be getting over a thousand dollars back. But then, over the full extent of the reform, we get to the point where 94 per cent of Australians will never pay more than 32½ cents in the dollar for every additional dollar they earn. The Labor Party talks about fairness and a progressive tax system. Well, in 2024-25, those in the top bracket, which by then will start at $200,000, will be paying a larger share of personal income tax receipts than they do today. This is about aspiration. These are the values the coalition stands for—that the Liberal and National parties stand for: the values of aspiration. They used to be the values of the Labor Party, but they have been abandoned by a Labor Party that has walked out and given up on the men and women it was founded to represent. What an abandonment of aspiring Australians! What an abandonment of Australian workers! This has been a week of shame for the Labor Party, abandoning the people that it was founded to represent. Income Tax 49 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that the Prime Minister teamed up with Senator Hanson to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give 10 million working Australians a tax cut of up to $928— Mr Falinski interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will pause. The member for Mackellar is warned. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that the Prime Minister teamed up with Senator Hanson to give themselves a $7,000-a-year tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give 10 million working Australians a tax cut every year of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they're getting from the government? Why won't the Prime Minister do more to help working Australians instead of helping himself to a $7,000-a-year tax cut every year? 14:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth A stronger economy enables more Australians to get a job, it enables more Australians to start businesses and it enables more Australians to earn higher wages. Everything depends on a stronger economy and on providing the right incentives to ensure that as Australians work harder, work longer and work in more skilled jobs— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 that everything they do is incentivised so they can get ahead and realise their dreams. That is what Labor used to be all about, and the abandonment by the Leader of the Opposition not only flies in the face of what Keating, Hawke, Wran and others said but also flies in the face of what he himself said. This is a leader who said in his maiden speech: The old class war conflicts should finally be pronounced dead. Hang on, I'll just check—yes, that was the member for Maribyrnong, absolutely. The real conflict— he said— is between those who are stuck in a business-as-usual routine and those that pursue innovation, knowledge and creativity. Those are the drivers of economic growth around our world. He said: What I want to accomplish for working people is about aspiration … Can this be true? Can this be true? Is there an impersonator? Is this the same Leader of the Opposition, the same member for Maribyrnong? Everything the Labor Party stood for and was founded on was about encouraging Australians to get ahead. That was their ideal. And our values of enterprise, investment, innovation—that's what we stand for. The aspirations of both sides of politics often coincided, but now we see this huge gulf. Labor is for less investment; we are for more investment. We are for a stronger economy; Labor is for a weaker economy. We are for lower taxes; Labor is for higher taxes—$70 billion more personal income tax. This is what this bloke is going to go to the election on. He is going to ask people to vote to pay $70 billion more personal income tax. Dr Leigh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Fenner is warned! Mr TURNBULL 885 That is what he is going to do. And he is going to do that—as all his colleagues will—from the privileged position of a taxpayer funded job here, treating with contempt the aspirations of hardworking Australians. (Time expired) Income Tax 50 14:12 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's Personal Income Tax Plan will deliver tax relief to encourage and reward the aspiration of hardworking Australians? What are the consequences of not encouraging aspiration in this way? 14:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. She is part of a team—the Turnbull government—that is getting things done. More jobs, a stronger economy and—once again, today—lower taxes. The Turnbull government is getting things done—$140 billion and more in tax relief for Australians out there working hard and paying tax. That is what has passed through the parliament today. I thank the members in the Senate and in this House who have ensured that Australians who work hard are the winners today as a result of the tax relief plan that has passed this parliament. A registered nurse on $75,000 a year will have an extra $530 in their pocket from the 2018-19 income year onward and $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of this plan. She is one of 10 million Australians—and around 60,000 in the member's electorate of Capricornia—who will benefit from the plan. A workshop manager on $88,000 will have an extra $575 in their pocket from the next income year and over $4,000 over the first seven years of that plan. Low- and middle-income earners are our first priority; dealing with bracket creep moves from there, and then ensuring at the end of our plan a simpler tax system where 94 per cent of Australians do not face a marginal tax rate any greater than 32½c in the dollar. That is a real plan dealing real problems. It is a plan that recognises and rewards aspiration. It's a plan that understands that what Australians earn is their money. That is a fundamental difference between those on this side of the House and the Labor Party. It is a plan that is not paid for by jacking up taxes on other Australians. The Labor Party want to put $200 billion more of tax on the Australian economy, and what we've learnt in this place today is that they want to put an extra $70 billion on the— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Shortland is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L personal income tax of Australians in this country over the next decade. So they will go to the next election and say, 'Vote Labor and pay $70 billion more in personal income tax over the next 10 years.' What we have delivered today is $140 billion of tax relief. It's a plan that's driven by the economics of opportunity, not the politics of envy of the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition. Today they tried to cut the tax plan in half. They tried to take a $140 billion plan and turn it into a $70 billion plan. Thankfully for the workers of Australia, the workers of Australia had the Liberal and the National parties to stand up for them here in this place and support good tax policy based on a strong plan. It's part of a plan for a stronger economy that is being delivered under the Turnbull government that those opposite could never, ever deliver. Income Tax 51 14:15 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister team up with One Nation to give themselves a tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give the 39,000 people in Braddon who earn less than $125,000 a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they will get from this government? Why won't the Prime Minister do more to help working Australians instead of telling them to get a better job and giving himself a tax cut? 14:16 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member knows very well that Tasmania is enjoying stronger economic growth. Ms Collins interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Franklin will not interject. Mr TURNBULL 885 Tasmanians are seeing stronger economic growth, lower unemployment and better prospects than they've seen for many years. That's a result of a strong economic plan from our government here in Canberra and from Will Hodgman's government in Hobart. It is based on the hard work of the Tasmanians who want to work hard, invest, start businesses, get ahead, realise their dreams and respect their aspirations—and, may I say, regardless of their age. Everyone is entitled to have aspirations to realise their dreams, to get a better wage, to start a business. Everyone is entitled to aspire to that. The honourable member is disrespecting the aspirations and the opportunities of the people of Tasmania by attempting to stand in the way of our comprehensive personal income tax reform, because it, as part of our economic plan, is ensuring that the people in her state are seeing better times ahead and they're doing that because of aspiration. The very aspiration that mystifies her deputy leader is what is inspiring stronger economic growth in Tasmania, and it is what we are encouraging and enabling with our economic plan, with our income tax reform plan, with our reductions in company tax, with our investments in infrastructure. That is what is ensuring there are better times in Tasmania. The honourable member would be well aware that the people of Braddon are keenly aware that the risk to their prosperity is the Labor Party and its threat of higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages and less investment. Interstate Business 51 14:18 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the minister for small and family business. We know that red tape, inconsistent regulations and disparities across borders are severely limiting economic opportunity for businesses, particularly in my communities of Albury and Wodonga. We did appreciate you bringing your New South Wales and Victorian colleagues to Wodonga on 12 June, and I welcome the commitment to overcome border anomalies. Now my communities are asking: when will we start seeing the results of these discussions, and will you take a leadership role in holding the state governments to account to deliver on these commitments? 14:19 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Indi, for her question and her passion, along with the member for Farrer, who joined me on the day as well for this very important issue of cross-border red tape and regulation. I also note, in cross-border form today, we have up in the gallery the Wodonga Catholic school from one side of the border and Scots School Albury from the other side of the border. On 12 June, I and the member for Indi got together with the Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, and the Victorian Minister for Small Business, Philip Dalidakis. We agreed and signed the intent. We picked four areas that frustrate the cross-border relationship, namely: taxis, tradesperson licencing, heavy vehicle transport and RSA—responsible service of alcohol and conduct of gambling. We have the crazy situation where a caravan manufacturer in Victoria, Jayco, can take three caravans on a truck but, at the border, has to take one off. It can carry two straight through New South Wales and, at the Queensland border, can put three back on. This is the sort of rubbish that we've got to overcome that is overwhelmingly apparent at the border towns. But the theory here is that if we can get New South Wales and Victoria to agree, the benefits will flow across the entire state. As my father always said, 'When you put those two states together, they spill more beer than the other states drink.' So it is a very pragmatic and practical approach. The Deputy Premier of New South Wales has already done it with us, as has New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland, so it is not a first. The minister, Philip Dalidakis, has taken away a document that he will get the Premier to agree to. We will sign a memorandum of understanding in the next couple of months, I'm told. But, more importantly, that hasn't stopped the department starting to work on these areas that we've talked about, so it won't be long, I hope. We're talking inside three months that we get the first deliverable. I hope it deals with things such as: when a taxi picks up someone in Albury and drops them 15 minutes away in Wodonga, it cannot legally pick someone up in Wodonga and take them back over the border. It is that sort of lunacy that we're talking about. We had the mayors there as well, so we are talking about three levels of government. I'm already having discussions with the small business minister for Tasmania and the new small business minister, Stephan Knoll, in South Australia, with a view to bolting them on. The idea here is: COAG hasn't worked. Historically, it's hard to get everyone to get together and to come together. If we can come up with the two big states and then bolt others on over time, we can do and deliver from day one. That's the great hope that we have: deliverables within three months. I look forward to working with the member for Farrer moving forward to make sure we can fix this problem for the whole economy. Income Tax 52 14:22 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is securing a stronger and better future for all Australians, including those living in rural and regional Australia? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any roadblocks to economic growth in our region? 14:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Page for his question. Jobs, jobs and more jobs is the focus of the Liberals and Nationals government. This is what we're doing; this is what we're delivering. Today it's all about tax cuts—relief for hardworking Australian families, a better deal for workers. Workers are the people that those opposite once purported to represent. I'm afraid they don't anymore. But I welcome back the member for Maribyrnong. When the tax cuts were being passed, he was lurking up the back there with the whip. We didn't see him. He was very red-faced, very embarrassed. But I tell you what: the tax cuts have passed the House of Representatives, passed the parliament thanks to the laws passed today by this government. Angela Allen, a nurse at the Lismore Base Hospital in the member for Page's electorate will now pay less tax. She will. Registered nurses earning $75,000, just as many in the Page electorate do, will have an extra $530 in their pockets from the budget year onwards, with an extra $3,740 in their pocket over the first seven years of the tax plan. That's certainly a lot of money for them. We know the key to greater economic growth, the key to greater aspiration and the key to stronger regional communities is jobs and tax cuts. It is not mystifying; it's aspirational; it's happening. The member's electorate has seen a jobs bonanza thanks to the member for Page's hard work, and the policies and the infrastructure investment by this Liberal-Nationals government. In his electorate alone, a thousand jobs will be created thanks to the infrastructure rollout, the regional development investment. The member is part of a team which is delivering on our promise to create a million jobs in five years. But do you know what? We've done it five months early—a million jobs and, today, tax cuts, tax relief, for those hard workers, those people that that side of politics once said that they represented. The member for Page is part of a team which has delivered small business tax cuts to back local farmers, family businesses and locals having a go. There are plenty of people having a go in the Northern Rivers. The member has been a champion of local infrastructure projects such as the $3.44 billion for the Pacific Highway, $2 billion for the Page Bridge upgrade, $2 billion for Page Road and $3.8 million for bridge replacements in the Clarence Valley and Kyogle. As regional people know, when we build a bridge, Labor puts up a roadblock. When we cut taxes for small businesses, Labor plans to jack them up. They do. Don't look too perplexed—that's exactly what you'll do, Member for McMahon. When we back aspiration, Labor says they're mystified—absolutely mystified! They can't work out why we're doing it. It is because we back workers, we back families and we back small businesses, and we'll keep doing it—right now, until the next election and beyond. (Time expired) Income Tax 53 14:26 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister team up with One Nation to give themselves a tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give the 63,000 people in Longman who earn less than $125,000 a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they'll get from the government? Why won't the Prime Minister do more to help working Australians instead of telling them to get a better job and giving himself and Senator Hanson a $7,000 tax cut? Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. The member for Griffith will begin her question again. Ms BUTLER 248006 My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister team up with One Nation to give themselves a tax cut instead of supporting Labor's plan to give the 63,000 people in Longman who earn less than $125,000 a tax cut of up to $928 a year, almost double the tax cut they'll get from the government? Why won't the Prime Minister do more to help working Australians instead of telling them to get a better job and giving himself and Senator Hanson a $7,000 tax cut? 14:27 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question and the Prime Minister for allowing me to respond. People don't believe Labor on taxes; it's that simple. The Labor Party make all sorts of promises. The one I like at the moment is that the shadow Treasurer says that he's going to put the deficit levy back on and he promises to take it away three years later—he really does! They promise to turn back boats. Yeah, sure you will! Australians do not believe Labor and the promises they make on tax, for the simple reason that Australians know that, every chance Labor gets, they will tax them more. There are 270 billion proof points for that in the tax policies they are taking to the next election: $70 billion in higher personal taxes as a result of the policy they announced this week and voted on accordingly in the parliament this week; $45 billion—there's a $10 billion black hole on this, by the way—or around $5 billion a year on extra taxes on retirees; higher taxes on small businesses, family businesses; higher taxes on superannuation contributions, including the catch-up contributions of women who have had children. Those are all higher taxes. Labor taxes more. It's tax on under Labor and tax off under the Liberals and the Nationals. For the Labor Party, too much tax is never enough for them, and there's a reason for that. We all know it on this side: they cannot control their spending. It just goes up and up and up and up. The only thing is: their taxes can never keep up with their spending. They come up with taxes that don't raise any money, don't they, the member for Lilley? The member for Lilley came up with a cracker: 'We're going to tax the mining industry at the top of the boom and send them into the ditch.' That was his plan, but then the money didn't turn up. But guess what? They spent the money. They spent all the money. Do you want to know how you get gross debt running at 30 per cent growth real time? That's what happened under the Labor Party. They can't control their spending. That's why they can't control their taxes. When it comes to Labor and taxes, they are unbelievable. Income Tax 53 14:30 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on why it's important to have tax policies that reward aspiration? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by different approaches? 14:30 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for his question. He is a true champion of his constituents, including his newest constituent, James. He, of course, wants Australians to keep more of their hard-earned income, and that is why this government has delivered an income tax plan to provide relief for all of those hardworking Australians. It is a plan that, once completed, will see 94 per cent of Australians, including in his electorate of Berowra, pay no more than 32½c in the dollar. Unlike those sitting opposite, we understand aspiration. It is not mystifying for us. But it appears that aspiration is not the only thing that mystifies the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy leader and those opposite. They're terribly mystified by the expression 'the top end of town'. The Leader of the Opposition says that his mega retiree tax will hit the top end of town. But let's examine that for a moment. Beryl, a 64-year-old retiree from Devonport in Braddon, earns a very modest $19,000, including $900 in franking credits. Under their mega retiree tax, she will lose not just one dollar or two dollars but every single dollar. She will lose all $900. Graham, a part-pensioner in Caboolture in Longman, would see his self-managed superannuation fund, which receives $5,300 in franking credits, lose $5,300 under their mega retiree tax. Let me demystify it for the Leader of the Opposition. These people are not millionaires. They are not 'the top end of town'. Yet, under Labor's tax grab, a high-flying CEO earning millions of dollars per year, with a share portfolio around 50 times the size of Beryl's and franking credits around 10 times the size of Graham's, will lose how much under Labor's their mega retiree tax? Absolutely nothing. Justine Keay, Susan Lamb, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have turned their backs on retirees. Brett Whiteley, Trevor Ruthenberg and the rest of the coalition team will stand up for retirees and pensioners because we believe in aspiration. We believe in making sure that the people who work hard are rewarded for that hard work and enterprise, and we stand for fairness and equity, unlike those frauds opposite. We on this side of the chamber stand for lower taxes: you stand for higher taxes and can't be trusted. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I've warned and asked the member for Shortland to cease interjecting. I haven't ejected anyone under 94(a). He seems worried about it. You don't have to pack up: just stop interjecting. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Certainly a guilty plea! Income Tax 54 14:33 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. By the time they are fully implemented, stage 3 of the government's personal income tax scheme and its big business tax cut will cost the budget at least $25 billion each and every year. How is it fair that the government is giving $25 billion every single year to business and the top 20 per cent of income earners while it's cutting billions from schools and hospitals? 14:34 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The government is spending more on schools and on hospitals every year, but one of Labor's great falsehoods is that the government is cutting spending on hospitals, for example. They've been driving a bus around Longman. Is it a bus or a truck? It's a large vehicle with a large sign saying that we're cutting spending on the Caboolture Hospital. The reality is that funding from the Commonwealth government to the metro north hospital network in Longman is at record levels. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Yes, it is, absolutely. Funding is higher than ever. Why can we do that? Because we have a strong economy. Without that strong economy, you can't put a life-saving drug onto the PBS the way the Minister for Health does. Labor stopped doing that. They were running out of money because of a weaker economy. A stronger economy enables governments to deliver the essential services that Australians need. Not only will Labor be going to the next election and asking Australians to vote for $70 billion more personal income tax to be paid by them to the government, but, because they pose such a threat to the Australian economy and such a threat to Australian jobs, they pose a threat to the essential services that are receiving increased funding under our government. The stronger economy we promised in 2016 and the jobs and growth we promised in 2016 are being delivered. We said we would ensure that hardworking Australian families could keep more of the money they earn, and the Senate today has passed the legislation that enables them to do precisely that. That is our commitment. We're backing Australian families. We're backing their aspiration. We're not mystified by it as the Labor Party is today. We understand that Australians want to be able to realise their dreams. They want to be able to get ahead. They want to be able to aspire to higher wages, to start a business and to have their business to do better. They want to be able to realise their dreams. Labor stands in the way. It is contemptuous of the people it was founded to represent. This apparatchik class has abandoned the workers utterly. Law Enforcement 54 14:36 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister outline what steps the government has taken to protect Australian families from dangerous non-citizens, including criminal gang members? Is the minister aware of any alternative views that would undermine this success? 14:37 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I give great credit and pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance today for getting through a massive win for families. But this government is not only about helping families in a financial way, making sure that they've got more of their own money in their own pocket; we're also about making sure that we can keep families safe. The government has been unapologetic about making sure that we can secure our borders, because if we secure our borders we can have a safe society. But we haven't stopped there. We've cancelled the visas of criminals—non-citizens who were here in our country, committing offences against women, against children and against Australian citizens otherwise. We've cancelled more visas of criminals in the last 12 months than Labor cancelled in six years. We've cancelled a record number of visas—over 250—of people who have committed sexual offences against children. Importantly, we have cancelled the visas of 184 outlaw motorcycle gang members. The reason is that the outlaw motorcycle gang members are the biggest importers and distributors of ice and amphetamine in our country. In country towns, in rural communities and in our capital cities ice is a scourge. We are doing our very best to make sure that those families can grow up intact and that their children aren't lost to the perils of drug use. We are stamping out outlaw motorcycle gang members. Unfortunately, we do know that outlaw motorcycle gang members have very clear links to other media—other Mafia-type organisations; I'm sorry— Opposition members interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI None of these up here. Well, one or two—actually, three or four, now that I look! But the outlaw motorcycle gangs have specific links into our old friends at the CFMEU. The CFMEU also have their own tentacles into him, her, him, him, her, her, him, him. The CFMEU owns and operates the modern Labor Party. Bob Hawke had the leadership and the guts to disaffiliate the Labor Party from the BLF. This Leader of the Opposition embraces the unlawful conduct of the CFMEU. The fact is: you can't trust this Leader of the Opposition and you can't afford the Labor Party. That's the reality, and the Australian public understand this man. (Time expired) Income Tax 55 14:40 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that this Prime Minister teamed up with One Nation to give themselves a $7,000 tax cut while giving a nurse in Caboolture a tax cut of only $10 a week and cutting $2.9 million from Caboolture Hospital at the same time? How arrogant and out of touch are this Prime Minister's policies? 14:41 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The claim the honourable member made about Caboolture Hospital is completely and absolutely false. It is another one of those Labor lies that are being peddled around Longman, and it says a lot about the character of the Labor Party that it is prepared to tell such lies. As I described a moment ago, funding from the Commonwealth for public hospitals in Queensland is increasing every year and, in particular, to the metro north part of Brisbane, which is where Caboolture Hospital is to be found. Under Labor's alternative proposal on tax, this is what would happen: a Queensland police sergeant would pay, in 2024-25, $1,253 more tax under Labor; a New South Wales senior school teacher— Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney has been warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 would pay $1,800 more tax under Labor; a coalminer working for BHP would be paying $4,061 more tax; and a South Australian police superintendent would be paying $6,204 more tax under Labor. The honourable member asked about nurses. A school nurse in Victoria would be paying $2,840 more tax under Labor. That is the difference: Labor has abandoned hardworking middle Australia. It seeks to describe people with the occupations I've mentioned as 'the top end of town' or 'millionaires'. These are the hardworking Australians who are aspiring to get ahead; and, over time, Labor wants them to move into higher and higher tax brackets so that more of the money they earn through their hard work will go to the government. But we respect their aspiration. We're not mystified by it. We want those hardworking families to get ahead and keep more of the money they earn. Income Tax 55 14:43 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on how the government's income tax relief will benefit small businesses in Brisbane and around Queensland? What are the risks to small business from less aspirational proposals? 14:44 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Brisbane for his question, and I sincerely hope he's not the only Trev from Queensland in this chamber in the not-too-distant future. I do thank him for his question on what is a great day for the taxpayers in his electorate. I note, for example, that a plumber earning $72,000 will save $530 a year. I congratulate the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance on the passage of the tax cuts. It is the latest in our plan and, at end of it, hopefully, there will be a great deal more money spent in small and family businesses. You hear the headline numbers all the time: the million jobs, with 420,000-odd in the last 12 months—the most ever and 80 per cent of them full-time. But the engine room of that is small and family business. Around 65 per cent of the private sector are employed there. Since the election of the coalition government in 2013 we seen a net increase of 150,000 small and family businesses—businesses opening their doors and employing people. That's how you get the result. What was the comparable? In the last year of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, 61,000 small and family businesses closed. That's the comparison that you've got here. That's why the plan that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are implementing is so important. That's how you get the results. We often forget about unincorporated small and family businesses, but 350,000, along with 2.5 million people as wage-earners in Queensland, will benefit from this decision today, as of next year. That gets overlooked a lot. Those businesses too employ a vast number of people. What will happen when there is more money in the pockets of wage-earners? This is the key. On this side of the House we believe that businesses that earn profits and wage-earners that earn their wage are the people best placed to decide how to spend it. What will wage-earners do with more money in their pockets? Over half of them, when surveyed, said they will spend it back in the local economy. What do the small businesses do? On average, of every local dollar spent in them, they themselves spend 42c of that back in the local economy. What's the threat? What's the alternative? It is tax as far as the eye can see. Insert name of tax here, and the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition will increase it—be it on employees, be it on businesses, be it on retirees, be it on anyone that wants to get ahead. For anyone that's aspirational, they will find a way to stop it—along with their secret deals with their union mates, of course. For the sake of the country, the economy and the results that have been achieved, we must continue to deliver for those small and family businesses out there, not just in Brisbane but Australia wide. Income Tax 56 14:47 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he teamed up with One Nation to vote for a tax scheme that will mean a surgeon on $200,000 will get a tax cut 16 times larger than a nurse on $40,000, despite having a salary only five times larger? How is that fair? Or is the Prime Minister telling nurses to just get a better job, too? 14:47 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. The member for Batman is well known for saying that tax is not a burden—apparently, tax is something that people love; they think it's fantastic. Tax is a burden on Australians who work hard, because it's their money, and we think they should keep as much of it as possible. What the member for Batman and the Labor Party don't understand is that, the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Over the period of the tax plan that we have had passed through the parliament today, someone earning $200,000 would have paid $458,809, and they will have relief amounting to a 2½ per cent reduction. If you're earning $50,000, over that same period of time you will pay $56,000 in tax and you will get a 6.3 per cent reduction in your tax—so more than twice the reduction in tax for those on low incomes than those on higher incomes, which the member for Batman and others on that side like to demonise. Those in the highest tax bracket pay 30 per cent of the tax in this country and they represent four per cent of the taxpayers in this country. At the end of the tax plan, they will account for 36 per cent of the tax paid. What the Labor Party doesn't understand is that you always run out of other people's money when you keep taxing them more and more and more. What our plan does is fair. What our plan does is to understand that all Australians who work and pay tax work hard—not some more than others; they all work hard. And they all deserve tax relief, because that's how you create a stronger economy. Our plan is not based on creating winners and losers and pitting them against each other. The Labor Party's plan is to try to whack some with tax and try to con others that they're trying to cut their tax. Every time they try and buy an investment property—because one in five police officers do, and thousands of nurses and thousands of teachers do—you're going to whack tax up on them. Retirees who have done nothing more than buy shares in Australian companies—you're going to put $5 million in tax on them. Small businesses with greater than $2 million in turnover—you're going to whack taxes up on them as well. People who are making contributions to their super—you're going to put more tax on them. It will be $200 billion in a tax avalanche coming from the Labor Party on the Australian economy. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L They laugh, Mr Speaker! They laugh and they giggle about tax, because they think tax is a privilege. It's a burden on Australians. Under this government, we're reducing that burden. And Labor wants to increase it. Health Care 57 14:50 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a stronger economy enables the government to deliver the essential health services Australians rely on and supports research into finding a cure for MND, as well as life-saving research into conditions such as spinal muscular atrophy? Is the minister aware of any other approaches? 14:51 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Murray for his question. Only this morning he voted, along with every member on this side of the House, for tax cuts from 1 July for 53,700 members of his electorate. You can only do that, you can only provide that tax relief, if there's a strong economy. That's the same thing which also allows a government to guarantee essential services, such as record funding for Medicare, record funding for hospitals and record funding for medical research. Today is, of course, global motor neurone day. Importantly, very recently I was able to join the great Neale Daniher, a close personal friend of the member for Murray, at the MCG for Big Freeze 4, as part of the fight to end MND. On that day we were able to contribute $2 million of matching funding to the work of the public to support them. One of the trials which that funding has supported is the Tecfidera trial. Elizabeth from Seven Hills—I believe that is in the member for Greenway's electorate—is on that trial. What she has said about that research is: 'Being part of this trial gives me hope. It is important for me, because it gives me the chance to go on.' That is along with what we've been able to do for spinal muscular atrophy with Mackenzie's Mission and with the listing of SPINRAZA for spinal muscular atrophy. That's the reason why every one of us is in this place. If you have a stronger economy you can deliver results, such as new trials, new research and new medicines, and that will make a difference to people's lives. Our guarantee is that every medicine which is supported by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, we will list. But you can only do that, of course, if there is a strong economy. I was asked if there are any alternatives. I went to the 2011 budget papers, because in 2011 Labor deferred seven fundamental drugs. Mr Sukkar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Deakin is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, for a long time there have been issues in this House that are viewed as above politics. Issues like motor neurone disease have always been among them. To turn this into a partisan attack is not going to help the dignity of this House and is not going to help in any way principles that have held in question time for a very long time. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I haven't called the minister yet. I've heard from the Manager of Opposition Business. I call the minister. Mr HUNT 00AMV Page 121 of the portfolio budget statements said, in relation to seven medicines: … given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. I repeat: until fiscal circumstances permit. Our guarantee is that, as long as we are in government— Honourable members interjecting— Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. MOTIONS 57 MOTIONS Minister for Health 57 14:54 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That the Member be no longer heard. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the Minister for Health be no further heard.

The House divided. [14:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 61 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA 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, MMH Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 75 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI 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 Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ 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 Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Health Care 59 15:04 The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health has the call. 15:05 Mr HUNT ( 00AMV Flinders — ) ( ): Mr Speaker, if you can't manage the economy you can't manage health, and Labor will never be able to manage the economy. Economy 59 15:05 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. By the time they are fully implemented, stage 3 of the government's personal income tax scheme and its big business handout will cost the budget at least $25 billion a year. Why is the government giving $25 billion every single year to big business and the top 20 per cent of income earners when gross debt has already reached a record half a trillion dollars under this Prime Minister? 15:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth As the honourable member knows, net debt is peaking this financial year as a share of GDP. We have turned the corner on the debt that the Labor Party left us with, and we are backing hardworking Australian families to keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in the aspirations of hardworking Australian families. We want them to realise their dreams. We want them to be able to get ahead. We want them to be able to aspire to do all the things that a strong economy enables. Labor is standing in the way. Labor talks about health but undermines the strong economy that enables us to pay for it. Economy 59 15:06 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment: Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong economic plan is creating more and better paying jobs for Australians? Is the minister aware of any plans that may jeopardise this jobs growth? 15:07 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Moore for his question. When I had the opportunity to visit Moore not that long ago the member and I had the chance to speak to a number of people in his electorate. One of them was, in fact, a cafe worker at Hillarys Harbour in Moore. Under the coalition, a cafe worker who is earning, say, $45,000 a year will be $440 a year better off as a result of the coalition's tax cuts. That's the difference between the coalition's comprehensive tax plan and the Australian Labor Party, which has a plan to impose an extra $70 billion of personal income taxes on Australians. The fact is that this is all part of the coalition's ongoing commitment to putting Australia in a more robust position through tax cuts that we're providing so Australians can keep more of the money that they work for, so they can keep more of the pay that they get and so they have more aspiration and incentive to earn even more. It's also about the fact that this week we have been able to boost new export opportunities for Australian business with the launch of yet another trade agreement under this coalition's trade agenda, which is the most ambitious trade agenda that Australia's ever seen. I think we've got those on the other side a little bit rattled. The criticism about them being a long way away from the former Labor Party probably meant that the Leader of the Opposition had to pull together the brains trust to come up with a new plan to have some kind of throwback to Labor. The Leader of the Opposition would have been there—the shadow Treasurer would have come in his best grey suit and they probably got the member for Rankin to come in; the brains trust who helped deliver the 'four years of surplus'—and he would have said, 'We need to channel old Labor. How do we channel old Labor?' So they came up with a strategy: 'We know what worked for a former Leader of the Opposition. Let's channel a bit of Kim Beazley.' They would have said, 'Let's go back with the tax rollback plan.' That's what we've got from Labor. We've got their big new tax rollback plan, channelling all the best bits of Kim Beazley. They're going to take it to the Australian people. The Australian Labor Party's going to roll back their tax cuts. The Australian Labor Party's going to roll back the strong border protection we've got. The simple fact is this: this Leader of the Opposition has all the hallmarks of a populist except for popularity. It's only the coalition who are going to be able to ensure that Australians enjoy more tax cuts in the future, that we manage the budget, that we open more export opportunities and, most importantly, that we continue to provide the right business conditions to drive a million new jobs for Australians—the vast bulk of which are full-time jobs—and a more aspirational future. Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Presentation 60 15:10 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 60 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Income Tax 60 15:10 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government looking after its own interests instead of working and middle class Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:10 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Today the coalition government and their One Nation allies have just shafted 10 million working Australians. Today the Prime Minister and his government have demonstrated their complete contempt for working and middle-class Australians, and Senator Hanson and her One Nation party, such as it remains, have sold out 1.9 million working people in Queensland simply to do the bidding of the LNP. And today the government and their puppets have locked in tax rates costing over $140 billion. This government are so proud of what they have done, but they have not explained where the money is coming from. They have no idea if the nation can afford this in the next seven years. They have no way of predicting the global circumstances in the next seven years. They have no idea if they will even be here to pick up the pieces in seven years. But what they have done today is put $140 billion on the nation's credit card—on the nation's credit card—with no plan to pay for it at all. This has been a week when people have demonstrated their true colours. The Labor Party have stood up for 10 million working Australians. We do support people getting the first round of these tax cuts. And we support them getting bigger, better and fairer tax increases from next year, when Labor hopefully will form a government. But the Prime Minister and his allies have revealed their true colours too. They have yet again sold out working people and prioritised the needs of the most well-off over everyone else. Now I do recognise that at least the Prime Minister is consistent in his arrogance and his out-of-touch views of the world. But One Nation pretend to be different. They cry crocodile tears to be on the side of the people who are doing it hard, but when it matters they line up with the LNP and they keep voting for the big end of town. One Nation have dudded 10 million ordinary Australians today. They have robbed teachers and tradies of Labor's bigger, better, fairer tax cuts, of about $1,000 a year every year going forward, but they have given millionaires an extra $7,000 a year. They have voted for a plan, this One Nation gaggle and rabble; they have voted for a plan which gives 80 per cent of this $140 billion to the top 20 per cent. And we will remind them of that mistake every day until the next election. To be fair, the Prime Minister also showed his true colours this week. I thought there was almost a eureka moment on Tuesday when the Prime Minister used those famous words, 'I am a snob.' I did think there was a moment of: 'Hallelujah, I've seen the light. At least I can say what I really think, and the truth will set me free.' I did wait for a string of frontbench confessions to follow. There is the lamentable Minister for Health, the Bruce Banner-like character talking about his most recent transformation into the swearing Incredible Hulk. I want to hear the Minister for Communications just finally admit that he wants his own show on the ABC. I thought perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs would declare his undiminished affection for The Guardian. I did wonder if the Leader of the House would finally concede his sneaking admiration of the very strong and tough CFMEU. Unfortunately, none of that happened; it was a short outbreak of Liberal truth-telling. What this Prime Minister did do, when asked about the circumstances of a 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie and why she should have to get the job of an investment banker to get the sort of tax cut that the Prime Minister is handing that person, was to give the gratuitous advice to 'get a better job' or 'aspire to get a better job'. This government expressed such surprise at the reaction which has followed. What the Prime Minister should have realised is that perhaps this aged-care worker doesn't want to change industries and towns and professions; perhaps she just wants to get better pay as a carer. Why should she stop caring for people and have to do a different job in order to get the sort of money that the Prime Minister thinks everyone aspires to? Perhaps she aspires to better penalty rates. Perhaps she aspires to better ratios of staff to patients in these facilities. Perhaps she aspires to better funding for aged care. Perhaps she even aspires to a better Prime Minister. The government today has used this language of winners. They have said that the Australian people are winners. But some people are bigger winners than others under this government package. Ten million people are going to get $10 a week. The Prime Minister says, 'Where's my bouquet of flowers for looking after people with $10 a week?' He's also happy to acknowledge other winners. The banks get $17 billion under this government. We will not cover up a giveaway to the big banks or the top 20 per cent by simply fobbing people off with $10 a week. Instead, we aspire to a better deal for 10 million Australians. We aspire to the view that they should get better-funded schools and not better tax concessions in negative gearing. We believe that people aspire to better-funded hospitals, not better tax subsidies for the large multinationals and the big banks. We believe that people aspire to be able to afford to buy their first home, rather than their 10th investment property. The Liberal Party have talked about class war this week. They have form and history when talking about class war. Robert Menzies even spoke about class war during the real war. We are happy to talk about this accusation of the government. I say to the government, if you ask most Australians, it is not class war to demand a better tax cut for 10 million working Australians. It is not class war to demand better-funded hospitals, better-funded schools, better-funded universities or better-funded TAFE. It is never class war to demand better wages and safer workplaces. Instead, class war is when you cut $17 billion from hospitals and give it to the big four banks. Class war is cutting money from Medicare and giving it to multinationals. Class war is cutting penalty rates and boosting the salaries of CEOs. Class war is cutting the pension energy supplement and increasing the working age to 70. Class war is attacking the independent public broadcaster, the ABC, on behalf of vested media interests. Class war is denying the doors of university to 200,000 extra students. Class warfare is cutting 120,000 apprenticeships out of the system. Class warfare is suppressing the wages of working Australians for the last five years. This is the problem, though: the Prime Minister has always had these out-of-touch views. I was reminded of his remarkable words of 7 November 2005. He said: The simple economic truth is that if you wish to promote economic activity, if you wish to promote transactions—in this case, employment transactions—you should reduce the cost of entering into those transactions. Anyway, he clarified himself subsequently. He said: You have to free the market to do its work and let the cost of setting the clearing price—be it for labour, shares, home units or loaves of bread—be as low as possible … Our Prime Minister doesn't understand how the real world constructs its finances. Our Prime Minister is the only Prime Minister of this country who's ever compared the working wages of working people to the cost of loaves of bread, and he wants to pay less. Make no mistake, we on this side of the House will not be lectured about aspiration, because our definition of aspiration is not reserved to investment bankers and barristers and cabinet ministers in this government. We do not think you need to be making $200,000 to be aspirational. We believe in the aspiration of equal opportunity. We believe in the aspiration of being able to buy your first home, to get a quality education for your kids, to access quality health care. We believe in the aspiration of seeing your kids get an apprenticeship or go to university. We believe in the aspiration of leaving the next generation and future generations with a better environment than we inherited—and dignity in retirement. We believe in the aspiration of a decent, first-class NBN. We believe in the aspiration of job security and a good wage, and we don't regard the loss of 8,000 Telstra jobs as just 'what happens from time to time'. We believe in the aspiration of handing on a better deal to your kids than the one you inherited from your parents. In fact, in Labor, we believe in the oldest Australian aspiration of all: a fair go for all in this country. We say to the Prime Minister: if you really believe your latest talking points that you claim across the dispatch box in this parliament, if you really believe that Aussies want cuts to schools and hospitals, bring it on in the by-elections! 15:21 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin What a great day for Australian workers. What a great day for every Australian who, year after year, day after day, gets up, gets on the train, gets on the bus, gets on the road to go to work. They pay their taxes. They miss out on important family events in order to pay ever-higher taxes. It is a remarkable achievement today that we provide, immediately, tax relief to 10 million Australians. Over time, we will provide tax relief to every single Australian. The only people unhappy, the only people who are down in the mouth about Australian workers getting a tax cut today, are those opposite. The only person who looks like he lost $5 and found 5c is the Leader of the Opposition. He walked in here glum because he didn't want to see hardworking Australians, people who work hard every day, who are law-abiding, who pay their taxes, get a tax cut. Why doesn't he want them to get a tax cut? It is because those taxes fund his irresponsible spending. They fund his pork barrel around the country. But 10 million Australians, from 1 July, will get relief. Then, in step 2 of our tax plan, Australians will be relieved of bracket creep. Bracket creep is a technical phrase used in this House too much. In essence, it means that people out there are getting taxed more on the same effective amount of income with a lower purchasing parity. We're saving them from paying higher taxes in step 2. Then, in step 3 of our tax plan, which this parliament supported and passed today, every single Australian will get a tax cut. We will get rid of an entire tax bracket, which means 94 per cent of people who work hard every single day will not face a marginal tax rate higher than 32½ per cent. It is extraordinary today to see the Labor Party opposing this. The Labor Party, who we have spoken about time after time, the so-called party of the workers, have completely abandoned the men and women who I've said work hard every day, fund the system, fund the essential services that we all rely on. This is just another step in our plan to harness aspiration, another step in our plan to fuel the growth in the economy. And what have we seen? We have seen even more people, due to the policies of this government, who will be spared ever-higher taxes. That's the additional one million people who are in a job today who are paying taxes, and who will now get tax relief. But they have a job because of the policies of this government—415,000 Australians last year received a job. They worked for it. They did it. They are the ones who went out and made it happen. But the government creates the environment where those opportunities are there for Australians to grasp. We create the circumstances that give them the opportunity, with their own get-up-and-go, to go out and get that job, work hard every day and pay their taxes. So it doesn't happen by accident. None of it happens by accident. I know the Labor Party thinks it's all a big accident. The Labor Party had very terrible luck while they were in government. They took a $20 billion surplus to a $50 billion deficit and they took an accumulated net debt position of over $70 billion to rising debt in their six years, all due to bad luck. It was all just bad luck for the Labor Party; it was all very, very bad luck. Well, no, it doesn't happen by accident. None of it happens by accident. It happens because we have a plan. We have a plan for a stronger economy. We have a plan to ensure that Australians are encouraged. Aspiration is a concept that's a bit mystifying to those opposite. We have a plan to ensure that we harness that aspiration, that entrepreneurialism. What have the Labor Party done? We've seen it very, very clearly in recent days. The Labor Party have run around the country for many years, whether it's the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer, trying to run some fake class-war campaign: 'We're going after the big multinationals. We're going after Apple and Google, and we're going after all those terrible, nasty millionaires and billionaires.' I know the Leader of the Opposition knows a few billionaires. But, instead, they've squibbed it. They're not going after them at all. Regarding the $270 billion of additional taxes, it's not the millionaires and the billionaires and the Apples and the Googles and the big, nasty multinationals they're going after. No. Today, we now have the trifecta of who the Labor Party are going after. Who are the Labor Party attacking to fund their irresponsible spending? Firstly, they're going after pensioners and retirees. The single biggest contribution to their big pork barrel is going after low-income retirees, including pensioners who have self-managed super funds. They're going after pensioners; they're going after retirees. They're the big, nasty millionaires and billionaires: retirees on $20,000; retirees on $30,000, who might be losing up to a quarter of their income. They're the biggest target Labor are going after. Who is the second target Labor's going after? Labor's going after small business people. Time and time again, Labor want to attack small businesses—small family businesses. Whether it's a shop, a retail store, a cafe or a hairdresser, the Labor Party want them to pay higher taxes; the Labor Party want to deny them a tax cut. That contributes to their big bucket of money for their pork barrel. Today, we saw the absolute trifecta of who Labor are going after. Again, is it the big multinationals? Is it Apple? Is it Google? No, it's everyday Australians who will contribute. If they were in government, their policy is to roll back tax cuts—$70 billion of additional personal income tax on everyday Australians. The Labor Party think that if you earn an average income and you have a mortgage—you might have two or three children—you're rolling in it; you're a millionaire or a billionaire who doesn't deserve a tax cut. We disagree. Those are the people who fund the entire system of government. Those are the people who get up every day, work hard, pay their taxes and are law-abiding citizens, and today, against the wishes of the Labor Party, they will get a tax cut—delivered by this government, with the vehement opposition of the Labor Party. What a great moment for Australians. What a wonderful moment for Australians. The Labor Party's spending, which is out of control, means that they have to make these decisions. I'm sure there are so many people in the Labor Party who instinctively know it's just wrong. It's just wrong what you did today. It's absolutely wrong that you would deny hardworking Australians a tax cut. It's absolutely wrong. I know there are a lot of good Labor people who are very embarrassed about this position and, sadly, they've been locked into it. Sadly, this Leader of the Opposition—this unprincipled, untrustworthy Leader of the Opposition—has led them down this path. I know they're a bit ashamed. They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed, again, that the people who fund their irresponsible pork barrel are the people who can least afford it: everyday Australians who work hard, retirees, small business owners. Why go after those people, the people who contribute to and fund the system that we provide? All of these decisions—whether it's personal income tax, trade deals or company tax reductions—which have contributed to the record jobs growth we've seen over the last 4½ years, create an environment where the government all of a sudden has the means to be able to provide the services that Australians expect. In question time today we saw the Labor Party with a bit of a guilty conscience, I think, because the Minister for Health outlined what the real consequences are of not running a budget surplus. For six years, with a worsening budget position, with a weakening economy, with increasing unemployment, the Labor Party couldn't provide those services— (Time expired) 15:31 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Mr Deputy Speaker, what a day. Imagine getting a lecture from these people about morality and shame! You know who should be ashamed? People who are cutting the pension should be ashamed. People who are cutting $17 billion out of schools and giving it to the big banks—that's who should be ashamed. People who are cutting $2.2 billion out of university education—that's who should be ashamed. Those opposite had the gall to lecture us this week about university education. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister of Australia, used the phrase 'university educated' as an insult this week. You know who else uses that sort of language as an insult? You know who else went after the intelligentsia? Pol Pot. General Franco. That's what happens when that sort of language is used. That's the sort of thing that goes on. That is absolutely the case when you use the phrase 'university educated'— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Deakin, on a point of order? Mr Sukkar 242515 Mr Deputy Speaker, I do this reluctantly, because I know things get quite 'willing' in the MPI, but I would ask that the member withdraw that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I do take the point that in the MPI there is a bit more latitude in the use of terminology, but I do ask the member to withdraw. Ms BUTLER 248006 May I speak to the point of order first? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Certainly. Ms BUTLER 248006 I think the member might like to reflect on the fact that, if he wants me to withdraw, he will need to ask News Limited to withdraw, because it was News Limited who, this morning— Mr Sukkar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I'll just hear the point of order, Member for Deakin, from the member for Griffith. Ms BUTLER 248006 It was News Limited who printed a column that compared this to the work of Pol Pot. In fact, they used a much worse piece of language than me. So I expect that there'll be a call on them to withdraw, will there? The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Member for Deakin, on that point of order. But I make the point that the member for Griffith is losing her time. Mr Sukkar 242515 The standing orders don't apply to media organisations outside of this House. Can I ask again, very politely, that the member withdraw that very, very gross comment that she made. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Member for Griffith, I have asked you to withdraw. Ms BUTLER 248006 I'm sorry, I didn't realise you'd ruled, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I've asked if you would like withdraw. Ms BUTLER 248006 Deputy Speaker, if it's a ruling— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 For the good of the House. Ms BUTLER 248006 If it's a ruling, I'll withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I don't think there was a direct accusation. I think there was an innuendo in the comment. But, if the member's willing, I ask her to withdraw. Ms BUTLER 248006 Given it's not a ruling—I appreciate it's not. I compared the exploitation of people's populist inclination towards anti-intelligentsia sentiments to fascist regimes. This is a situation, Mr Deputy Speaker— Mr Sukkar interjecting— Ms BUTLER 248006 He didn't make a ruling—which you would be aware of. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I have made my ruling. The member for Deakin will be seated. Ms BUTLER 248006 To use 'university educated' as an epithet is disgusting. It is anti intelligentsia and you should know better. And it's on a day when universities are under attack. You saw The Australian today; you saw the headline 'How universities are betraying Australia' in the nation's broadsheet. To think it's okay to be attacking universities and university education in those circumstances is disgusting, I think. It's consistent with the behaviour of this government and this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had the gall to tell us that we don't get aspiration at the same time that he had the gall to say that we weren't blue-collar enough—that we were university educated. Not only is he a snob about university education but he thinks we should know our place. He thinks it's outrageous that we have a university education. But he can't have both: either we don't understand aspiration, or we're too educated. It is not the case that we don't understand aspiration. We embody aspiration. We exemplify aspiration. There are people on this side of the House, me included, who were the first in their family to go to grade 12 let alone university. For these people to think that we don't understand aspiration shows how out of touch they really are. They think aspiration is aspiring to be an investment banker. They think aspiration is aspiring to make more money. We think aspiration is aspiring to do better for this country. It's aspiration to make this a better society. It's aspiration to value education. But, you know, it's not just universities they don't like. They don't like TAFE either. The Minister for Education and Training referred to TAFE as basket weaving. Not only do you think we should know our place but you don't even value skills. You don't even value vocational education. How do we know? It's not just the basket-weaving comment; it's the fact that they've cut $3 billion from skills, including $270 million in this budget alone. No-one in this place understands aspiration like Labor. We build aspiration. We exemplify aspiration. We will always stand up for working Australians. We won't cut the pension like that mob over there. We will stand up for aspiration. (Time expired) 15:36 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks What a fantastic day for the Australian people—a day where this government, supported by sensible crossbenchers, stood up and said: 'We are going to provide tax relief to hardworking Australians,' over the vehement opposition of those opposite, who did absolutely everything they could to try to stop ordinary Australians getting much needed tax relief. The Leader of the Opposition sent out a tweet a couple of hours ago that said: … Labor will replace Turnbull's tax cut for the top end of town. He must therefore think that a drill technician is the top end of town, because, under the tax relief that we've just passed, a drill technician will be $2,200 a year better off. A labourer will be $718 a year better off. A miner will be $4,061 a year better off, and a forklift driver will be close to $4,000 a year better off. Those opposite talk about the top end of town and the big end of town and multinationals, but this expanding definition now includes labourers, miners, forklift drivers and drill technicians. Labor is standing in the way of tax relief for ordinary Australians, but today we overcame that absurd opposition. It is to the great credit of the Senate that it saw through the absurd opposition of those opposite. These guys are all about tax. You can add it up now. Add it up. There are so many different lines to go to. We know that they want $70 billion in personal income tax to be paid by Australians. We know that, and that's what they did today. They voted for that. There is absolutely no wiggle room for them on that. They voted for ordinary Australians to pay $70 billion more in personal income tax. That's just a fact; that's what they voted for. Also, they were sitting around six months or so ago and said: 'Where can we get some cash out of taxpayers very quickly to fund our extravagant spending plans? Where can we go to get some really big money quickly?' They said: 'You know where we can get a lot of money, billions of dollars a year, straightaway? Retirees.' So that's where they went. Now they're saying $45 billion a year should be taken from ordinary retirees who've done nothing wrong. All they've done is save for their future, provide for their retirement and invest in Australian companies, which is a good thing and something we should be seeking to encourage. And Labor said, 'This is a fantastic opportunity to go in there and rip out $45 billion from grandmas and grandfathers, people who have done the right thing in this nation.' That's $70 billion in personal income tax and $45 billion from retirees. But what about small business? We hear a lot about multinationals and the big end of town, but, when tax relief was first provided for in the House, those opposite voted against tax relief for a business with $2 million of revenue. That's like a small suburban manufacturer—it might be a farming business, it might be a distributor of rural products in a small town. This is an important point: $2 million of revenue is not $2 million of profit. It's a very small business. It probably has a five per cent profit margin—it might make $100,000 a year—but Labor says it's some sort of multinational that's involved in nefarious activities and must not be provided any tax relief. That's an absolutely outrageous position. Do you know why they do all this? They want to get more money from taxpayers for them. They want more money so that they can spend more money, and the proof of the pudding is in the history. You don't have to go back very far; it's actually very straightforward. You just have to go back to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, where average spending, real spending, under those opposite went up by four per cent per year on a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. Under this government, it's 1.9 per cent, and that's a big difference. What that means is: we turned the corner on net debt. We expect to pay $30 billion off net debt in the next four years. Net debt has already peaked, and we are paying off Labor's debt legacy. It's very clear: they want to tax and tax and tax and tax and then they think, 'Do you know what? Let's tax some more.' That's what they do. They want $290 billion of taxes, they want to suppress aspiration and they don't want to support hardworking Australians. We do, and that's what we've done today. 15:41 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons What an extraordinary contribution! There are some terms that are unparliamentary, so I won't say what they are. Workers on low and middle incomes in this country were held hostage by this government. Like the cowards that they are, they put the low- and middle-income earners of this country in front of their bodies and said, 'If you don't vote for the entire tax package that will give politicians and high-income earners a $7,000-a-year tax cut, you don't get the tax cut for low- and middle-income earners. If there's no tax cut for high-income earners, you don't get the tax cut for low-income earners.' That's what this government said. It's an absolute disgrace. They held low- and middle-income earners hostage to their big tax cuts for the big end of town. In the electorate of Braddon in Tasmania, 39,000 people earn less than $125,000 a year. The tax cut for these workers in Braddon was held hostage so that the Prime Minister and the company directors of Sydney could get their tax cuts. This government is simply not interested in workers. It was willing to sacrifice the tax relief for workers, if the tax cuts for high-income earners did not pass this parliament. The Liberals' high-income tax cuts give every member of this place and the other place, including Senator Hanson, a $7,000-a-year tax cut. Members on this side of the House voted not to give ourselves a $7,000-a-year tax cut. We think that money is better placed in the pockets of low- and middle-income earners. Under us, low- and middle-income earners would get a tax cut of around $900 a year, nearly doubling the low- and middle-income earner tax cuts that the government is providing low- and middle-income earners—$500 under you; $900 under us. That's the difference, and we wouldn't be giving tax cuts to the big end of town. Mr Tim Wilson IMW Double the money doesn't count! Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 No—come on, 'Freedom Boy', you've had your go. We heard you with the member for Griffith—with your so-called commitment to freedom of speech—and you were trying to gag her. This government is all about giving more money to people who already have it. That's what this government is all about. In everything it does, this government is about giving more money to people who already have it. It believes absolutely, down to its bones, in trickle-down—that failed philosophy that says: if you give money to rich people, it will end up one day in the pockets of poor people. It hasn't worked throughout human history. 'But it'll work now. We'll give it another go. It hasn't worked for centuries, but it'll work now.' They're convinced: give more money to the rich people, and one day poor people will benefit. The evidence says otherwise. If this government cared about workers, it would care about wages, but wages growth is at record lows—around 2.1 per cent growth. Company profits are at 5.8 per cent. According to this government, when companies earn a higher profit it's meant to mean higher wages, but it's not happening. There is 2.1 per cent growth in wages and 5.8 per cent growth in company profits. Where is the pay-off for workers under this government? It's not there. Companies can continue to get the profits and workers continue to pay the price. If this government cared about workers, it would care about penalty rates, but penalty rates have been cut for 700,000 workers. This is costing workers in low-income and insecure workplaces at least $70 a week, depending on their shifts. And on 1 July, workers' penalty rates will be cut again by 15 per cent. Since the cuts started last year, consumer spending has declined. Maybe that's because workers have less money to spend. And remember last year when this government said, 'We'll cut penalty rates and all these jobs will emerge because employers will have all this extra money'? It hasn't happened. It has not happened! This government fails workers— Mr Tim Wilson IMW Monopoly money doesn't count! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Goldstein is warned! Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 They support cuts to penalty rates; they argue against an increase to the minimum wage; they've legislated to stop workers and employers agreeing to limit labour hire; and they've voted against Labor proposals to make big business liable for underpayment of workers along the supply chain and by subcontractors. On every measure, the list is endless of how this government has failed the workers of this country, and especially the workers of Tasmania. 15:46 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It is, of course, a great privilege to be able to stand up here and be part of a government on the day that passed the biggest tax cuts in Australian history. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I think I need to restate that for the members of the opposition. If you're thinking about the aspiration, the opportunities, for middle Australia to be able to realise their dreams—their opportunity and the opportunity of this great nation—nothing could be greater than passing the biggest tax cuts in Australian history. Everybody on this side of the parliament voted for it. And everybody on that side of the parliament voted against it. And they will be judged harshly come the next election. When I think about the aspiration and opportunity that I seek to represent, as everyone else does on this side of the chamber, I think of the good people of Goldstein: hardworking, aspirational, putting the hard work and effort into it to better their lot—theirs, their family's and their community's, and as a foundational pillar of improving this great nation. I think about the professionals who wake up every morning and get themselves ready. They get on, say, at Hampton Railway Station and catch a train into town to work for a company or a business of others to be able to provide for their family. I think of the small-business people who live in Bentleigh who have brought together a business on Centre Road and who are doing their best to try and create an opportunity for themselves and for their family. And I think, of course—like everybody does on this side of the House—about the self-funded retirees in, say, Caulfield South and what they have done. They haven't just worked hard their whole lives, although they have. They have sacrificed. They have saved; they have foregone holidays and other privileges and luxuries to be in a position where they do not take or draw down from the taxpayer. Those are the people who seek aspiration and opportunity as part of the great middle class of this country. These are the people who benefit from the plan that has been implemented by the Turnbull coalition government. And one of the biggest challenges that they face, in seeking their aspirations and their opportunity, is not just the Labor Party and those sitting opposite but the threat of the policies that they would impose if they ever made it onto the Treasury benches. It's the threat of Labor's retiree tax, where they would directly tax all of those people who have made savings to be able to put themselves in the best position. It undermines the policies that this government has prosecuted, which have delivered more than a million new jobs for Australians. If you want to talk about the gap between those people who do not have opportunity and those who do, it strictly comes down to a very important point: whether people have the opportunity to secure employment. I know there are plenty of people on the other side who don't understand such a basic proposition— Dr Aly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Cowan is warned. Mr TIM WILSON IMW the proposition that working is the best foundation for securing your chance and your opportunity in life. This government understands that the great middle class of this country needs to be able to keep more of the earnings that they make. This government understands that we need to make sure that we continue to do everything we can to drive up wages. We've seen growth in wages as a direct consequence of this government's policy, because what we've injected into the heart of the economy is confidence. We have delivered security and predictability, and now tax cuts as well. We've seen that the wage price index grew by 2.1 per cent over the last year, a pick-up from the trough reached nine months ago. Key sectors are now experiencing strong growth—2.7 per cent in health care and social assistance; 2½ per cent in arts and recreation; 2.4 per cent in education and training and other services; seven per cent in rental, hiring and real estate services; and six per cent in ICT, media and telecommunications. This government looked at the challenges that the great middle class of this nation faces— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW while those on the other side of this parliament yell and complain—and sought to realise their aspiration and opportunity in policy and law, and we're damn proud to be part of it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I will remind the member for Goldstein that banging on desks, even when speaking, is not parliamentary. Mr Tim Wilson IMW I accept that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I call the member for Herbert. 15:51 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Let me say to the member for Goldstein that hard work is not just applicable to the wealthy top end of town. People working in aged-care facilities are generally casual. They don't get enough hours. They don't have the money to buy shares. So get that into your head. Let's be very clear: this Prime Minister has his priorities completely back to front. He is giving himself a tax handout of a minimum of $7,000 after he has already given himself another pay rise, yet he is cutting the wages of more than 700,000 Australians. Shame on this government! Is it any wonder how out of touch they are when you have Senator Lucy Gichuhi saying $200,000 is not much money. Is she kidding? And, of course, Senator Pauline Hanson supported the tax handout to millionaires. It would be great if Prime Minister Turnbull and One Nation would stop lining their own pockets and would actually give a damn about Australian workers. The Turnbull government needs to come down from its ivory towers and understand the needs of Australian workers and their families. This is how out of touch this government is: it is including a worker on $40,000 a year in the same tax bracket as someone earning $200,000 a year. Outrageous! How on earth can it be fair for a nurse on $40,000 a year to pay the same tax rate as a doctor on $200,000, or for a cleaner to pay the same tax rate as a CEO? How can it be fair that, under this tax experiment, the doctor who earns five times as much as the nurse will get 16 times more tax relief. Research has revealed that, under Turnbull's plan, $6 in every $10 will go to the wealthiest 20 per cent. Sixty per cent of the benefit will go to the wealthiest 20 per cent. Outrageous! This is a tax plan for Turnbull's millionaire mates, not a tax plan for Australian workers. Under Labor, you can bet that we will look after Aussie workers and middle-income earners and their families. A Labor government will deliver bigger, better and fairer tax cuts for 10 million working Australians. Under Labor, working Australians will pay less income tax, because Labor believes that they are worth far more than multinationals, the big banks and big businesses. Everyone earning less than $125,000 a year will receive a bigger tax cut under Labor compared to the LNP. What does this mean for my electorate of Herbert? The median weekly personal income in Herbert is $672. Under Labor, a person in Herbert on the median weekly personal income will be $350 better off—that is, $150 better off than under the Turnbull government's plan. Families will also be better off. The median weekly income for a family in Herbert is $1,640. Under Labor, families in Herbert will be $928 better off—that's more than $398 better off than the Turnbull government's plan. Let's put professional workers into perspective with Labor's tax refund. A teacher earning $65,000 will be $2,780 better off under Labor—that is $928 extra a year. A married couple, one serving in the defence forces earning $90,000 and the other working in aged care at $50,000 will be $5,565 better off under Labor—a combined $1,855 each year under Labor. The reviews are coming in fast regarding Turnbull's wealthy tax handouts and they're not very pretty. Mark Hayes from my electorate wrote to me and succinctly said: How do we as a country afford to give these Tax cuts to the rich and famous? We know that they will not generate one single job but go into the owners pockets. Well, Mark, we don't. And the Turnbull government is doing so at the expense of funding infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities. And then there's the comment from the Australian Council of Social Services CEO: The tax cut package is gambling the future of our medical services, aged care services, disability services, and social security payments most of us rely upon at some stage in our lives. Under Labor, working and middle-class Australians will pay less tax, and we certainly won't be giving an $18 billion tax cut to big business and banks. Labor have our heads screwed on right. With the Turnbull government's tax plan nor millionaires, it's very clear that those opposite have completely lost their minds. 15:56 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher Now I have heard everything from those opposite—to suggest that Labor have their heads screwed on right. Anyway, today is a fantastic day for all Australians because today we've seen historic tax cuts for all working Australians, which will see 94 per cent of all Australians paying no more than 32½c in the dollar, and that is absolutely great news for all working Australians, all families because, you know what? This enables them to take that extra job, to work that extra few hours. It will prevent bracket creep, which was going to have a significant impact on many, many families. This is, once again, a terrific day. Unfortunately those opposite have chosen, much to their eternal shame, not to support it. But, look, this is all about aspiration. It's all about incentivising our workforce and incentivising Australians. On this side of the House, we believe that a rising tide lifts all boats. We believe that if you provide the appropriate incentives to Australians, they will rise to the challenge. We trust Australians. We believe in Australians. We don't want to keep a lid on them like those opposite, particularly the member for Lindsay. The ALP have abandoned working Australians. Apparently Bill Shorten, in his maiden speech, talked about the importance of aspiration and incentivising Australians. What happened? What happened to the Leader of the Opposition? How could he have changed so much? How could he have changed from those terrific ideals? Once again, he's shown he will do anything, say anything. You must be really struggling with him as your leader. I mean, you must be looking at him and saying: 'Please, would the earth swallow him up? Give us another leader. How about the people's choice? Give us Albo!' I know. Now there's a man who believes in aspiration, probably the only person on that side of the House who is aspirational. Good luck to him—although we don't want to wish him too much luck because, at the end of the day, Bill Shorten is our strongest weapon. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Lyons on a point of order. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 If the member could refer to the opposition leader by his correct title, please. Mr WALLACE 265967 Yes. The member for Lyons is absolutely correct, and I stand suitably chastened. The opposition leader is the Liberal and National parties' secret weapon, so we don't want Labor to get rid of him. The member for Griffith, in her Academy Award winning speech— An opposition member: Better than yours! Mr WALLACE 265967 likened the Prime Minister to— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 You'll get a Razzie! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Lyons has had his go. Mr WALLACE 265967 Pol Pot. Ms Collins HWM She did not. Mr WALLACE 265967 Yes, she did. Once again, those opposite— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Fisher will resume his seat. The member for Franklin on a point of order. Ms Collins HWM The member for Fisher is reflecting on a member. I ask him to withdraw. She did not say that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I did ask the member for Griffith if she would like to withdraw. I very much understand that there is more lateral use of terminology in MPIs. It was more of an inference. She was comparing different policies. On that, I do ask the member for Fisher if he would like to withdraw. Mr WALLACE 265967 Mr Deputy Speaker, just as the member for Griffith didn't do that, I will respectfully decline. Ms Husar interjecting— Mr WALLACE 265967 No. It's not a ruling. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Fisher has the call. Mr WALLACE 265967 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Lindsay will excuse herself from the House. The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. Mr WALLACE 265967 What's one of the best advantages of our tax policies? Our tax policies provide a strong economy, and a strong economy provides the government with the economic power to be able to provide good health, good education and great infrastructure. For my electorate of Fisher, in the last budget we saw $880 million for Bruce Highway upgrades between Caloundra Road and Pine Rivers— (Time expired) 16:01 Mr HART 263070 Bass This week we had a great insight into the prejudices and the true thoughts of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, when he was asked a question in question time, couldn't help but drop his guard and to tell us all here in the House exactly what he thought about ordinary working- and middle-class Australians. On Monday, the Prime Minister and his government took aim at hardworking aged-care workers in Tasmania. He said: 'The 60-year-old aged care worker in Burnie is entitled to aspire to get a better job.' This is a man from a privileged background who has had his choice of plumb jobs his whole life. He certainly feels entitled. Since word of the Prime Minister's out-of-touch comments came to light in my home state of Tasmania, I have been contacted by many hardworking constituents who feel that it is the Prime Minister who should be doing a better job. To be honest, I agree he should be doing a better job. He should be doing a better job for hardworking Australians like the Tasmanian aged-care workers on $45,000 a year who will get a tax cut of just $10 a week, while the Prime Minister's former banker mates will receive tax cuts of up to $7,000 a year. One of the hardworking constituents who contacted me is Jenny Marshall, a 55-year-old aged-care worker in Launceston. She's disgusted with this out-of-touch Prime Minister. She says, 'People work in aged care not for the money. They do it because they care. They care about people. They're not looking to go and getter a better job. We work there because we care about people. Everyone is disgusted with what he said. How dare he say that? See how he would go doing an eight-hour shift as an aged-care worker $21. 83 an hour. He wouldn't last a minute.' This Prime Minister and his government should prefer to do a better job for everybody rather than simply doing a better job for the wealthy. He consistently fails low- and middle-class Australian workers. In contrast to this, a Shorten Labor government is ready to do a better job by providing hardworking Australians with a bigger, better tax cut. Unlike this government, which is giving a $17 billion tax cut to the big banks and a $7,000-a-year tax cut to their CEO banker mates who run them, Labor believes hardworking lower- and middle-class Australians need and deserve relief. The government's argument is that if the big banks, which are already making huge profits, make even bigger profits then maybe—just maybe—hardworking Australians might get, if they're lucky, a wage rise. Workers with lived experience, like the hardworking aged-care workers in my constituency, find this Prime Minister to be seriously out of touch. They know that wages are barely keeping pace with the cost of living, and they're not keeping pace with the profitability of the big end of town either. What has this Prime Minister done for wages? He's refused to do anything about cuts to penalty rates. His plan was to cut wages by slashing penalty rates and arguing against raising the minimum wage. In contrast, Labor is ready to do a better job for working Australians, by delivering a bigger, better and fairer tax cut for 10 million working Australians. Labor's tax refund for working Australians increases the tax cuts presently legislated under the government's tax offset proposal. This means that under Labor working- and middle-class Australians will pay less tax, because a tax cut for families is more important than a $17 billion tax giveaway to the big banks. Australians believe in a fair go for all. Our tax and transfer system is—or was—one of the most progressive in the world. This means that the tax that we pay, as well as the benefits we receive, are highly targeted to those who need it—and, of course, it goes to pay for things like public education and public health. Under this government, our egalitarian society that we're all so proud of is at risk. A flat rate of tax is not the way to address that. 16:06 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest What a fantastic day for Australian workers and families today. We should be and are celebrating. I hope that everybody out there is celebrating the fact they are going to get tax relief as a result of the actions of the Turnbull government and the stronger economy that we've delivered since we were elected in 2013. The proof is there: more than one million jobs created in a great economic environment by so many small to medium enterprises that have used their own initiative to get on and employ more Australians in a very strong economic situation. Our economy has actually grown by over three per cent in the past 12 months. This is happening right now. It's not the never-never plan of Labor; this is happening right now. It puts us right at the top of the pack of advanced economies right around the world. We saw unemployment drop to 5.4 per cent last month. Good and sound financial management is part of the coalition's DNA. Bad financial management is part of Labor's DNA. We see it repeatedly. As we know, the sooner we get the budget back into surplus, the sooner we'll pay off Labor's debt and the sooner more low- and middle-income earners will pay less tax. We support and respect hardworking Australians, like the thousands in the south-west, in my electorate. By contrast, Labor will attack working Australians, our low- and middle-income earners, by charging them $200 billion worth of new and higher taxes. Our long-term economic plan ensures that we can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on and expect from a government, provide income tax relief—delivered today—and bring the budget back into balance. We are guaranteeing the essential services that really matter and make a difference in communities. This includes services as simple as the new headspace centre I fought for and opened in Busselton last week. Mental health is health. As the stigma attached to mental health issues declines—and it's for us to work to make sure that that happens—more and more people are willing to actively address their mental and emotional health issues. Headspace provides absolutely invaluable support to young people aged 12 to 25. Now at the new centre in Busselton, one of the fastest-growing regional cities in Australia, these young people do have someone to go and talk to, whatever their issues are—psychologists, social workers, counsellors—all the professionals that these young people need to talk to. But these services and opportunities are only made possible by delivering a strong enough economy to be able to deliver them. And something else that's so important in my area that Labor never, ever did was to improve mobile phone coverage, something the government has, and continues to deliver in rural, regional and remote Australia. There have been 19 mobile phone towers delivered in the south-west. None of those were delivered during Labor's time—not one! This will continue under a new Mobile Black Spot Program we've announced—again, only made possible by the stronger economy that we are delivering. And our plan for a stronger economy does include five key pillars encouraging hard work by Australians through tax relief. That was delivered today. I can't say it enough times: delivered today! We are creating more jobs by backing business, by backing personal investment, by guaranteeing essential services, by—importantly—keeping Australians safe and by ensuring that the government actually lives within its means—something that Labor never, ever did, and I suspect never will. Labor does not understand. As I said, the Turnbull government is supporting low- and middle-income earners through our plan that passed today, a plan that delivers immediate tax relief for low- and middle-income earners, allowing them to keep more of their money, the money they earn. This is not the government's money; it's their money. And, as of today, with the passage of this tax package, more low- and middle-income earners will be able to keep more of their own money. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has now concluded. BILLS 70 BILLS Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018 70

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 2) Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 70 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 70

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 70 16:12 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 70

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 70 16:13 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 70

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

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 70 16:14 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 71

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

Report from Federation Chamber 71 Third Reading 71 16:14 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018 71

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

Report from Federation Chamber 71 Third Reading 71 16:15 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018 71

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 71 16:16 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand It's a pleasure to rise today to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018. For those who aren't aware, this bill is an annual appropriations process that updates the funding caps on the Australian Research Council programs. These programs are phenomenally important to the Australian innovation, science and research industry and should be monitored, improved and strengthened, particularly at such a critical time in the sector in this country. To that end, Labor will be supporting the bill, just as we have always supported updating the funding profile for major Australian Research Council grant programs. This type of routine administrative change should have been debated and passed a long time ago, quite frankly. However, as many in this House are aware, nothing this government has done over the past 1½ terms has been inspired by precedent or due process. The government has been willing to pick the wrong side of history in most arguments in this place and remain obstinate in their defence of the indefensible. It held up this basic bill in its fumbling attempts to pass the massively unpopular and retrograde legislation for $100,000 degrees that we saw some time ago. One of the key drivers of Australia's ongoing success in the research sector is the provision of competitive grant funding by the Australian Research Council and the NHMRC for programs as well as a long-term, stable block grant that allows universities to invest strategically in research. Research funded by the Australian Research Council allows the best minds in this country to produce outcomes that will help Australia further integrate itself into the creative, innovative and productive powerhouse we all know it can be. With every extra dollar of funding, we leave Australia that much better off to face the vast challenges of the world that this century and the next present to us. It seems like a no-brainer, but, after some of the discussions and decisions surrounding this issue of research funding over the years, it needs to be reiterated clearly that societies and economies that invest more in research show an increased rate of growth and greater human development. The Abbott and Turnbull government sought to cut almost $900 million from science and research in its first budget, including around $75 million from the ARC and its associated programs. This year's budget saw the increase in the ARC Discovery scheme—this is a scheme which funds basic and fundamental research—go up by only 0.3 per cent. The associated Linkage Program, which is to do with applied research, increased by only 2.7 per cent. For those who aren't aware, the ARC Linkage Program brings together universities and encourages collaboration across the university sector with private industry and small business. It's an excellent scheme and one I've worked on myself in bringing the partnerships together. It appears that, since the first horrible 2014 budget, the Liberal government has learned its lesson on research funding in Australia, even if only barely and ever so reluctantly, as is reflected in the poor public research investment figures. We on this side of the chamber, the Labor Party, have an entirely different approach to research funding. When in government, Labor supported the ARC. Support for the ARC reached a high-water mark of $873.2 million in 2012-13 under Labor. Contrast this with the appropriation bill in the current budget, where support will be $759.9 million in 2018-19, rising only slightly to $779.1 million in 2019-20. This $94.1 million fall in real terms for research funding is largely due to the fact that the Liberal government has not continued funding programs for mid-career researchers, like the Future Fellowships scheme, at previous levels. For example, 200 fellowships were awarded under Labor in 2012; however, in 2018, only 100 future fellowships are set to be awarded. The maths is pretty simple: this halves the opportunity for mid-career researchers in this nation, across all fields—the humanities as well as the sciences—who are ready to take the next step to get solid support, a bit of long-termism in their outlook, so that they can go on and conduct their very important research. This halving in the fellowships represents a chilling example of the government's quite strange priorities and is a reflection on its definition of the value of research in this country. And this from a Prime Minister who used to spruik his innovation agenda! I don't know if anyone else in the chamber remembers those days. To quote from a Liberal website, 'There's never been a more exciting time to be an Australian.' But we've dropped that now, haven't we. I'm not sure why the Prime Minister dropped his innovation agenda, but it's probably because he knew there were going to be cuts to the Australian Research Council and the Future Fellowships program. When these figures are broken down on a state-by-state basis, the funding disparity gets even worse, especially from a Western Australian perspective. The Discovery Projects scheme provides funding for excellent fundamental research projects that can be undertaken by individual researchers or research teams. When adding the figures from the WA universities who applied for funding under this scheme, the total figure sits at just over $17 million from 45 recommended proposals. This is $17 million from a total of over $225.6 million for the entire Discovery Projects scheme for 2018, representing just 7.5 per cent of the total funding for the scheme. The disparity is similar across other funding schemes for this year. Of the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award scheme, WA universities received just over eight per cent of total funding for this year. In the Future Fellowships program for 2017, WA received about 6.7 per cent of total funding for that program. This disparity is a little uninspiring, given WA's large contribution to the innovation space over the years. Indeed, the development of Western Australia, in agriculture particularly, depended on science. The development of WA's onshore and offshore resources has also relied on science, and I point to the magnificent work of the Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems as well as the mineral exploration and mineral science resources and various microscopy institutes in Western Australia that help the greater exploration of mineral resources, which of course leads to greater benefits for the whole of the nation as those royalties and the associated GST through WA get distributed throughout the country. WA universities and their academics and support staff put a lot of effort into ARC grant applications. I might add that all universities around the country put a lot of effort into ARC grant applications. I would think that WA needs to apply a little bit more to make sure we get a greater share of this grant funding, but the ARC needs to do a little bit to ensure this disparity does not remain too high, at a minimum, whilst still awarding the grants on merit, which is a very important factor of the scheme. I will reflect again on the difficulty of winning an ARC grant. The success rates are quite low, and that reflects the difficulty of the arduous process that the Australian Research Council quite rightly sets out. The standards are high and competition for the limited pool of resources is quite remarkable. Don Aitkin once said, it is 'the world's best process for the world's smallest fund.' Only about 25 per cent of Discovery grant applications are successful. For Future Fellowships it's a little bit under 30 per cent, and for Linkage grants it's just above 30 per cent on average. A lot of effort goes into grant applications, and I take my hat off to those researchers who spend their summers not on holiday, like many others might, but doing grant applications. Often they fail on their first attempt, and some fail on their second attempt and have to do a third attempt to hopefully get it. That's a good month's worth of work, plus the rejoinder process. It's extraordinary and extensive, and I pay tribute to researchers around the country that put in enormous efforts to try to get good funding from the Australian Research Council. The importance of the grant programs cannot be underestimated. They are a critical part of the research and innovation system in Australia. The NHMRC and the ARC are the major funding bodies of the Australian national competitive grants system. As I've stated before, the ARC supports both basic research through the Discovery scheme and applied research through the Linkage scheme, with the important contribution of industries around this country that pitch in to the ARC Linkage scheme. Underpinning that is the premise of the positive impact basic research has on society as a whole. Integrating ourselves in the pursuit of knowledge expands the base from which it's drawn—that is to say, building on our collective understanding of the nature of our continent and the wilder world around us. Strengthening these core research ideals will produce larger benefits for the broader economy and, indeed, for our collective wellbeing. Labor knows this, as has been mentioned often by several members of the ALP frontbench. Most notably, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in various speeches to the research community has emphasised the importance of basic research in this country. We have set a national goal to lift our investment in research and development across government, universities and the private sector such that the proportion of expenditure on research should increase to three per cent of GDP by 2030. I strongly support Labor's position and the Leader of the Opposition's position on this goal, and I sincerely hope that we will get there. If we're going to talk about aspirations, that is a terrific aspiration for this country to try and hit. When Labor came to power in 2007 it had a strong plan for the future of research and innovation in Australia. In 2008 Labor implemented its 10-year innovation strategy, Powering Ideas. This strategy had a number of objectives that sought to increase the number of Australian research groups performing at world-class levels, to boost international research collaboration by Australian unis and to significantly increase the number of tertiary students completing higher degrees by research over the decade. It also sought to double the level of collaboration amongst Australian universities, public funded agencies specialising in research and, of course, private industry. The scheme saw Labor increase the proportion of businesses using their resources to engage in the innovation sector as well as undertake further investment in private sector research and development programs. The success of these measures is easily quantifiable, notwithstanding the significant impacts of the global financial crisis. Between 2007 and 2013 Australian expenditure in science and research increased by nearly 50 per cent, by $3.3 billion per year. Labor built on national science assets such as CSIRO, ANSTO and AIMS, the Australian Institute of Marine Science. We doubled the number of Australian postgraduate awards and raised the stipend for over 10,000 researchers that we supported previously and whilst in government. Labor fought for some of the biggest science and innovation investments in Australia, including securing hosting rights for the low-frequency array of the Square Kilometre Array, one of the biggest global astronomy projects of our generation and representing a multibillion dollar international investment in Australian infrastructure. All of that is happening in the great state of Western Australia. I was very fortunate to witness the start of the project, helping to set up the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, headed by Professor Peter Quinn. He leads a world-class, first-rate team, spearheading international efforts to better understand the universe and humanity's place within it. The construction of the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope is one of the world's largest public science data projects, and it's happening in WA, where our clear skies are the envy of the developed world. The radio quiet of the Murchison is literally a radioastronomer's dream. I want to talk about a couple of the people I have met in science—people who have benefitted from ARC projects, and specifically the Discovery projects. There are people like Professor Gia Parish. Professor Parish conducts research around the world in advanced sensing technology, such as chemical sensors for environmental and industrial monitoring. She manages to do this whilst at the same time teaching the next generation of engineers, taking on administrative and strategic duties as the associate dean of research at the faculty as well as raising two wonderful young girls. It's people like Gia Parish who need continued funding through the Australian Research Council to undertake their important basic research. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Employment 73 16:30 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Insecure work is a growing problem. Academics have written about it; economists have acknowledged it. Paper after paper that has been published on it has talked about the growing insecure work crisis that we have in our country. What is insecure work? More and more Australian workers are living week to week, waiting for their roster to come out. It is about the casualisation of our workforce. It is about the growing number of people who are being forced to work for subcontractors—being sacked from their job and offered their job back with a subcontractor. That could happen on an individual basis or it could happen on a mass, collective basis, like we saw at Longford with the Esso workers. Today is the one-year anniversary of those workers being sacked and offered their jobs back on reduced pay and conditions—and they're not alone. This is a problem occurring in many industries and in many workplaces across Australia. What we don't have is a government that is taking the problem of insecure work seriously. They have not got involved actively in this space of work to address the problems that we have around casualisation, the growth of part-time work and the growth of insecure work. A clear example of how out of touch this Prime Minister is was in yesterday's question time, when he was asked by the shadow Treasurer, 'What's the median income in this country?' The Prime Minister didn't know that figure. Later on in question time, he wanted to supplement and add the actual figure. He acknowledged that, because people are on part-time arrangements or working casually—words to that effect—the median income in this country is about $52,000 a year. That figure is not enough to live on. Yes, it is correct that one of the reasons why so many electorates have a median income of $52,000—or, in many cases, less—is that far too many working Australians are no longer in full-time work. They no longer have full-time arrangements with locked-in wages and locked-in salaries. They are in insecure work, whether it be through labour-hire contracts, whether it be that they are forced to get ABNs, whether it be that they are casual and desperately trying to make up full-time hours or are part-time and trying to do the same. One area where this government has completely dropped the ball—it is not even talking about it—is the gig economy. The gig economy is something that a lot of people have benefitted from. We can now book many services on our iPhones. At the beginning, there was a lot of excitement about the gig economy. However, what is actually happening in the gig economy on this government's watch is gross exploitation of the workforce. Through the Fair Work Ombudsman investigations, the court cases, the claims that have been raised in the media and the unions involved in this space, we know that some workers are being paid $5 or $6 an hour—in Australia, in 2018! This is because Uber has quite a few lawyers and is finding loopholes in the Fair Work Act and the Corporations Act to try to get around paying its workers a minimum entitlement. That is why this place and the government need to step in to close those loopholes. It's not just the workers who are being exploited when it comes to the gig economy. We're hearing increasingly from some of the clients of the gig economy. I'm talking here about Uber Eats. The ACCC have taken the step of investigating the unfair contracts that Uber Eats are forcing upon their cafes and restaurants. This is a space that didn't exist about 10 years ago—this space didn't exist five years ago. This is a space where we need the government to be proactive about policy, and they're not. Working people in this country need a government that understands the importance of returning to a job you can count on. The principle of first option is a full-time job, not an insecure part-time job, not being sacked and offered your job for labour hire, not being forced into casual arrangements. I urge the government to get serious about rebuilding, recreating direct employment, full-time jobs, jobs that Australians can count on. Mallee Electorate: Redistribution 74 16:35 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I am quite pleased with the redistribution that has happened in Victoria in that I get to represent even more people across the great state of Victoria. Previously, the electorate of Mallee was one-third of the state of Victoria at 75,000 square kilometres. It will now go to 89,000 square kilometres and take in three additional shires: the shire of Pyrenees, the shire of Loddon and the shire of Central Goldfields. For me, this is a coming home. My farm comes back into the electorate of Mallee. My parents, unfortunately, become constituents of mine and no longer, when they present a big list of things that they want done, can I say that they need to talk to Damian Drum. Instead, I have to try and deliver—and deliver I shall. Country people who live in regional Victoria deserve a fair go. They work very hard, and they don't ask for a lot. Simply, all they ask is to be able to drive on a decent road, to be able to make a mobile phone call: things that people who live in the cities can sometimes take for granted. All they ask is to ensure that there are good educational opportunities for their children, because very few people who live in my patch can have their children still live at home when they go on to higher education; their children have to move away from home. And all they ask is to also ensure that, when they are unwell and they go to their hospital or their doctor, there is a doctor. I have been in close conversations with Kerang today about trying to ensure there are doctors in Kerang. We have been delivering and we will work very hard for the people of Maryborough, Avoca, Pyramid Hill, Boort, Wedderburn, Bridgewater, Inglewood and Serpentine. I'm very pleased to be able to announce that I will be putting a third satellite office in Maryborough so that that community has access. I think that is the first time there's been a satellite office in that town ever. Certainly there was not a satellite office in it when it was in the member for Bendigo's electorate, and certainly not when it was in the member for Wannon's electorate. I look forward to being accessible to those people. There are things that we're still going to fight for, but I want to recap some of the things we've got or that are under construction now. The Mallee Accommodation and Support Program, with $2.45 million from the federal government, is being constructed now. This is helping people who are dealing with homelessness, people who are dealing with disadvantage in the Mildura region. We have things such as Sunassist. We gave them $20,000 for their wheelchair access vehicle. There has been money for the Irymple Bowls Club's new kitchen, which I opened the other day. There has been money for the Mildura Bowls Club, for some shelters. There has been $6 million given to deal with Indigenous employment. One of the things I'm really proud of is that, in my patch, when there is prosperity, we make sure that we deliver; we ensure we spread that around and make sure that our Aboriginal Australians have jobs, that our young Australians have jobs. Last week, we announced $3 million for the Sunraysia Modernisation Project. This enhances the $103 million we have already delivered to modernise the irrigation upgrades. This will open up another 8,000 hectares of agricultural land to irrigation agriculture, and that will be producing products that are going all over the world. Last week, when I was in Mildura, I also went and had a look at Wakefields Transport. They had warehouses full of oranges going to China, thanks to the free trade agreement. Fantastic. It is wintertime and, rather than get a flu vaccine, it's best to get an Australian-grown orange because that will be good for you, it will support our industry and, I don't know, it's less painful than having an injection. Mr Buchholz 230531 Dr Mallee! Mr BROAD 30379 Dr Mallee! There are some exciting things going on in the electorate of Mallee. There is more work to be done. I'll continue to advocate and fight for an indoor basketball sports stadium for the people of Mildura. It gets pretty damn hot in Mildura at times— An honourable member interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 And cold, but very hot. Those kids deserve to be able to run around and play basketball, so I'm going to be fighting very hard for that. I'd like to see Donaldson Park done in Loddon. I'd like to see the Mitiamo stock and domestic pipeline done. I'd like to see the East Grampians pipeline system done. I would also like to see a riverfront redevelopment done in Swan Hill. There is much to be done. It's a great part of the world. Come up to north-west Victoria. If you're in Melbourne, get out of cold Melbourne and come up to Mildura and get yourself an orange. The electorate of Mallee continues to get bigger. But, not only does it continue to get bigger; it continues to get better and, as a result of this redistribution, I will serve it to the best of my capacity. Marine Sanctuaries, Live Animal Exports 75 16:40 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It's no secret that the Liberals have a shameful record when it comes to the environment. There's never been a critical watertable they wouldn't sell off, an endangered species they wouldn't forgo or a pristine old-growth forest they wouldn't chop down in the name of progress. But the Turnbull government's latest decision to lock in the largest removal of marine conservation area in history is another level entirely. They have gutted Australia's precious protected marine parks in one of the most savage acts of environmental vandalism you can imagine. No government anywhere in the world has removed this much area from conservation on land or sea ever in the entirety of our history. The more pristine the area, the more savage the changes are. The Coral Sea has gone from being the jewel in the crown of the Commonwealth marine parks, protecting the eastern side of the Great Barrier Reef, to being now a haven for long-lining and trawling. Recreational fishers have also lost the largest recreational-only fishing area in the world, with large-scale industrial fishers and trawlers now getting a standing invitation to exploit Australia's marine life. All of this comes at a time when our oceans are already besieged by a toxic cocktail of acidification, marine plastics and overfishing. I have been humbled and heartened by the incredible backlash from my community to this stunning act of environmental vandalism. Today, I speak for all of us when I say: enough is enough. This week I officially launched my 'protect our oceans' campaign to spread the word about this egregious act of vandalism and encourage more people to speak out and fight back. Labor put the world's largest network of marine parks in place in 2013, protecting over 2.3 million square kilometres of our oceans. Today I call on the Turnbull government to stand up for our oceans and reinstate protections that were enshrined in Australia's national marine reserve network back in 2013. When we protect our oceans, we are protecting our future. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less. In April this year, Australians were united in their disgust and anger at the sickening vision of the horrendous conditions on board a live sheep export vessel bound for the Middle East. We saw tens of thousands of animals crammed in shoulder to shoulder, standing in a deep layer of excrement and filth. We saw distressed sheep struggling to breathe and slowly dying from heat stress. And we saw corpses left to rot, while others were carelessly thrown overboard. Like everyone, I was sickened. Labor called for an immediate stop to the northern summer live sheep trade, but, sadly, these calls were ignored and ships continued to leave our shores. Make no mistake, a Shorten Labor government will, at the first opportunity, put an end to the northern summer live sheep trade. We have also committed to phasing out the industry and working with farmers to plan for a future that doesn't rely on live sheep exports. But Australia shouldn't have to wait for a Labor government to be elected. That's why, in the most recent sitting of the federal parliament, Labor put forward an amendment to the government's live export legislation that would have achieved exactly these things. We know there are a number of government members who support the measures in the legislation, and there's a very real chance they would have been willing to vote with their conscience on this critical issue. Perhaps this would have been enough for the amendments to pass. Regrettably, this was never tested, because the government wouldn't allow the bill to come to a vote. Instead, terrified that their members would cross the floor and support the bill, the government made the extraordinary decision to pull the legislation off the table. I was outraged to see the Prime Minister, after all the feigned anger over the Awassi Express incident, put his own political survival ahead of animal welfare standards. I say enough is enough. This cannot go on, and it is time to act. I call on the Turnbull government to stop this deliberate stonewalling and let parliament have its say. We need to put an end to the terrible trade of live sheep exports to the Middle East once and for all. Robertson Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 76 16:45 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to pay tribute to some outstanding Central Coast locals who were included in the 2018 Queen's Birthday Honours List. None of these people do the work they do for praise, recognition or reward. But I would like to acknowledge some of them who have helped to make the Central Coast one of the best regions in the very best country in the world. The 2018 awardees from Robertson are a mix of individuals from across the arts, sport, media and volunteer communities. Wayne Young has dedicated more than three decades to our community through his involvement with Fire and Rescue New South Wales, including responding to the Thredbo landslide in 1997 and the major storms back home on the Central Coast in 2007. Wayne, like all of those honoured, has committed much of his life to helping others. Herbert Leake has been serving our community through volunteer organisations for nearly three decades. Starting at Central Coast Meals on Wheels as a driver in 1985, Herbert continues to give back to the community. He has been a volunteer driver for the Woy Woy Peninsula Neighbourhood Service, a volunteer teacher's aide at Woy Woy South Public School and is a life member of the Probus Club of Kincumber. Neil Thompson has been contributing to our community through his volunteer work for more than 40 years with the Salvation Army, including as a founder of the Red Shield Roadside Collections which we all know so well. Neil has been an active member of Rotary clubs and a volunteer at Coastlink respite services. Tony Castley has been recognised for his contribution through many roles, including with Rotary International, the Scouts and as a justice of the peace. Jack Anastas received an OAM for his commitment to our veterans on the Central Coast. Between 2012 and 2015, Jack was president of the National Association of Extremely Disabled War Veterans (New South Wales Branch) and he is currently a member of the Terrigal-Wamberal Lions Club. Since 1965, Edwin Morris has served the community as part of the Mangrove Mountain Bushfire Brigade. Edwin has a passion for the mountains. He has dedicated his time to many organisations and events across the mountains, including the pony club, the community centre and the country fair. Warren Mills was recognised for his ongoing work with the Rotary Club of North Gosford. A member since 1994, Warren has dedicated time and energy to the Rotary cause and invested in our community through his involvement in some outstanding Rotary projects. A deserving inclusion is Merril Jackson, who in 2014 followed her dream to create the Poppy Project—a beautiful tribute to those who have served our nation, and one that truly captured the spirit of Anzac Day. Merril's vision inspired something that no local will forget—a stunning display of handmade poppies installed on the skillion at The Haven and at Poppy Park in Gosford. Merril coordinated hundreds of volunteers across the Central Coast to make the poppies. In doing so, she touched the heart of our community and indeed our nation as the beautiful tribute went viral across our country. We have a vibrant arts community on the Central Coast and it's wonderful to see so many of them recognised as part of this year's honours awards. Scott Levi has been part of the broadcasting community for over a decade but he has also committed to giving back to the community in his role as a volunteer surf lifesaver and through his work with the Central Coast Cancer Council. Margaret Hardy has been recognised for her advocacy and commitment to the arts community. Through her various roles as part of the Multi Arts Confederation of the Central Coast, the Central Coast Art Society and the Kincumber School of Arts Hall, a volunteer on Radio Five-O-Plus for two decades and the author of two books celebrating the Central Coast, Margaret has been an important part of our arts community. Jocelyn Maughan received an OAM in recognition of her service to the visual arts and education on the Central Coast. Jocelyn has been a professional artist since 1960 and has dedicated herself to our arts community since then. John Asquith is an incredible advocate for conservation and environmental issues on the Central Coast. He's been chairman of the Community Environment Network since 1999. He is the chair of the Central Coast Marine Discovery Centre and is part of countless community groups that work towards building a better future for our region. I pay tribute to all recipients of Queen's Birthday honours and place on record my thanks for all they do for our community. Richmond Electorate: Seniors Forum 77 16:50 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Almost a quarter of people living in my electorate of Richmond are aged 65 years and over. Seniors are such an integral and vibrant part of our community, but they are being neglected by this government, a government with the wrong priorities. This government's priority is the $80 billion in tax cuts for big business, including the $17 billion handout to the banks. Yet, for our seniors and pensioners, what do they get? They get cuts and fewer services. Local seniors are always telling me they're under pressure with the increasing costs of living, rising healthcare costs, the Turnbull government's cuts to pensions and the lack of available home care packages. Seniors in my electorate of Richmond and indeed right across the nation are hurting as a direct result of this government's cruel actions. They're telling me that the government doesn't understand the financial pressures they're under and that the Prime Minister is out of touch. They tell me the government doesn't care and is not supporting them. Last week I was fortunate enough to welcome the shadow minister for families and social services, the member for Jagajaga, to my electorate of Richmond on the New South Wales North Coast for a seniors' forum so she could hear firsthand about the concerns of local seniors. I'd like to thank the more than 100 local seniors and pensioners who came along to the forum at the Salvation Army community centre in Banora Point to make their voices heard. I'd like to outline some of the concerns they raised at the forum. First of all was the government's cuts to the energy supplement. We know the government has legislation before the parliament to axe the energy supplement. That would mean a cut of $14.10 per fortnight to single pensioners, or around $365 a year. Couple pensioners would be $21.20 a fortnight or around $550 a year worse off. It would be a straight-out cut to around 24,000 aged pensioners in my electorate of Richmond. Here they are struggling day to day, and they're having these other cuts as well. Instead of supporting our seniors, instead of helping them, the government's response is to axe these energy supplements when these poor seniors are facing rising electricity prices as well. We also know there have been changes to the pension asset test. We know the Liberals and Nationals did a deal with the Greens to change the pension asset test, leaving 2,600 local pensioners in my electorate of Richmond worse off. Because of these actions, 1,840 pensioners in Richmond had their pension cut and around 760 pensioners lost their pension entirely, so that certainly did have a major impact upon them. Many people have concerns about the government raising the pension age to 70. That will mean, with ordinary people working until they're 70, that Australia will have an older pension age than the USA, the UK, Canada or New Zealand. It is a very clear example of the application of differences in ideology. Labor understands workers and understands hard work. It shows this government doesn't understand hard work, because they're expecting people in my electorate—the local farmers, tradies and nurses—to work until they're 70. It's quite unfair. In contrast to that, Labor have made it clear we won't raise the pension age to 70. It is a ridiculous proposal. Another big issue that comes up a lot in my electorate and that came up at the seniors forum was the lack of home care packages. Many seniors are telling me they're often waiting a very long time to access the packages. They may have been assessed and deemed eligible, but they then just have to wait. We know more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for a home care package. That's because the Abbott and Turnbull governments have slashed aged-care funding over the past five years. In fact, with more than 100,000 people on the waiting list, this short-sighted government only found funding for an additional 3,500 places. It doesn't keep up with that massive demand. The waiting list grew by 20,000 in six months of 2017 alone. There are many calls to have a much greater investment when it comes to home care packages. Another thing, shamefully, we hear about all the time is that aged pensioners and carers are now also waiting much longer to have their payments assessed by Centrelink. I hear this regularly. Processing times for pension allocations in 2016-17 were an average of 36 days. Since then, in 2017-18, in the period until March, it's blown out to 49 days. I'm constantly hearing people saying they applied for the aged pension and can't get it. We have also seen this government deliver massive job cuts right throughout Centrelink as well, which, apart from the harsh reality of the job cuts, makes it a lot more difficult for assessments to take place, so people are languishing, waiting for their aged pensions to be properly assessed. Seniors are telling me constantly that this government are out of touch, that they have gone too far, that the Prime Minister and the government don't understand the pressures seniors are under. In contrast to all of that, Labor is listening. We understand how important our seniors are. They built this nation. They deserve so much better than what they're getting from this government. All they're getting is endless cuts: cuts to services and cuts to payments. It's about the government having the wrong priorities. Their priorities are the $80 billion in tax cuts for big business. Our priority is providing for our seniors and providing those services. I think that our seniors deserve so much better. The fact is that seniors will always be better off under Labor, because we understand how important our seniors are. We understand the fact that they built our nation. Income Tax 78 16:55 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright It's a great privilege to be able to stand today to sum up what the week looked like. Earlier on in the day there was a Q&A that one of our little local papers, the Gatton Star, sent out to some people around the electorate. They were asking questions like, 'What are some of the things that you've achieved?' and, 'What's it like to be a politician?' One of my answers was, 'It's a great honour to be a federal politician and to be able to influence the direction of the country.' Today was evidence of that. Today, 63,095 workers in my electorate are better off as a result of the biggest tax cuts that this country has seen in generations. You can go home and know that you're making a difference. We'll have the argy-bargy in here of, 'My tax cuts are bigger than yours,' or, 'You should have done more.' Just stop and have a look at what we have achieved in a hostile Senate environment. Credit to those who negotiated, with the complexities of the crossbenchers in the Senate, to get these measures through. Basically, what we did was to lower the tax rate, which addresses bracket creep for the country. We lowered the tax rates for every Australian that was aspiring to move up into the next tax bracket. Now, everyone pays the same rate of tax: 32 per cent. Now they can take an extra shift without being penalised. If their gross wage was hovering just underneath the next bracket, there was no incentive. In fact, sometimes, under the current regime, they were financially worse off if they took those shifts, because they'd sneak up into the next bracket. That's what we refer to as bracket creep. Our plan creates winners. Unlike those on the other side, who advocated for class warfare, we stood up and made sure that our teachers, our policemen, our nurses and those making contributions to our community are better off. Those on the other side refer to those workers as the top end of town. Well, they're not the top end of town. They're the fabric of my community. I opened up with my comments about influencing the direction of the country; they influence the direction of our communities through what they do on a daily basis. I'm proud to go back into my community and hail from the loudest speakers that everyone in my community will be better off. Our message is not going to be complicated when we go to an election: jobs and growth. We believe in smaller government and we believe in smaller taxes. Those on the other side have a different philosophy: larger taxes. If you're a pensioner, Labor is coming for you. If you're a self-funded superannuation retiree, Labor is coming for you. If you've got a rental home, if you have aspiration, Labor is not your friend. Mr Brendan O'Connor 00AN3 What a load of rubbish! Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 There's an interjection saying that it's a load of rubbish. We will take this to an election. When we come back next week, we're going to be debating company tax rates. Those on the other side talk as if it's a foregone conclusion. The biggest tax cuts in history are what we've delivered today, and I'll get it on the record every day between now and the election. When we come back next week we're going to have a chat about company tax rates. We're going to talk about the flight of international capital and how fluid it is. If we don't move in that space, if we don't remain competitive internationally, by the year 2022 there will only be one nation in the OECD countries which has a higher company tax rate than us, and that will be Portugal. We need to be competitive. We need to follow the world markets. We need to follow the UK's downward trajectory on company tax. We need to follow America's downward trajectory on company tax. Singapore is already there. Those nations that we trade with—they're outsmarting us on lower company tax rates. That all feeds back into— Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 You reckon that's rubbish as well? There you go. The other thing we're going to take to an election is truth and honesty and who you can trust at the next election. What you won't get from this government is saying one thing in one electorate and then going to another and saying exactly the opposite just to appease—Labor threw three Queensland seats under the bus. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG It being 5 pm, the House stands adjourned. House adjourned at 17 : 00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:26.

Thursday, 21 June 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:26.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS FIFA World Cup 79 10:26 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise today to talk about the 2018 FIFA World Cup fever gripping the nation. I'm delighted that so many residents in Holt have been watching the games. The FIFA World Cup is an event that truly brings the world together for the common good. Australia is the most multicultural country in the world. We truly have embraced the spirit of the World Cup. In Holt, migrants from all corners of the globe—Russia, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Central and South America, Serbia, Nigeria and England—are embracing the 2018 World Cup. Unfortunately, there have been concerns about the failure of Optus Sport's coverage. However, I'm pleased that SBS, the home of football, has stepped in to ensure that all group games are accessible to Australians. Importantly, my best wishes go to the Socceroos tonight—I'm sure the member for La Trobe would support that as well—in the match against Denmark. On behalf of my electorate—and I'll say La Trobe just for the sake of being bipartisan—you're agreeing? Mr Wood E0F Yes. Mr BYRNE 008K0 That's good—I wish our captain and all Australian players the very best. In the Casey region in my electorate of Holt, there is growing interest in the world's great game of football. I'm delighted that Team 11 is submitting a bid to be one of the two new A-League teams for the 2019-20 season. Under the plan, Team 11 is looking for funding from both the Victorian and Australian governments to build a stadium with an initial seating capacity of between 12,000 and 20,000 people at a proposed site next to the Dandenong train station. Team 11—and I'm sure the member for La Trobe will support this as well—is also wishing to obtain funding for an elite centre of excellence to be situated at Casey Fields in the Cranbourne East part of my electorate of Holt—even the new Holt. The facilities would include a natural turf pitch with floodlighting, a grandstand for approximately 700 people, three synthetic football fields, one natural turf football field, change rooms, fitness training and recovery facilities, and administration offices. These facilities will provide a development pathway for players in Melbourne's south-east. Given that the Socceroos are participating in the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and noting the growing—the exploding!—level of interest in football in our region, I hope that Football Federation Australia will give the people of the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne the A-League team that they want and deserve, and I'm sure the member for La Trobe will support me! Mr Wood E0F Yes! Mr BYRNE 008K0 Thank you, Member for La Trobe. See, there's true bipartisanship here. In one of the fastest-growing and multiculturally diverse, but all people in the south-eastern suburbs are asking for this A-League team to come to the south-east. Boothby Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 79 10:29 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I would like to congratulate the Queen's Birthday honours recipients from my electorate of Boothby. As Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove says: The Australian honours system is a vital part of our social fabric. Honours help define, encourage and reinforce our national aspirations, ideals and standards by identifying those among us who make an outstanding contribution to our society. The recipients of Australian honours and awards are very special men and women whose actions have set them apart and enriched our community— I acknowledge the following residents from my community for their outstanding service. Mr Richard Butler AM, who is a member in the general division of the Order of Australia, for significant service to basketball as a senior executive and administrator, and as an advocate for equality, development and competition. I also congratulate the following residents who were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the general division. Dr Kate Barnett OAM was recognised for service to aged welfare, particularly through her work at the South Australian Office of the Ageing, where she co-designed the framework for consumer and carer participation in the Home and Community Care Program, and other roles. Mr Michael Boyce OAM was recognised for service to vocational training, including as chair of the South Australian Training and Skills Commission, and as chief executive officer of training organisation PEER. Mrs Lorraine Brown OAM was recognised for service to softball, including as a president of the Sturt Falcons Softball Club for over two decades, and as a representative at state, national and international championship levels. Mr Mervyn 'Tony' Fairbank OAM was recognised for service to the community for a range of roles, including as district cake and pudding coordinator for Lions Club International, club director of the Lions Club of Brighton and as president and chairman of the Great Southern Football League. We really enjoy Tony's regular visits to my electorate office. He is a wonderful member of our community. Ms Margaret Ford OAM was recognised for service to education and the community, including through her roles at the South Australian Department of Education, Zonta International and the Penguin Club of Australia. Mark Hanson ESM was awarded the Emergency Services Medal for his contribution to emergency management and community safety in South Australia. Finally, Mr Dene Cordes PSM OAM was recognised for service to conservation and the environment, including as founder of Friends Of Parks SA, the Nature Foundation SA and Friends of Old Government House. I know Dene personally through his work at Old Government House and the Liberal Party, and I'm delighted he's been recognised in this way. His service to community groups has spanned almost 40 years. I would also like to recognise Dene's wife, Dianne, who was always by his side until she passed away 12 months ago. She would have been so proud of him. I know that Dene's brother, Neville, who is also a good friend of mine, would be proud as well. Congratulations to all the 2018 Queen's Birthday honours recipients from my electorate of Boothby. BILLS 80 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 80

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Consideration in Detail 80 10:32 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make an opening statement. I'd like to start by providing an overview of my department, the operations the department undertakes and the sheer size and complexity of the work that they undertake. The Department of Human Services, encompassing Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency, touches the lives, at some point, of almost every Australian. Second only to the Department of Defence in terms of size, my department employs around 33,000 staff. Each fortnight my department delivers payments to more than five million Australians, totalling more than $174 billion each year. In 2016-17, the Department of Human Services had more than 700 million interactions with people, including over 52 million phone calls, 19 million face-to-face visits and 629 million digital transactions. Already this financial year, we have handled 43.9 million phone calls, over 16 million face-to-face visits and almost 740 million digital transactions. To support people in their interactions with the government, particularly in my department, the coalition has invested in major business and IT transformation projects to modernise our services. This investment has delivered an enhanced online service experience, enabling people to interact with the department in a more efficient and effective way. As part of this year's budget, from 1 July, $316.2 million will be rolled out over four years to enhance how welfare benefits are claimed and processed. The Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation Program, which we call WPIT, has already delivered significant improvements to the way students access Austudy and youth allowance payments. Those claiming jobseeker, age and disability pensions and carer payments will be the next to reap the benefits from digital transformation. Improving the way Australians interact with government services is also a priority, and we have allocated an additional $50 million in this year's budget to manage customer demand while the Department of Human Services continues to transform the delivery of payments and services. In addition, I announced a further 1,000 call centre operators in April to further assist with reducing call wait times. As a result of recent improvements, busy signals on our telephone lines have reduced by 44 per cent since the start of the year, which is an extraordinary result. This is a marked improvement on where we were. The government is committed to delivering the best possible services to the Australian people. The budget allocation for social welfare makes up nearly a third of Australia's total budget every financial year. To ensure we can continue to provide a secure and supportive social welfare system, the bill must be manageable and we need to make sure that we're not leaving future generations to pick up the cost of our expenditure now. Since 1 July 2016, this government has achieved savings of $1.7 billion through measures that crack down on welfare fraud and enhance compliance. We've introduced measures to ensure the integrity of the system. We're now proactively prompting more recipients than ever to keep their details up to date, reducing the likelihood they will incur a future debt. We're continuing to roll out Taskforce Integrity, a joint task force with the Australian Federal Police, to sites this financial year. We are increasing income data-matching checks to over 600,000 per year, half a million more than were done when the Labor Party was in government. In April this year, my department commenced notifying former customers with existing debts that interest will be charged on those debts should they not repay that money or should they not enter into a repayment arrangement with us. These measures were extended through this year's budget to build on that past success. On the other hand, while reducing the number of compliance checks, the former Labor government decreased the value of debts raised by half, from $419 million in the 2006-07 year to just $220 million in the 2012-13 year. Those opposite are happy to have a costly system where people can help themselves with no repercussions for defrauding hardworking taxpayers. This government is committed to living within our means and better managing our spending now in order to protect the future of all Australians. The Turnbull government is continuing to provide a genuine safety net for those in need while making it more sustainable by continuing to strengthen the integrity of the system. 10:37 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Last month's budget confirmed that the government will cut staffing levels to the Department of Human Services by 1,280. Last year the government reduced the department's ASL by 1,180. This reduction of almost 2,500 over the past two years has had a devastating impact on the department, on its staff, on its services and, most importantly, on its clients. The age pensioners and carers are waiting longer to have their payments approved by Centrelink. Median processing times for the age pension have increased from 36 days to 49 days; for carers, from 28 days to 47 days. These are just median times. The median times data doesn't take into account instances when Centrelink requests further information, which can further delay the approval process, often by many, many days. The reality is that many older Australians and many carers are waiting many more months for their payments. We have absolute evidence of this, and so will every one of you in your constituent offices. Australians who have worked all their lives and carers looking after loved ones are being forced to live on the edge of their bank accounts and go into poverty. Ask any Australian who has contact with Centrelink and they will tell you their own personal nightmare. Average call wait times have blown out for all of those particular payments. For older Australians times have jumped from 19 minutes to 23 minutes, and the list goes on and on and on. These are just the averages. We've heard stories of people waiting absolutely hours just to speak to someone. It is absolutely true. We know that many are attempting to circumvent the phone lines by attending Centrelink in person. They are also facing longer wait times. The average wait time has gone from 12 minutes and four seconds to over 15 minutes, and this is on record. Just look at budget estimates. It is often the case that people who attend in person are directed back to the phones and forced back into enduring lengthy wait times on the phone. I have spoken to such people, and they have told me their own personal stories. We know that over the past year the government has attempted to shift more people to managing their Centrelink matters online. We also know that this transition has not been easy, particularly for older Australians. We know this because the number of busy signals for older Australians on the age pension phone line has increased from 800,000 to 1.2 million. Government members interjecting— Ms BURNEY 8GH I can't hear myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of the rudeness of people opposite. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member will be heard in silence. Ms BURNEY 8GH We know that Centrelink's online interface can be difficult to use— Government members interjecting— Ms BURNEY 8GH enormous demands on the phone services but also the need for processing times. Debt recovery: wasn't robo-debt such a success for those opposite! I won't go into detail there, except to say that robo-debt has certainly stood in the forefront of people's minds. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10:41 to 10:53 Ms BURNEY 8GH Long wait times for calls, long processing times and difficulties in managing Centrelink online are not the only sources of anxiety for Australians who receive income support. There are enormous problems in terms of the government raising debts against people, and these debts either are much more inflated than they actually are or don't even exist. We have countless examples of people being sent debt notices, but, when the matter is raised with Centrelink, they owe no money at all. The reality is that recovered debts make up less than 0.01 per cent of Centrelink payments, and it is clear that the vast majority of Australians are doing the right thing. It just astounds me that this government is very happy to go out and say that people owe Centrelink money and pursue people like they're criminals, when they're actually people who are in need, and yet it has absolutely no scruples when it comes to admitting that it has raised false debt notice after false debt notice and expected people to pay the money back. The privatisation of Centrelink by stealth is absolutely the wrong thing. They are outsourcing jobs, and it is Serco that they are outsourcing jobs to. That is why it is so important that Centrelink has permanent full-time staff. My question to the minister is: what impact will the reduction of the ASL have on the quality of the department's service delivery? That is a question, Minister, that I want you to answer. Honourable members interjecting— Ms BURNEY 8GH I want you to answer that question and try and be honest about it if you can. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The noise level in the chamber is too high. I can't hear the speakers. Speakers will be listened to quietly. 10:55 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Before I begin, I thank Minister Keenan for his dedication and the way that he has embraced his role as the Minister for Human Services, which I saw when the minister recently visited Dunkley to open the refurbished Frankston Service Centre, covering Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support and DVA. The office was extensively damaged following a fire in April last year, which forced not only the Centrelink, Medicare and DVA offices out of the building but also my office, the Red Cross, the AEC and ORS Employment, which was where the fire started. Minister, I know the staff and the public appreciated your joining us for the opening and your acknowledgement of the difficulties of working in temporary spaces for a long time. The perseverance shown by all who have now moved back into Plowman House is largely down to their absolute commitment to help those who require the services of Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support and DVA. This was demonstrated by the DHS Mobile Service Centre 'Desert Rose' being on site for up to eight days, to ensure that my constituents were able to continue to access essential Centrelink, Medicare and other services in the time when Centrelink had no office—and indeed when I had no office. My constituents in Dunkley are now able to do their Centrelink, Medicare and DVA business back in the newly refurbished centre at 20 Davey Street. Following the fire, these offices have been completely remodelled to offer the best face-to-face services and self-service options on the one floor. People will be able to attend their booked appointments and assessments on site. A drop box for Medicare claims, document lodgement facilities and a Department of Veterans' Affairs veterans information service will also be available on the same floor. I look forward to the Centrelink office continuing to provide an important service to our local community. I know the minister's passion for continuing to improve upon Centrelink services in my area and across the country over time. As noted before, the 1,250 additional people he is putting on to help improve Centrelink services are also extremely important. The reason I tell this story is that I want to make a few points, as part of this consideration-in-detail process, on the government's approach to ensuring a strong but sustainable welfare safety net in our country. This safety net is a necessary part of our society. Many people at some point in their lives need the services and assistance of the Department of Human Services, whether it be in relation to Medicare rebates; youth allowance, while studying; a pension, for those who have never been in the position to contribute to superannuation; or DVA services, for our ex-service men and women. I myself have relied on the services of Centrelink. When I was studying, I received youth allowance. In periods of unemployment, I received Newstart. When I had my young daughter, I received parental leave. So I know the need for these payments. I also know the frustration sometimes in dealing with the systems, which we are continuing to improve over time. I know that the minister is passionate about continuing to improve those services so there are fewer and fewer problems over time. At the same time, our government is creating a stronger economy, ensuring that we can continue to guarantee the essential services Australians rely on and therefore guarantee the services provided by the Department of Human Services. We are also providing the tax relief that is necessary and bringing the budget back to balance. Once we have started to pay down our debt, by bringing the budget back into surplus, we can contribute to the necessary services under our safety net and provide the necessary education and health services. On this note, I first ask the minister: how is the government guaranteeing essential services like Centrelink and Medicare and ensuring that they are able to continue to support my constituents in Dunkley and all Australians into the future? Lastly, I note that more than one million jobs have been created since the coalition government was elected, bringing people into work, into longer term employment, so they don't necessarily have to rely on Centrelink safety net payments. Under this government, 140,000 people have moved off welfare since we came into office. By moving 140,000 people off welfare and into work the government will save upwards of $20 billion in lifetime welfare costs. Unlike those opposite, the government believe in the Australian people. We recognise that the best form of welfare is a job—a job that provides confidence, a job that provides opportunity for that family and a job that provides for aspiration for those people and their kids and grandkids over many generations. Can the minister update the House on the continued efforts to also— (Time expired) 11:00 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor This year's budget reduces the Department of Human Services' average staffing levels by 1,280 people. This is on top of last year's budget, which reduced staff by 1,180. That's 2,500 staff gone from Centrelink across the country. It is no surprise, therefore, that in an area like mine people are walking through my door looking for support to tell us their stories about dealing with Centrelink. It's amazing that this government doesn't seem to understand the compounding impact of not just a reduction in staffing levels, in something that's supposed to be about customer service, but on top of that they are also introducing their robo-debt scheme, which causes more work. Now we're going to have early learning and child care; we're going to have all of those families reporting to Centrelink. We're increasing the workload and decreasing the staff. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that this is going to have a negative impact on efficiency and productivity. In an electorate like mine, that's exactly where we're seeing it. We know today that this government is completely fiscally irresponsible, and what's happening at Centrelink shows us it is also managerially incompetent. Let's have a look at some of the things coming out of my electorate. On 31 March, the median processing time for the age pension was said to be 49 days. But Judith, in my community, has been waiting 131 days. She is still waiting for her application to be processed—after 131 days! This government not only wants to legislate to stop you getting a pension until you're 70; if you're 65 it wants you to wait until you're 70, just waiting for Centrelink to process the data! Duncan, in my community, has waited 161 days from submitting his application before it was processed. Does the minister think it's reasonable that people applying for a pension, including our seniors applying for a pension, are waiting these lengths of time? Does he think it's reasonable that they have no income for that length of time? If I go to youth allowance we have a similar story. This government's been doing some interesting things in the university sector, like cutting it, and they're looking at the introduction of $100,000 degrees. When they can't get those things through, what's next? People in my electorate are waiting 125 days for youth allowance payment. Courtney is waiting 125 days for her youth allowance. What does that mean to families? What does that mean to first in family who are going to university? What it means is, don't worry about the debt you're going to incur; don't worry about the fact that you have no guarantee of what that debt will be by the time you finish your course; she won't even be able to get there. She will have to give up university because Centrelink are understaffed and can't deal with the workload. Abdul waited 81 days from when he lodged his application for it to be processed. This not good enough. These are our best and brightest, heading off to university. The system says they should get support. Does the minister think these processing times are reasonable? Mr Keenan E0J Did you raise these with my office? Ms RYAN 249224 Does the minister think these are isolated incidents? The member for Barton went clearly through the— Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY This is becoming a ruckus in here. Please keep your voices down. There are ample opportunities to respond as ministers and as members of the opposition who wish to continue making a speech on this particular subject. Ms RYAN 249224 I have a few other questions in terms of the relationship that's occurring between our offices. In particular, I have the experience of my own office. Minister, in the past, my office was able to make inquiries on behalf of constituents by ringing Centrelink team leaders, and, in most cases, the situation was finalised there and then. Why is it that my office has now been advised that they are not permitted to ring directly but, rather, must send an email? Can you explain why it can take, in some cases, a week for the email sent by my office to Centrelink to even be acknowledged? Can the minister tell us how that's impacting on these processing delays? In recent weeks, it has become apparent that, in response to these emails, Centrelink have taken appropriate action, like accessing processing of claims. However, they are not telling my office what the outcome is. Does the minister think it's reasonable that constituents need to ring my office to say, 'Thank you for the work,' after they hear from Centrelink because we're being ignored. (Time expired) 11:05 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I am delighted to have the opportunity today to ask some questions of the minister, because I know how hard he's working in his portfolio areas and how much he cares about making sure every single Australian gets the assistance that they need, when they're in need, or has access to childcare services that are going to help so many Australians get back into the workforce, stay in the workforce and study, if they want to, as well. In fact, I know how hard the entire Turnbull government is working to ensure that Australian families keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets, unlike those opposite who, unfortunately, would like to take more money from them. We know that cost-of-living pressures are putting strain on many Australian households, and this is particularly true when it comes to the issue of childcare costs. That's why our new childcare package is so important: it will deliver more support for more families. We are injecting an extra $2.5 billion into the childcare and early learning system. This is a significant investment. Under our plan, we will scrap the annual rebate cap for most families, increase the hourly cap rate and reduce the 15 per cent withholding rate introduced by the Labor Party in 2011 to just five per cent. We are providing the greatest subsidy and financial support to lower-income families who need it most. To put it simply, we are providing real relief for families who have been struggling with the cost of child care for too long. It's estimated that nearly one million Australian families will benefit from the changes. In South Australia, around 80 per cent of families will benefit from the Turnbull government's reforms. In my electorate of Boothby, more than 6,250 families are set to benefit from the changes. We're encouraging parents who want to get into the workforce for the first time, parents who want to work more, parents who want to study and parents who want to volunteer and give back to the community to do so. An estimated 230,000 Australians will increase their workforce participation because of our reforms. We recognise how busy working families are and how precious their time is, so we have set up a simple transition process from the current system to the new system. By 1 July, families need to answer four quick and easy steps to confirm their information via myGov or the Centrelink app or by telephone. Unlike those opposite, who have been engaging in a scare campaign that can only serve to disadvantage families, I've been out and about in my community in my electorate of Boothby, spreading the message about our new childcare package. I have been letting families know that, if they are currently receiving childcare assistance, they need to confirm their details and provide any new information in order to be assessed for the new childcare subsidy before 1 July. Many families in my electorate of Boothby will be hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year better off under our reforms, but they must make the switch. Already, we know that many families have signed up to receive the benefits of these reforms. That's the feedback I and my colleagues on this side of the House are getting from parents and from childcare providers. Clearly, families can see the benefits of our childcare and early learning reforms. I recently visited Goodstart Early Learning Centre in Aberfoyle Park with the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Dr David Gillespie, where staff and parents told me that they were really pleased with how the transition to the new package is going. Goodstart Early Learning at Aberfoyle Park is an absolutely amazing facility for preschool children, and I was excited to show the minister the recent renovations that they have done, particularly to their outdoor play area, which is absolutely amazing! There are several sandpits, teepees, a garden, a vegetable patch, lots of interactive play equipment for the children and also a lot of astroturf. They have so much green space; it is just amazing. The centre are working to move away from plastic toys and aiming to give their children a more wholesome play experience while doing things like educating them about how to grow plants and vegetables. I commend Rachelle and the dedicated staff at Goodstart Early Learning Aberfoyle Park for their passion, dedication and good-natured patience with visiting members of parliament. While visiting, I learnt also that they are helping families to optimise their subsidy under the new arrangements by offering more flexible sessions to parents. Our message to families is very clear: please sign up today. You need to do so by 1 July. The new childcare package makes things simpler, easier and more flexible and, most importantly, puts money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Minister, can you please provide the House with an update on the transition of families to the new childcare system. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Before I call the next member, it's been brought to my attention that this session is about to be completed, within five minutes. The minister has asked to have an opportunity to respond before his session ends, if it's okay with the opposition. 11:11 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce He won't answer any questions. I'd rather put some more questions to him so he can write back. I will put a couple of things in Hansard, because it is rare that you actually get the opportunity to have the minister here, and in my experience, despite what he said before, his office doesn't actually respond. Mr Keenan interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 You don't respond to letters. Not one letter that I have written you since you have been minister have you actually responded to. The first thing I'd like to raise in your crisis of a portfolio of Human Services: I received last week, Minister, you arrogant, out-of-touch— Ms Flint interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 I received an anonymous— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Both members will resume their seats. I will ask the member for Bruce to withdraw that comment. Mr HILL 86256 Arrogant or out of touch? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY No, unequivocally you will be withdrawing it. Mr HILL 86256 I don't know what I'm withdrawing, Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY Exactly what you just said. Mr HILL 86256 The minister is arrogant and out of touch and he doesn't reply to correspondence. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I'm asking you to withdraw that immediately. Mr HILL 86256 No, I will not withdraw that. We can call the Prime Minister arrogant and out of touch. The minister doesn't reply to correspondence. To my mind that's arrogant and out of touch. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The member will resume his seat. The member for Boothby on a point of order. Ms Flint 245550 This is the third occasion, and this is probably the least worst example of some really appalling and offensive, genuinely offensive language, that the member has directed towards the minister this morning. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY In order to— Mr Hill interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY You haven't got the call yet, Member for Bruce. In order to have some easy flowing going through, I ask that the member for Bruce withdraw that remark for the sake of this chamber. Mr HILL 86256 I withdraw. Minister, I received an anonymous tip-off to my office last week, and I would like your commentary on it—perhaps take it on notice. This was from a mother of two children with severe disabilities who self-manages their NDIS plan. She recently encountered a new Centrelink data-matching bungle she wanted to bring to your attention. Centrelink had begun the process of raising a debt against her under the robo-debt automated debt recovery process for undeclared income. However, as it turns out, this was a series of NDIS payments for her two severely disabled children. She provided the evidence and said, 'Can this not happen again.' But Centrelink said to her very clearly that they were unable to guarantee that this won't happen again, that they have recently expanded the program and that there is no way of forcing the system to recognise NDIA payments for what they are. She was shocked by this and was told to contact the NDIA. She did so. She receives 200 to 300 individual payments into her bank account each year for various NDIA services—reimbursements. Minister, can you rule out this happening to any other Australian? If not, what can be done to fix it? Can everyone in Australia on self-managed care plans now expect robo-debt mark II? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member for Bruce. There are still a couple of minutes, if the minister wishes to respond. 11:14 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I'm very happy to respond. Firstly, in relation to the member for Bruce, if there's some detail that he can provide me, we will certainly look into that. My experience with these things is that if they're raised and if there has been a genuine problem we can deal with it very quickly. But, of course, members opposite need to actually give us the facts. If they're prepared to give us the facts then we will certainly look into it and ensure that people get the best possible service that they can. This is a very complicated system that we operate here in Australia, and 5.2 million Australians access it on a regular basis. When problems occur, my department actually cares, I actually care, and we do what we can to fix them. We have a record of doing that. So your coming in here and just raising cases without providing me with the detail, without contacting my office and giving us an opportunity to respond, shows me that you're not particularly concerned about the individual, because, if you wanted to get a result, that is exactly what you would do. That's what I would recommend to members opposite if they actually want to get a result for their constituent. I have very limited time left to speak, but I do want to go through this complete nonsense about ASL reductions in my department. Can I just explain what we inherited when we came into office. The Labor Party had axed 4,800 people from the Department of Human Services—4,800 people. When the Rudd government was elected, call waiting times on Centrelink phone lines were an average of one minute and 29 seconds. This is in the financial year 2006-07—one minute and 29 seconds. When the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office, it was almost 13 minutes. This was the legacy of the Labor Party and their astonishing cuts to the Department of Human Services. That is what they had left for us when we came into office. Of course, we will endeavour to fix it, as we always do. What we are doing to fix it is having an extra 1,250 people staffing our telephone lines—1,250 people—and we're already seeing the results. People are getting significantly better service and they're not getting the busy signals that they had before, whilst getting shorter waiting times on our phone lines. Of course, whilst this is happening, we're also transitioning to new and better ways of people getting services through the Department of Human Services. We will continue to do that. We've made a $1.2 billion investment in the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transition Program. That is our flagship digital transformation program— Opposition members interjecting— Mr KEENAN E0J The members opposite are interjecting, but of course they won't know anything about this. They'll know absolutely nothing about it and they'll just throw out all this nonsense, the sort of nonsense that we see from the Labor Party—completely removed from the truth, a completely fact-free zone. So these are the sorts of improvements that we're making to the system, and they are already yielding results. I'm very proud of what we've been able to achieve in the Department of Human Services. We of course have taken responsibility for fixing up the shambles that we inherited from the Labor Party. It's very hard to make up for 4,800 staff being ripped out of a system. It's very hard to make up for call wait times that, when the Labor Party were in office, blew out to 10 times what they had been. But we have methodically and gradually made improvements to the system, and the Australian people will see the results of those improvements. They're already seeing the results of those improvements, and over time, of course, they will continue to get better. The member for Boothby asked me about the transition to the new childcare subsidy arrangements. This is an extra $2½ billion dollars into the system, which means that the people who need it most will be able to access more childcare subsidy and those working the most will be able to access more childcare subsidy, and, like all the reforms that we're making, it benefits low- and middle-income Australians. I'm very pleased to say that that transition is going exceptionally well. I've worked very closely with Minister Birmingham to ensure that, on 2 July, when the new system comes into place, the sector is ready for the new arrangements and Australians can transition to the new arrangements. We've already had 925,000 families register their new arrangements with us. It's a very simple process. You can do it through the Centrelink online app. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. You're asked four easy questions. I would encourage those who haven't yet registered their new details with us to do so. But the program remains on track for a very successful transition. I thank the member for Boothby for asking me a relevant and sensible question. (Time expired) Proposed expenditure agreed to. Consideration in Detail 86 11:19 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The Federation Chamber will first consider the Prime Minister and Cabinet and women segments, and then the Indigenous Affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. The minister has the call, and he will be heard in silence because I'm having difficulty hearing. 11:20 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I would appreciate that courtesy, because I've actually got very important things to say about the portfolio of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is a good opportunity for me to make this opening statement to the committee to hopefully set the tone and the content of the debate. The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio has 14 agencies that receive funding from the government. The 2018-19 budget provided the portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.1 billion in the 2018-19 year. The average staffing level for the portfolio is 5,241. The 2018-19 budget included 11 budget measures led by the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. This includes a number of measures that support key policy initiatives for the government, particularly investment in data, digital transformation, and national and international security. The government provided funding of $92.4 million in 2018-19 to accelerate the implementation of Govpass, which is our digital identity system and a vitally important building block for our digital future. Govpass will allow people to verify who they are and access government services online in a simple and secure way. The Govpass program is a key component in the ongoing digital transformation of government and supports the government's commitment to better and more accessible digital services. The Digital Transformation Agency will work with relevant agencies to test Govpass across a range of services. In addition to this, funding of $700,000 is also committed in the 2018-19 year to investigate areas where blockchain technology could offer the most value for government services. Obviously, the potential for blockchain in the way we deliver our services, particularly within the welfare system, is large, and we're very keen to investigate those opportunities. The cost of this measure will be met from within existing resources of the Digital Transformation Agency. The government will provide further funding to various agencies to more effectively serve Australia's national security needs. In response to the recommendations of the 2017 Independent intelligence review, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be augmented to oversee the activities of all agencies within the national intelligence community. The Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel will undertake a comprehensive review of the legal framework governing Australia's national intelligence community and related oversight bodies, and the government will establish a joint capability fund to facilitate greater integration of Australia's intelligence capabilities. These reforms build on implementation measures announced at the 2017-18 MYEFO, and they are driven by serious threats to Australia's security and the government's determination to keep Australians safe and secure. From 2018-19, the government will provide $20.5 million over four years to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This funding will be used to implement new data governance arrangements in line with the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2017 report Data availability and use. A data sharing and release framework underpinned by legislation will be developed and administered by the newly established National Data Commissioner. These reforms will ensure data safeguards are implemented to build public trust while ensuring the benefits of enhanced sharing and release of data are achieved by the Australian public. I'm at pains to say that the conversation around data in Australia shouldn't be one that's based on all the risks that are associated with this amazing surge in information that we are living through at the moment. Ninety per cent of the world's information has been created within the past two years, and this creates wonderful opportunities for the Australian government to use that data to better understand what it means for us to make better decisions on behalf of the Australian people In May 2018 the Prime Minister announced a review of the Australian Public Service to ensure that it is best placed to serve the Australian government and the Australian people into the future. To facilitate this review, we've allocated $9.8 million over two years to undertake this important body of work with the cost being managed within the existing resources of the department. The government has also allocated funding of $23.3 million over two years to enhance the capability of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This will support PM&C's role in furthering the government's domestic and international policy agendas, including national security, trade, infrastructure and Indigenous affairs. That is the end of my time, and I thank the chamber for the opportunity to outline the things that we are doing— (Time expired) 11:25 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I want to thank the minister for his contribution, and I refer him to his comment that he wants to see by 2025 that Australia will be one of the top three digital governments in the world, boldly going where no Turnbull government minister has gone before—less Keenan and more Shatner! It's very good to see. I look forward to seeing you reach that. Mr Keenan interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 Yes, I'm showing my age. I can't hide it anymore, Minister! Given your bold ambition, I want to run through this great list of digital projects. You say you want us to be in the top three governments in digital transformation. Here's the list: the 2016 census; repeated crashes of the ATO website; delayed revamp of the Child Support website; halted the start of online NAPLAN; guillotined gov.au redesign proposal, and wasted nearly a million bucks there; shut the Digital Transformation Office, and then renamed it; waved goodbye to your CEO of the Digital Transformation Office; scored a thumbs down from small business for the over-hyped digital marketplace; saw the arrest of DHS IT contractors for suspected fraud; notched up a record spend on government IT; robo-debt, which no-one can forget; dumped the apprentice IT platform, AAMS; and, in the last few weeks, suspended the ACIC biometric project. That last project is of particular interest because the Biometric Identification Services project between NEC and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission was suspended and staff members escorted off government premises. From that list of 13, I can't think of any of those instances where the government could build, in the general public, a confidence that it's got digital transformation right, or that they could expect more government services to actually work for them online, instead of having to call or turn up to government premises to get service. On the NEC project, in particular, I want to ask: when did the DTA come to understand that the project was in trouble? When did DTA put that project on its watch list? When the NEC project got into trouble, who did it report that to? Who was involved in the decision to scrap the NEC project? With the additional $60 million for the DTA's digital ID and another $30 million of existing DTA funding reallocated for digital ID, which of the multiple biometric projects is this funding for? Was the NEC project part of the back-end infrastructure of the digital ID rollout? Why are there so many biometric projects running in parallel within government? When did the minister become aware of the NEC biometric project being in trouble? Was the decision to scrap the $90 million project made by the department, the DTA or the cabinet subcommittee? This NEC project goes to the heart of what is actually happening in DTA, where there's less delivery and more audit functions, but even then they can't keep track of all the projects that are going off the rails. The question I also want answered, and I think the Australian public wants to know, is: if the DTA is supposed to be keeping tabs on all these digital projects, how come it's keeping tabs on them but never intervening to prevent these projects going off the rails? 11:29 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Representing the government, as I do, as Minister for Women, I'd like to make an opening statement in relation to women. The 2018-19 budget enhances the lives of all Australian women by pursuing practical changes to support opportunity and choice. The government is continuing to put in place the right settings to deliver a stronger economy, to guarantee the essential services that women and Australians rely upon. A stronger economy means that more women are in work now than ever before. A key priority for the government is to provide those right economic settings for women to help them into work and to help them to be able to save, because we know that when they do that they have choices about their lives. I am delighted to be able to confirm that, as Minister for Women, I will be delivering a women's economic security statement later on in the year, in the spring of 2018. I just want to focus on this fact that we have more women working than ever before. Five point eight million Australian women are now employed in Australia. We are committed to ensuring that they have every opportunity to be able to engage in paid work, to have the right support to expand their skills, to take advantage of new employment opportunities and to be able to save for their retirement. Very specifically, in budget 2018-19 we are making personal income taxes lower, fairer and simpler for all Australians, including women, through our Personal Income Tax Plan; encouraging more women to pursue STEM education and careers by providing $4.5 million over four years; helping women to be able to take advantage of opportunities in the healthcare and social assistance industry, by providing $64.3 million to establish a Jobs and Market Fund to grow the National Disability Insurance Scheme workforce; developing women's financial capability by providing $10 million for initiatives to put women in control of their financial lives now and into the future as part of the financial capability Australia fund. This is a $65 million fund that will work, not only in this government but beyond governments, to provide financial capability and empowerment to those individuals who choose to use it. We all know that from the moment you enter this world to the moment you leave it you are engaging in the financial system. So it's critically important that we give Australian women and men, but specifically Australian women, who don't feel very confident in making financial decisions, as we know from the surveys that we have seen, the toolkit that they need to make the best decisions they can to enhance their choices, their opportunities and their lives. We know that Australian women are aspirational. They are aspirational for themselves, for their future and for their communities. I know that there are those opposite, perhaps, who might agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—I suppose aspiration mystifies them—but I suspect most of the people in this room would agree that Australian women are aspirational for themselves, for their families and for their communities. In our budget we are also supporting the national rollout of the Skills Checkpoint for Older Workers Program for women and men between 45 and 70 years of age by providing $3.3 million as part of the More Choices for a Longer Life package. I was very pleased to be able to introduce the legislation today. Very importantly, we are helping to protect the superannuation balances of around two million Australian women with low and inactive accounts from undue erosion by high administration and investment fees and exit fees, making sure that they can have the very most in their retirement savings, making sure that they're not paying high insurance premiums that they either do not want or do not need and, in some cases, cannot even claim upon. I note for the record here that it was very disappointing to find out, as the minister now responsible for superannuation, that the former minister who was responsible for superannuation—that is, the Leader of the Opposition—was the very person who took the decision, at the time that he was responsible, to uncap fees for low balance accounts, which will mean, for some people, tens of thousands of dollars less in their retirement savings and in some cases even hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is particularly devastating for women who have low balance accounts, but I'm happy to report that, through our budget measures, we are protecting them, their retirement income and their retirement savings. 11:34 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith It is a pleasure, given we are speaking about women today, to acknowledge that in the gallery is UK Labour Councillor Erica Lewis. She is well known to many people in this building, not just because of her work with UK Labour, but because of her many, many years with the YWCA right here in Canberra. She is a long-term advocate for women. In great contrast to her work, this government's work in relation to women has been completely panned. In fact, Women's Agenda has said, 'Women have been largely forgotten in the 2018 budget, and there is nothing that directly addresses the economic disadvantage of Australian women.' Fair Agenda, Domestic Violence New South Wales, the National Association of Community Legal Centres and No to Violence said that the level of funding for frontline services was 'bitterly disappointing and potentially dangerous'. There was little in the budget for women and there was very little analysis of how the budget impacts women. The National Foundation for Australian Women said the fact sheets produced were not a gender based analysis but a listing of initiatives that may benefit women, minus any data. At budget estimates, the Office for Women was unable to answer questions about the gendered impacts of key budget announcements, because they just didn't know. The front page of the economic security fact sheet that the Office of Women produced featured the Personal Income Tax Plan and talked about how it would benefit women. When we asked the office at estimates whether gender analysis had been done on the impact, we were told the office hadn't seen any analysis and we should ask the Treasury. The Treasury said they hadn't done it. Analysis that Labor commissioned from the PBO showed the financial benefits of stage 3 of the package overwhelmingly benefit men. Three-quarters of the tax cut will go to men on high incomes. Minister, why did you put income tax cuts on the front page of your women's economic security fact sheet if they actually benefit men disproportionately? Why isn't the government considering the impact that major economic policy will have on women? Do you think the impact of your income tax cuts are gender neutral, like the Treasurer, Scott Morrison does? Evidence presented to a Senate inquiry by tax expert Professor Miranda Stewart last week showed that your tax policy, combined with your childcare changes, will create 95 per cent effective marginal tax rates for women returning to work after having children. Professor Stewart said it was extraordinary that second earners went back to work full-time at all. A mother going back to work for a third day will only keep $10 out of every $100 earned that day. If you work a fourth day, you only get $5. The childcare changes are the main policy the government has announced to boost women's workforce participation. The evidence now shows that there will be negligible financial benefits for secondary earners to work an extra day. So I ask the minister: why isn't the government analysing the effective marginal tax rates created by your policies? Do you think it's okay that a woman would only gain $5 for going back to work an extra day? Have you recalculated the workforce participation impact of your Jobs for Families Child Care Package? How can the government claim one of its top priorities in women's policy is boosting workforce participation, when your own policies are creating disincentives for women to return to work? Just two days before the budget was released, the government leaked a mystery economic security story that they were committing a mystery sum of money to policies that they hadn't decided on yet and that they wouldn't tell anyone about for another five months. Then there was no mention in the budget itself of this mystery policy. Minister, it looks a lot like you realised there was nothing in your budget for women and threw together a last minute announcement to try to save face. Labor welcomes the government finally taking an interest in women's economic security, but your own Office for Women said at budget estimates that the policy is in extreme infancy. So I ask the minister: after five years of coalition government, why do you need another five months to figure out what your women's economic security policy is? How much funding has been set aside in the contingency reserve for your economic statement? Have any actual policies been agreed to, or were you just allocated a lump sum for your last minute policy panic? When will you be announcing your economic security statement? Will you be doing any consultation with stakeholders about what should be in the statement? Will the Office for Women be preparing it? The Office for Women stated at budget estimates that they didn't produce the women's budget fact sheets published on the Office for Women website. I ask the minister: can you confirm that the women's budget fact sheets were produced by the Treasury? Why weren't they produced by the office? Does the office not have the capacity to produce that gender analysis of the budget? If they were produced by the Treasury as a budget document, why weren't they included on the budget.gov website? There are a range of other questions I would like to ask for women, but I ask the minister to consider these questions at this time. 11:39 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane I rise to ask the minister to expand on his earlier comments in relation to the role of government as Australian society moves into the digital age and the clear benefits of government services following closely that trend. I'm particularly interested to hear more about how those benefits are being realised through this government's digital transformation agenda. I'm interested to hear the minister indicate what the main priorities are for the Australian government organisations and government agencies in the next six to 12 months to further drive that digital transformation. Minister, what synergies and collaborations are taking place across the government's agencies and, in particular, what collaborations are taking with other players out there such as businesses, particularly those in the start-up ecosystem? I attended the Myriad Festival in Brisbane last month. I participated and spoke in a national start-up 'policy hack'. Through participating in that, it became very clear to me and everyone else there, I think, that the government sector can continue to learn a great deal from the experiences and the ideas coming up through our start-up sector when it comes to digital transformation, in terms of culture and new ideas and technologies. MyGov, the online portal that is the centrepiece of government digital transformation, is becoming the primary way that Australians access government services. I certainly support the idea that, instead of filling out endless paperwork, information can be securely stored and prefilled when users access different forms through myGov and the idea that information can be shared across different government areas of services, including linking services like Centrelink, Medicare and the ATO. I'd be interested to hear the minister's thoughts on the newer statistics for myGov. The last that I heard was that there are now more than a quarter of a million Australians accessing myGov and making transactions through it every single day. If so, it would mean that usage of that service has more than doubled since I was elected almost two years ago, which would prove beyond doubt that there is clear demand and uptake for digital and online government services. I'd also be interested to hear more about security and privacy under the government's digital transformation agenda, including the way that users can securely verify their identity using Govpass. I understand that the government is working hard to ensure that these platforms protect the privacy and the security of individual Australians. I'm also interested in hearing more about the benefits of the government's digital transformation agenda for the many students around Brisbane, especially in terms of the efficiencies and the convenience for the thousands of university students who support their studies and supplement their casual incomes with payments like youth allowance. Indeed, I'd be interested to hear the benefits for all Australians in terms of the efficiencies being created in the delivery of government services and the idea that taxpayers can be assured that their tax dollars are able to go even further as those efficiencies are realised. The last time I checked, it was estimated that myGov had already saved about $100 million for Australian taxpayers since it was rolled out. I noted in the last Digital government transformation report released by Deloitte that there are even greater efficiencies and cost savings to be found through this work. That report stated that the shift towards digital offerings could eventually lead to cost savings of anywhere up to $20 billion or $30 billion for both federal and state governments around Australia over the next 10 years. I would also be interested in hearing about what is being done to build the digital skills of the Australian Public Service, which I believe is another key element of our digital strategy. As well as embracing and building the technology, it is vital that Australia's professional Public Service staff are confident and capable in utilising it. I'd be interested to hear more about the government's investment of $13.9 million to attract, build and retain digital talent. I'd be interested to know how many participants have been placed into new digital focused roles across agencies. In particular, are senior executive staff receiving training to ensure that they can help lead from the top in the digital transformation? Lastly, as my time is running out, I'd be interested to hear more about the work being done to ensure that ICT equipment and tools used by our government represent a high return on investment. There are many small businesses and individuals in Brisbane who are very keen to ensure that we are encouraging competition for government ICT contracts, especially from small and medium-sized Australian organisations. I heard just yesterday from Ken Morris, a constituent in New Farm, on this topic. How have we improved our procurement processes to ensure that we can achieve reduced costs and improved efficiencies? Simultaneously, what are we doing to ensure that Australian providers can offer competitive prices and contracts? 11:44 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith You can imagine my disbelief when I heard the member for Brisbane asking the minister to tell students who work casual jobs on the weekend just how great this budget has been for them. Yes, by all means, Minister, do tell them how lucky they are to have myGov. That'll certainly make up for the fact that you're cutting their penalty rates and cutting $2.2 billion out of their university funding! They will be absolutely delighted that you've got an app they can use on the smartphone for which they can't afford the plan: 'Here, have an app. This'll make up for it. Sure, $77 a week is a real shame, students, and sorry about the fact that your universities are having to cost-cut to absorb the $2.2 billion in cuts baked in by this budget. But here's an app, because we're so cool in PMO. We're so great. We do apps. We're hip. We're groovy. We're with it. We're 'young thangs'.' Yes, that's great! Do tell, Minister. Excellent question, Member for Brisbane. I really think that was a fantastic own goal by the member for Brisbane. Let's hear it! I did mention that I wanted to ask a few more questions about women. We also heard from the APSC at budget estimates that, since the current minister became the Minister for Women, the government hasn't asked for any briefing or advice on Balancing the future: the Australian Public Service gender equality strategy. We also heard that nothing has been done on a number of priorities listed in the strategy, so I ask the minister: is gender equality in the Public Service a priority for you as Minister for Women? Will there still be a review of the Commonwealth maternity leave act, as it's called? Will training still be developed for the APS on the differential impact of gender in mainstream policy development? Will there be a best practice guide in training and managing flexible work arrangements in the APS? And will there be a return-to-work framework for working parents rolled out across the APS? I also expect that you, Minister, like everyone else in this place, are concerned about the particular vulnerability to violence that women with disabilities have. Minister, $50,000 was allocated to support the National Women's Alliances to engage with the disability sector this financial year. But, a week out from the end of the year, the money hasn't been spent. Minister, have you even decided yet how you'll spend the money and is this now just a year of funding lost for women with disabilities? Finally, on the issue of the Office for Women, why haven't any Women's Leadership and Development Strategy grants been made this financial year? I also wanted to ask some questions in respect of Prime Minister and Cabinet that don't relate to the Office for Women. The first goes to the $23.3 million in additional funding that, as is shown in Budget Paper No. 2, went to PM&C to enhance the department's capability to provide policy support to the government in domestic and international policy. What weakness in the department's capability was identified that this was meant to address? How was it identified? Was there an external review? Did the Prime Minister indicate dissatisfaction with the capability of the department? The measure description cross-references a measure from the 2017-18 budget called 'Departmental supplementation'. This measure saw PM&C receive $20 million over four years to support the delivery of critical policy advice and assist the government in meeting its objective. What is the difference between the two measures? Was it simply that $20 million over four years wasn't enough to sufficiently enhance the capability of the department? I also want to ask about outcome 1 in the portfolio budget statement. Page 30 of the 2018-19 portfolio budget statement for PM&C shows that total departmental funding for outcome 1 for the year 2018-19 is $146,022,000. Earlier in the papers, outcome 1 is defined: Provide high quality policy advice and support to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, Portfolio Ministers and Assistant Ministers including through the coordination of government activities, policy development and program delivery. If you go back two years, outcome 1 had almost exactly the same definition. The only change is the renaming of parliamentary secretaries as assistant ministers. Yet, when we look at total funding for outcome 1, it is $124,070,000—some $22 million less for the year. To put it another way, departmental funding has increased more than 25 per cent in two years. Did the Prime Minister himself identify this need for extra support? Does the department have any metrics for measuring how much the government's performance has increased following this significant increase in funding? Can the minister explain the increase in funding, given that, as I said earlier, the only apparent change was the renaming of parliamentary secretaries to assistant ministers? I'm sure that was a move appreciated by assistant ministers but not by too many other people. 11:49 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on this consideration in detail and pay tribute to the Minister for Women and to this government for the many ways in which we are standing up for women and investing in women, whether it's in the workforce, whether it's assisting women with child care or whether it's the very important role of supporting women who are the most vulnerable in our society, those with a disability and of course those who have confronted family violence. A hallmark of this government is the many ways in which we have invested in the many causes for women. There's one that I was very proud to celebrate just a few weeks ago. With the Treasurer and the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, I visited a new aged-care centre in Grovedale. I was very proud as well to open that aged-care centre a couple of weeks ago when I returned. While we were visiting the centre, we were celebrating a new program. We have committed $10 million for the Launch into Work program in the 2017-18 budget. It is providing wonderful training, mentoring and work experience to assist women moving into the workforce. There were about 10 women who were recipients under that program. That is 10 new jobs just in one aged-care centre, supported by our government, on the ground, giving the delivery of jobs that we need and focusing on giving women opportunities to return to the workforce. That is just one of the many examples of the way in which we are supporting women in the workforce. Boosting women's workforce participation is an economic priority for the Turnbull government. We can boost GDP by as much as 13 per cent while strengthening women's economic security. What a celebration we have before us with the coalition's record on promoting women's workforce participation. Women's employment is at a record high of over 5.6 million women in the workforce. Part of that is because of the way that we're also investing in child care. We're making it easier for women to return to the workforce. We've made a historic investment overall of an additional $2.5 billion in child care. This investment is encouraging more than 230,000 families to return to work or increase their paid employment and support early-learning opportunities for children. In the budget, an additional $428 million has been provided to support universal access to preschool in the forthcoming year. We recognise that those 15 hours of kindergarten in preschool years are very important, and we've made a very substantial investment. One of the very big focuses for women in the workforce and a big focus of our government is in acknowledging the important role that parents play in caring for their children. There are a range of programs and payments to support them. Currently, the government spends a substantial amount of taxpayers money in three main areas of family support—around $19 billion in family tax benefit, a total of around $7 billion all up in childcare support and around $2 billion in paid parental leave. These are very substantial investments—$19 billion alone in family tax benefit. FTB is very important in supporting women and families, particularly when women want to return to work. I touched earlier on the work that's been done for women affected by family violence. I spent a large part of last year doing an inquiry into family violence law reform and understanding these issues in a lot of depth. The Turnbull government has led the way in investing in women's safety, starting with a $100 million women's safety package, which was announced back in September 2015, and those investments have continued. Making sure that women are safe in their home and in their workplace is an incredibly important focus. I'm particularly proud of the investments. I ask the minister to expand on some of these investments that our government has made. 11:54 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling It may be a little unusual, but there are two ministers representing the portfolio here and we've got five minutes left, so we might be able to take half the time each to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I'll try and be brief. The member for Brisbane asked me about myGov. MyGov is our flagship platform. An opposition member interjecting— Mr KEENAN E0J I'm sure he's watching from his office as we speak. MyGov has 12 million accounts, and 3½ million of these have been created within the past two years. We're now approaching almost 300,000 logins on myGov on any single day. This is now one of the largest digital services that is offered anywhere in Australia. MyGov has now surpassed most of the major Australian banks in terms of the number of people that use it. We will continue to make improvements to that service to make sure that it provides access to efficient and quick digital services for the Australian people. This is just one of the things we're doing in the world of digital transformation within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. We have been responsible for some wonderful innovations since we arrived in office. Anyone who uses the SmartGate systems, for example, would understand that we're using facial biometrics and other biometric identification to have seamless travel through our airports. I often point to that as a flagship program for the government, because it shows you what can be achieved by these advances in technology, making sure that passengers, who might have waited up to half an hour in a queue if the past, can now be processed through our major airports in as little as 15 seconds. We're doing it in a way that still means that our borders are kept secure. Another innovation that I'm very keen to point to is the use of virtual assistance at the Australian Taxation Office, and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services is very familiar with this. That means they're available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for Australians who use services from the ATO, and 88 per cent of issues, where they've had interactions with people, have been resolved. This has reduced the inbound calls going to the ATO by 15 per cent, meaning that people who are calling in can now have a better chance of getting through. I'd happily go on, but in line with what I said in my opening remarks, I will yield to the minister for revenue. 11:57 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I'm here in my capacity as Minister for Women. I'd first like to respond to the words and the questions of the member for Corangamite. I might just take the opportunity to commend her for her very strong advocacy for the women in her community, and her particularly strong commitment to making sure that women can be safe in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities. She would probably be very aware of the fact that we as a government have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to violence against women. We have maintained a very strong commitment. The government has provided around $300 million to support women's safety initiatives. I want to draw the attention of the member for Corangamite to particular initiatives announced in this budget. We have $54.4 million committed to serving women who are affected by violence, and for online safety initiatives, including $11.5 million for the national sexual assault domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT; $6.7 million to maintain funding for domestic violence alert, DV-alert, to continue its domestic violence response training for community front line workers, and we know how effective and important that program is; and $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace much safer for women. She is doing incredible work and certainly the work that she is engaged in is world-leading. I'd like to respond to a couple of the questions from the member for Griffith. The member for Griffith asked about gender equity in the Public Service. I'm incredibly pleased to be able to notify the member for Griffith of the fact that the fifty-fifty target for secretaries, for those people who lead our departments, is now gender equal. We have got 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women who lead our departments in the Australian Public Service. We have been able to achieve that fantastic target under a Liberal coalition government, under the Turnbull government. It demonstrates our incredibly strong commitment to seeing women equally represented in all aspects of public life. We see that in the Australian Public Service as well. And we have a deep commitment— Opposition members interjecting— Ms O'DWYER LKU I'd love to respond to these questions, but I'm conscious of time. It would be nice to have some respect for women who are actually trying to listen to these answers. We have a deep understanding of how important it is to be able to encourage women back into the workforce and to ensure that, for instance, Australian public servants who want to return to work have got a very supportive environment. As someone who nursed children and returned to work at a fairly early stage, I'm conscious, probably more than most, of the need to have an environment in the Australian Public Service where nursing mothers can be supported. That is why I'm very pleased that we are conducting a review of the Australian Public Service to make sure that those facilities are available to women who are returning to work so that they don't have to choose between work and their children; they can in fact do both. I'm also very happy to respond—if I'm given just a little more time—to the member for Griffith. I note that, when it comes to women's leadership funding, she's quite right to point out that we haven't yet hit the end of the financial year. All of the money has, in fact, been expended. There will be announcements made in relation to that funding. I'm not going to make them now, but I know she will be very interested when those funding announcements are made before the end of the financial year. I'm very pleased to also respond to her question about the gender neutrality of our taxation system. I find it rather ironic that that question is coming from those opposite. They talk about the impact of taxation on women. I'm really quite intrigued by this, because they have announced a megatax on retirees that would absolutely punish women. It would have a disproportionate impact on women. It would affect 30 per cent more women. With this claim from those opposite that they care about women and the tax consequences for women, they might like to examine their megatax on retirees, which is something that they have put on the table and that all women in this country— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I thank the minister. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Indigenous affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration. 12:02 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. As pointed out by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation, the 2018-19 budget provide the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.1 billion in 2018-19. Of the total appropriations for the portfolio, $1.6 billion relates to Indigenous affairs, with funding provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation. This year's budget is delivering for First Australians by investing in reducing homelessness and in boosting job growth, economic development, and health and safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The investment of $5.1 billion across the forward estimates in the Indigenous Advancement Strategy demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to improving Indigenous wellbeing. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy is delivering funding on the ground, in partnership with communities, and is ensuring children are attending school, adults are in employment and communities are safe. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is the policy lead for four measures that impact on Indigenous affairs. Firstly, the Commonwealth government is providing $550 million for remote Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory over five years. With the matched commitment from the Northern Territory government, this represents the largest yearly investment in housing in the NT and follows the $1.7 billion invested over the last 10 years, which yielded 1,500 new houses, creating local jobs and employment. The investment will target the high levels of overcrowding in remote NT and will provide jobs and apprenticeships for local Indigenous people. The Community Development Program will be reformed under this budget. In partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the government will support more Indigenous Australians into work and improve the lives of and outcomes for jobseekers in remote Australia and in the communities in which they live. Jobs provide benefits well beyond financial independence. They further develop a person's skills and training opportunities, and they contribute significantly to a person's health, wellbeing and social outcomes. The reforms of the Community Development Program are designed to stimulate the remote economy and provide employment outcomes in remote Australia. They are a direct response to feedback from First Australians, following consultations with jobseekers, communities and Indigenous leaders, and responses to the government's discussion paper on the future of the program. These reforms recognise that remote jobseekers have varying capabilities and need tailored support while they move along a pathway to work. The reforms will also look to improve the experience for remote jobseekers as they move through the program. The government will work with local communities to introduce 6,000 new subsidised jobs, and these jobs will create a genuine pathway into work and off welfare. Delivering on the Prime Minister's announcement in his Closing the Gap address, the budget incorporates the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. This fund will improve the investment opportunities and turn a yield of the $2 billion currently invested in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account. These changes will enable the Indigenous Land Corporation to deliver on its purpose in the long-term—that is, to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to acquire and manage land. The management by the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the change in investment strategy provide scope for the fund to be $1.5 billion better off over the coming 20 years, when compared to current investment parameters. The government will also expand the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation to include water rights, in order to bring ILC in line with traditional understandings of country. Nationwide consultations found overwhelming support for these reforms to the land account and for the expansion of the remit of the ILC to water. The government's bills were co-designed and supported by the ILC board. I also want to highlight that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies will receive $2 million over the next two years to scope and commence activity relating to the repatriation of culturally significant items from overseas. The government is working to achieve our aspiration that all Australians have equal opportunities. The budget is further evidence of this commitment. Thank you for this opportunity to set out some of the highlights of this year's Indigenous Affairs budget measures and to give a brief insight into how they will benefit our community and our economy. 12:07 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The 2018 budget demonstrates the neglect of First Nations peoples by this government. Most Closing the Gap targets will not be met. I think three out of seven were on track and the others will not be met. There is no clear identification of what this refresh program of the Closing the Gap strategy is. We do not know what it means, and the government cannot explain it. Despite the efforts of First Nations people and our peak organisations trying their best to cooperate with government, the Closing the Gap strategy has been left to languish under this government, while the gap widens. There has been no refunding of the Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023. In this year's budget, the budget papers make clear that there is no further funding for the National Partnership on Remote Housing, which is going to be an absolute disaster as the years roll on. In 2008 the then Labor government entered into a National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, aimed at tackling overcrowding and poor living conditions in remote communities. According to the review of the program, by 2018 the strategy will have delivered 4,000 new houses and 7,500 refurbishments. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in overcrowding in remote communities, and that is very important for child safety and for health outcomes. The review suggested that this would fall further, down to 37.4 per cent in 2018. It has been over a year since the historic gathering at Uluru and the release of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's been nearly a year since the Referendum Council released its final report into constitutional recognition. The aspiration of First Nations people is to have a greater say in the decisions of this place as well as a voice to parliament. It is bitterly disappointing that the government has already rejected this proposal and has put forward the scandalous notion that somehow this would be a third chamber to the parliament. Of course, the very idea is never to challenge the sovereignty of this parliament in terms of a First Nations point. The government has claimed misleadingly that it will be a third chamber. That is certainly not the way in which it is being perceived. Labor has pushed for a joint parliamentary committee to do further work on this issue in the hope that there can be a future of bipartisanship and a return to bipartisanship. I am pleased that the government finally agreed to establish the committee, but it took some doing and only happened in the very last minutes of the parliament. In the hearings of this committee First Nations people have reiterated their desire for a more meaningful say on the issues that affect their lives—our lives. They continue to call for a voice to the parliament and a makarrata commission to oversee a process of truth-telling and agreement-making. I ask the government these questions, and I would very much appreciate the minister in the chair, the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, answering these questions. I ask the government to approach this issue through committee in good faith and with goodwill. My questions are: will the government return to bipartisanship and join with Labor to support the aspirations of First Nations people? Is there any hope of this government's supporting calls for a voice to the parliament? Is there any chance of this government's supporting calls for a makarrata commission to oversee the process of truth-telling and agreement-making? Given that these were the recommendations of the most significant consultation with Indigenous people ever undertaken, what proposals is the government willing to consider? These questions are incredibly important and must be answered by the government through the minister. There is a significant consultation process being undertaken by the joint select committee. The worst thing that could possibly happen is that the aspirations of First Nations people be raised once again only to be dashed by government decisions that do not back in those aspirations. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said he wants to do things with Aboriginal people, not to Aboriginal people. What goes to the heart of this point is actually fulfilling the aspirations, clearly articulated by not only the Aboriginal community but the business community and civil society, that there must be a voice and involvement of Aboriginal people to the deliberations of this parliament without challenging the sovereignty of this parliament. 12:12 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray In my electorate of Murray the largest population centre is the city of Shepparton. It has an urban population of around 50,000 people when you take into account its twin city of Mooroopna. Shepparton has Victoria's second-largest Aboriginal population after Melbourne, and the concentration of Indigenous Australians is the second-largest of any Victorian city and four times the national average. The Greater Shepparton area holds significant Aboriginal cultural heritage and is among the most culturally diverse communities in regional Victoria. Historically, there were eight tribes that now fall under the Yorta Yorta banner. In the state parliament there are registered Aboriginal parties—at the moment that status is held by the Yorta Yorta nations. There has been some serious consternation about that in relation to the role of the Bangerang, and whether the Bangerang is a nation within itself or simply a clan of the Yorta Yorta nation. I have continually met with Indigenous leaders of both the Bangerang and the Yorta Yorta. There have been many great Indigenous leaders whose origins lie within Murray, possibly none greater than Sir Douglas Nicholls. Sir Doug Nicholls had a historic rise throughout his life. He was an outstanding athlete, he was a VFL footballer for Fitzroy, he served in the military and he became a pastor. A genuine leader of his people, along with his uncle William Cooper, he led many of the Aboriginal rights protests and was able to play a significant role in Indigenous affairs. Sir Douglas Nicholls was named Victorian Father of the Year in 1962. He was the second Aboriginal justice of the peace. He was crowned King of Moomba in 1973. And in 1976 Sir Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor of South Australia, and he played a significant role there until he passed away in Mooroopna in 1988. Yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission announced the Victorian redistribution of federal divisions, and the seat of Murray will in future be known as Nicholls. So, if I am privileged enough to be here after the next election, I will be known as the member for Nicholls. To paint the picture around Shepparton, it's worth realising how many significant leaders we have at the moment. I recently met with Clint and Miranda Edwards from the Bangerang 'keeping place'. They have some serious challenges to be able to maintain their cultural centre on the same site. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, has offered to help them work out whether it is best to leave the Bangerang Cultural Centre where it is or to start planning for a future where the amazing diorama there is moved to a more prominent site. We also have outstanding leadership in Paul Briggs, who leads the Rumbalara Football Netball Club. Associated with that is the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative, which offers a whole range of health and social benefits. Rumbalara plays a really important role within the dynamic of Shepparton and Mooroopna because it offers a place where the Indigenous people are the mainstream, the majority. It takes away this concept that Indigenous people in mainstream Australia always find themselves as the minority. When they go to a football club that is predominantly Indigenous, then they are certainly in the majority. That is something that Rumbalara has achieved. It has made some amazing social gains through people having their own football netball club. Also associated with the work that Paul Briggs is doing is the Kaiela Institute, which has become a great advocate for a whole raft of Indigenous people and their areas. It supports a collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders to design and implement the future for people throughout the Goulburn-Murray region. Can the minister provide an update on the Closing the Gap targets throughout the seat of Murray? 12:17 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert In 2008 the then Labor government established the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, aimed at tackling overcrowding and poor living conditions in remote communities in Australia. The review of the program highlighted that, by 2018, the strategy would have delivered 4,000 new houses and 7,500 refurbishments. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded houses in remote and very remote areas, falling from 53.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15. The review suggested this would fall further, to 37.4 per cent, by 2018. The review also found that the targets in the strategy to create job opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have resulted in many success stories around local employment, business and training. Local employment, especially in the areas of repair and maintenance, can improve the housing program's efficiency and effectiveness and, if properly organised, can support the core priority of delivering and maintaining quality housing. In addition, 5,500 homes are required by 2028, to reduce levels of overcrowding in remote areas to acceptable levels. The review also found that the first priority for government is to protect their investments and increase the longevity of houses by maintaining the houses already delivered. In this year's budget, it is very clear that there is no further funding for the National Partnership on Remote Housing from July 2018. Instead, the government will provide $550 million over five years for remote housing in the Northern Territory. These are the questions that I have for the minister. Can you please confirm that there is no funding allocated in the budget for remote housing in Western Australia, South Australia or Queensland? Can you confirm whether any transitional funding has been provided in those jurisdictions after 1 July? Is there any provision within the contingency reserve for such an eventuality? If so, how much has been provisioned? In the Indigenous affairs minister's press release on budget night it was claimed that negotiations remain ongoing with Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland; however, the Commonwealth remains hopeful of reaching an agreement with these jurisdictions soon. Can you tell me where the negotiations are up to? Who is leading those negotiations? Is it the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or is it Treasury? Are you still confident of reaching an agreement? Will agreement be reached by 1 July? You have indicated in the past that you would match state commitments. Are you still committed to matching any state contribution put forward? Have any financial contributions been put forward by those states? In April this year the Queensland government wrote to the Commonwealth indicating that it would be willing to put $1.08 billion into remote housing. Given you have indicated that you would match funding, why have you not agreed to match the Queensland contribution? In the past you have said that you are not walking away from the project of tackling overcrowding in remote housing. Will you now admit that this government, at least in WA, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, has done just that? Given that there is no funding in the budget for remote housing in these jurisdictions, does the minister have a plan to meet the anticipated need for 2,700 homes required in WA, South Australia and Queensland to reduce overcrowding to an acceptable level? Do you have any plan at all to address these issues or meet these targets? Will you admit that you are walking away from remote communities in these states? The review also indicates that the No. 1 priority should be upkeep of existing housing stock. Do you have any funding available or plans for this? If not, are you concerned about deterioration? How will you address this issue? 12:21 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I would like to ask some questions today about the government's support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy's Children and Schooling Program. Having access to a high-quality education is absolutely vital to opening up the greatest possible job opportunities for the next generation. I know there's still a bit of work to do to improve academic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. However, progress has been made over the past 10 years. We've seen the gap narrow across all NAPLAN areas. The Closing the Gap target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track, with improvements across all states and territories. In 2006 less than half of all Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds had achieved year 12 or an equivalent. Ten years later, this has increased to more than 65 per cent, and indicators point to this progress continuing. Education and development are critical to our children's success, because they are our future leaders, thinkers and entrepreneurs. So my question is: what is the government doing to support children as they progress along the education pathway, including in both school and university? I also know that we need to be investing in our young people before they start school. We need to ensure that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families that every child in these communities receives quality early education and care, which is critical to development, future school participation and success. I know that the minister has, as I have, seen examples of models, particularly in the remote areas of Western Australia, where the difference early education and learning makes to a young child's life is truly remarkable. So I'm interested in the minister advising how the government is improving Indigenous early childhood outcomes. 12:23 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I would like to ask the minister some questions around Closing the Gap. It's certainly clear that there are a number of targets that are not being met, and we are most definitely not on track to close the gap. I, like many members in the parliament, stand year after year after year reporting yet again on the failure of governments to meet these targets. I'm very happy to report that we are on track in infant mortality, year 12 completion rates and early childhood enrolment, which the previous speaker was referring to. They are the three most promising targets. What is particularly concerning is that there has been no new funding allocated to the Closing the Gap strategy. That is despite the government announcing a 10-year refresh process back in February this year. That is a gross oversight, when we have failed to meet these targets year in, year out, and you have not a single new dollar attached to any efforts to ensure those targets are met in the future. No fancy word like refresh makes up for the fact that there's not a single new dollar allocated to achieve these ends. The fact that government has failed to allocate adequate funding to Closing the Gap is not just something that should outrage each and every Australian, it should outrage each and every member and senator in the Australian parliament, and it is insulting to First Nations peoples. Indeed, their peak organisations are living the impacts of this failure every day of their lives and are seeking to find remedies and redress, but they are doing so with their hands tied behind their backs, because they lack adequate resources and funds to do so. The Closing the Gap strategy has been left to, effectively, languish under this government while that gap is widening. Further, the government has, yet again, failed to fund the implementation plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-23. I'm sure my colleague, the member for Macarthur, will probably have some comments to make on that and what that means when you do not fund a First Nations health plan in this country. There's a very clear message from First Nations peoples that they need to be more involved in the policy design and implementation processes here in Australia. This is something that has been grossly lacking. I might just remind the minister and members opposite that it is two years now since the Prime Minister stood up in this parliament to make a commitment—we all remember it well—he said it was time to stop doing things to Aboriginal people. He said that time had passed and we were entering into an era of doing things with First Nations people. When I heard those words in the parliament I thought, 'Fantastic. This government has finally arrived at a place where they understand the requirement for a genuine partnership with First Nations peoples in order to make good on the intent of the Closing the Gap strategy.' But it is time that government deeds matched those words, because that's what we fail to see. I've got some questions for the minister. We've got the government's announcement of the 10-year refresh process in February this year. Can you please inform us of the progress since the last hearings and the timing going ahead? When is the anticipated date for launching the agreed refresh? I understand that at the COAG discussions the state and territory ministers are engaged on an ongoing basis. Is that correct? Have you engaged with state and territory ministers on proposed new targets? Have you met with them on these issues? Is there any correspondence with ministers that you could provide on this issue? Could you please explain how any new targets, when they're agreed to and finalised, will be funded, given there's no forward funding identified in the budget papers? Will there be a new budgetary process for that purpose or any new funding? (Time expired) 12:28 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I would like to ask some questions of the minister about this government's support for the Indigenous business sector, which is growing and thriving under the policies of the Coalition government. Could the minister please advise how the government is supporting the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who are seeking to start a small business and to grow that business? Because the coalition is the friend of small business. I think about when I get around my electorate and talk to Indigenous— A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:29 to 12:42 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM As I was saying before the debate was interrupted by the division, the coalition is very focused on small business and is a friend of small business. The government's responsible economic management allows us to put in place policy settings that will allow small businesses to prosper and grow. The government is very aware of the barriers that face many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women in getting into small business and growing their small businesses, so we want to support that to occur. That is why the government has been following its Indigenous procurement strategy, which was introduced in July 2015, to try to encourage support for more Indigenous businesses so that we get more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women running their own business, growing their business and, hopefully, employing more Indigenous Australians—and non-Indigenous Australians for that matter. Several months ago, Minister Scullion and I met with one of the new generation of Indigenous business leaders, Kristal Kinsela, a great young Aboriginal woman, a director of a business—one of the over 1,000 businesses that have benefitted from the Indigenous Procurement Policy. Kristal, who lives and works in my electorate of Cowper—she's based in Port Macquarie—is running a very successful business which is getting local Indigenous jobseekers into work. It's a great news story, Minister. Kristal is a very dynamic young businesswoman and very focused. She has told me that the Indigenous procurement strategy is having a profound impact on getting more Indigenous Australians off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of work by operating their own businesses. That is great news. Kristal was also selected as one of the delegates to present to COAG last February on the refresh of the Closing the Gap targets. She argued passionately for the need for all states and territories to follow the Commonwealth's lead in supporting Indigenous businesses. It's very pleasing that, some months after this, the coalition government in New South Wales announced that they were following the lead of the Commonwealth and introducing their own state-based Indigenous procurement strategy. My question to the minister is: could he please provide an update on the Indigenous Procurement Policy; and what other policies is the government going to introduce to help grow the Indigenous business sector? Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 98

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

Second Reading 98 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 98

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

Second Reading 98 Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 98

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

Second Reading 98 Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018 98

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

Second Reading 98 ADJOURNMENT 99 ADJOURNMENT Cooper, Mr William 99 12:50 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman Yesterday, we were thrilled to hear that the Australian Electoral Commission announced that my seat of Batman will be renamed Cooper. This is indeed an honour. When I was elected I threw myself into the campaign for a name change for Batman. I won't go into detail here about why we believe Batman did not deserve to have one of only 150 Australian electorates named after him, because I would much rather focus on why William Cooper should. Suffice to say that, even by his own contemporary standards, his legacy was not great. The campaign when I was elected was being spear-headed by the Wurundjeri elders, who for so many years have been persistently standing for the truth to be heard. This decision acknowledges their pain and the suffering of colonisation. This change belongs to them. We were asking for the seat to be named Wonga, after the Wurundjeri leader Simon Wonga, a great man in his own right. It would have been an equally great honour to have had the seat named for him, but that was not to be, for reasons known only to the AEC. Of course, having the seat bearing the name of Cooper sits very well. I'd like to congratulate the Cooper family and I pay my respects to Uncle Boydie, the grandson of William Cooper, and to all their elders past and present. Uncle Phil Cooper is a friend of mine and a great support to me. He is a great-nephew of William Cooper and resides in my seat, along with his family. I congratulate them too; it's a wonderful thing. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council; the mayor of Darebin, Kim Le Cerf, and the Darebin City Council; the Aboriginal corporation; Yarra city council; and all the individuals who made submissions in support of the application—in particular, my friends Serena O'Meley, Patrick Stokes and Shane Easson. William Cooper was an Aboriginal leader, born in Yorta Yorta tribal territory around the junction of the Murray and Goulburn rivers, who lived from 1861 to 1941. He was a trailblazing activist for Aboriginal rights in the 20th century who spent his lifetime working to advance the rights of our First Nations peoples. He was a skilled and courageous spokesperson who helped establish the Australian Aborigines' League, an organisation that fought for rights for our First Nations Australians. These included land rights, enfranchisement and direct representation in our parliament. William Cooper forged the establishment of National Aborigines Day, which is now celebrated nationwide as NAIDOC Week. He led the first Aboriginal deputation to a Prime Minister to ask for federal control of Aboriginal affairs, in 1938. He's also famous for standing up for other persecuted groups. Despite his own people's struggles, he led a protest at the German consulate in Melbourne against Nazi persecutions of the Jewish community. This has been recognised by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as the only protest of its kind to take place in the world. He collected 1,814 signatures from Aborigines all over Australia, and a statue now in his hometown of Shepparton honours that legacy. The statue depicts him holding that petition. William Cooper was also a proud union man, an AWU member who laid the foundation for Indigenous industrial rights today. His legacy has inspired positive social change for First Nations communities in Melbourne and throughout Australia. This is a step forward to a more respectful society. I need to acknowledge my friend, the member for Gellibrand who also argued for his seat to be named Cooper and who did a great deal of work with his community honouring the legacy of William Cooper and the family. Tim and his community have been gracious about the outcome, and are more than happy that we have the legacy of William Cooper recognised regardless. I've had many messages of congratulations from my constituents and friends, total strangers, and my colleagues in this House. I'd like today to share two of those messages with you. The member for Watson, Mr Tony Burke, said the renaming to Cooper means a lot to this country understanding itself. That is a lovely statement that I wholeheartedly agree with. Finally, Senator Pat Dodson said: The renaming of Batman to Cooper is a mark of respect and recognition. It brings honour to the community and to our nation. It is an example of truth-telling and where we moving towards as our nation matures. They are two very good statements, I think, that recognise the great move forward for this country in recognising a wonderful Aboriginal man. I'm very proud, and I hope that, after the next election, I will be re-elected and be the member for Cooper, instead of the member for Batman. O'Connor Electorate: Cashless Debit Card 99 12:55 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to provide an update on the rollout of the cashless debit card trial across my electorate of O'Connor. While some of the local media and social media sites have focused on any negative stories that they can dredge up, I stand here today to recount the positives we're seeing even at this early stage across the Goldfields community. The staggered rollout has gone smoothly, and nearly 3,000 participants are now receiving their full support payments, with 20 per cent deposited into their regular savings account accessible as cash and the remaining 80 per cent placed onto a visa debit card that cannot be used for the purchase of alcohol or gambling products or for withdrawing cash. I worked hard to secure the Goldfields as a third trial site for the cashless debit card, and I did this in response to concerns raised by respected community members and elders in response to the serious social issues being experienced at that time. There were stories of child neglect, teen hopelessness and suicide, vagrancy, alcoholism, and violence in the streets, forcing merchants to close their businesses in the middle of the trading day. I invited then Assistant Minister for Social Services, Alan Tudge, to visit these Goldfields communities several times, latterly with the Prime Minister, for them to see the issues for themselves. In addition to these visits there were over 285 departmental consultations, and I personally conducted a postal survey of all Goldfields residents as well as online and hard-copy petitions, accompanied by information on the cashless debit card. The assessment was that the cashless debit card could bring positive changes to the lives of many of those living on welfare support in the region. Today, I'm going to recount some of the encouraging feedback I have received. The department reports that, of the 3,000 cashless debit card trial participants, over 2,100 activated their card online, with another 650 activated in the seven cashless debit card shopfronts that have been set up throughout the area. Over 20 local people have been directly employed as local partners in the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the four surrounding shires. They are tasked with assisting people with card management face to face. They provide information on wellbeing exemptions and financial counselling and personally assist in the setting up of direct debits, mortgage, rent and utilities payments. Two weeks ago, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Dr David Gillespie, came to Kalgoorlie and announced the allocation of a further $125,000 for financial counselling services, which is in addition to the $1 million allocated to wraparound services. I implore participants with any concerns to reach out to those best qualified to give real in person assistance. There is also support from the department via a 1800 helpline and a dedicated cashless debit card email address. In my experience, any issues raised have been resolved very promptly and professionally, once the correct connections to assistance have been made. I know of numerous wellbeing exemptions being granted to those most vulnerable, and all concerns that I referred to the department have been assessed on their individual merits and suitable arrangements tailored accordingly. I've been heartened by the positive feedback coming to me from the various Goldfields communities. For instance, Robert Hicks, CEO of the Goldfields Individual & Family Support Association, has not had any issues raised by the disability sector since the implementation of the card. A recent survey of members of the Kalgoorlie-Boulder chamber of commerce reported no technical issues with card transactions. An increased police presence in the main street is contributing to a reduction in antisocial behaviour, and I look forward to the city introducing ranger patrols in the next two weeks. Thus far, it's been reported that there's no evidence of any increase in property-related crime, and supermarket owners in Coolgardie, Laverton and Leonora are reporting that people are spending up on groceries and that they are seeing new faces that they've never seen before in their shops. Parents are spending more on their children, and some have openly commented they have never had so much money in their bank accounts. The Leonora pharmacist commented that he was almost solely used as a dispensary for PBS items, but, since the introduction of the card, he has been selling baby food, asthma spacers and other non-PBS products. A boarding house owner reported that tenants were using the cashless debit cards as an excuse for defaulting on payments, but the CDC team provided the requisite housing declarations to allow regular payments to be scheduled, so now both landlord and tenants fulfil their mutual obligations. Informal tenancy arrangements with parents, carers and friends are also being honoured. In circumstances where unexpected cash is needed—and I know there have been some cases—exceptional arrangements have been made. I take these last few moments to thank those who are working to make this card work for the Goldfields community: the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the shires of Coolgardie, Menzies, Laverton and Leonora, who are reporting less social harm in the communities that they love and serve; the service providers, who are seeing reduced need for emergency relief and greater uptake of counselling and other ancillary services; the CDC team, who will continue to help people as needed each and every day; and the participants. I know not everybody feels they should be on this card, but if it can reduce the welfare fuelled alcohol and drug abuse— (Time expired) Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Corporation 101 13:00 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills We all remember the infamous words of the member for Warringah when he said, as opposition leader in 2013, 'No cuts to the ABC or SBS under a coalition government.' The member for Warringah made that promise and both he and Malcolm Turnbull have proceeded to break it. There's not much difference between them, really—they're Tweedledum and Tweedledee, as far as I'm concerned. Only last month, the budget revealed another $83 million cut to the ABC. This is on top of the $254 million cut in 2014 and another $28 million in 2016. As a former executive director of SBS, I've also watched closely and with concern SBS suffering funding cuts of over $40 million under this government. The effect of these cuts happened to be extremely obvious in this particular week, of all weeks, as we've seen football fans across the country absolutely furious at the botched coverage of the FIFA World Cup. I note the member for Forde here—a goalkeeper extraordinaire. He'll be pulling whatever hair he's got left out at not being able to watch the wonderful World Cup games. This is directly because of the funding cuts. The SBS CEO maintained that he had to onsell the digital rights to World Cup games to Optus, which, as we've seen, had bungled the delivery of these games. SBS is a globally unique public broadcaster. It provides multilingual and multicultural content that celebrates our diversity— Mr Van Manen interjecting— Mr KHALIL 101351 I did say that, member for Forde—I noted that I was an executive director there for many years. It's a wonderful institution. But the cuts to public broadcasting show the hypocrisy of this government. In 2013 Malcolm Turnbull, as Minister for Communications, said, 'There is no more committed defender of public broadcasting than me.' What a joke! Under his watch in 2014 800 ABC staff lost their jobs and $254 million was cut from the ABC. While these cuts were occurring, Malcolm Turnbull, as Minister for Communications at the time, had the temerity to argue that the ABC was 'more important than ever'. Proving his hypocrisy, doubling down on his arrogance, he cut ABC funds in 2016 and now in 2018 as Prime Minister. This government may say it believes in the importance of public broadcasting, but they have spent their time laying siege to both the ABC and SBS. Maybe they don't care. Or, more likely, they don't believe in public broadcasting. This past week, as the member for Forde would know, the Liberal Party voted for a motion to privatise the ABC. The Liberal Party's federal council, its peak body, voted almost to two to one to privatise the ABC. Of course the government quickly went into damage control after a huge public backlash. Yet it's the Liberal Party that wants to dismantle a vital institution in our democracy and silence the independent voices that have spoken to Australians for over 85 years. Well, the member for Forde and the Liberal Party may be tone deaf to the vital role that an independent media plays in our democracy. They may be blind to the truth that strong public broadcasters are even more essential today in the light of the fractured commercial media sector, with fake news and polarised social media and news sources compromising the public's right to fair, balanced and accurate journalism. They certainly don't care about the 17 million Australians who watch, listen or read the ABC every week and the 15 million who do so with the SBS. The ABC is part of our national fabric. From Play School to Bananas in Pyjamas,from critical warnings of floods and fire in the regions to the Hottest 100countdown. Privatising this institution could mean Aussie kids watching advertisements during children's programming, commercial influence in the ABC News or SBS World News, metropolitan and regional Australians missing out on popular programming like Four Corners or Australian Story— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— Mr KHALIL 101351 You'd want to get onto that, Member for Goldstein—you'd love to be on Australian Story. This could mean putting high-quality Australian drama, documentaries and investigative reporting behind a paywall. These are all consequences of the cuts or a potential privatisation of this national institution. Labor wants to restore trust and faith in our institutions, not attack them like the government does. And only Labor can protect our national broadcasters going forward. Loganlea State High School: MultiLit 101 13:05 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I thought the member for Wills was on such a roll he was going to use up the remaining 40-odd seconds of his time in defence of the— An honourable member: Efficiency. Mr VAN MANEN 188315 That's exactly what we've given the ABC and SBS: efficiency. It's always a pleasure to stand in this place and speak about the terrific support that the Turnbull government is providing for Queensland schools through its record funding to ensure that we guarantee these essential services, but all this off the back of a strong economy. What I'd like to talk about today is the importance of children having good, strong literacy skills. We all know that when a student falls behind it can often be difficult to catch up. At Loganlea State High School a group of dedicated students and tutors are seeking to break that cycle with a fantastic program, led by Macquarie University Professor Kevin Wheldall AM, called MultiLit, or 'Making up Lost Time in Literacy'. In half-hour sessions three or four times a week, tutors work with a diverse group of students to help equip them with foundational reading skills. These skills are the backbone of learning not only in literacy but in all subject areas. At the moment there are some 113 students across all grades that are associated with the MultiLit program. MultiLit has established itself as a leader in effective literacy instruction because of its grounding in scientific, evidence based best practice. Over the last 23 years this program has provided assistance to thousands of students in a variety of settings including schools like Loganlea State High School, their own literacy centre, and community based literacy projects across Australia, New Zealand and Asia. Loganlea State High School has adopted and successfully used these programs since 2014 to cater to the diversity of children within their school. The diversity of students accessing their program at Loganlea is broad, and therefore the resources required to target the literacy intervention are also broad. Students arrive at Loganlea at this level for a multitude of reasons. But, despite this, the MultiLit program has many success stories. For example, a young boy who took up the program when he began grade 7 had a learning disability that, until then, had drastically limited his reading ability. Most students work through the MultiLit program in a couple of terms. However, this boy was supported by MultiLit for a year. This is one of the many advantages of the program, in that it allows the school to cater for the very specific learning needs of some students. After completing the MultiLit program, the student was extended through the accelerated reader program. This enabled him to consistently practise his newfound reading skills and develop his comprehension skills. This student is now in grade 9. One of the MultiLit tutors recently checked in on him and found that his reading and comprehension now matches his age. It is not only that; he now visits his local public library on a weekly basis to devour every manga comic he can find. Reading has become more than a set of skills for him; it has become a hobby. MultiLit has assisted hundreds of secondary students to successfully fill gaps in their reading skills, enabling them to access the high school curriculum alongside their peers. Without the MultiLit program at Loganlea, struggling students would suffer in the regular class environment and continue to slip further behind their classmates as they simply cannot pick up the necessary skills without this explicit instruction and practice. I'm very pleased to be informed by the school that every student who has completed the program has dramatically improved their basic literacy skills. This is a tremendous achievement. I want to congratulate the teachers and the team at Loganlea State High School on implementing this fantastic program to ensure that the students who fall behind are no longer left behind. In particular, I congratulate the teacher, Sophie Smith, and the principal, Belinda Tregea, who have been so instrumental in making this program come to fruition and work for these wonderful students, to ensure their talents and capabilities are realised for the future. Canberra Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 102 13:10 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My community was one of the first in Australia to experience the benefits, the value, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, when the trial began here in 2013. Since then, the full scheme of the NDIS has rolled out. It began rolling out in 2016. Many Canberrans have been on the NDIS for the last five years, through the trial to where we are today. According to the NDIS quarterly performance report released in March, there are 6,553 participants living in the ACT. That is 6,553 people who had hope, who had great optimism, about the opportunities, the choice, the potential that would be unleashed as a result of the NDIS. But I have heard nothing but desperation and frustration at the stress and harm caused by the plan review process and the significant funding cuts people are experiencing—not from all those 6,553 people, but from a significant number of people. The performance report also showed an overall satisfaction rate of 84 per cent. However, 16 per cent of all participants believe the NDIS is not providing them with the assistance they require. That 16 per cent of participants includes people like Gabrielle. Gabrielle is a seven-year-old girl who loves dancing, swimming and gardening in her vegie patch with her mum. She loves to be creative, making crafts and playing with Lego. Gabrielle also happens to have autism spectrum disorder and global development delay. Gabrielle's NDIS funding has been cut by 30 per cent, a significant cut for Gabrielle, who, at seven years old, needs as much early intervention as possible so that she can develop, so that she can improve, so that she can increase overall her quality of life, so that she can reach her full potential. Gabrielle needs frequent and ongoing therapies and treatments to improve her daily life, and this 30 per cent cut will have a detrimental impact on her recommended therapy schedule. But, unfortunately, Gabrielle is not alone. Since Christmas last year my office has had a constant stream of participants who are concerned at the processes for plan reviews and the communication and transparency of the NDIA. One of those participants is Lachlan. Lachlan is a seven-year-old boy who requires constant supervision and one-on-one care, after suffering a horrific seizure at 12 months old. The seizure was so bad that Lachlan underwent emergency surgery, with one-third of his brain being removed, resulting in severe and permanent disabilities. At Lachlan's recent plan review, Lachlan's mother and support provider requested additional funding for core supports, which cover Lachlan's continence products and out-of-school-hours care. Lachlan's mum is a single mum working a full-time job, and she has no family support here in Canberra. She is doing it tough but she is one tough mum. To her outrage, Lachlan's overall plan was cut by almost 70 per cent, with funding for his core supports, including his one-on-one care after school, cut by a whopping 75 per cent. What's most galling about this is that Lachlan's mother was told that after-school care is considered a 'normal parental responsibility'. Don't try telling a single mother holding down a full-time job and making a home for her child with severe disabilities what a normal parental responsibility is. This is what the NDIA consider 'reasonable and necessary'—forcing a mother to choose between care for her son or working to provide a home and the treatments he requires. The NDIS was meant to be about choice and control. It was about providing autonomy, independence and tailored solutions, but the planners at the NDIA are leaving no choice for families and putting them in impossible situations, like Lachlan's mum. What are the qualifications of the planners at the NDIA? It is absolutely unacceptable that NDIS participants feel they are unheard and not treated with respect. What we need is an NDIA that will listen, engage and provide a case manager for individuals or families that will make a difference. We need to give people with disabilities what they want—freedom of choice and control over their lives and dignity. Dividend Imputation 103 13:15 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today, I rise to defend the hardworking residents of Goldstein that have sacrificed and saved to be able to stand with dignity and purpose in their retiring years. That stands in direct contrast to the proposals being put by our opponents, the Labor Party. Their retiree tax will hurt every single Australian—those that have sacrificed to be self-funded retirees, pensioners, lower income earners, new home buyers and small business. For all the rhetoric they go on about—taxing multinationals, big corporations and millionaires more—it's becoming increasingly clear every day that Labor's hunting down our vulnerable grandparents to fund their election promises. Many have sacrificed their whole lives, made modest investments, ridden economic cycles, and forgone holidays and luxuries so that they can be self-reliant, stand on their own two feet and not be dependent on the taxpayer. Their incomes aren't high, because they're simply living off the savings and modest investments they've made throughout their life. Yet, under Labor's retiree tax, they're the first to be hit. Labor's retiree tax will hit 230,000 pensioners and 610,000 Australians on taxable incomes of less than $18,200 per year, including many self-funded retirees in Goldstein that have written to me directly—people like Terry and Sandra from Black Rock, who wrote: Whilst we are self funded we are by no means wealthy and our joint income is less than $80,000 per annum and Franking Credits are a significant part of our income strategy. We have paid taxes and worked hard to be self funded retirees and not rely on payments from Centrelink but we now believe that we may have been better off being more frivolous prior to retirement so that we could have part qualified for a government pension— under Labor's retiree tax. William of Highett identified that, based on his single ATO assessment for the year 30 June 2017, the ATO cash refund of $6,920 represents 17 per cent of his disposable income. These are the people who will be hit hardest by Labor's retiree tax, and they are the ones that those in this parliament should be standing up for—the people who have sacrificed and saved. Labor's retiree tax is also targeting small businesses that buy shares in Australian companies and claim tax refunds from dividend imputation to sustain them through the tough times. Anybody who's been involved with business will know that it isn't always up, and multiple sources of revenue often keep businesses afloat during the tough times. The irony, of course, is that Labor's retiree tax is attacking the system that they set up, which was actually supposed to encourage aspiration, and that system of aspiration used to have bipartisan support. Not only will Labor's dividend retiree tax target lower income Australians; it will also have a devastating unintended impact on younger Australians seeking to get into the housing market. Not unsurprisingly, retirees simply looking to protect and secure their own future will find that investing in shares and getting dividend imputation credits will become less attractive over time. What will they do? They will simply look for more attractive investment vehicles. Principally, I suspect, they're going to turn to property. Moving their capital from shares to property will only drive up demand for property in this country and increase prices, directly hitting younger Australians who are trying, for the first time, to break into the property market so they can buy their own home for themselves and their family, to stand on their own two feet and secure the same opportunity as generations past. The competition will only get worse and make homeownership harder for young Australians. The tragedy of Labor's retiree tax is that it is a reminder that they are not the Labor Party of old. Today they are a party that gives little opportunity for young Australians to have their first go at homeownership, and, equally, for older Australians to secure their interests for retirement so they can stand on their own two feet. We on this side of the parliament want to see Australians overcome disadvantage. Our attention is not on those with wealth; our attention is always on those who aspire to join them, who seek opportunities. Labor is kicking the security out of exactly those people. Motor Neurone Disease 104 13:20 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham Along with many of my colleagues across the chamber today I'm wearing a blue flower. This signifies support for global motor neurone disease day, Blue Cornflower Day. We know the ravaging and devastating effects of motor neurone disease, and the significance of supporting research in this very important field. I wanted to take a brief amount of time in the house today to report on an initiative in my own electorate, an exhibition called Magnified: a science art exhibition. It's on from 5 July to 20 July at building 25 at the University of Wollongong, and I'm very much looking forward to being at the opening night to support this initiative. I have met with the two amazing young women, Clare Watson and Rachelle Balez, who are organising this exhibition. It is being done in conjunction with the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, and the School of the Arts, English and Media at the University of Wollongong. It's a fundraising exhibition and it features 52 amazing images of the work that researchers at IHMRI, at the university and in our own local health district have been doing. I think people can imagine that some of those amazing images you see through a telescope, when you look at the human body and so forth, produce some wonderful artworks. Those images will be available for sale to the public, and the proceeds will go to the motor neurone disease research that's being conducted at IHMRI, in honour of Associate Professor Justin Yerbury, whom I have talked about before. Colleagues might remember Justin was the subject of an Australian Story report. He became a researcher in this field because so many in his family had been ravaged by this disease. They have lost many, many family members. This prompted Justin to do a whole medical degree and then get into this field of research. He's a world-leading researcher—indeed, he met with Stephen Hawking about his work. And then, tragically, Justin himself was struck down by the disease. Despite the ravage of the disease, he continues to work in this research field. Those two wonderful young women that I met wanted to do something to contribute to his research. This is a great initiative on global MND day. I wanted to acknowledge their work, encourage locals to get along to that exhibition—even better, put your hand in your pocket and buy an image—and get behind a great initiative. Queensland: Energy 104 13:23 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I have been working with the community north of the Daintree River since I was elected in 1996 in an effort to bring them into the 20th and now 21st century. This is a very vibrant community of around 500 to 600 people. Interestingly, some years ago the state government legislated to prohibit them having mains power extended into their community. It's quite bizarre. They live in the heart of the Daintree rainforest. There are hundreds of generators burning millions of litres of diesel every year, and the state government legislated to prohibit the extension of mains power into their community. It was done as a mechanism to control development in the area. Rather than putting in a development plan, they had a blunt instrument to make life as difficult as they could for the residents. Some years ago a development plan was put in, and we were successful during the time of the Newman government to have them rescind that legislation to allow for the extension of power. I've taken Minister Frydenberg up there and introduced him to the community, and he made a commitment that we would do everything we can to get mains-equivalent power extended into that area. I understand that this is an area where the rainforest literally meets the reef. It's cocooned in two World Heritage areas. It was actually included on the World Heritage List because of the care that was taken by the local residents who live in the area. Unfortunately, over time, they've constantly been seen as intruders to the area, when in actual fact it was because of their commitment to the area that they were able to conserve it enough to justify the World Heritage status. The minister, on his last visit, invited ARENA. He said, 'We're going to do something about it,' and he got ARENA and a business called Sunverge involved. They did a report on the feasibility of putting in a microgrid. It would include solar power and a whole lot of other things. They handed down that report only a couple of months ago, and there were five recommendations. The first recommendation was that there be a microgrid, so they could get rid of all the diesel generators. It was very much accepted by the broader community but, unfortunately, there is a small protest group—it was established back in the 1980s when they put a road along the coast—that tried to stop it. One of those involved in the protest group is former Mayor Mike Berwick, and there's another fellow by the name of Hugh Spencer. After the protest group lost the battle in relation to the road, they established themselves in Cape Tribulation. They set up a place called the Bat House. It's very interesting. Through Bat House, Hugh Spencer established a rainforest research station—the Australian Tropical Research Foundation or AUSTROP, as it's called—and they've been doing everything they can to prevent any expansion of power or anything else that's likely to make life more comfortable for them. It worries me that this organisation actually gets charity status, tax deductibility status, and, after the handing down of the report—which was widely accepted by the majority of the community and is currently being worked on by ARENA—even the state government has committed to working with ARENA. The foundation put out a response to the Daintree power Sunverge-ARENA report, and in that response they've been absolutely scathing of the report. But the criticism is totally dishonest; it is totally inaccurate. It just shows that there is no understanding whatsoever. So I question the legitimacy of this organisation. We need to be looking very, very closely at their registered tax deductibility status and their membership, because I think there's a serious conflict of interest there. I will certainly be moving to make sure that we get some sort of transparency of this organisation and bring them to account. Federat ion Chamber adjourned at 13:28