2018-10-23 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

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

 

BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018

Second Reading 1 12:01 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon Labor supports every state and territory getting their fair share of GST, and Labor supports this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. In fact, we're glad this legislation is being brought in, because we called for this legislation to be brought in. When we announced our position, of making the floor—which will apply to every state and territory, but of course is particularly relevant to the people of Western Australia—we called for this law to be introduced and, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, to make the floor the law. The now Prime Minister, the then Treasurer, said that that was unnecessary. He said that this legislation wouldn't be needed. And then, a few weeks ago, he backflipped and changed position and announced that this legislation would indeed proceed. So we very much welcome this legislation. We do think the people of Western Australia in particular—and the people of every state and territory, which I'll come to—deserve the certainty of having this legislation in place to ensure there is a floor in GST distributions. In fact, we also will support this legislation because the government has backflipped again and accepted another Labor position, which is that the distribution to every state and territory should be guaranteed in this legislation and that no state and territory will be worse off—again, something I called for when the government announced that they would legislate. It was something the Treasurer said was unnecessary and something he said wouldn't happen. He said it would be complicated; he said it would be two systems running in parallel. But, about this time last week, he backflipped and accepted the Labor Party's position. So of course, we welcome the legislation. We welcome the backflip to have the legislation. And we welcome the backflip to include the guarantee for every state and territory. Accordingly, we will be passing this legislation through this House and the other house without amendment. I'm not going to detain the House with a long history of GST distributions, and particularly the saga of GST distributions to Western Australia, but I will say this. We have said consistently that the people of Western Australia have a right to be annoyed about the GST distribution. We have said consistently that the people of Western Australia should have a better deal from the GST than they've been getting. It was previously the case that no state or territory had fallen below 86c in terms of relativity—that happened to Victoria not long after the GST was introduced; they hit 86c in the dollar in terms of returns to them—until Western Australia, which got as low as 30c in the dollar in 2015-16 and 2016-17. It's fair to say: this is a matter which causes considerable anger to the people of Western Australia, and they have a right to be angry. I want to pay tribute to all my West Australian colleagues, as the member for Brand joins us in the chamber, and the other colleagues in the federal parliamentary Labor Party, who have been assiduous in their lobbying of me, of the Leader of the Opposition and of the shadow cabinet, to see this matter fixed. I pay tribute to the Western Australian government, Premier McGowan and Treasurer Wyatt in particular, who have also been leaders on this matter. Of course, there will always be a distribution between states and territories, not a per capita system, and nor should it be and nor, in my view, will it ever be. We are a Commonwealth. We're federation where every citizen is entitled to a basic level of services, and that means distributing funds between states and territories. But it has to be done in a matter which is fair. Mr Rick Wilson interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS This issue arose, in part—and the honourable member opposite, as he walks out, raises Premier Barnett and praises him. Well, Premier Barnett has a lot to answer for, and his succession of treasurers have a lot to answer for, but perhaps none more so than the current Attorney-General, who has two issues to deal with in relation to his role as Treasurer of Western Australia. In 2011, it was he who decided to raise royalties at the state level, not considering perhaps that that would be reflected in the GST distribution and would lead, at least in part, to this imbroglio that both sides of politics have been dealing with since. Perhaps even worse, the then state Treasurer thought he had a magic answer for the GST distribution problem—he thought of it. He assumed it would be fixed. He assumed it could be dealt with. But, worse than that, he built those assumptions into the Western Australian budget. He brought down a budget which was predicated on an assumption that the Commonwealth would improve the GST distribution for Western Australia and then was surprised when it didn't happen. As a result, the state budget of Western Australia was a complete and utter mess. I think that goes to show, perhaps, that the current Attorney-General should never come anywhere near the Commonwealth Treasury portfolio. If that ever happens, the country is going to be in a very big mess indeed. This is a man whose answer to GST distribution was simply to assume that the GST distribution could be fixed. It has been a long process to get here. In Perth in August 2017, the Leader of the Opposition and I announced the Fair Share for WA Fund, which was to ensure that Western Australia got a fair share without making any state or territory worse off. Now, it's taken until today to get here, and it's through a slightly different mechanism. Of course, when we announced that fund, the then Treasurer—the now Prime Minister—said, 'Top-ups forever is a mug's game.' This legislation reflects top-ups. On this, as in so many matters, the current Prime Minister has adopted a multitude of positions. But, nevertheless, we are very glad we're here today and finally have seen this matter dealt with. Of course, the government has now accepted a 70c floor and a 75c floor, which was reflected in Labor's policy position for some time. They've now accepted the guarantee for other states and territories, which every single state and territory Treasurer called for, including the Treasurer of Western Australia. When I called for it, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said that this was an outrage. They said it was an anti-Western-Australian point of view. They said that it was reflective of a lack of commitment to Western Australia. The fact of the matter is: the Treasurer of Western Australia agreed with us that every state and territory should receive that guarantee. The Liberal Treasurer of New South Wales agreed with our position. The Liberal Treasurer of Tasmania agreed with our position. The Liberal Treasurer of South Australia agreed with our position, let alone, of course, the Labor treasurers of Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and the Northern Territory, who, of course, agreed with federal Labor's position. So it is good that the pressure became so much for the Treasurer that he had to agree with our position. This is the virtue of the policy work that Labor has put into this matter—that we can say the same thing in Perth as we say in Hobart. We can say, as I've said many times at press conferences in Hobart: the people of Western Australia have a legitimate concern. The people of Western Australia have a right to be angry. But the people of Tasmania also have a right to be concerned. I want to spend a few moments on the people of Tasmania, because this is a matter of particular concern to Tasmania. It's a matter of particular concern because Tasmania is so reliant on GST revenue. It is estimated that Tasmania's largest source of revenue is in fact GST revenue. It is estimated to be $2.5 billion in 2018-19, or 40 per cent of that state's total revenue, which is a larger proportion than for any jurisdiction, apart from, obviously, the Northern Territory. Again, there are all sorts of reasons why this is the case, but I mentioned before that we're a Commonwealth. We're a federation where individuals have the right to a basic level of services, and the people of Tasmania are more reliant on GST for those services than any state and any other jurisdiction, apart from the Northern Territory. To put this in perspective, the current distribution revenue represents 64 per cent of Tasmania's health expenditure or 71 per cent of their education expenditure, based on 2017-18 figures. Again I pay tribute to my Tasmanian colleagues, who have also been assiduous in talking to me about this matter. I completely understand the concerns of Tasmania to ensure that guarantee was written into legislation. The people of Tasmania were in many senses at the forefront of our thoughts as we insisted on that guarantee going into the bill. We absolutely insisted that this bill should include that guarantee. And that is right for the people of Tasmania. I'm sure my Tasmanian colleagues, in their contributions, will rightly point out that there will be another review in 2026 and that this guarantee only applies for the transition period. They will lay down some long-term concerns for the people of Tasmania, and I share their concerns to ensure that the people of Tasmania have those services going forward. I want to see the Tasmanian economy growing, I want to see Tasmanian sources of revenue, but I also want to see Tasmania's access to those basic services through the GST guaranteed. Of course, we'll continue to work with our Tasmanian colleagues, and, indeed, the Tasmanian government, regardless of its political persuasion, to ensure that that can be the case. Accordingly, the Labor Party will be happy to facilitate the legislation through both chambers. This debate has gone on for long enough. I've been involved in it; members on this side of the House have been involved it. It has meant that two successive Western Australian governments have had to struggle with it in their different ways. It's time for this debate to come to an end. It is time for this debate to be concluded in a way which is satisfactory to the people of Western Australia and the people of Tasmania. This would not have been expected when the GST was designed. I have no criticism or quarrel with the original system, which I know, Mr Speaker, you were involved in setting up with your then employer, the then Treasurer. You could not have been expected—the Treasurer could not have been expected—to see this situation emerge. This is one of the things about GST distribution which could not have been accurately predicted in 2000. The vagaries of the minerals cycle, the minerals boom, and the Western Australian government putting royalties up in the middle of that would mean that we reached the extreme position that the people of Western Australia received only 30c in the dollar—a position in extremis. But we know about it now and it's got to be fixed now. Finally, if this legislation receives passage through both houses of parliament, we'll be able to deal with it, to put this issue to bed, and people of every jurisdiction, members of this great Commonwealth of ours, will know that they have a basic access to at least 70c in the first instance and then 75c for every dollar they spend on the GST. This bill does not undermine the principle of fiscal equalisation, but it does make it fairer. Accordingly, we will support its passage through each chamber. 12:13 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax Australia is an exceptional country, a country founded on great and lasting liberal democratic principles. These principles include the rule of law, an open, free market and individual freedom. And they have helped to make Australia the prosperous, peaceful nation that it is today. That other great Western liberal democracy, the United States, in its Declaration of Independence, succinctly summarised these values as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Australia, the pursuit of happiness is perhaps better described as a fair go. Both concepts essentially translate as equality of opportunity, where citizens have the right to freely leverage their ability, their resources and their effort to improve their material and social wellbeing. The Australian principle of a fair go is key to the bill we are debating today. As the title of the bill suggests, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018, it represents the latest refinement to the primary mechanism by which the Commonwealth hopes to achieve a fair and sustainable fiscal distribution across the states, across the cities, towns and regions of Australia, so all Australians can have access to essential government services, irrespective of their postcode. One way to appreciate the significance of this bill and understand the issues it seeks to address is to consider the history of the fiscal relationship between the Commonwealth and the states. That history has been marked by two concurrent trends. One is an increasing centralisation of taxation powers by the Commonwealth, both in response to two world wars and in response to a case for broad based tax reform in the late 1990s. The second is a gradual refinement of the mechanism by which taxation revenue is distributed to the states. The introduction of a federal income tax in 1915 and the total assumption of that power by the Commonwealth in 1942 are well known, as is the introduction of the GST in 2000. However, it is the second trend, the evolution of a robust distribution methodology, that I wish to follow briefly and which will lead to the measures proposed by this bill. From the earliest days of our Federation, successive Australian governments have sought to apply the principle of a fair go to help deliver equality of opportunity across our vast continent. One early mechanism to achieve this, within a federal context, was the provision of special financial support, direct from the Commonwealth, to fiscally weaker states, who it was hoped would, in turn, better dispense material happiness by way of government services across their jurisdictions. While achieving an effective fiscal equalisation across the states and later the territories was commendable enough as an aim, the underlying truth of Paul Keating's observation that one should never get between a premier and a bucket of money meant the process of deciding who and how much was often fraught and highly charged, relying as it did on a range of ad hoc advisory mechanisms. By the early 1930s, with the economy in freefall and unemployment skyrocketing, courtesy of the Great Depression, the Australian government established the Commonwealth Grants Commission as an independent and ongoing commission to give impartial advice on the appropriate level of federal support provided annually to state budgets. While the Grants Commission certainly improved the process to ensure independent and transparent advice to the Commonwealth, the mechanism for delivering support continued to rely on applications from financially weaker states—initially, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and, later, Queensland—for these special grants. The states were effectively coming to the Commonwealth each year, cap in hand. By the late 1970s, all the states, plus the ACT and the Northern Territory, were demanding a piece of the action. So the commission's role was expanded to provide advice that all jurisdictions would receive a share of Commonwealth taxation revenue with the aim of achieving an effective equalisation of fiscal capabilities across the nation. While the introduction of the GST in July 2000 significantly altered the basis on which the pool of funds for distribution was determined, it did not change the fundamental task of the Grants Commission to give impartial advice on the allocation of general purpose funds among the states and territories based on that fair-go principle that was embedded in what we refer to as horizontal fiscal equalisation, or HFE. Since its introduction, every dollar of GST revenue has been comprehensively distributed to the states and territories using a complex formula that assesses the fiscal capacity of each state and territory according their ability to raise revenue relative to their costs of delivering services and associated infrastructure. Those states and territories determined by the formula to have a high fiscal capability, due to higher revenues or lower costs, have, according to the HFE principle, received less GST revenue on a per capita basis than jurisdictions with lower fiscal capability. The evidence of the last 18 years, including a recently concluded Productivity Commission inquiry report on HFE, suggests that the current GST distribution system has been functioning well and does deliver on its primary objective of achieving high levels of fiscal equality across the states and territories. However—and this is the trigger for the bill, of course—recent shocks to the economy, such as fiscal distortions caused by the mining boom, have resulted in perverse outcomes that threaten the integrity of the GST system. This situation is especially acute in Western Australia, where that state has experienced extraordinary volatility in its GST distribution and has stretched the HFE system to its limits, with Western Australia's share of the GST carve-up plummeting to just 30c in the dollar of GST revenue collected from that state. This situation is clearly unfair and it's not sustainable. If left unmanaged, it would threaten the very integrity of the GST system in Australia. Despite clear evidence of some shortcomings, the Productivity Commission report also found that the principle of fiscal equality across the nation continues to enjoy broad support from all levels of government. Being careful not to toss the baby out with the bathwater, the Australian government's interim response to the findings of the report, in particular the situation in Western Australia, was to legislate to safeguard the integrity of the system by reforming the way GST is distributed, so that all states and territories are better off. This is the clear aim of the bill. The key recommendation from the Productivity Commission report, and consequently the key reform proposed by this bill, is transitioning away from the current system of full equalisation, where all jurisdictions are equalised to the fiscal capacity of the strongest state or territory, and instead moving towards an alternative benchmark of reasonable equalisation. The government supports, via the context of this bill, an alternative benchmark that will ensure a more stable and predictable fiscal capacity for all states and territories after GST revenue has been fully distributed, and has determined that this benchmark should be set at equal to the higher of either New South Wales or Victoria, being traditionally the most stable economies within the Commonwealth. The government's plan is to slowly transition to this improved distribution system in three steps over eight years in a fair, reasonable and sustainable way that leaves no state or territory worse off. Step 1 provides short-term transitioning payments to ensure no jurisdiction receives less than 70c in the dollar of GST revenue collected from that state or territory. It is anticipated that Western Australia would be the only jurisdiction to require such payments, because of a relatively low, what they call, relativity factor—for them, below 0.7 per cent—which is expected during this period. The Northern Territory may also experience special challenges and some volatility in its GST distribution. For this reason, the Commonwealth will ensure that the Northern Territory maintains a minimum distribution equal to its 2017-18 share. Step 2 will phase in the improved equalisation benchmark, tied to the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, with all states and territories transitioning to this new standard over six years, from 2021-22 to 2026-27. To ensure a fair and stable transition to the new equalisation benchmark, a GST relativity floor will be introduced in 2022-23 so that no state or territory will receive less than 70c per person per dollar of GST revenue collected. This will increase to 75c per person per dollar of GST in 2024-25. It must be said that, on current projections, under the new equalisation benchmark no jurisdiction is expected to fall below either relativity floor. From 2021-22 onwards, the federal government will permanently boost the GST revenue pool available for distribution to states and territories by committing direct cash injections sourced from other Commonwealth revenues. The bill permits an initial top-up of $600 million annually, and a further $250 million in 2024-25, indexed each year to grow in line with the GST. Step 3 will finalise the transition to the new, more stable benchmark by 2026-27 and trigger an additional $1 billion annually, guaranteed over and above the GST revenue, in perpetuity. At the end of the transition, the Productivity Commission will conduct a further inquiry to assess the performance of the updated system and determine whether it is operating efficiently and, indeed, as intended. These are substantial structural reforms. They will not only guarantee that every state and territory is better off, with the Commonwealth injecting an additional $9 billion over 10 years, to 2028-29, and providing more than $1 billion extra each year from 2026-27 in perpetuity, but also ensure a fairer and more sustainable system for distributing GST revenue. It is revenue which has more than doubled in the 18 years since its introduction and is expected to grow by a further 65 per cent over the next decade. The GST revenue pool will be further boosted courtesy of an additional $6½ billion in GST receipts that the states and territories will receive over the forward estimates as a direct result of legislation enacted by this government, including extending the GST to online purchases. The measures outlined in this bill will ensure that all states and territories are better off and that all Australians get a fair go irrespective of where they choose to live. The bill delivers on a fairer and more sustainable GST distribution system, which is part of this government's plan for a stronger economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on. I commend the bill to the House. 12:28 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin It's a pleasure to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018, which has come about as a consequence of a lot of work and a lot of negotiation. I think it's fair to say there's been a lot of effort put in by colleagues on this side of the House in particular. I want to pay tribute to the member for McMahon, but also to colleagues from Western Australia, from Tassie—from right around the country—who have put a lot of thought and a lot of work into the outcome that we reach today. It is an outcome that Labor are very proud to support, largely because, in many important respects, what's proposed today replicates—it mirrors; it reflects—the proposals that we on this side of the House have been making for some time. Horizontal fiscal equalisation is one of those torturously strangled pieces of economic jargon that wouldn't get much attention in the living rooms of this country—that is, until it becomes clear to people that what we're really talking about is the level of service that people in every corner of the country need and deserve. When you explain to people that what we are doing here is carving up some of the tax base in this country to make sure that people can experience and rely on—at times lean on—the services that they need, whether they are in the Northern Territory or in other corners of the country, it becomes a really crucial part of the economic policy that comes out of this building. The member for Fairfax did an excellent job of running through the history of HFE. There have been a number of important changes made over time as the country grapples with how to get this into the best shape so that we can deliver those services and the states can deliver many of those services and give people that reasonable level of service delivery no matter where they live. He quoted the Declaration of Independence, which made me think of another saying that has come out of the United States which has been attributed to a number of different authors. When he was speaking about the Americans I remembered the quote: 'Americans can always be relied on to do the right thing but only after they've exhausted all of the alternatives.' The reason I thought about that was that I think the government has landed on a good outcome here but first they've exhausted all of the other alternatives. It's been an unnecessarily difficult process for those opposite And we have seen that in other areas of public policy too. Unfortunately if it is somebody else's idea—it is principally the Labor Party's idea in this case—then their instinct is always to attack it. On three different occasions we have had that dangerous instinct play out. Where Labor has proposed something, the government has said it's ridiculous. They have attacked it, they've worked themselves into a lather criticising it and opposing it. They've predicted all kinds of ruinous consequences. Finally, after all of that, and having thought about it after they've spoken about it, they've ended up adopting the course we have proposed. We propose something; they attack it and then adopt it. They did it in relation to the royal commission on the banks and on other measures including the tobacco excise, reforms to high-income super and cracking down on VET FEE-HELP rorts. That process has happened not once, not twice but three times by those opposite when it comes to the GST distribution to the states. If we want to talk about the history of this issue, first Labor announced its Fair Share for WA Fund. The now Prime Minister and then Treasurer attacked top-up payments and then he agreed to them. When Labor announced it would make the GST floor the law, those opposite ignored the proposal, rubbished it and then ultimately adopted it. When we said the commitment to ensure that no state would be worse off should be enshrined in law, the new Treasurer rubbished that proposal earlier this month, not that long ago, and now is agreeing to do that in this legislation. The point about that is that Labor has led the way when it comes to ensuring that every state and territory receives its fair share of GST. We have said for some time now that Western Australia has gotten the rough of the pineapple and that should be fixed without coming at the expense of the rest of the country. We are glad that the government has followed our lead on this. That's why we'll be supporting the bill that is before us at the moment. It is a bill that has come about despite the best efforts of those opposite not because of them. It is a bill which is a consequence of landing in the right place eventually but only after first having exhausted all the other alternatives. The member for McMahon has gone through the contents of the bill pretty comprehensively, so I'll just touch briefly on some of the key components. The bill is legislating the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report into HFE. That means changing the model of equalisation. It means legislating a 'no state would be worse off' guarantee during the transition period. It also means legislating that PC inquiry at the end of the transition period to make sure it's all working as intended. It is worth noting that the legislation doesn't include provisions for that additional top-up funding for Western Australia and the Northern Territory which was announced by the government as well. Those top-up payments are important and we support them as well, in the same way that we won't be standing in the way of this bill that we, in many respects, have authored. I think it's fair to say objectively that when you look at the way this has played out over the last couple of years we have had the member for Maribyrnong, the member for McMahon and a number of colleagues largely but not exclusively out of WA coming up with constructive proposals, and the government has been playing catch-up. As I mentioned, the Fair Share for WA Fund came about in August 2017, over a year ago. That was proposed by us, attacked by those opposite and eventually largely adopted by those opposite. When the member for Maribyrnong said, 'Make the floor the law,' that was in July, some months ago. He said, 'Enshrine it in legislation.' The Prime Minister's response at the time was to declare that there was nothing in particular that suggested it required legislation. Today, ironically, we are debating the same legislation that those opposite said was completely unnecessary. One of the reasons we're doing that is that, at the most recent meeting of state, territory and Commonwealth treasurers, there was a unity ticket. The current Prime Minister said that there would be a unity ticket at this meeting. He was right in one important respect but wrong in another. Yes, there was a unity ticket; it just didn't include the Commonwealth. All of the states, whether Labor or Liberal, banded together—even, to their eternal credit, the government of Western Australia. They have a fine Treasurer in Ben Wyatt. The government over there are doing a terrific job. To their credit, they said it was important to them not just that they got the floor that they'd been calling for—the fair go for Western Australia—but also to make sure that the other states and territories got a fair go as well. The Liberal treasurer in Tasmania said, 'We believe it's very important that a guarantee be put in place and legislated to ensure that, under any circumstance, the state would be no worse off.' Another Liberal treasurer, the one in New South Wales, said, 'Every treasurer from every state and territory across the country is united in our view that, if this legislation is to be passed, there needs to be an amendment to ensure in law that no state or territory will be worse off as a result of this change.' Another Liberal treasurer, the one in South Australia, said, 'We will not support the Commonwealth's legislation unless there is an amendment to put the guarantee in place.' So you can see how the government, having said that it wouldn't be possible to legislate the guarantee, under enormous pressure from state and territory treasurers of both political persuasions has now been dragged to this outcome today. You can see why the state treasurers and the territory treasurers were so concerned about what was originally being proposed by the government. It was partly because state budgets are notoriously sensitive to GST distribution. We understand that. But it was also because they were sitting across the table from a government now led by someone who was arguably the most enthusiastic cutter of services in the budgets that he handed down and the budgets that he supported as a cabinet minister when it comes to what's happened to health and education services in this country. So even the Liberal treasurers sitting across the table from a new Morrison government which had form when it came to diminishing services in this country and not investing in them rightly and understandably sought a guarantee, a guarantee that those opposite said would be impossible, a guarantee that we are now legislating today in this bill that Labor supports. I remember only a couple of Sundays ago, on 7 October, on the Insiders program saying to Barrie Cassidy that, given that the government had had strong views before and always folded in the face of a dedicated Labor campaign and in the face of the weight of the arguments and the pressure from the states and territories, we predicted confidently that the government would come to our position again because they had done so on this issue so many times before. That turned out to be exactly right. But, at the same time—and this was only a couple of Sundays ago—the Treasurer said that legislating the guarantee would be to walk 'both sides of the street'. He said: What some of the states are wanting us to do is to run two parallel systems. They are wanting us to run an old set of books based on the current system and a new set of books based on the new system with the floor and the additional $9 billion. He said: The Labor Party can't walk both sides of the street here. They either support a fairer deal, or they can shout from the sidelines trying to make a political story. Well, we weren't shouting from the sidelines; we weren't making a political story; we were writing the government's policy. What we predicted a couple of Sundays ago is exactly—embarrassingly, for those opposite—what is being legislated today. It's the right outcome—arrived at, by those opposite, in a typically tortured way, with another couple of episodes of the muppet show that we have come to expect from those opposite. So the main reason we support what's being proposed is: we wrote most of it. More than a year ago, when we first announced, via the member for Maribyrnong, our Fair Share for WA Fund, he said that there was a problem with the share that WA was receiving; it wasn't fair for WA to be getting only 34c in the dollar. We said that we would fix that imbalance. We've been working diligently since then to fix that imbalance, and we think that what's being proposed here will be a crucially important step in that effort. We've always led on this conversation about GST distribution. We care deeply about the services that people rely on. And we want to make sure that it's fair—that, if you live in one state or territory or another, you're not disadvantaged just because of the state or territory that you live in. Every Australian has a right to expect a basic level of services. Overwhelmingly, that's our priority on the Labor side of the House. That's why we go through all of this effort to make room in the budget. It's not just to make the tax system fairer or to pay down debt—which has doubled under those opposite—but also to make room for the things that we, as a society, truly value. Key among those are good services—health and education and other services—so that Australians have every opportunity to rise to their potential in this country. 12:42 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor It's great to follow the member for Rankin. I was going to ask him later on if I could borrow his copy of Kevin Rudd's new book when he's finished with it; I'm sure it will be very interesting reading! The member for Rankin spent a lot of time during the debate claiming credit for the GST fix, which I'm very much aware started late in 2016, when we, the Western Australian members, met with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in the then Prime Minister's office, and we spoke about a way forward and the process to get some political agreement. That set off the Productivity Commission inquiry process, which, ultimately, led to the outstanding result today. The member for Rankin claimed that this was all the Labor Party's work. But the member for Burt—and I'm a very good friend of the member for Burt, and we worked together just last week, putting on a wonderful Showcase WA event—back in February of this year, speaking to The West Australian on The Whip podcast, said that fixing the GST system was 'almost politically impossible'. Obviously, the member for Burt wasn't on the same page as the member for Rankin as to how easy it was going to be to fix the GST. But Australia is a federation of states. I am a proud Western Australian. We accept our responsibility to make our contribution to the federation, and most Western Australians would recognise that, for many, many years, Western Australia was a net beneficiary of the horizontal fiscal equalisation scheme, and we were quite prepared to make our contribution when the time came. However, there was a unique set of circumstances, starting post global financial crisis, where we saw iron ore prices double, from around US$60 a tonne to around US$120 a tonne; a massive construction boom in Western Australia, with the opening of many new mines; and the north-west shelf gas project, which saw Western Australia's revenue rise almost exponentially. That was good for Western Australia. It was great that the Western Australian government at the time, the Barnett government, had resources and money to spend. However, it also came with costs. We had a huge influx of people into Western Australia. We had to build new schools; we had to replace hospitals and build new hospitals. I think the Fiona Stanley Hospital was around several billion dollars. We also needed community amenities as well, like the new Optus Stadium, which was over a billion dollars and was criticised by many people at the time. But, like the Sydney Opera House, I think in 40, 50 or 60 years, people will come to appreciate what a magnificent community asset that is. Elizabeth Quay and many large road projects were all funded through that period. Then, of course, we saw the end to the mining and construction boom. We saw iron ore prices come back to their long-term average of around US$60 a tonne. The Western Australian government's revenue collapsed, and that led to some serious problems for our state and the then Barnett government. Those problems were inherited by the new Western Australian government, led by Mark McGowan. So obviously Western Australians were very aware of the fact that our GST share, through the horizontal fiscal equalisation system, had fallen progressively and in 2015-16 reached 30c in the dollar. Prior to that, as the member for McMahon pointed out in his contribution, the previous low had been around 86c in the dollar. Western Australians obviously felt that we weren't getting a fair go out of the GST deal. We accepted that we needed to make a contribution, but 30c in the dollar put our state budget into serious deficit of I think up to $4 billion at its worst, and the brunt of that was being borne by everyday people in Western Australia. So there was a great deal of anger across the Western Australian community. The government has responded, and in some respects I agree with the member for Burt: this was a politically diabolical problem to fix. How do you make sure that WA gets its fair share of the GST distribution without disadvantaging the other states? Obviously, no state is going to stand by and watch the system change and reform if it's going to mean that their people and their governments have less money to distribute. The then Treasurer, Mr Morrison, now Prime Minister, I think has come up with a very neat solution which has kept everybody happy, and I know that Western Australians are particularly happy. Under the new arrangements, every state and territory will be better off. There'll be an extra $9 billion in untied funding over the next 10 years, which will go into schools, hospitals, roads, police—all of those services that the state provides which are so important to our communities. By the time the system is implemented, there'll be more than $1 billion extra each year in perpetuity. The government can only do this because the economy is growing strongly. We have economic growth running at 3.4 per cent. Unemployment is down to five per cent, and since the government came to power in 2013 over 1.15 million jobs have been created. So we can afford to do this because we've run a good economy—we've run a very strong economy—and we've been able to find that extra $9 billion to make this happen. Under this bill, the amendments to the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 and the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 will create a new equalisation benchmark of the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is higher. All states will transition to this new equalisation standard over the six years from 2021-22 to 2026-27. The benchmarking states' GST distributions to the economies of the two largest states remove the effect of the extreme volatility that we saw when Western Australia had a mining boom. The second part is to introduce a permanent in-system relativity floor of 0.7 from 2022-23, increasing to 0.75 from 2024-25. In the interim, the Commonwealth will separately provide short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory—and, in Western Australia's case, to keep our relativity above 0.7 per cent. So, in 2019-20, Western Australia on the current projections will receive $814 million. In 2020-21, we'll receive $585 million, and in 2021-22 we'll receive $305 million. So the WA government will receive considerable additional money there. It's around $1½ billion over the next three years with which to repair their budget. When the Western Australian government came to power, they were faced with a difficult financial situation, and they made cuts. I've been in that situation. In 2013 we came into government and were left with a very difficult situation, and you do have to make cuts. You do have to look for savings. But unfortunately the Western Australian government only looked outside the metropolitan area, and they really did go after the little fish—like the School of the Air. Two hundred and fifty kids access the School of the Air in Western Australia that is based out of Kalgoorlie, in my electorate. They went after the School of the Air. The Moora Residential College has 30 kids in a boarding college a couple of hours out of Perth, and they said they couldn't find the money to do some refurbishment and keep that college open. I mean—really. These are country kids. They obviously, apparently, don't count as much as city kids. They went after camp schools. There's a camp school in Kalgoorlie and a camp school in Bridgetown, both in my electorate. When I go to school graduations at the end of the year, what those kids say to me, when I ask, 'What was the highlight of the year?' is, 'Going on the school camp.' But they closed down the camp schools. Yes, they managed to palm it off to a third party, but they closed down those camp schools for a period. We've also seen money pulled out of regional development in the little town of Tambellup and the small communities across the Great Southern. They were successful in accessing $10 million through the Building Better Regions Fund to complement the $11 million that they'd been promised by the previous state government to build not only some decent housing for their own employees but age-appropriate housing for older people in the community. The new Minister for Regional Development in Western Australia pulled that $11 million back out, so that project's now on hold. Hopefully we can get it back up and running again. Now that more money is available for the Western Australian government, I've got some things that I want to see happen in my electorate of O'Connor. At the state election, the member for Albany and the WA government promised a new ring road for Albany. It's a $175 million project. They've only put $35 million on the table. This is a great opportunity for them to find that extra $140 million to complete that ring road, which they promised at the election. Also in the town of Albany, the Commonwealth government have promised $6.6 million to fund the purchase of a radiation oncology machine. For the people in the Great Southern, if they can't access cancer treatment in Albany, it's a 400-kilometre trip to Perth. Sometimes that treatment runs for up to six weeks. That's six weeks away from home, family and loved ones, and of course there is the cost of being away from home. Also, in Kalgoorlie, we've issued a licence for an MRI machine, and the people at Kalgoorlie are now waiting for the state government to install the machine in the hospital there so that they can access MRI scans instead of having to travel 600 kilometres to Perth. These are some of the opportunities that are opened up by the increased money that Western Australia will receive out of our GST fix. I just want to close by congratulating the Prime Minister and the work that he did as Treasurer for bringing about what has been a very, very comprehensive overhaul of the GST system, which protects all states, not just Western Australia. Of course, we are the primary beneficiaries in the first instance, but who knows what will happen in the medium to distant future? Other states may well see the sort of windfall revenue gains that we saw in Western Australia with the mining boom. It may be other types of booms that see other states receive those sorts of windfalls, and this system protects them from the sort of damage that was done to the Western Australian economy by the previous system. I endorse this bill to the House and, once again, congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the work that they've done. Thank you very much. 12:55 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth To stand in this place and provide a fair go for Western Australia is an honour. Too often, Western Australians feel like they are the forgotten state of the Commonwealth. When it came to the distribution of the goods and services tax that Western Australians pay, that was definitely true. Today, the parliament is recognising Western Australia. The parliament is recognising the tax that Western Australians pay and the principle that they should get a fair share of that tax back in their state. It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating some of the campaigners who have led to this reform. And it has been a campaign; it's been a campaign that's taken many years. I congratulate my fellow Labor colleagues, the WA Labor members of this place and the WA Labor senators. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for finance. They've all listened carefully to Western Australia. They listened to what it is that Western Australians say they need and they listened when Western Australians elected the Mark McGowan Labor government in 2015, saying, 'The current team were unable to deliver a fair share for WA.' I also congratulate the now Treasurer of Western Australia, Ben Wyatt. It's not just been a campaign that has involved members of state and federal parliaments; it's involved The West Australian and, once a week, The Sunday Times also campaigns for a fair share of the GST for Western Australia. I also acknowledge a range of trade unions have campaigned to ensure that Western Australia gets its fair share so that we can fund the vital services that Western Australians rely on. Equally, the Western Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been a loud and clear voice for change in the distribution of the GST. The goods and services tax was introduced on 1 July 2000. Back then, I was in year 10. My friends and I thought that, despite not being super keen on the introduction of the GST—effectively a regressive tax—we thought it would be nice to be some of the first Western Australians to pay the GST. So we hatched a plan that we'd go to the local Macca's, we would wait until the clock struck midnight and we would buy ourselves some McDonald's and pay the GST, being some of the first Western Australians to do so. My parents did not think this was as good an idea, and I did not do that. I raise the importance of visiting McDonald's because, when we look at the share of the GST that Western Australia received, it got down to basically 30c in the dollar. Thirty cents doesn't buy you much, but, back in 2000, 30c would buy you a McDonald's ice cream. Thirty cents no longer even buys you a McDonald's ice cream. In fact, in preparing for this speech, I struggled to find much that you can buy for 30c these days, so I had to do some maths instead. Thirty cents will buy you three kilograms of iron ore; 30c will buy you, roughly, 612 staples; and it will buy you less than 500 millilitres of Coca-Cola. So it's no surprise that Western Australians thought that 30c in the dollar was completely unfair. It was a pittance and it was unacceptable. The need to provide Western Australia with a fair share of the GST is also a need for us, at the federal level, to make sure that we are providing what that state needs to run a state economy. When it comes to the suffering that Western Australia experienced during this time, we cannot understate that suffering. The anger is well highlighted by the fact that I've been able to count—and I'm sure this is an inaccurate number; it probably vastly understates the number of editorials—78 editorials in the past six years in The Western Australian alone calling for the reform of the GST. In fact, one report in The West Australian revealed that Western Australia had lost almost a third of the GST collected since the inception of the GST in 2000. In other words, one-third, or $30 billion, was taken out of Western Australia and redistributed to other states as we saw that share of the GST decline below 70c, decline below 50c and go down to that embarrassing figure of just over 30c. Thirty billion dollars taken out of Western Australia is a huge sum. With $30 billion, Western Australia could have purchased the entirety of Caltex Australia, Seek Limited and Coca-Cola Amatil and still have had change to buy Domino's Pizza, although I don't think there's much of an argument that I can make in this place to have any government, state or federal, in the pizza-delivery business. But, nonetheless, there is no doubt there is a need to redistribute some money to other states to accommodate for the different challenges that different states face at different points in the economic cycle. However, no-one ever expected that we would get to this point of unfairness. Indeed, former Prime Minister and the architect of the goods and services tax—he proudly says it's one of his greatest achievements—John Howard, said that top-up payments of the GST were never going to be necessary. In fact, when he announced the goods and services tax, Mr Howard said: For as long as any of you can remember one of the least ignobling characteristics of government in this country has been the annual begging-bowl pilgrimage to Canberra by the States. Well, the system that was created by the introduction of the goods and services tax led to exactly that on a grand scale. It led to my state of Western Australia having to beg for top-up payments just to make sure they could keep the essential services of the state running. It's not good enough. It has not been good for any part of our Commonwealth to see that be part of our distribution of funds across our states and territories. I'm going to follow on from the member for O'Connor and commend former Prime Minister Turnbull for his work on this package. Mr Turnbull had a cooperative approach. He recognised that, when Western Australians voted for the Mark McGowan Labor government, they were sending a message all the way to Canberra. They were sending a message that we needed to address this problem. It was the No. 1 issue on the minds of many Western Australians when they thought about what fairness from a federal government means to them. Prime Minister Turnbull was listening to Premier McGowan, and I'm pleased that, with the passage of this legislation, we'll see Premier McGowan and Treasurer Ben Wyatt begin to return the state's budget to a surplus position and begin to repay debt. You can't spend all of these funds on just repaying debt. You have to build for the future. You have to invest in the future. There are many projects in Western Australia that may be able to get off the ground because Western Australia now have a stronger budget position and can think about what else might be needed to grow the Western Australian economy. One would be the investing in a light-rail system across our city and through my electorate of Perth, connecting places like Curtin University, the Burswood peninsula and Elizabeth Quay, and going all the way up to Kings Park, a beautiful tourist attraction, and onto the medical precinct and the University of Western Australia. This may also allow the state government and their body, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, to finally fix the eyesore and the disgrace that is the rotting of the East Perth Power Station and turn it into a national tourist icon, possibly full of art, culture and music, or a museum of national significance. We could also invest and reinvest in our community at a local level. I know that other members will be speaking on a range of things that we could invest in, including community sport and community infrastructure. Whatever the case, when we get to the point of looking at how the nation has got to this point of debating this legislation, you have to accept that it's only because Labor has led this debate time and time again that we've got the legislation that we have in front of us today. Indeed, it was the Leader of the Opposition and Labor who first proposed significant and serious top-up payments to lift Western Australia's share of the distribution of the goods and services tax. It was on Saturday, 26 August 2017 that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced that a Shorten Labor government would invest $1.6 billion in a Fair Share for WA Fund. That was carefully considered policy aimed at making sure we delivered a fair share for WA without making any state worse off. It was the first time we'd seen a concrete proposal to deliver an effective floor of GST for Western Australia, delivering a 70c floor. It was then at my campaign launch in July this year that the opposition leader said we should 'make the floor the law'. It was a great initiative to say: if you're going to have a floor on the GST, you have to legislate it. It's the only way that you can give certainty to the state that, in fairness, had some pretty good reasons for not trusting that they were going to get a fair share from Canberra. The opposition leader said: … we also have … a plan for the GST. We have a plan which Labor has led, working with the McGowan Government and Labor nationally, to establish a floor. And what we say today is that not only do we support there being a 75 cent floor, we want to turn the floor into law. It was a promise that was eventually adopted by the government, and it was good that the government listened to the opposition leader and agreed to legislate. It was also the opposition leader, and the shadow Treasurer, who said that we must legislate to make sure that no state is worse off. I'm joined in the chamber by a number of colleagues from Tasmania, who saw what happened to Western Australia. They saw the state have its budget smashed by an unfair distribution of the GST and they said: 'What happened in Western Australia is pretty bad. It would be terrible if, in fixing one state's problem, we were to start smashing another state's budget.' One of the things I commend my Tasmanian colleagues for is looking to the future. What former Prime Minister Howard and Colin Barnett, the then Treasurer in Western Australia and later the Premier, failed to do was look to the long-term effect. They could see that there was a huge mining boom on the way. The distribution formula was already on paper, but no-one thought: what will happen in different economic circumstances? I commend my Tasmanian colleagues for actually thinking through the implications of what we do and, again, I commend the shadow Treasurer for making sure we looked at the legislation and called for a no-state-worse-off guarantee. And I give credit to the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer: they have listened and enacted that in the legislation before us today. There are, of course, other tax policies that the Prime Minister and Treasurer may wish to look at in developing a fair economy for all Australians. One is Labor's tax refund for working Australians. Labor's policy would deliver a bigger, fairer tax cut for 10 million working Australians. Labor have proposed reforms to dividend imputation, ensuring that we deliver billions of dollars back to the bottom line of the budget and remove excess cash refunds from dividend imputation credits. We have proposed reforms to capital gains tax and negative gearing, limiting where you can claim those negative gearing amounts and reducing the discounts to ensure our tax system is fair and equitable. Probably most importantly when it comes to making sure we collect a fair share of tax here in Australia for all Australians, we have proposed a comprehensive package on multinational tax avoidance, which would improve the budget bottom line by $3 billion over the decade. In addition, Labor will restore integrity to Australia's tax system and stop Australian profits being stashed away in tax havens. Labor will cap the deductions for managing tax affairs at $3,000 and introduce discretionary trust reforms. I mentioned earlier the need to look to the future and look to the long term to make sure that errors don't happen again. But I've also got to mention that the member for Pearce, the Attorney-General, must take some responsibility for his role in failing to act and failing to campaign hard enough for a fair share of the GST when this problem emerged in 2011-12. The Attorney-General, when he was Treasurer of Western Australia, said: What we reasonably anticipate is that in 2013-14 the CGC will have brought in a new GST system. That did not happen. It took many years. It took strong advocacy from my colleagues in the Labor Party, strong advocacy from the shadow Treasurer, strong advocacy from Premier Mark McGowan, strong advocacy from Treasurer Ben Wyatt and creative policy to ensure WA gets a fair share of the goods and services tax. 13:10 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest It's been interesting listening to some of the members opposite, particularly when we recall that it was only on 26 February, in a West Australian podcast, that the member for Burt said 'fixing the GST system is almost politically impossible'. Well, we have proven that it is not. I'm very proud of that on this side of the House, as a very proud and active Western Australian member of this parliament. This bill is a testament to the work of all of the Western Australian Liberal members of parliament and senators, and I want to thank them for their long-term commitment to this and their work behind the scenes as well. All of us on this side and all of us in this chamber—and I see the member for O'Connor is sitting in the chamber—are very, very committed and active in this space. All of the WA members and senators in the government are absolutely determined and committed, and we see the results of that through this legislation. And we all knew very directly in Western Australia how serious it was for our state that we were only receiving 30c in the dollar. There was, without any question, white hot anger in Western Australia. And we felt it in the same way. We saw the work that WA had put into its economy at the time. Part of the anger was centred around the fact that Western Australians believed they were doing more than their fair share in providing for the rest of Australia. They were happy to do their fair share—and they saw the investment that had gone into developing our amazing resources and into exports and the work that was being done on the ground. We saw a state that was committed to developing its natural resources. But other states locked theirs up and then expected Western Australia to support them. I look at some of the work that's been done and I want to congratulate and thank all of my WA colleagues. We have worked consistently with the now Prime Minister, formerly the Treasurer, who understood, when we sat down with him on a regular basis and talked through this, why we needed to resolve the GST situation for Western Australia. The genesis of that has been several years in the making. It wasn't a simple process but, by gee, this government has got there, thanks to the work of the Liberal members in WA and, of course, the senators as well and the Prime Minister and Treasurer. The Productivity Commission work evolved out of those earlier efforts, and the solution is a very sound one. The only reason that we can actually provide these sorts of results for Western Australia and every other state is the fact that we're running such a sound economic set of policies—very strong. We are seeing over one million jobs created by great businesses who have had the confidence to invest and employ people. We see unemployment at five per cent. We have seen the small business tax cuts and tax relief for Australians. That's because we're running very sound economic policies. As the Prime Minister has always said, the basis for everything the government does is founded on a strong economy. All the essential services that Australians expect of government stem from sound economic management. Back in those years we saw the iron ore prices doubling in Western Australia, the construction boom of new mining projects and the infrastructure costs that went with that sudden expansion. At one point we had 1,000 people a week coming into Western Australia to fill those jobs and they expected everything from roads to transport, housing and accommodation. There was even massive pressure on our local major businesses, particularly on those in the earthmoving, transport and logistics sector, who saw much of their workforce move north, and extra costs that applied to businesses and industry, particularly in the South West of Western Australia. We know that the three-year time lag that's part of the Commonwealth Grants Commission formula had a real impact in Western Australia. Even though the CGC's formula has impacted on other states, it has never fallen to a floor of 30c in the dollar. None has been affected like Western Australia was. The whole principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation is the fair go. A fair go really is for those having a go, and that's what Western Australia was doing—having a go—and much of the benefit of that was shared across Australia. The coalition Liberal-National government reforms will deliver a fairer and far more sustainable GST deal for all Australians. Again, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. It is not easy to manage the complexities of the GST formula, but they've done a very sound job in what they've proposed through this legislation—that no state will be worse off. But no state has previously, as we know, fallen below 86c, and Western Australia went to 30c. I don't want to see any other state anywhere in Australia go through what Western Australia went through, and the measures that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and our government, are putting in place are to ensure that doesn't happen. There could well be a boom ahead. It could come in South Australia. It could come in Queensland. It could come in the Northern Territory. Under the previous arrangements, that state could have found themselves in the same situation as Western Australia, hitting a brick wall. We know all Australians must have access to vital government services, no matter where they live across our diverse nation. The investment by the Commonwealth will guarantee an extra $9 billion to the states and territories over the next decade. This funding is untied. The states can invest in schools, roads, hospitals or whatever is needed and whatever that state decides. The states make the decisions about where they apply this funding, as they see fit, to their priorities—to what is needed on a state-by-state and territory-by-territory basis. There will be transition arrangements in place to move gradually to the new formula, and that's to make sure that no state is left behind. The benchmarks set in the legislation are Victoria and New South Wales. They have been historically strong states from an economic point of view, and benchmarking against them means that all states will have a secure revenue stream, going forward. This decision, as I said, is very important to Western Australia. I know from moving around my electorate that people felt very, very strongly about this. As I said, it was a white-hot issue. It basically stopped barbecues. It was what was discussed at footy games. I can remember going to the Tracmach Lights on the Hill event, a vintage tractor machinery show, in Brunswick. I got only 50 metres up the hill that day because everyone wanted to talk about the problems that Western Australia had, or where they felt Western Australia was, to their mind, being ripped off and where we weren't getting a fair go. Well, this federal government has changed that. As I said, the new equalisation benchmark is the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is higher. As I've also said previously, not all Labor members from Western Australia were supportive and, at times, certainly didn't support the efforts of our Western Australian colleagues in this space. I've mentioned the comments of the member for Burt, for instance. Speeches in this House that were simply empty rhetoric didn't do Western Australia any good. However, I see the legislation before us as an important starting point. This is a government that has delivered and will deliver for the people of Western Australia. We see it in this bill before the House today. Again, in recognising so much of the work that's gone into this issue, I want to really recognise the persistence of the WA members and senators, and I want to thank them. I want to acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister, his work both as the Treasurer and in carrying that through as the Prime Minister of this nation. It was a difficult process. Yes, the Productivity Commission work was very, very important in this process, but having the courage to make very strong decisions is what our government can and does do, and we see it within the legislation before the House. The measures are, as I say, a new equalisation benchmark, the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is highest, and all states will transition to this new equalisation standard over six years; the introduction of a permanent in-system relativity floor, which is particularly important; boosting the GST pool of funds; and increasing the funding available during the transition period and guaranteeing the states and territories the better of the old or the new system so that each state will have the better of the cumulative total. I think it is equally important that the Productivity Commission itself will conduct an inquiry to assess whether the new system is working efficiently and effectively and operating as intended—the check and balance in this one. The short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory to keep their relativities above 0.7 and 4.66 respectively from 2019-20 to 2021-22 are a great improvement. I'll go back to where I started. I want to acknowledge all the work of the Western Australian members and senators, their persistence, their passion and their commitment to Western Australia, but equally the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in coming up with a solution so that every Australian will be better off. I endorse the bill. 13:22 Mr HART 263070 Bass I would like to make some observations with respect to the member for Forrest's contribution that's just been delivered. Of course, the elephant in the room that she hasn't mentioned is the fact that she's been part of a government that's been in power for over five years. It's taken it over five years to address what's certainly been an urgent issue as far as the Western Australian voting public is concerned. I think it's disingenuous and it's not appropriate for this government to ignore the efforts that have been made on a bipartisan basis to deliver GST equity for WA. It is vitally important for the government to take a moment to reflect, in a positive manner, upon the fact that this has been achieved by co-operation at both a state and a Commonwealth level, and indeed finally to reflect the concerns expressed by all state premiers and all state treasurers with respect to the legislating of a guarantee that no state will be worse off. With that introduction, I'm pleased to be able to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. I'm particularly pleased to rise to support the comments and observations of the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon. The history of Commonwealth-state relations, particularly Commonwealth-state financial relations, is long and complex. Sometimes that relationship can be encompassed in throwaway lines. I can't go past, for example, the observation attributed to Paul Keating: 'Never get between a Premier and a bucket of money.' This legislation is required to address shortcomings in the system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, a system which has evolved since the 1930s and was most recently overhauled with the introduction of the GST in the year 2000. But, in practical terms, the effect of horizontal fiscal equalisation, the distribution of GST and the allocation of grants to states can materially affect the ability of states within our federation to address the provision of services, construction of vital infrastructure and, of course, planning for a secure future for that state. Western Australia has prosecuted a case—particularly with the sound advocacy of my caucus colleagues from that state—for the present arrangements to be amended to reflect the shortfall in GST derived from economic activity within that state but lost to the state under the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. In very real and practical terms, Western Australians have felt that they have not received a fair share of the GST revenue which has been generated within their state. But it's important to acknowledge that, as a federation, each of the states will, from time to time, as will the territories, prosecute a case for particular recognition as to challenges facing that state or territory. In the case of Western Australia, the simple fact of the matter was that GST revenue generated by the resources boom over an extended period depressed the amount returned to the state to a historic low. It can also be fairly said that the former Western Australian Liberal state government and its then Treasurer squandered the proceeds of the mining boom with an almost contumacious disregard for the likely effect of the GST distribution formula on future state finances. I say this not to justify the lack of action with respect to addressing the cause of Western Australia receiving a fair share of GST, but rather to emphasise that the present Attorney-General, in his then role as state Treasurer, proceeded on the basis that the GST distribution formula would be adjusted, without in fact prosecuting that case with any particular vigour. That was either, in my submission, recklessness or blind disregard for the financial stability of his state. My home state of Tasmania is disproportionately reliant on GST revenue. In 2018-19, Tasmania's total general government revenue is expected to be approximately $6.2 billion. Tasmania's largest source of revenue is GST revenue, estimated to be almost $2.5 billion in 2018-19, or approximately 40 per cent of our state's total revenue. This is a larger proportion than for any other jurisdiction except the Northern Territory. Tasmania will receive $1.1 billion more in GST revenue than its population share of $1.4 billion in 2018-19 because of the current distribution under horizontal fiscal equalisation. The current distribution of revenue represents 64 per cent of Tasmania's health expenditure, or 71 per cent of education expenditure, based on 2017-18 figures. These figures demonstrate the seriousness of protecting Tasmania's fair share of the GST. The backdrop to this threat is the legacy of the Abbott government's cuts to health and education in the 2014 budget, estimated to be $2.1 billion for Tasmania, over 10 years, at the time. Tasmania's health and education systems are already behind the rest of the nation. Saul Eslake's Tasmania report presented data from the ABS National Health Survey conducted in 2014-15, which showed that a lower proportion of Tasmanians assessed their health status as 'excellent' or 'very good', and a higher proportion as 'fair' or 'poor', than of the general population of any other state or territory. Tasmanians are notably more intensive in their use of hospital facilities than people living in other states and territories. Conversely, Tasmanians are, in general, less well educated than people living in other parts of Australia or, indeed, other regional parts of Australia. Tasmanians' reliance on GST revenue is not the product of fiscal recklessness or incompetence. It is the inevitable consequence of a small state, a federation state, that has been constrained—in some cases, by decisions imposed upon the state by the operation of federal law, in order to constrain particular decisions, including the development and exploitation of resources of the state. Tasmania has a significant proportion of its land mass in reserves. That should ensure that the beauty, heritage value and unique aspects of Tasmania are preserved for future generations. That is a good thing. It is something for all Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians to be rightly proud of and to celebrate. But this inevitably means that some development, whether appropriate or not, may not proceed and, indeed, should not proceed if there are adverse consequences to the natural heritage of Tasmania. There are also other factors like the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which I have referred to previously, which is reflected in significant social disadvantage and which in turn means there are additional demands upon services. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 14 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Shanahan, Ms Carly, Tozer, Mr Peter 14 13:30 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Recently the New South Wales league of the Rip Curl GromSearch took place in Wooli and Carly Shanahan clinched the under-16 title. The series runs across 10 countries, with over 5,000 competitors worldwide. This is title a major milestone for Carly. It was her first year in the under-16 division. So far her results this year have seen her reach the ranking of 16th in the Australia-Oceania region of the women's junior tour. I congratulate Carly on this fantastic achievement and wish her all the best at the national finals. After more than 40 years running the Silver Scissors & Comb barber shop in Lismore, owner Peter Tozer is calling it a day. He opened his Lismore business with just one chair. As the business grew, he employed more cutters and now has a total of seven staff. He's also been a loyal and committed member to the Lismore rugby club. His service to the club included playing, coaching, being a groundsman and being president. Other members would say that, rain, hail or shine, Peter was there giving hours to support a sport he loved so much. I got my hair cut by Peter for a number of years when my kids were little. When we got home, the kids insisted I call them 'Peter' as they pretended to re-cut my hair. It's gone down in family legend. I thank Peter for his long service in the community and wish him all the best in his retirement. Petition: Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 14 13:31 Dr GILLESPIE ( 72184 Lyne ) ( ): I wish to bring to the attention of the House and present a petition that has been duly considered by the Petitions Committee and was found to be in order. The petition read as follows— Health 14 Condran, Mrs Jeanette 15 13:33 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Like so many born during the Second World War and so many in our labour movement, Jeanette Condran was humble, selfless and compassionate. She had a stirring sense of fairness, social justice and fun. She cared deeply about the rights of workers in particular. We are so sad to lose such a wonderful and caring friend. Four years ago this Sunday, Jeanette and Kevin sat up in that gallery when we farewelled Gough Whitlam, and now they're both gone—Kevin last year and Jeanette last week. Her life took her from Green Valley in Gough's electorate to Logan in my electorate and then up north. We farewelled them from Teresa Lane's backyard. I first met Jeanette in 2013. She became such a dedicated friend and supporter. She and Kevin would put 20 or more election signs on their front gate on Wembley Road for me. My daughter, Annabel, and I facetimed her in the hospital. When she told us that she wouldn't be going home, I had no idea of the pace with which the cancer would take her. It was less than two weeks from diagnosis until we lost her. Her family were there and they told her, as the cancer took hold, that it was okay for her to go and find Kevin. She leaves behind eight kids, 22 grandkids, 12 great-grandkids, with another on the way. Like them, Mrs C, we love you, we miss you and we won't ever forget you. Live Animal Exports 15 13:34 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The government's chaotic oversight of the live sheep export trade continues. First it ruled out of the suspension of sheep exports during the hot northern summer, when common sense should have stopped the transport because of the extreme heat. The government then suspended the export licence of Emanuel Exports, the company responsible for about 70 per cent of Australian live sheet exports, creating more confusion and uncertainty. Subsequently, a new export licence and permit was granted to a subsidiary of Kuwait Livestock Transport and Trading, a company with close ties to Emanuel Exports and which itself had previously lost its export licence because of high mortality rates. This is a company with a long list of cruelty allegations, including ESCAS breaches in Kuwait. The government has simply lost control of this issue and is simply shuffling the deckchairs. It has still not released the Philip Moss review, which was due eight weeks ago and which it now has in hand. It will not appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare. It still has the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources being responsible for the oversight of live exports. It continues to issue export licences. The live sheep export trade is unsustainable. It is cruel; it is unnecessary. The government should support Labor, end the trade and work with farmers to develop a long-term sheep farming strategy. Canberra Electorate: Drones 15 13:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra As you know, I'm concerned about the drone delivery trial in Bonython, which is delivering burritos, coffee, croissants and Hydralyte as early as 8 am on a Sunday morning. Drones are regulated in Australia, but the trial was exempted from numerous regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I'm asking the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport: why was the trial granted an exemption? Who granted the exemption? Did you grant an exemption? On what grounds and for how long was the exemption granted? When asked about a month ago, Wing advised that there was no end date to the trial. Yet recently I understand that Wing that advised an end date of February 2019. I'm asking Wing: is that the case? Is it actually ending the trial in February 2019, and what sort of trial has no end date? I also want to know whether an independent review will be conducted once the trial is over, if in fact it does end in February 2019. Who will conduct the review? When will the review report? Will the community be consulted on the review? How long will the consultation last? Will the report be publicly released? Will the trial stop while the review is taking place? Rumour has it that the drones will be moving to Mitchell permanently. So, once again, I am asking Wing: is this true? Is this for a rollout across the ACT? Will this happen before or after an independent review? Moore Electorate: Joondalup City RSL Sub-branch 16 13:37 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The Joondalup City RSL Sub-branch has established a veterans' support centre at the Heathridge Community Centre. I was pleased to attend the official opening with the sub-branch president, Rick Green, and the centre coordinator, Ken Beven. I make particular mention of the dedicated efforts of Ken Bevan, who served as sub-branch secretary for many years and was the integral, driving force behind establishing the veterans' support centre. A veteran is defined as anyone who is serving or has served with the Australian Defence Force. The centre is open on Tuesdays from 11 am to 4 pm and on Thursdays between 1 pm and 6 pm. It provides advocacy and welfare support to our veteran community, including allied veterans, current serving members and their dependents. It will provide referrals to emergency relief and mental health service providers, advocate for veterans dealing with organisations such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Defence Force Ombudsman and provide a 24/7 mobile phone support service. Within the city of Joondalup, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has 2,042 clients, while our neighbouring city of Wanneroo is home to 1,789 clients. On behalf of the parliament, I commend the committee members and volunteers of the Joondalup City RSL Sub-branch for providing this invaluable service to our community. Australian Netball: Diamonds, Parliament House: Netball 16 13:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to congratulate the Australian Diamonds netball team on taking out the 2018 quad series in a four-way competition against South Africa, the English Roses and of course the New Zealand Silver Ferns, and then backing that up with a 3-1 win in the Constellation Cup for 2018 against the New Zealand Silver Ferns. I want to congratulate national coach Lisa Alexander, her coaching team, her conditioning team and her team of psychologists, who work so closely with our wonderful elite athletes in our national netball team. I want to finish by saying that it's also a celebration for the parliamentarians in the House, because last Wednesday morning we played the press gallery on our netball court outside, and we continued our winning streak with another win. I want to congratulate the member for Newcastle, the member for Dobell, Senator McAllister and Senator McKenzie for their great contributions on the court against the press gallery. I thank the press gallery for their commitment to showing up every week for training, their commitment to getting down there and getting on the court. They had a coach this year. They were incredibly organised. They even had a mascot. It was a fabulous game of netball played in the true spirit of the game, like girls—that means going in hard, fighting for every ball, chasing down every loose ball, taking every rebound you could get and of course shooting goals, which I failed to do. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I note the victory. It's is very important to beat the press, and I note that the tennis team also beat the press. Cowper Electorate: Lions Clubs 16 13:41 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper On Saturday I had the honour of opening the Lions 201N1 District Convention at South West Rocks. Over 150 Lions gathered to plan the future of what is a great community organisation. The theme of the conference was 'The future starts here'. The conference was hosted by South West Rocks Lions Club. But such an event does not just happen. I would like to commend the convention chair, Iris McKelligott, for her hard work to bring the convention together, ably assisted by Paul Dickenson and other members of the South West Rocks Lions Club. Also lending a hand were Peter and Jo Brotherton of Urunga Lions. At the conference there was a presentation on Lions eye health. Lions donate around $100,000 a year to the Save Sight program, a great example of Lions not only delivering at a local level but also at a national level. As local member, I have been assisted by Lions on a number of occasion. Every year I have been supported by Valla Lions on my charity bike ride. The Valla Lions fire up the barbecue and have been a great donor for the ride over many years. Valla Lions is a great little club, like so many Lions clubs, doing great work in the community. Last year I held a motorcycle ride from Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie to raise awareness of the need for more people to register as organ donors. Lions clubs from Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie provided invaluable assistance, staffing stalls across the electorate, spreading the important message on organ donation. Mayo Electorate: Encounter Celebration 16 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Last weekend I had the honour of speaking at Encounter celebrations, where we recognised the historic chance meeting between French navigator Nicolas Baudin and English captain Matthew Flinders on what's now known as Encounter Bay down at Victor Harbour. On 8 April, 1802 during a brief moment between centuries of hostilities, these two ships met, and to European eyes it was considered undiscovered territory. Both men were sent to sea for scientific missions. Flinders was an ambitious but reserved young man who did not speak French. Baudin was 20 years older, unwell and with limited English. Baudin criticised the English map of Bass Strait, and Flinders offered to provide a rectified chart if the Frenchman remained overnight. Flinders then rode back to the ship the following morning. These two men then sailed their separate ways and never met again. Yet their meeting has been recorded in history. Had the French arrived first, we could possibly be speaking French in South Australia today. On Saturday night I had the great pleasure of sitting down with His Excellency the South Australian Governor Hieu Van Le in the spirit of friendship, with the French ambassador associate, Cedric Peltier, and Chris Holtby, the UK-US Consul General for South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. I'd like to do a quick shout-out to Mayor Graham Philp for his work and dedication to this historic event. Canning Electorate: Regional Growth Fund 17 13:44 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning This government understands the importance of job creation in regional Australia. On Friday I was thrilled to announce that another Liberal-National government initiative, the Regional Growth Fund, will deliver jobs for the Peel region in my electorate of Canning. Under the fund the shire of Murray has been selected to submit a full business case to government for the construction of the Peel Business Park. Located in the Nambeelup industrial area, the Peel Business Park will be a place where industries come together, including manufacturing and engineering; transport, storage and logistics; and light industrial and commerce. The Peel agri-innovation project will be situated inside the park and will be used to research and house new technologies that can be used to optimise agricultural practices. Together, these projects will focus on food production, processing and distribution in the Peel region, creating efficient industries that will boost the local economy and drive jobs growth. The government is planning to investment $21.75 million in stage 1 of the project, which will include the ground preparation for the park, construction of the microgrid and battery storage that will help power the park, and the construction of the research and development facility. These projects will revive industry in the Peel region and provide a diverse jobs market for local residents. Stage 1 will provide $11.3 million of economic activity during construction. It will also create 36 new jobs, 11 of which will be for our youth, and support another 57 direct ongoing jobs. I thank the government for boosting jobs growth in Canning through these projects. Lyons Electorate: Bridgewater Bridge 17 13:45 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons It gives me no pleasure to rise today to speak, because I'm rising about this issue of the Bridgewater Bridge. The Bridgewater Bridge is a critical piece of infrastructure that's long been planned for in the south of my electorate. It's a $580 million project which will facilitate the transport of goods and passengers in an area of considerable growth. It's been planned for a long time. I'm pleased to say both the government and the opposition will fund this bridge, but I'm sorry to say that it became clear in answers in the Senate estimates process yesterday that the Tasmanian Liberal government has failed to lodge a business case for this critical infrastructure project. This is despite it being on the books for years. My Tasmanian colleague Senator Carol Brown asked Infrastructure Australia officials, 'Was the business case produced?' 'We haven't received a final business case for that yet,' was the response. The result of this is that this critically important project is going to be waiting at least another year before it's completed. It's already not lodged for completion until 2024-25. We're now looking at 2025-26 at the earliest for this very important bridge that will carry thousands of my constituents and really important goods and agriculture across Tasmania. It's not good enough. The Tasmanian Liberal government needs to do better. Groom Electorate: Small and Family Business 17 13:47 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom In recent weeks, I've had the opportunity to discuss with various small and family businesses across the electorate of Groom the government's recent announcements on further tax relief for such businesses. I can confirm to the House that this is welcomed in Toowoomba and across the Darling Downs. Fast-tracking tax relief further in terms of bringing it forward five years has been met with significant support from the Groom electorate, and we know that those businesses will benefit significantly. They've confirmed to me that this will create jobs, boost productivity and allow them to grow, and this is particularly important in Groom where we have some 16,826 small and family businesses in agriculture, in services, in tourism and in resources right across the economy. The CEO of the local chamber of commerce, the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce, Jo Sheppard, put it very, very well when she explained publicly that the likely savings will mean all the difference to a small business. She said: 'It can allow a business to invest more in its online marketing strategy, for example. It could employ that part-time person its not been able to employ before. In some instances, it could help the operator actually take a wage for a change. That will help it be more sustainable in the long term.' Mental Health 18 13:48 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon This month we've observed Mental Health Week, and we continue to focus on the fact that about one-in-five Australians are affected by a mental illness, yet many may not seek help because of the stigma. Mental health issues are common and not a sign of weakness. It does take strength and courage to ask for help, and the earlier you get onto it the better. Territorian 'Rusty' wrote a poem about his experience with depression, and I thank Rusty for speaking out about his battles with depression. The poem, 'I Woke Up Dead', was part of the production In My Skin, supported by Mission Australia, Darwin Community Arts and Browns Mart. In my skin won a Golden Crocodile Fringe award. Thank you and well done to all involved. 'I Woke Up Dead' starts with: This morning I woke up dead Wiped the eye's out of my sleep Brushed my bald head put on some hairspray combed my teeth I looked into myself to admire the mirror It's a very thought-provoking poem. What the author is trying to convey is that, every day, even if you feel like you've woken up dead, stay alive until you get through it—and you will get through it. You should reach out. Thank you, Rusty, for that great message. Hughes Electorate: Club Heathcote 18 13:50 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I am pleased to report to the House that the Heathcote Services and Citizen Club, which operates as Club Heathcote, has been saved. This club first opened back in 1964, but, unfortunately, it went into voluntary administration in March this year. After attending the original creditors meeting and speaking to the administrator, I must admit that the future looked bleak, and there was great concern amongst the local community about whether the club would be able to survive. However, the great news is that refinancing arrangements have been agreed to by the creditor. This will allow the club to reopen in December this year. About 120 members gathered last week to support the plan and they elected a new board of directors. I'd like to congratulate Tim Brown, who was elected as the president, and Simone Pettit, who was elected as vice-president. This is great news for the local community. The new board plans to reinvigorate the club, starting with a community festival day on 9 December. There will be market stalls, food stalls, children's rides, boutique brewery tastings—which I am sure will bring in the crowds—and live entertainment, including local groups. I look forward to attending. I wish the new directors of the club all the best, and I congratulate those who worked on saving this club. Immigration Detention 18 13:51 Mr HART 263070 Bass There are occasions when you are reminded about the privilege that it is to serve in this place as a member or a senator—and, indeed, yesterday, on the occasion of the delivery of the apology, was one such day. But in my mind, there was one issue left unsaid, not discussed. This produced an opportunity for people to email and bring to the attention of members of parliament an issue that I think is vitally important—that is, the treatment of children who are presently on the island of Nauru. It's important that this parliament acts as soon as it can to give effect to the medical advice that is available to the minister to enable the repatriation of children who are suffering from psychological damage on Nauru. There is also an opportunity for members of our communities to take positive action. A small group in my electorate raised, in the course of an event on Saturday night, the amazing amount of $11,517 in order to assist the work of the Asylum Seeker Resource Network. I commend the efforts of that small group. New England Electorate: Decentralisation 18 13:53 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to use this time to talk about how important decentralisation is. One of the premier issues of decentralisation was the movement of jobs from Canberra to Armidale under the relocation of the APVMA. We now see construction of the long-term Armidale leased premises on Taylor Street on schedule for occupancy in mid-2019. The remaining walls in the basement have been installed and the slab has been poured for the ground floor. The lease of additional interim office space at 109 Jessie Street commenced on 1 August, with around 20 regulatory scientists operating from this premises. The Beardy Street interim office is reaching capacity. By mid-October, there'll be 48 staff based in Armidale. Further recruitment for scientific and corporate areas commenced in September, with 20 positions expected to be filled by the end of the year. A total of around 70 staff are expected to be located in Armidale by the end of the year. The APVMA expects that the new premises in Armidale will house the majority of the 150 APVMA staff by mid-2019. This is what decentralisation is about. It's something that we're proud to stand behind. And I do acknowledge the members on the other side, because it was the Labor Party that fought against decentralisation every step of the way. Every step of the way, the Labor Party fought against decentralisation. In fact, I think it remains part of their policy. If you want to remove the APVMA from Armidale, vote for the Labor Party. Morrison Government 19 13:55 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley One of the biggest unanswered questions of the past few months has been: why was Malcolm Turnbull removed as Prime Minister, and how did Prime Minister Morrison emerge as Australia's 30th Prime Minister? None of those opposite can give a straight answer to this simple question. I refer to published extracts from David Speers's new book, On Mutiny, which aims to give some answers on this chaotic and divided government, because we know there aren't any answers coming from those opposite. What it reveals is a deceitful, treacherous and toxic government hell-bent on plotting revenge and undermining to remove Prime Minister Turnbull, all the while forgetting about the Australian people. We know that Prime Minister Morrison began plotting his moves to replace Turnbull with what the book refers to as his 'two lieutenants'—the Special Minister of State and the head of 'parliamentary friends of payday lending', the Assistant Treasurer—to do his dirty work. They set out on a strategy to target colleagues with a view to installing the now Prime Minister in the top job. One paragraph says it all, about how our Prime Minister lurked in the background secretly plotting behind the back of the now former PM: Morrison parlayed his half a dozen votes into the prime ministership— said the member for Warringah— manoeuvring to bring on a spill and then harvest Turnbull votes to get the top job. This is a government that is divided, unstable and illegitimate and shows no signs of improving, led by a Prime Minister who secretly made moves to slide into the top job through the back door. (Time expired) Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program 19 13:56 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan One of the very special opportunities afforded to us as members and senators in this place is to join in the ADF Parliamentary Program. I'd like to stop there, because I notice there are quite a few soldiers here, I think— Mr Hastie 260805 From RMC. Mrs PRENTICE 217266 from RMC, according to my colleague the member for Canning, and I'd like to pay tribute to those servicemen and servicewomen and recognise them here in the chamber today. This year I had the wonderful opportunity to participate, with my colleague the member for Forrest, in the RIMPAC exercise. I just can't understand why they always give me that top bunk! But that's a whole other issue. I want particularly to put on record my appreciation to Commander Jonathan Earley and the crew of the Adelaide, who hosted us for several days and nights on board. These are very special events, and I encourage all my colleagues to participate in them. In the last week of September the tide changed, so to speak, and I had the pleasure of hosting Leading Aircraftwoman Melissa Flint from the Royal Australian Air Force. This exchange gives ADF members the opportunity to work alongside parliamentarians and develop a greater understanding of our work in this place. The significance of the Australian Defence Force has never been greater. These activities afford us the opportunity to get a small sample of their roles and experience, their contribution and, importantly, their points of view on the decisions we make in this place. I place on record my appreciation to all the servicemen and servicewomen involved in the ADFPP. Morrison Government 19 13:58 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Ever since the member for Cook became Prime Minister, he's tried to convince Australians that they need to move on, that there's nothing to see here, that he somehow pulled a Bradbury to become the leader. Well, Australians aren't buying it. They're still asking: why is Malcolm Turnbull no longer the Prime Minister? But we know why. We know this didn't come about by some miraculous turn of events that accidentally installed the bloke next door with the cap and the lapel pin. In September The Saturday Paper revealed that he replaced Malcolm Turnbull by ambition, doublecrossing and outfoxing, with the Minister for Home Affairs as an unwitting stooge. No wonder the Prime Minister refers to his own government as a muppet show. He played his own party like muppets, creating an illusion of support for the Minister for Home Affairs only to come from behind and pull the leadership rug from under his feet. It's like Game of Thrones but without all the good bits! Australians cannot trust this Prime Minister, because they cannot trust a man who denies that he has blood on his hands. They cannot trust a man who simply tells them to move on. They cannot trust a man who rewards treachery with cabinet positions and who lurches from one thought bubble to the next and calls that policy. They cannot trust a man who is immune to introspection and instead blames all and sundry for the demoralising defeat in Wentworth. It doesn't matter how many caps or how many lapel pins this Prime Minister wears; Australians will never get an answer to the question of why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Wentworth By-Election 20 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In July the government suffered a primary swing in Braddon of two per cent, and in Longman it was nine per cent. Then it deposed Malcolm Turnbull. But on the weekend the government suffered a 19 per cent swing in Wentworth. So, given the government's disastrous performance in Wentworth, why is Malcolm Turnbull gone but you're still here? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook People have suggested that Labor were running dead in the Wentworth by-election, but the real proof of that would have been if the Leader of the Opposition turned up in Wentworth. Then we would have really known that they were running dead in Wentworth, because that would have suppressed the vote even more. That would have absolutely tanked the vote. Now, it is true that around a third of the Liberal Party vote was lost in that Wentworth by-election. It is also true that a third of the Labor Party vote was lost in the Wentworth by-election and a third of the Greens vote was lost in that by-election. As I said on the weekend, I'm very, very happy to stand up as Leader of the Liberal Party and cop it on the chin for the anger that was expressed by Liberal voters in particular about the events of two months ago—and we said that; we were honest about that with our supporters and followers on the weekend. And we have committed to them that we will ensure that, as we continue to come together, unified as a party we will go forward and fight this Labor leader, who wants to put more than $200 billion worth of taxes on Australians, who wants to see a resurgence in militant unionism in this country, who wants to put their electricity prices up with reckless policies. We will fight this leader of the Labor Party all the way, until the bell rings, and we will be successful. National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 20 14:02 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the significance of yesterday's national apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse? How is the government acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to give practical meaning to this apology? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Calare for his question on this very important issue. I want to thank all those survivors who attended here yesterday, not just in this building but outside of this place, on the lawns, where we had the opportunity to meet them and listen to their stories, and when they came back into this parliament and the offices of members and recounted their stories. I want to thank all members of this chamber for the welcome that they provided to all of the survivors, and all Australians for their solidarity in standing by those survivors and their families. It was a very, very moving day. But an apology without action, as we said yesterday, is just a piece of paper, and the concrete action that is necessary is implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. One hundred and four of those 122 recommendations—the ones directed towards the Commonwealth—are being worked through, and the 18 further recommendations are being worked through with the states and territories. The National Redress Scheme has commenced. The National Office for Child Safety was stood up in July, and, as I said yesterday, it will report directly to me, not just to the Department of Social Services. I'll be assisted in that role not only by the Minister for Social Services but by the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, who has done an outstanding job in working with the advisory group and working towards the national apology yesterday, and I want to add my thanks to the assistant minister. The national database to ensure higher standards for child protection is underway, working with the states and territories. Survivors who are anxious about going into institutional aged care, as a result of their most horrific experiences when they were last in institutions, is an important issue that has been raised. It is one that we'll be working on closely with the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care but also looking to the royal commission into aged care that we have announced to be sensitive to that issue and the solutions that need to be made available. We are establishing the national centre for excellence to raise awareness and understanding of the impacts of child sexual abuse, and removing the stigma so the stories can be told and so the understanding can be generated. There is the national museum, which we announced support for, which will be working with survivors in particular so that the stories can be told and we will never again turn our backs on the shame that is rightfully sitting across our country, a stain on our country. That national museum will be a place for reflection, for learning, for understanding. I would add that it will draw on excellent proposals from the care leaders, who have a particular proposal relating to an old orphanage building. That is what inspired the idea for this museum, and I want to thank the CLAN representatives for bringing that forward. There were many people yesterday who I know felt they weren't recognised. If I can have indulgence on this one point, I want to recognise those in our defence forces who also suffered sexual abuse. I want to acknowledge them here today. I particularly want to thank the member for Dunkley for bringing that to my attention and, particularly in this place, acknowledge their suffering as well. 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I rise to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister. It was a very emotional day. As the Prime Minister and I discussed in the Great Hall, the level of emotion and hurt and all of the conflicting emotions was almost physical; you could almost feel it against your skin. We appreciate the attendance of all the survivors and victims and all those who came to hear the apology. That was a very big compliment that these people paid to this parliament, having been let down by people in power all their lives. To come here and trust us to apologise was, at the very least, remarkable. We acknowledge that too many people didn't survive or weren't able to be there yesterday. We also acknowledge that actions, not words, are what people want. We promise not to second-guess the royal commission; it's the best set of recommendations, the best set of proposals. Especially for those dying and very ill the moment, we need to do everything to speed up redress. Morrison Government 21 14:07 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I add my words of support in acknowledging what an important day yesterday was. My question is to the Prime Minister. On Sky News this morning, when asked why Malcolm Turnbull was no longer Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence Industry said it was 'because Malcolm Turnbull couldn't sell the government's message'. Is this why the government deposed Malcolm Turnbull and installed the advertising guy as Prime Minister? And given the government's disastrous performance on the weekend, how does he think the muppet show is going? 14:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The leader of the Labor Party and the deputy leader of the Labor Party seem completely obsessed with the bubble of politics in Canberra. This is where they reside on a daily basis. It's been eight weeks now, and all they can ask questions about is politics. But I will remind them once again of what we've been doing in the last eight weeks. We have concluded the negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement; established the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, keeping older Australians safe; toured the drought areas and announced the decision to reduce the red tape for truckies carting hay; increased the payments we've made available for Farm Household Allowance; started construction on Sydney's second airport, with 50 years of talk now over and the project underway; provided more choice for Australian parents, with more funding for non-government schools; moved quickly to establish tougher penalties for food tamperers; legislated a fairer and more sustainable way to distribute the GST; cut taxes for small and family businesses, accelerating those tax cuts to 25 per cent as those opposite had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it; and tackled farm labour shortages. We are ensuring that we're focused on the issues that Australians are. Today we have announced further measures to ensure that we will be taking the electricity prices of Australians down by putting in place measures that take the big energy companies to task, and putting in place a big stick—the price guarantees—to ensure Australians can pay less for their electricity, as opposed to paying more and more and more under Labor. There is no surprise that the Labor Party only want to talk about politics, because they have no plans for the future. They want Australians to pay more for everything: higher taxes, higher electricity bills, more for their private health insurance. These are the issues that Australians are focused on; these are the issues our government are focused on. The leader of the Labor Party is just another politician trapped in the Canberra bubble. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the member for Robertson, the member for Wakefield cannot display his book. Energy 21 14:10 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is acting to build a stronger economy so that Australian families earn more and live better? Is the Prime Minister aware of any threats posed by alternative proposals? 14:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Robertson for her question. We're doing this because we're taking action on reducing electricity prices by getting the big energy companies under control. They're the measures we've announced today. They're the measures that the 'minister for getting electricity prices down'—the member for Hume—and I have announced today: to provide a price safety net which will end the loyalty tax which big electricity companies have been putting on their loyal customers for doing nothing other than staying with the same company. Under the measures that we have announced today, the loyalty tax will go from electricity companies and the price safety net is underway and will be delivered to the Australian people. The big stick to ensure that electricity companies, the big electricity companies, are taken into line will be legislated, and the legislation will come into this parliament before the end of the year to ensure that they must pass on the savings they're seeing through the wholesale prices. The gouging must stop, and these powers will range from everything from enforceable undertakings to divestment powers against these big energy companies so they do the right thing. The big energy companies know that I don't bluff on this or anything else. We are bringing in those rules and we expect them to do the right thing by their customers and bring those electricity prices down. We're backing in investment in fair dinkum, real power generation—power generation on the East Coast that is needed to ensure that the lights stay on and we don't see the farce that we saw in South Australia, under Labor's failed energy policies, which switched off the lights. Under our policies, getting more reliable energy into the system is what is needed—extra generation, putting more competition into the market and delivering lower electricity prices. We are doing all of this while meeting the targets that we have set for ourselves. In a canter, we have smashed Kyoto 1; we will meet Kyoto 2 and we will meet the commitments that we have made out to 2030. But the Labor Party have another plan. The Labor Party have a plan to have an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent, which will put an increase in the cost on every power bill in this country greater than the carbon tax they legislated and they said they would never introduce when they were last in government. They have a plan for higher taxes, and that includes higher charges on electricity as a result of the reckless policies that they would pursue. Under Labor, you will pay more. You'll pay more in tax, you'll pay more for your electricity prices—more than $200 billion in higher taxes, which slows the economy, takes jobs away from Australians and ensures that they do not earn more, because they'll only be taxed more. Economy 22 14:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. A week before the Wentworth by-election, the Prime Minister warned that a hung parliament would cause— Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McMahon will pause for a second. The Leader of the House will not interject. I'm not going to keep doing this every day. The member for McMahon can begin his question again. Mr BOWEN DZS Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. A week before the Wentworth by-election, the Prime Minister warned that a hung parliament would cause 'uncertainty in our economy'. Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement? If not, why does the Prime Minister always say one thing before an election and something completely different after the election? 14:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The shadow Treasurer may not be aware that, following the weekend's results, the ANZ consumer confidence index actually fell over the course of the weekend. The ANZ economists attributed that result to the uncertainty that resulted from the election result on the weekend. On comments I made last week, I simply observe that the outcome and the uncertainty of the election on the weekend did produce the result that I indicated it would. That said, in the government that we have been part of, and particularly over the last eight weeks, we have effectively been in the position of a minority government ever since that time. In that time, we have worked constructively with those on the crossbench to deal with legislation and to get measures through. We have passed small business tax cuts. We have passed important legislation to protect our strawberry farmers. We have passed legislation every single day we have been in here, and we have been getting on with the job of government. We will continue to do that. The business as usual of our government, of getting things done, will continue. That business as usual means more jobs, it means lower taxes, it means lower electricity prices, it means ensuring that we pay for affordable medicines, it means retaining our AAA credit rating and it means a stronger economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on. That's what we're getting on with. The leader of the Labor Party is stuck in the Canberra bubble. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Order, members on both sides! Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Diabetes 23 14:16 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy Minister for Health, data just revealed showed that in the Cape York, Torres Strait and Gulf of Carpentaria region there were 72 deaths in four years attributable to diabetes. Since advanced diabetes cases moved to the coast and since malnutrition causes diabetes and other terminal illnesses, you would agree that each year 60 people are dying who simply don't have to die. Will you reverse government decisions that closed the mission market gardens, banned the Islanders' backyard fruit and vegetables and de facto abolished dinghy fishing? 14:17 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Kennedy for his important and wide-ranging question. I was only today discussing the issue of Indigenous diabetes with his neighbour and my very good friend, the member for Leichhardt, who shares an equal passion on this topic and on this issue. We know that Indigenous diabetes incidence for over 18s is about 11 per cent, about triple the national average. For the 10- to 14-year-olds, it's at eight times the national average. The points that he makes are fundamentally correct and significant. In terms of what we're doing, specifically for Indigenous communities, we're allocating about $207 million to the Integrated Team Care Program for Indigenous Australians, with a very specific focus on diabetes treatment and diagnosis and ensuring that people have the best long-term pathway. The other thing we have is a $67 million program for chronic disease within Indigenous communities, which has the capacity to do much more on country rather than, as the member says, just on the coast. There's a very significant pathway to expand and to extend that program onto Indigenous land and to the actual communities themselves. In addition to that, at the broader national level, which can apply very specifically to Indigenous communities, the National Diabetes Services Scheme is an over $200 million program this year alone. We have also just extended continuous glucose monitoring by $54 million. All of those things come together. But I think we can do more for Indigenous diabetes in terms of both prevention and treatment. In terms of prevention, I want to invite the member to work with me, Indigenous communities and other members in this House who represent large Indigenous communities on that work. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kennedy, on a point of order? Mr Katter HX4 I asked about fresh fruit and vegetables. I have great respect for the minister; but I really would like him to focus on the problem, which is fresh fruit and vegetables. Mr HUNT 00AMV In terms of the preventive agenda, part of that is what people eat. I note that the member mentions the mission gardens. My understanding is that it was a Queensland government decision to abolish those mission gardens. But I will write today to the Premier of Queensland to ask her to reverse that decision of the Queensland government; I will write today, and I will share a copy with the member. In relation to other matters: we will work together to encourage more home-grown produce, and, as to any barriers, we will deal with those. I'm not aware that there was any federal government decision in relation to that, but I'm always happy to examine it. In relation to dinghy fishing: again, I'm not aware of any ban. That would fall squarely within my colleague the Minister for Agriculture's area, and I will make a representation to him the moment I sit down next to him. Taxation 23 14:20 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's strong economic management is reducing the tax burden on retirees, families and small businesses so they can earn more and live better? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:20 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for his question. He's a great champion for the people of Bennelong, having dispatched with Senator Keneally in straight sets! And we remember that fondly. The people of Bennelong are benefiting greatly from a strong economy—an economy that is growing by 3.4 per cent through the year; an economy that has seen more than one million new jobs being created, where, last week, we saw unemployment fall to five per cent, the lowest level in six years; an economy with a AAA credit rating from all three agencies; an economy where the budget is coming back to balance a year earlier than expected, with the smallest deficit in a decade. And today, we welcome the Labor Party following our lead in supporting reform to the GST, because the people of Western Australia and, indeed, all states and territories will be better off as a result of our reform. So we thank the Labor Party for belatedly coming to the table. But the biggest risk to the Australian economy comes from a Labor Party that is determined to see Australians earn less and pay more, because we have a deputy leader for whom aspiration is a mystery, and we have a Leader of the Opposition who wants to run the Australian economy like a union, and to give the CFMEU a seat at the top table, in cabinet. And the member for Lilley, the incoming President of the Labor Party, wants to tear down neo-liberalism. But the problem for the member for Lilley is: those who know him best, like the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said he could never mount a logical argument. So there are major problems on that side. But the biggest problem is going to be the $200 billion of new taxes—increasing the taxes on your income; increasing taxes on your property, with changes to negative gearing and capital gains; increasing taxes on family businesses, with the changes to trusts; increasing taxes on your electricity. But the most punitive change of all is the retirees tax. In the member for Bennelong's seat, there are more than 8,000 people who have excess franking credits, who will pay more as a result of Labor's policy. In the member for Jagajaga's seat, there are 7,900 who will be worse off. In the member for Hindmarsh's seat, there are 7,200 who'll be worse off. In the member for Newcastle's seat, in the member for Bendigo's seat, in the member for Eden-Monaro's seat, there'll be 7,000 people who will be worse off. Only under the coalition will— (Time expired) Turnbull, Mr Malcolm 24 14:24 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that he's asked Malcolm Turnbull to come out of retirement to represent the Australian government at an international summit on oceans this week? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. Mr Turnbull will lead the Australian delegation at the next Our Ocean conference in Bali, on 29 to 30 October 2018. He was personally invited to attend that, originally, by the Indonesian President. It was a subject of our discussions when I met with the Indonesian President, President Widodo, and I was unable to follow through on that invitation. So, to ensure that we had very senior level representation, which was well received by the President of Indonesia, I did request the former Prime Minister to represent us at that conference, and he will be there representing the policies of our government. In that capacity, I think he presents a very serious, a very senior and a duly recognised status of our relationship with Indonesia. I know that his attendance at that summit will be well recognised and appreciated by President Widodo, and I thank him for representing Australia on that occasion. Economy, Energy 24 14:25 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how a stronger economy is supporting rural and regional Australia and putting downward pressure on power prices? What are the risks for rural and regional Australia from alternative proposals? 14:26 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Lyne for his question. As we all know on this side, a strong economy helps us invest in what is important—not those inside-the-Canberra-bubble games that those opposite ask about and those games that they play but what's important. We on this side of the House know what's important. It helps us put downward pressure on power prices. It helps us put the big stick of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission onto ensuring that Australians have a default power price so we can help power prices come down—a default price, more investment in the sector and indeed divestiture powers, affordability and reliability in the sector. Those opposite stand for 45 per cent emissions. They stand for 50 per cent renewables. They stand for smashing manufacturing, for smashing farmers, for smashing families, for making sure that, every time people flick the switch—well, not every time, because we saw the great South Australian experiment when South Australians turned on the switch and, quite frankly, the power didn't come on. But we're taking action. We're getting people's power bills down. At the moment, people worry about getting the bill. They certainly worry about getting the bill—they do. We know that small business, families and farmers need confidence, and we're working to deliver just that. We're doing that by running a strong economy. We're doing that by supporting small business. We're doing that by supporting those people who help create jobs, those small, family and medium enterprises and big business too, because they have helped create a million jobs in five years. We said we'd do that. We said we'd get the economic parameters right, and we did, and business responded by employing people, a million Australians. And we're helping by taking a practical approach to energy, certainly in regional Australia and certainly for farmers such as dairy farmers. The member who asked the question, the member for Lyne, knows how important dairy farmers are to agriculture. When agriculture is strong, so too is regional Australia. When regional Australia is strong, so too is our nation. Taking action on power prices also helps our farmers and our small businesses—businesses such as Valley Industries in Taree, in the member for Lyne's electorate. It's a non-profit organisation. It has several businesses in the Manning Valley, including a commercial laundry. It has 350 local employees, many of whom have a disability, and they rely on that particular business. They enjoy going to work. They look forward to it, and they're doing a power of good for their local community and indeed the local economy and through it the nation. It's providing tremendous opportunities for those locally. But a commercial laundry requires a lot of power, and at the moment that costs a lot of money. So we're going to make it easier for them. We are making it easier for them, and certainly all our policies will continue to do that in the future. But what does Labor stand for? Well, more taxes—on your property, on your income, on your business, on your savings and on your electricity bill. That's right. Liberal Party Leadership 25 14:29 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time, the Prime Minister told the House, and I quote: I came to this position of leadership not seeking it, in support of the previous Prime Minister. Does he stand by that answer, given that the member for Warringah has told journalist David Speers that the now Prime Minister 'parlayed his half-a-dozen votes into the prime ministership, manoeuvring to bring on the spill and to then harvest Turnbull votes to get the top job'? Is the reason why the Prime Minister won't explain why Malcolm Turnbull was deposed that he was up to his neck in it? (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister is not responsible for the comments of any other member in this parliament, including the member for Warringah. It's not within his responsibilities. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW The question begins by quoting what the Prime Minister said in question time. The information that was provided later in the question goes to contradict that directly, and we're asking whether he stands by it. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I'm going to refer members to my earlier rulings and to a very similar question. It offends another part of my earlier ruling—and it's a regret that it's the member for Isaacs again, I have to say—that is, that the majority of the question was out of order. I've made that point very clear. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the comments of other members who aren't ministers. And, as I've said, I'm not simply going to allow a tagline just with a reference to open it up to any sort of question and any sort of dialogue that is out of order. The majority of that question is out of order, and I think anyone drafting it would have known it. I'll hear the Manager of Opposition Business again. Mr Burke DYW Given that the Prime Minister made the comment that we referred to at the beginning of the question, 'I came to this position of leadership not seeking it,' how can we test whether he stands by that without putting quotations that directly contradict it to it him? The SPEAKER 00APG I think you can think about that while we go to the next question and see if you can frame it better. Energy 25 14:31 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how our government's plan for affordable, reliable power is helping to drive down energy prices? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that could drive up power prices for families and small businesses? 14:31 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. He fights every day for the families and small businesses in his electorate, and they are families and small businesses, like all families and small businesses around Australia, who will benefit from this government's plan for reliable, affordable electricity—a plan announced by the Prime Minister this morning. Our plan is focused on reducing prices while we keep the lights on, and that means stopping the price gouging by the big energy companies. It means setting a fair price safety net, to be in place by 1 July with a down payment by 1 January. It means backing new investment in reliable generation with a shortlist of projects by early next year. And it requires energy companies to invest in fair dinkum reliable generation at least three years ahead to meet customer needs, and that will be in place by 1 July next year. For too long, customers have taken a back seat to corporate greed and dodgy market practices. Well, we're banning the sneaky late payments. We're getting rid of the loyalty tax. In South-East Queensland, in the member's electorate, households can save $370 or more by shopping around. That's why the price safety net is so important. But not everybody has the time to shop around, so we need this important reform for every customer in the market. Later this year, we'll introduce a big-stick legislative package into this parliament, and that will include divestment and other powers for the Treasurer and for the ACCC. The member asked about an alternative. There is an alternative, because we have seen it before. The plan of those opposite is a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and a 50 per cent RET, and it will require a huge tax on every energy consumer, greater than their previous carbon tax. It will drive up prices, just like in Labor's experiment in South Australia, as I saw last week when I was in Blackwood in South Australia with the member for Boothby, where we saw amongst the highest electricity prices in the world and the highest electricity prices in Australia—an experiment from a Labor government. Those opposite just don't get it. Labor is busy second-guessing technologies decades from now. We are focused on getting prices down. Liberal Party Leadership 26 14:34 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. Journalist David Speers has revealed the now-Prime Minister's numbers men, who were recently rewarded with promotions to Assistant Treasurer and Special Minister of State, conspired to depose Malcolm Turnbull. Given this revelation, how can the Prime Minister stand by his previous statement in question time that he didn't seek to become Prime Minister? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, other people's speculation, hypotheticals and imputations are not the responsibilities of the Prime Minister, and therefore he's not responsible for answering what either a journalist or a member of parliament says is their particular opinion about events of the past. These are not matters within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Mr Burke DYW To the point of order: the Prime Minister chose to put on the record in this House that he believes he has clean hands. If there's evidence challenging his statement, we should be allowed to ask about it. Mr Shorten interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition is not assisting. Again, I think that question— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield, I don't know what you said, but it rarely matters. You can leave under 94(a). Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Yeah, you leave. I just remind him that the hour is a minimum. He can stay out longer if he wishes. The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I still think that question does offend the point I've made about introducing a whole range of material. I'm not going to write the questions for the opposition but, clearly, if a question is tighter, it's got a much greater chance of being in order. Economy 26 14:37 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government is helping to support small and family businesses so they earn more and live better? What risks do alternative approaches pose to this vital part of Australia's economy? 14:37 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. Like everybody else on this side, he is backing small and family-sized businesses, because he, like everybody on this side, supports tax cuts for those small and family-sized businesses, including the 31,000 small and family businesses in his electorate and the more than three million small businesses right across this country. We know how important these businesses are to our national economy, as the member rightly notes. We know it because we know that these small businesses create, once every 100 seconds in this country, an opportunity for themselves and for the many people that they employ. There are so many people putting their energy, their capital and their hard work into creating their own economic opportunity. But I am sad to say to the member for North Sydney that they do face threats. They face threats from those opposite, because those opposite see small and family-sized businesses, including the seven million people that they employ, as second-class citizens in this country. If it is a choice between militant union bosses and small and family-sized businesses, they will choose militant union bosses every time. If it's a choice between John Setka and a small-business person, they will choose John Setka every time. And they will back the ACTU and John Setka's plan to rip up the rules when it comes to workplaces right across this country—which, of course, will have devastating consequences. We saw it in December last year, when there were illegal blockades of the Victoria International Container Terminal. We saw these militant union bosses stop exports like fruit and milk products—straight from our nation's hardworking farmers. We saw them have this produce left rotting on the containers and on the shores. And, today, we have seen militant union bosses shut down our nation's cities. According to the industry groups who have done calculations on this, this will be a loss to productivity of around $250 million. Those opposite, of course, will cheer them on every step of the way, because they want industrial sector-wide action and industry pattern bargaining to become the new norm. They are anti-small-business. They will shut down our ports, leaving small businesses without the stock that they need for Christmas. They will let the unions shut down construction sites, delaying the delivery of a billion dollars of infrastructure projects, and they will shut down our schools if they are given a chance. Those opposite would have the law-breakers become the lawmakers, and we would all pay a heavy price for that. Liberal Party Leadership 27 14:40 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the evidence that his key supporters conspired to depose Malcolm Turnbull, how can the Prime Minister stand by his statement to the House: 'I came to this position of leadership not seeking it in support of the previous Prime Minister'? 14:41 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I absolutely stand by my comments in this House, and I'm not going to take a lecture from a Leader of the Labor Party who cut down two Prime Ministers. One was here yesterday; the other one was here today. He cut down two. There's no dispute about that. I've supported Prime Ministers in this place. That's my record. What I have noticed about the Labor Party today as they have obsessed about politics and what we see in their smirks, in their sneers, in their jeers and in the swagger that we also see from militant unions is a cockiness that has crept into this Leader of the Labor Party—an arrogance and a smarminess which has crept into this Leader of the Labor Party. This Leader of the Labor Party thinks he's already there. They all think they're already there, from the weeping member for Rankin to all of them here. They know that they should not be treating the Australian people with such contempt in the way they behave in this place with their sneering, their jeering and their swaggering. You know what happens when the Labor Party get more cocky? The unions get more cocky. The cockier the Labor Party get, the cockier the unions get, and that's what we're seeing on the streets of Melbourne today. That's what we'll see around the country if this Leader of the Labor Party gets to run this country like a union like he said he would. Our government is about ensuring a stronger economy and an even stronger Australia that can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. What we're focused on is lower electricity prices. What we're focused on is lower taxes, and we're delivering lower taxes. We're backing small and family businesses. That's our record. We're focused on issues like the drought, and this Friday we're coming together as a nation to ensure that we are focused on a coordinated response to the drought and to ensure that we don't just provide the relief—that we provide the recovery and we provide the resilience for the future. That's what our government is focused on. This cocky, swaggering Leader of the Labor Party thinks he's already got his hands on the prize, and that's all he's ever wanted. National Security 27 14:43 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he would update the House on the importance of robust border protection measures for Australia? And, secondly, is he aware of any different ideas that would undermine those measures? 14:44 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to inform the House, and this is based on advice from our Operation Sovereign Borders agency heads, that the threat of people smuggling has certainly not gone away. There are ventures that we know of at the moment that are attempted at being put together in Indonesia and elsewhere. We're worried about activity and intelligence coming out from certain parts of the region. We're seeing what is happening in the Mediterranean, where already something like 2,000 people have drowned at sea this year. The resolve of the government in relation to keeping our borders secure has not diminished and will not diminish. We know that we had a big mess to clean up when Labor left office. There were 8,000 children that they had put into detention, and 50,000 people had arrived on 800 boats. Tragically, in our own region, 1,200 people drowned at sea. I have not had a drowning at sea since my time in the portfolio. We have got all of the children out of detention in Australia, and we have removed 11,150 people from Manus and Nauru. We're down to 52 children on Nauru. We want to get it to zero, but we have to be sensible about the way that we do it. I know that the Labor Party has written to the government in the last 24 hours. This is their second position in just two weeks. Like they did when Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard were in charge of the Labor Party, they are in panic mode in relation to border protection policy right now. The letter goes along these lines: 'Labor asks that you consider the following amendments to the legislation: guaranteed acceptance of New Zealand's offer and the removal of all children and their families from Nauru to New Zealand.' Let me say this: there are 13 children on Nauru at the moment who are involved in family groups—they are adults, mostly males within that family unit—that are the subject of adverse security assessments from the United States. The first question is: is New Zealand going to take those people when the United States has advised that that person, that individual in the family unit, is a risk to national security? Is the Labor Party suggesting that Australia should take those males and bring them to our country? Is that what they are suggesting? Are they suggesting that we should separate the children from the parents, leaving the parents in Nauru but bringing the children here? The government is dealing with this. We are getting children off Manus. We have done all of that. We have got all of the children that Labor put on Manus off Manus. We have got many of the children off Nauru that Labor put on Nauru, but we are not doing it in a way that would see boats restart. If they had a boat arrive tomorrow, it's the policy of the Labor Party that every one of those children would go to Nauru. (Time expired) Minister for the Environment 28 14:47 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Last week the minister managed to insult all of Australia's Pacific neighbours at the same time as twice misleading the parliament. Does this minister take any responsibility for her stumbles and for the role she played in the government's devastating performance on the weekend? The SPEAKER 00APG That question is just in order. 14:47 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I thank the member for Cowan for her question. As I said in the House last week and as I have repeated numerous times, I did not mislead the parliament. I did not— Opposition members interjecting— Ms PRICE 249308 I am asked a question. I am now responding to the member for Cowan. I did not mislead parliament. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. Ms PRICE 249308 The way the conversation was reported in media was inaccurate. It was inaccurate. But the question you have to ask yourself is why does the Labor Party continue with this line of questioning? Why do they do that? It is because it is a distraction. You know that we on this side have actually got the economy going. You know that Australians are watching us and they know that we have everything under control from an economy perspective. We have heard from the Treasurer today. We know about all the fabulous things that are going in our economy. Mr Frydenberg FKL Hear, hear. Ms PRICE 249308 That's right. That's so good. What have we got? We know that, since 2013, we have created one million jobs. That's something to celebrate. Australians also know that we have the unemployment rate down to five per cent. They are pretty happy about that too. They know that we're looking after the small- to medium-sized businesses and we have cut their taxes. They also know that we've now got a very sensible GST solution. I would have thought the member for Cowan would be cheering that on for Western Australia. I'm pretty happy about that. Are you happy about that? Mr Frydenberg interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer will cease interjecting. Ms PRICE 249308 More importantly, the Australian public know that we care about how much money they've got in their pocket. They know that if this lot ever get to sit over here, they'll take every cent. Immigration Detention 28 14:49 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the real status of the people on Nauru who are subject to regional processing arrangements? And how's the government managing this issue? And is the government and the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:50 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I thank the member for her question. I can confirm to the House there are currently 635 people on Nauru and the total number of children is 52. Transferees on Nauru have the same freedom of movement around Nauru as other local Nauruans. They are not in detention. Transfers to the United States under the resettlement agreement continue. Further transfers are expected in the coming months and, to date, 439 people have been resettled by this government from Manus and Nauru to the United States, including 17 who departed this week. There are 65 health professionals contracted by the Australian government to provide health services on Nauru, including 33 mental health professionals. These services are available seven days a week and after hours. More than 200 children have been transferred from Nauru to other nations for medical reasons. Decisions about medical transfers are made on a case-by-case basis under the guidance of a Commonwealth medical officer. We do not issue press releases or make public announcements about these transfers. The reason these people are on Nauru is the catastrophic failure of the Labor Party, because it is the policies of the Labor Party—the extraordinary and catastrophic humanitarian disaster that was wrought by the Labor Party—that led to people being in offshore resettlement. We know that people-smugglers haven't gone away. We know that this is a very, very dangerous group of people who are itching to get back into business. Under Labor— Dr Freelander 265979 This is about children! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Macarthur is warned! Mr COLEMAN 241067 50,000 people arrived— Dr Freelander interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. The member for Macarthur will cease interjecting. The minister has the call. Mr COLEMAN 241067 Thank you, Mr Speaker. Fifty thousand people arrived illegally. It is estimated that 1,200 people drowned and, of course, that number includes children. Eight thousand people were placed in detention by those opposite. When we came to government, there were 2,000 children in detention. We got them all out. Those opposite opened 17 detention centres. They opened Curtin immigration centre, they opened Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre, they opened the Scherger Immigration Detention Centre, they opened Wickham Point Immigration Detention Centre, and, of course, they opened the Christmas Island immigration detention centre because of the catastrophic failure of their policies. What we have done? We closed the Curtin immigration centre, we closed the Scherger immigration centre, we closed the Northern Immigration Detention Centre, we closed the Wickham Point Immigration Detention Centre. Do you know what we did just a couple of weeks ago, Mr Speaker? We closed the Christmas Island detention centre, and we did that because this Prime Minister and this Minister for Home Affairs stopped the boats, which allowed us to get people out of detention. The record of those opposite is an appalling stain. We'll never repeat it. We will never allow people-smugglers to get back into business. Climate Change 29 14:53 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. The member for North Sydney has said: The challenge the government faces is that following the demise of the National Energy Guarantee, there is a strong feeling that we don't have a climate change plan. But the member for Hughes said: To suggest that more people would have voted for Dave Sharma if we had passed some version of the NEG is a fantasy/ Who's right when it comes to this government's policy on the National Energy Guarantee? 14:53 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Our government will continue to pursue the plans that ensured that we met Kyoto 1, that we will meet Kyoto 2 and that we will meet our commitments in 2030 and the targets that were set throughout the adoption of that policy some years ago—ARENA, the CFC, Snowy 2.0, the small- and large-scale RET, the Emissions Reduction Fund, which continues to be under review in terms of future support. But, most of all, what we understand on this side of the House is that common sense and technology are also driving Australia to a lower emissions outcome. That is what will enable us to achieve those outcomes into the future, not by jacking up people's power prices, as those opposite wish to do, with reckless targets which will see a burden placed on households, on pensioners and on small businesses of greater than the carbon tax they inflicted when they were last in government. Our policies are about reducing electricity prices. Our policies are achieving the emissions reduction targets, which has given us the lowest emissions per capita in 28 years. So we're getting on with the job. We're focusing on the issues that matter equally to Australians—getting their electricity prices down and meeting our obligations to the environment. What are we getting from the Labor Party? Questions about gossip in restaurants. That's what they've been reduced to as on opposition. It doesn't get more 'in the bubble' than that. Taxation 30 14:55 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how the government is protecting retirees and low-income earners so they can earn more and live better? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach that would hurt self-reliant Australian retirees? 14:55 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Grey for his ongoing interest in this area. When we were down at Eucla meeting with senior Australians, they raised a common issue. Their common issue was about what the opposition are planning to do to their retirement savings and their franking credits. What they wanted to know was how they save for their future if the opposition, when it comes to government, will take money from them and dip their hands into their pockets. We're protecting self-funded retirees and senior Australians by carefully planning the economy. By managing the economy we are building the capacity to provide services and support to Australians across a range of government services. People who have worked hard all their lives do not deserve to have their hard-earned funds ripped from their pockets. A vote for Labor is a vote for Labor's plan to raise taxes and raid retirement incomes. Do not support Labor's policy to deny refundability of franking credits. Senior Australians say they have relied on those for some of the little things that happen during the year—the replacements, the refurbishments, the holidays. Is that what you want to take from them? That's what their living is based on. This will negatively impact on 900,000 Australians, including retirees and other low-income earners—people who have planned for their future after having worked a long life contributing to their needs for the future. Under Labor's unfair retiree tax 84 per cent of individuals on taxable incomes of less than $37,000 will be impacted—and 40 per cent of individuals impacted are 65 years or older. So you're wanting to hit those who are vulnerable, those whose planning and life has been based on their hard work and contribution. In addition, 40 per cent of all self-managed superannuation fund members' accounts will lose their refunds. Labor's policies allow those on higher incomes to use up all of their franking credits but denies those on lower incomes the ability to do the same. Almost 60,000 self-funded Australian retirees who are not yet old enough to receive the age pension would be hit by Labor's retiree tax. The Leader of the Opposition wants to slug Australians with more than $150 billion in higher taxes. He wants to increase taxes on your pay packet, on your home, on your electricity, on small businesses and on your investment and savings that you have put away to look after yourself in older life. Energy 30 14:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that a year ago he said: 'Evidence based policy is the National Energy Guarantee. It means lower prices, more reliable energy and we meet our obligations to the environment. I mean, why wouldn't you want that, Bill Shorten?' Well, I still want that and the Prime Minister used to want that. So why is the Prime Minister now walking away from the National Energy Guarantee he backed last year? 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The government's energy policies are about bringing down electricity prices. The key component of what we announced today was the reliability guarantee, which forces big energy companies to contract reliable energy supply into the market, which keeps power prices down and keeps the lights on. That's what our policies are focused on. It's about taking the big companies to task on energy and electricity to make sure they do the right thing and to ensure that the big stick of legislation is there to ensure that those companies do the right thing. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L Those opposite jeer and sneer when it comes to the government taking a big stick to electricity companies. They don't share our view that electricity companies need to be taken to task. By the end of this year, they will have the opportunity to vote for our legislation. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. Mr Shorten 00ATG Yes, on direct relevance. My question was: the Prime Minister last year supported the National Energy Guarantee; what happened? The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L What we know of the alternative to what we're doing to get electricity prices down is what the Labor Party will do, which is to have an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent. What did Ben Davis, secretary of Bill Shorten's branch of the AWU, say? The SPEAKER 00APG Order! Mr MORRISON E3L Sorry; I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER 00APG Just refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title. Mr MORRISON E3L The secretary of the leader of the Labor Party's union, the AWU, Ben Davis, said: The rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity stations is a little unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers. That's what Labor's policy is about. The Business Council says: The emissions target of 26% is appropriate and achievable. 45%— that's Labor's target— is an economy wrecking target. The National Farmers' Federation has expressed concern over the Australian Labor Party's proposed target of a 45 per cent emissions reduction, saying that it would hinder agricultural competitiveness and economic growth. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: Labor's newly announced proposal to double cuts to emissions to 45 per cent by 2030 with a long-term target of net zero emissions by 2050 was not backed by a credible plan that protects economic growth. But we know who the leader of the Labor Party is listening to. He is listening to the Labor Environment Action Network, because they said this: High prices are not a market failure. They are proof of the market working well. That's what we know about the Labor Party. If you elect the Labor Party at the next election, you will pay more for everything—your electricity, your taxes and your private health insurance—because they are their policies. Under the Liberal Party and the National Party, you'll pay less, your economy will be stronger, there'll be more jobs, and your wages will be better. Health 31 15:02 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a strong economy allows the government to make medicines and private health insurance affordable? How would different approaches jeopardise this commitment to a healthy Australia? 15:03 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Forrest for her question. She's been a great advocate for better access to medicines such as Orkambi for cystic fibrosis, as well as for better longer-term health studies in her own region. Recently, I was privileged to announce with her an extra $1.5 million to extend the Busselton Health Study, which has been running for over 50 years—the longest-running health study that I'm aware of in Australia. The member for Forrest knows that we can only do things such as this if there's a strong economy. She knows this because, when the Labor Party were last in government, they stopped listing medicines. When the current leader of the Labor Party—who wants to be Prime Minister of Australia—was the Assistant Treasurer of Australia, they 'deferred the listing of some medicines until fiscal circumstances permit'. That's the person who wants to be Prime Minister, who was the Assistant Treasurer who stopped the listing because he couldn't afford it because they couldn't take care of the economy. By comparison, we have listed over 1,900 new or amended medicines on the PBS, including Olumiant, a medicine for rheumatoid arthritis, for people with agonising or potentially crippling conditions. What this medicine does is: it uses the immune system to assist in overcoming this extraordinary condition. So that's $16½ thousand a year of savings, and 22,000 Australian patients will benefit from that $16½ thousand a year. So that's what you can do when you have a strong economy. It's also what we've done in terms of making sure that private health insurance is available and affordable for Australians, with the lowest change in premiums in 17 years—lower than any year when Labor was last in government. But what is interesting is that, as we bring about these reforms—greater access to mental health services, discounts for young people and greater access for people in rural and regional Australia—you look across the table and you think, 'Well, who was in charge of private health, and what was their attitude at the time?' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the health minister. And what did she say about her time? 'Every promise I made, I paid for,' she said, when she was health minister, and: How did I pay for it? I paid for it by targeting private health insurance … So you have the Leader of the Opposition, who stopped listing medicines, and you have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who took an axe to private health insurance. And their plan right now is to drive up premiums by ripping away the rebate from senior Australians—a 16 per cent hit. So, at the end of the day, we'll protect the health of this nation, we'll protect the health of the economy, and they'll take an axe to it. (Time expired) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 32 15:06 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the minister confirm that he in fact took a year to list hepatitis C drugs, two years to list whooping cough vaccine and five years to list a lung cancer drug, and that the health department's own annual report shows that one in eight medicines are not listed within the government's own time frame of six months? How can this government boast about PBS listings when it has, in fact, itself been delaying life-assisting drugs? The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Health. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr Sukkar interjecting— Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Deakin! The member for Goldstein! The minister has the call. 15:07 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Well, if Kerry Packer got one Alan Bond, I get one member for Ballarort! The member for Ballarort—sorry; a Freudian slip; I apologise. The member for Ballarat—'rat'. The SPEAKER 00APG No, sorry. The minister— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left— Mr HUNT 00AMV The member for Ballarat— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the minister doesn't have the call. He's on mute outside this chamber at the moment. The minister will withdraw. Mr HUNT 00AMV I withdraw. Our commitment is to list every medicine that the PBAC recommends, that the medical experts recommend, and that's what we're doing. I note something very interesting. In terms of the lung cancer medicine to which Labor refers, Labor opposed it. They attacked the listing of this medicine, Giotrif—they criticised it; they derided it. And yet we listed it. We went ahead and listed it because it was the right thing to do. That is the difference between us: even when they seek to criticise, they cannot do it properly. So let me give you some examples of what we have done. In relation to Keytruda, we've extended; in relation to Opdivo, we've extended. And we have more coming in relation to the immunotherapies. Furthermore, let me look at Spinraza, which the Prime Minister helped bring forward. So we are listing medicines at a faster rate, at a— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat on a point of order? Ms Catherine King 00AMR On direct relevance: I actually asked about the delays that you have had in listings. Your own government's and department's annual report shows that you have a delay in one in eight medicines. Mr HUNT 00AMV In fact, what we have done is: we have moved medicines forward at a faster rate than was the case under the previous government. Most significantly, let me give you the examples of Spinraza and Orkambi. Spinraza, for spinal muscular atrophy, was listed within weeks of the PBAC approving it. Why did that happen? That happened because of this Prime Minister, who, in his previous role as Treasurer, worked very closely with me, the health department and others, to ensure that we brought forward a life-saving medicine which would otherwise have been over $300,000 per year. In addition to that, Orkambi, again, was listed within weeks of the PBAC announcing it, but with immediate compassionate access. So what we are doing now, on our watch, in our time, is ensuring that not only are all of the medicines of the PBAC listed—and it's a sore and sensitive point, because they have been caught out, and the people who now want to be the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia were the ones who deferred the listings of medicines when they were in government and took an axe to private health insurance, so we know they are hurting. But, more than that, we'll continue to do this, and we'll take pride in doing this, because it is one of the most important and significant things that we will do on our watch, in our time: fix up the mess that they made last time because they couldn't manage the economy. And, if you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is seeking to table a document. Ms Catherine King 00AMR I seek leave to table a document that shows the delays in listing that have happened under this government: two years for whooping cough. The SPEAKER 00APG Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. Drought 33 15:10 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to support our farmers through the drought, including by implementing new initiatives to ensure farmers can access the essential services they require conveniently and quickly? 15:11 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Can I thank the member for Murray for his question, and I also acknowledge that he is passionate about helping people in his electorate who have been affected by the drought. He knows that this government will continue to do all that we can to assist drought affected farmers in particular, all across Australia. In the absence of rain, we must do all we can to keep rural towns alive and to help farmers through what is a very difficult time. As a result of the commitments already made by this government, the amount of direct assistance and concessional loans to aid drought stricken farmers is increasing to $1.8 billion. Through my own department, the Department of Human Services, we're increasing support to farmers on the ground when and where they need it by nearly doubling the amount of staff processing farm household allowance claims, which means that people will get timely decisions when they need assistance. We're also opening the doors of our service centres for longer, which will also assist farmers. Last weekend, the Bathurst, Bundaberg and Kingaroy service centres, in the electorates of Calare, Hinkler and Maranoa, opened their doors on Saturday to provide extra support to farmers in these severely drought affected regions. This weekend, the Shepparton service centre, in the electorate of Murray, will open on Saturday as well. Specialist staff from my department will be on hand to provide farmers with personalised assistance to complete their farm household allowance claim forms and connect them with other services that they might be eligible to access. We know that support at convenient times is essential to farmers who are struggling. We're providing specialised farm household case officers and a rural financial counsellor who will be able to offer free financial counselling and business advice to anyone who needs it. It's absolutely vital that farmers have a strong understanding of the assistance that is available to them and, given that farmers often have complicated financial affairs, that we do what we can to help them through the process. We've recently simplified and improved the farm household allowance to make it easier for people to apply. We've cut the size of the form by a third, making it five pages shorter. We've also enabled online application through myGov, which allows people to keep in touch with my department and upload forms and important documents without the need to call into a service centre or to phone one of our call centres. Our government has been able to deliver these things due to prudent economic management, and we will continue to do all that we can to assist our farmers in drought affected areas. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Presentation 33 15:14 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. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 33 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Questions in Writing 33 15:14 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), may I request that you write to the Prime Minister to seek the reason for the delay in answering question No. 1054, and may I also request that you write to the Attorney-General to seek the reason for the delay in answering question No. 1007. 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Mayo. I will so write this afternoon. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 34 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Payday Loans 34 15:14 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to reform payday lending. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:15 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to introduce this matter of public importance—namely, the government's failure to reform payday lending. It is an undeniable matter of fact that the government have failed to reform payday lending. There are no ifs and no buts. They had the opportunity to reform the payday-lending sector, which preys upon the vulnerable consumers of Australia. They created their own admirable opportunities to introduce payday-lending reform. But it's not like they've crab-walked away. No, they've gone much further than that. They have gone into a full, fast retreat down the road, led by the Liberal 'parliamentary friends of payday lending', convened by their general, the Assistant Treasurer, opposite me here today. Mr Robert interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Yes, you run the parliamentary friends of payday lending, and we do know that. We can just have a quick look back at the history of payday-lending reforms that have been introduced in the interests of consumers in this country. In government, Labor enacted the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. For the first time in Australia, that act implemented a national regime for the regulation of consumer credit. Labor strengthened the regime in 2012 in response to growing concerns about improper behaviour by payday lenders, including by strengthening protections for consumers of these products. Part of Labor's plans—you might like to know, Assistant Treasurer—also mandated a built-in review mechanism of the new national consumer credit protection regime. That review commenced in 2015 under the Turnbull government. The Review of the small amount credit contract laws was handed to the government in March 2016, and the government published its response in November 2016. Today marks over three years, or 1,173 days, since this reform process started with that credit contract review. And today marks yet another day that this government has failed to protect Australian consumers. It's another shameful day that rests on this government. We all know on this side of the House that those on very low incomes have little capacity to absorb financial shocks such as your car breaking down— Mr Bowen interjecting— Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 yes, an unexpected internet bill, perhaps—or a dentist bill or the like. With little disposable cash after the bills are paid and with few savings put away for a rainy day, one of the obvious options is a payday loan. We've all seen the ads, sadly: 'Just Nimble it.' These loans are often in conjunction with further loans and include crippling interest fees and penalties. Financial Counselling Australia—I know that many people in this House, I think especially on this side of the House, have gone and visited a financial-counselling service, and I'm yet to see how many from the other side of the House have taken up that opportunity—have shared many case studies that set out what is happening to vulnerable lenders in the Australian community. They get involved in, sadly, multiple contracts for payday loans. These contracts show exorbitant interest rates that take advantage of their vulnerable financial situations. They underestimate their living costs. They miscalculate their financial situation. This leads to overdrawn-account dishonour fees, further entrenching vulnerable Australians into larger and larger debt. It is a vicious cycle. It is a terrible circle of debt that people are unable to climb out of. There are many harrowing examples of the predatory behaviour seen from these payday loan sharks. We know that, just this week, Cash Converters settled a class action for $16 million due to charging customers interest rates upwards of 600 per cent. It's an absolute disgrace. There are now over 800,000 Australian households who have fallen victim to the payday-lending rip-off. This number has more than doubled in the past decade, including 150,000 new households in Australia signing up for payday loans in the last 18 months alone. Then, of course, there are the rent-to-buy consumer leases that we're all well aware of. This is where a consumer can enter into an arrangement by which they rent a consumer good—a vacuum cleaner, a fridge, a dishwasher or whatever—from a company. They rent for a period, and at the end of the period they get to keep that good. It's becoming increasingly common with mobile phones and therefore attractive to younger people. Many popular rent-to-buy schemes involve extreme repayment requirements, with customers often paying far more than face value for the products, up to 884 per cent more than their retail value, let alone their wholesale value. So fridges that may cost $1,000 end up costing a lender $6,000. A dryer worth $345 has reportedly cost someone more than $5,000. It's an absolute shame. This is all going into the pockets of the payday lenders and rent-to-buy rip-off merchants. Sometimes these things can play a valuable role in helping to smooth out the challenges in people's budgets. But they are not just for essential goods. These have proliferated into covering extra-large TVs. What have we seen in the stories we have heard from Financial Counselling Australia and other organisations that seek to help people in financial distress? Customers are solicited. They may have got a whitegood, an essential good, but then they are solicited by SMS messages for non-essential products, such as gaming consoles, oversized televisions or electronic devices. Consumers are locked into multiple long-term contracts, paying excessive rental repayments at rates well above retail prices and additional personal loan repayments. Financial counsellors have told us that: In addition to this rental companies are often only providing clients on a Centrelink income with one option for payment, via Centrepay deductions. The direct implication is that the rental company is receiving their payment as a priority over rent, electricity, food and medications. Ms Rowland 159771 That's wrong. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 That is very wrong. This is what our financial counsellors around this country, those people working at the coalface, helping out people in financial distress, see every day. Rental companies are being bankrolled by the government through exorbitant fees and charges paid out directly through Centrepay. It's a disgrace and it needs to be stopped. Some small amount credit contract providers will waive fees and create a special payment scheme for people in extreme circumstances, with companies such as Good Shepherd Microfinance trying to help out people in budget distress. What we need is robust consumer protections. However, this Morrison government just sits by and does nothing, just like the two governments before it, led by Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull. Vulnerable Australian families are continuing to be ripped off every day by the loan sharks in this out-of-control industry. Reforms such as this are vital to protect Australian consumers, yet the government have done nothing on this. Well, actually, they started doing things on this and then they more than crabwalked away; they ran away at high speed. Labor have introduced a private member's bill which replicates the bill brought to this parliament in draft form by Minister O'Dwyer. The member for Indi introduced a similar private member's bill this week. The government could have supported our private member's bill, it could have brought on its own legislation or it could have supported the member for Indi's legislation. We know the member for Oxley has been conducting community roundtables on this issue. My colleague Senator McAllister, alongside the shadow minister for financial services, Clare O'Neil, and I have announced an inquiry to examine financial services that were excluded from the terms of reference of the royal commission. That Senate inquiry will look at things that include payday lending rorts. It seems that everyone in this place is willing to govern and to progress reform to protect the vulnerable consumers of this country except the government itself. This is a government far more interested in its own party than Australian consumers. The Assistant Treasurer, gift cards aside, has done next to nothing for Australian consumers except to ensure that payday reform in this country does not happen. We know he's been very busy doing the numbers in the previous challenges for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It's unsurprising, though, considering his personal stake in the loan rip-off scheme. The Assistant Treasurer was part of the irate backbencher revolt when Minister O'Dwyer had guardianship of the payday reforms. Who could forget that role of 'parliamentary friends of payday lending'? It was yet another example of the chaos and dysfunction of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. It's such a shambles they have small groups of backbenchers rolling decisions of cabinet. What a way to run a country! It's a disgrace. As I said at the start, it's been 1,173 days since this government began the process of reform, and now we hear the Assistant Treasurer is going to wait for the outcome of the royal commission to do anything. That will take us to about 1 February, and that's only when you start thinking about the response to the royal commission. All this government is doing is ensuring it will do nothing to reform payday lending. It's doing nothing. By the Assistant Treasurer's own time line, he will not respond, he will not produce any reform to payday lending, he will not bring in the legislation his own government produced two years ago. He just puts it off to the never-never. What we do know, what Australians can be assured of, is that the Liberal government will never ever reform payday lending. They will never work to protect Australian consumers from payday loan sharks. It's a crying shame and they should just quit. 15:25 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden What a joke! Seriously, what a complete and utter farce! Those opposite seem to forget that it was this government that established a review into small account credit laws and whether those laws should be extended across to consumer leases, as the customer bases are similar. It is something those opposite failed to do—failed to consider it and failed to implement it. Everyone recognises that small account credit lenders and consumer lease providers play an important role in the economy by providing credit to customers who are vulnerable, with low and irregular incomes and perhaps poor credit histories, and in many instances are unable to access mainstream forms of finance. But this is not really about vulnerable workers, is it? This is a typical Labor stunt. Labor sit there and argue about undue delay— Mr Keogh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Burt is warned. Mr ROBERT HWT while at the same time stacking up more inquiries in the Senate. It's either one or the other. An instructive view of the history of this actually might help those opposite understand the issue. Ms Keay interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Braddon is warned. Mr ROBERT HWT For those who don't understand, small account credit contracts are loans for between 16 days and 12 months with a value of up to $2,000. There are more than 200 authorised SACC providers. Consumer leases, on the other hand, are leases for household goods, with terms greater than four months, excluding novated leases. As of the second half of 2017, there are approximately 500 lessors in the market, predominantly around four large firms. SACC consumers, on average, take out about 3½ SACC loans a year, and 30 per cent of households with a SACC consumer have one or more SACCs at a particular time. The history of this goes back some 20 years. It was the Liberal-National government back in the late nineties that put in place the construct of Centrepay. Centrepay provides a capacity for people to have bills and otherwise paid for out of their Centrelink benefit. There are nine service categories and, of course, one of them deals with the area of consumer leasing. Payday loans in themselves are not possible through Centrepay. Centrepay today puts out $2.6 billion worth of bills that are paid for vulnerable Australians. It's quite extraordinary. There are 646,000 consumers using Centrepay to assist with paying bills and invoices over nine different sectors. In 2009 the National Consumer Credit Protection Act came in and the states ceded their authority. In 2010 those opposite, to their credit, limited consumers with over 50 per cent of their income from Centrelink to no more than 20 per cent gross for small account credit contracts. Nothing in consumer leasing was done by those opposite at the time. In 2013, again to the credit of those opposite and in response to COAG, the small account credit interest rate was limited to four per cent per month, or 48 per cent across the board, with a 20 per cent establishment fee. Again it was for SACC, and, again, there was nothing in the consumer lease space. Those opposite had numerous opportunities in previous governments to deal with the consumer lease space and did nothing—nothing! It is this government that has stepped up with a review to understand the issue of consumer leasing and how it works. Mr Keogh interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Burt will remove himself under 94(a). The member for Burt then left the chamber. Mr ROBERT HWT In 2013 there was a review into Centrepay, which continued through to 2015. It was put in place by the Minister for Human Services, and the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Payne, and I were the ones who finished the review and implemented it. We were the ones—it was this government—that knocked off all the dodgy providers within Centrepay. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Brand is warned. Mr ROBERT HWT It was this government that knocked off hundreds and hundreds of the loan sharks that were going after Aboriginal communities, selling insurance products or products that were into funeral insurance to 10-year-old Aboriginal kids. The rorts were outrageous. It was this government and human services ministers on this side who knocked all of those dodgy providers out. We see, as of now, about 14,815 Centrepay businesses. Back then, the number was about a thousand higher. But it was this government that knocked all of those providers out. It was this government, in August 2015, with the then Assistant Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, that announced a review of the small-amount credit contract laws. Consumer leases were also considered as part of that review, building on what we had done in Centrepay. It was this government that decided to look at the issue of consumer leasing following the inactivity of those opposite. A report was tabled in March '16, with a final report in April '16. Public consultation then followed. On 28 November '16, the government responded to the review, supporting the vast majority of the review's recommendations, including a whole bunch of stuff to make things a lot better and easier for those on low incomes. Twelve months ago, the government released an exposure draft bill to implement the government's response: removing the ability of SACC providers to charge monthly fees; providing lessors, creditors and assistance providers with the undertaking of door-to-door selling of leases at residential homes; introducing a broad range of anti-avoidance protections to prevent SACC loan and consumer lease providers from circumventing the rules; and strengthening penalties to increase incentives for SACC providers and lessors to comply with the law. During the consultation phase for the draft legislation, the Treasury received over 140,000 submissions, over 100 of which were from individual franchisees of consumer lease providers. The government has been considering the draft legislation in light of feedback during this consultation process. It would have been helpful if those opposite had also considered some of the feedback after the draft legislation came out rather than just taking the draft legislation as a stunt and putting it into the House. The whole point of consultation is to consult and listen and update legislation based on broad community feedback—something those opposite seem to have missed, as they missed six years of dealing with the issue of consumer leasing. This government doesn't rush to failure like those opposite. This government actually sits down, it consults, it looks at issues widely and then it implements sensible policy. At the same time, the government has noted the comments of Commissioner Hayne regarding the consumer credit industry, in the interim report of the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, super and financial services industry. In particular, Commissioner Hayne has made some interesting observations regarding consumer credit and has asked a range of policy questions, the answers to which may have an impact on the approach government takes in this space. The government notes that the seventh round of the royal commission's public hearings will focus on key policy questions arising from the first six rounds, upon which the interim report is based. The government will consider the extent to which the issues raised through the next round of hearings of the royal commission will impact on the drafting of the final SACC legislation. On the one hand, those opposite want us to rush to failure and move now. On the other hand, those opposite want us to consider, sensibly and diligently, the outcomes of the royal commission. Well, which one is it? Should we sensibly consider the outcomes of the royal commission as they pertain to the SACC legislation or should we, like those opposite, like a bunch of lemmings towards a cliff, rush towards unintended failure? Well, this government doesn't do that. This government carefully considers the issues of the day, and we will carefully consider what the royal commission has got to say in this space. We will carefully consider the policy options at the next range of hearings and then the government will act. I also note that Labor's provided notice of its intention to move a motion in the Senate referring the issue of payday lending and consumer leasing for a whole new inquiry by a Labor chaired Senate Economics Reference Committee. Not content to wait and see what the royal commission's going to do, not content to wait and see what the policy outcome hearings are going to be—oh, no; Labor knows better than everyone else and is launching itself into a new inquiry, perhaps embarrassed by six years of inaction when it comes to consumer leasing and doing nothing. Now, at the 11th hour, Labor is rushing into an inquiry to work out what it actually believes. We'll sit and wait for the royal commission's advice. We will look at the policy hearings and then we will move forward and we will act sensibly, because that is what sensible governments do. 15:34 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle While the Assistant Treasurer wasn't able to fill his time in this debate, members on this side have got more than enough to say. I've got to say just how distressing it is for the Australian consumers, the 1.8 million households in Australia under financial stress, to hear the Assistant Treasurer stand up in this House and say after three years he's got 'a bunch of stuff' to talk to us about. But there is not a bill before the House. There is nothing here to actually look at. There is nothing here for us to discuss, debate, look at amendments. But we've got a bunch of stuff happening over there. Well, I can tell you that the people of Newcastle won't be too reassured by the minister's words here today. I've got to say there is almost universal opposition to the dodgy practices of payday lenders. Let's just pause for one moment to think about those people who have added their voice to why it is you'd want to stand up and do something about these dodgy operators out there. There's CHOICE, Care Inc., Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Counselling Australia, Financial and Consumer Rights Council, Financial Counsellors Association of New South Wales, Financial Rights Legal Centre, Good Shepherd Microfinance—I haven't even got to the people in my electorate that speak up on a daily basis, asking me, 'What the hell is this government doing?' We had a review three years ago. The Minister comes in and says he's doing a bunch of stuff, but there is not a shred of evidence for that. Maybe that's what he's been doing in all that time devoted to his internet searching—getting a bunch of stuff together. Well, it is not good enough from the Assistant Treasurer. There are payday lenders in this country who trade in misery, who prey on the vulnerable consumers in our country. They are the last people that you would want vulnerable Australians to have to turn to in their hour of need, in financial stress, because we know where that goes. We know that leads to a big spiral of debt that no-one gets out of. Only last Friday I had representatives of some of the financial counselling services from my electorate sitting with me, and I can't tell you how many times they asked me why the government had not yet acted on that review. They all contributed to that review. There was an extensive consultation process—I've got to hand it to the government on that. There were great contributions from the financial counselling services across Australia. They were very happy with the review that went forward and with the draft exposure that's coming out. There was a little bit of tweaking to be done. They were very excited about the possibility that you guys might actually be onto some serious reform, that you might do something, that you might lend some kind of hand to those people who are hurting and hurting badly. But nothing. You don't want to hold your breath waiting for this government to act on this one. It's pretty damn clear that the day they appointed the Assistant Treasurer into that position this was not going to be any green light. We knew exactly what was going on. It's all very well to appoint your good mate into the position, but this was the same man that earlier this year campaigned inside the Liberal Party against any introduction of the payday lending legislation. The Assistant Treasurer was actively campaigning—part of 'friends of payday lenders group'. What a shame! How disgraceful that this parliament even has such a sort of collective. This is at a time when there are pop-up instant cash machines showing themselves in tobacco stores, in little shops in my electorate and in the neighbouring electorates of Hunter and Paterson, deliberately preying on people. All you need is a bit of ID and your bank account details and, pop, you've got an instant loan at the smoke shop as you buy your baccy for the week. How disgusting is that? We need a ban on those instant cash machines. We need a government to stand up for vulnerable Australians and enact some real reform. (Time expired) 15:39 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Well may they cheer that speech, because what that's all about is the sort of stuff that we will get from the Labor Party until the end of time. By the way, before I go any further, I do want do recognise the shadow minister for consumer affairs, whose dedication to this chamber is something that we should all, I think, take as a credit. But back to where I was. The Labor Party believe that people on low incomes and people who don't do what the Labor Party say shouldn't be allowed to borrow money. That's what the Labor Party's always been about: control, control, control. Everyone in this House wants to see Australians live to the full amount of their potential, except for the Labor Party, because they believe that, unless you're a union official or unless you're a mate or an insider of the Labor Party, you shouldn't be allowed to borrow money. You shouldn't be allowed to borrow money from a bank, you shouldn't be allowed to borrow money from a consumer credit organisation and you shouldn't be allowed to rent fridges. What about women who are leaving domestic violence situations? Opposition members interjecting— Mr FALINSKI G86 Oh, they laugh! They don't care, because, of course, only they're allowed to talk about people who they think are worthy. The fact of the matter is: when women are leaving situations where they are experiencing domestic violence and they need to move into an apartment and they don't have the money for a fridge or a couch, what's the Labor Party's answer to that? It is: they should just go without. When it comes to people on welfare, who actually know how to run their lives better than people in Canberra, better than bureaucrats and better than the know-it-alls on that side, what's their answer to that? It is: no, they should do what they're told. That's because that's what the Labor Party have always been about. The truth of the matter is that their private member's bill would actually put to an end people being able to lend to people. It would actually stop people from being able to borrow money to buy things like refrigerators, to buy things like microwave ovens and to buy things that they need to make their lives work and to be able to do that. See, the ALP believe that people shouldn't be able to make a decision on how they spend their own money, because no-one knows how to spend their own money better than the Labor Party do. The fact of the matter is that we on this side are actually about breaking the cycle of poverty that exists throughout this country, and you can't do that unless you give people freedom to make their own decisions in their own lives. The member for Newcastle says that there's almost universal condemnation of people who rort. Well, there's not almost universal condemnation—there's universal condemnation of the rorters in payday lending and the rorters in the consumer credit industry market. There's universal condemnation. There's no-one on this side of the House who doesn't believe that those people should be put out of business if not in jail. There's no-one on this side who believes that. But we don't believe that that should be done at the cost of people who simply want to get on with their lives not being able to borrow money to buy the simple essentials of life. When Good Shepherd Microfinance admitted that the Labor Party's private member's bill would shift people out of the consumer credit market and leave them with nowhere to go to borrow, their answer was that taxpayers should put a billion dollars into a consumer credit market. Where are your costings on that? There are absolutely none. The Labor Party come into this House over and over and over again and claim that everyone's vulnerable. They claim that no-one can make a decision and that no-one understands how to run their life. The fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who may be on low incomes, but they actually have a much better sense of how they spend their money than some of the bureaucrats in the Labor Party do. They don't need you to tell them how to do it. That's because, let me tell you, they're aware of what they're doing. They're not vulnerable, and they understand what they're doing. They don't need the Labor Party to be constantly hectoring them and telling them that they have no idea how to run their lives. It's the sort of ignorance that this place has had enough of. 15:44 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley The member for Mackellar doesn't need to be in this place. He's on a margin of 15.74 per cent, which in the new paradigm is an ultramarginal Labor seat. So I'd get out doorknocking, if I were you, and start trying to get people to vote Liberal in Double Bay and Neutral Bay, before you come in here and lecture anyone about that. I just want to pick up where the member for Mackellar finished. He said their government are not going to do anything; it was Labor legislation. I will tell you who was going to do something about this. They're all listening now. I've got a letter in my hand. In the days before Malcolm Turnbull was knifed by all of those opposite, he wrote to me: 'Dear Milton, legislation will be progressed this year, with the changes applying 12 months after its passage.' They've gone silent now, haven't they? A big talk by the member for Mackellar and the friends of the loan sharks, but it's in black and white from Malcolm Turnbull, promising the people of Australia that legislation would take place to crack down on payday lending. Well, what happened? What happened? No wonder the people of Wentworth rejected the Liberal Party with the largest swing in Australia's history. This Prime Minister turns around and says: 'It wasn't that bad. We almost won it.' That's their excuse—no apology to the people of Wentworth, no apology to the people of Watsons Bay, Neutral Bay or Double Bay. If that's not your base, I don't know what your base is—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We know that it's been 1,173 days. I know that the member for Mackellar sits on the leafy North Shore. He doesn't care at all. An honourable member interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 The Northern Beaches—my apologies. He knows that, while they're sipping champagne, clinking their glasses, at the yacht club, they're making fun of those people and—what did he say?—the unintended consequences of this sort of legislation. Well, I can tell you what the unintended consequence of not taking action on payday loans is. It's the pensioner in my electorate who was conned and tricked into buying an iPad that cost him $800 but ended up costing him $3,000. It was the mother of three who was conned and tricked into buying a fridge that cost her $4,000, which should have cost her $475. And it was the pensioner who was ripped off, who needed a car repair but was charged $5,000 for a $1,000 car repair. The excess, the greed, the rip-offs—and those opposite have the hide to talk about people taking control of their lives. If I were the member for Mackellar, I'd slink out of this chamber too. Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 Well, come back and listen to what I've got to say. You're going to learn something. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Oxley will address the chair. Mr DICK 53517 Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Mackellar: listen to the words on this side of the chamber. He is going to learn something. We know that we've had four ministers dealing with this. We know that the now Deputy Prime Minister promised to introduce your legislation. We know that the Assistant Treasurer took a bill to the cabinet that was endorsed by your cabinet until those— Mr Falinski G86 How do you know that? Mr DICK 53517 Because the minister said so. The now Deputy Prime Minister promised: The Government will introduce legislation this year— 2017— to implement the SACC and consumer lease reforms. Then the merry-go-round continued with the member for Deakin. But, time and time again, we know it all comes back to the former member for Wentworth, who promised in writing that this legislation would be progressed into this House. Well—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to all of those right-wing ideologues opposite—we've got two weeks to go in this parliament, two weeks so that consumers can be protected in Australia, two weeks to ensure that consumers aren't being ripped off by the loan sharks. My electorate knows and every single Labor member knows that the only people who can be trusted with proper consumer affairs are on this side of the chamber. Time and time again, we've seen that side of the chamber, the government, siding with big banks. Now today it's been revealed that they're siding with loan sharks. Well, we won't stop this fight. We know that the over 1,172 days are too many days. All it will take is a Shorten Labor government to make sure consumers are protected in this country. 15:50 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan The first thing I'd like to do is to apologise to the people who are listening to this debate and to the misleading remarks that have come from some of the earlier speakers. I'm no friend of loan sharks. I'm no friend of crooks and rorters. But have you ever been in a position where you had no alternative, and you needed money—you needed money desperately? No matter what your station in life or your earnings, people sometimes get themselves into a position where—if you look behind their face, behind the glasses or behind the sunglasses—sometimes they're in a bit of trouble. And they don't have the alternatives that you and I have in this place. Ms Keay 262273 We've all been there; we've all been there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Braddon had been warned and will remove herself under 94(a). The member for Braddon then left the chamber. Mr BROADBENT MT4 They don't have that position where they can get money from mum and dad, or this one or that one. They have no alternative but to go to a payday lender. What a terrible situation to be in! What a shocking situation to be in! I've never been there, but, like all of us, I know somebody who has, and I know the background of the situation, and it ain't good. There are a few things that go on in people's lives, as you in this place know, that lead them into a position where they have no alternative—no alternative whatsoever. What a place to be in, where you've got no alternative whatsoever. I'm not a friend of people who rip off the system. But, in that whole process of listening to the arguments, I heard about the decent provider of rental products, and I heard about the crook who sat outside the chemist signing people up. I didn't even know about this issue until it became an issue within the federal parliament—until constituents came to me in support of a rental provider. I thought he was pretty good—and my constituents all backed him up—until I came here and listened to other members of parliament, from both sides of the House, who gave me a different point of view. So then I had to weigh up: who's telling the truth, what are the real circumstances of this, and what can government do about it? And the arguments I've heard today haven't got us anywhere, because you were right, Milton, and Jason was right too. My commercial principles and practice teacher, Jack Kroger, whom I loved—and whose son Michael has some quite well-known traits—used to stand up and say, 'Let the buyer beware—caveat emptor.' There is a responsibility on the buyer. We must not, if we respect those people, take that responsibility from them. We should never take that responsibility from them. Who do you think we are to tell people how to run their lives? If we can implement laws and actions that can ameliorate this, as to the opportunity for crooks to survive, then, fine; let's do it; let's find a way through it. But let's not come into the room like this, with black and white opinions of, 'You're all wrong,' and, 'You're all right,' because none of us are all right and none of us are all wrong. We are reasonable people in this parliament, trying to find our way through difficult issues. So I plead with everybody in this place: let's find a way through difficult issues. I think there are lots of other things I'd like to be talking about today. I would like to be talking about something exciting, like putting more money and effort and opportunity into IVF in this country and helping a lot more people to have miraculous changes to their lives. I would like to think we were talking about positive things that will make a difference to the country. If we can make a difference to these people, well, then, good—but let's not have an argument in this place about personalities or about principles that are right and wrong, because we know there is a middle ground to find. How often in this place do we never seek to find the middle ground but rather criticise somebody else for their position? 15:55 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm happy to speak on this matter of public importance on the government's failure to reform payday lending. I particularly thank the shadow spokesperson and my neighbour, the member for Oxley, for the great work that he has done in this area. Anyone who actually goes to the local pawnshops—that's P-A-W-N; sorry, I was an English teacher in another life!—I recommend spending a day with Relationships Australia or Financial Counselling Australia. I recommend that for those opposite as well. I recently got to sit in with Vicki Cella at Relationships Australia and one of her clients and talk through how they got into difficulty where they were paying close to 884 per cent interest. Whilst I know up-front that interest is a great thing and gives opportunities to young people and other people to do all sorts of things in life, excessive interest hikes are not something that the Labor Party can support. While waiting for the government to act on this, we've seen so many more people—in fact, 150,000 new households—sign up for payday loans in the last 18 months alone. So many of those people are going to be paying excessive interest rates. We know the story. It can be something as simple as your car running over a nail and getting a flat tyre and you don't have a spare tyre. That could change someone's household budget. These are the people we're talking about. It could be something as simple as the washing machine breaking down and not being able to put clean clothes on your kids to send them off to school. Or, as we've heard from some of the other speakers, there are all of those tempting loans when you're having a beer. There are all of these sorts of instant credit lures, basically. We're concerned about it. What did we see from those opposite? We saw the member for Fadden actually organising within the Liberal Party a 'friends of payday lending' group. Unbelievable! And how was he rewarded? How was this numbers person for the Prime Minister rewarded? How was this data bandit, someone who's prepared to pay $38,000 back to the government because of his wi-fi data—$3,000 a month he's been paying for data—able to come in and say, 'Put me in charge of payday lending'? If you think paying $3,000 a month for data is normal, you are not going to have problem with someone paying 884 per cent interest rates for a spare tyre for their car or a replacement washing machine. You need that car to get to work. This the difference that we see. This can be the difference between food and fear for a household, the difference between having a home and living in harm's way, the difference between kids being able to sleep at night and the waking nightmare that can be that debt trap that the shadow minister referred to, that spiral down into debt where you cannot get out. That is why we need funding for things like Relationships Australia. It's because people get caught up, tricked and trapped. Yes, I do believe in free will and people making choices, but—I tell you what—the rates that I can get with a good credit rating at a bank is nothing like the situation for some of the constituents I have spoken to. People go in to a payday lender looking to hopefully have enough money to buy their kid a second-hand bike for their birthday and come out having ended up paying $1,000 or $2,000 for a TV. So people can be tricked into believing the heavy-handed sales techniques that are used. We have seen this delay. We have soaring interest rates, skyrocketing fees and a person in charge, the Assistant Treasurer, who after—what?—10 years in parliament comes in here and says he is 'doing a bunch of stuff'. That was his considered response, with all the resources of his department. It didn't address the delay. It didn't address the hardship that is experienced by so many Australians because of his tardiness and his delay. We know that hardship is blood in the water for these loan sharks. As soon as they see people doing it tough, they jump on them and try to make their life even more difficult. That's why we should— (Time expired) 16:00 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It's a great pleasure to rise to speak on this MPI. There has been some very good contributions from both sides of the parliament as part of this debate. In my view, this is an industry which I simply don't like. I really don't. I don't like the fact that it exists. I don't like the fact that it does what it has to. But I know that in places it is necessary. This is not about what I may or may not like, because I do not walk in the shoes of these people. We are in a fortunate position here. We are well paid. We have a position of great privilege and we are here to fight for those people. In my electorate, we have a per capita net income for the year of just $34,000. It is the lowest in the country and has been for some 20 years. So the people that I represent use this industry. Would I like them to make good decisions at every single opportunity? Yes, I would. Would I like them to not get the big-screen TV and the PlayStation before they get the fridge and the washing machine? Yes, I would. But I also take the point from the member for Mackellar that, on the occasions when they are short of money, when they have a punctured tyre, as the member for Moreton mentioned, and they have no other mechanism by which to pay their rent or power bill, they do take these opportunities. So this is a difficult issue, a difficult issue indeed. I recognise the contribution of the member for McMillan. It's not usual that we hear Latin in this place, and I've got to say, in my schooling, it wasn't something that we focused on or had as a subject. But it was a good contribution. But how do we regulate free will? How do we regulate so that people make the right choices? In my view, I don't think we can. As I said, I might not like the industry or the fact that it exists; however, it is a necessary evil. So what we must do is ensure we put more money into people's pockets. There is a better way to deal with this, and that is to ensure that people actually have more available cash. It really is. And, in my view, the simplest way to do that for all Australians is to do what the Minister for Energy said today in his announcements around energy, because one of the biggest cost-of-living issues is the price of electricity. If you are in a low-income household and your quarterly bill goes up to almost $2,000, how do you pay that? I have seen people in my electorate who simply can't pay. We have one of the highest disconnection rates for nonpayment of electricity bills in the state. What can we do about this at a federal level? Well, the minister made some announcements today about electricity prices. Unfortunately, in my area, every single component of that price is controlled by the Queensland state Labor government—every single one. They have the only retailer in town. They own all of the transmission, all of the poles and wires, and 70 per cent of the generators. They set the price through the QCA. The Queensland Labor government could fix this tomorrow with a single signature. Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Premier of Queensland, could change the price of electricity in those regional areas. But they refuse to do it for one simple reason: they are milking over a billion dollars out of that industry every single year. It is an electricity tax, pure and simple. It is paid for by some of the poorest people in this country, and I think that is unacceptable. We're talking about those who have to go to a payday lender to get $50 or $100 to get them through to next week. Do I like it? No, I do not. I do not like the fact (a) that they have to do it or (b) that there are some exorbitant and questionable practices, and I say that on the record. But the best thing we can do for all of them is drive down the cost of living. It doesn't matter whether it is the water bill, the rates bill or the power bill; we have people who simply cannot pay. The announcements today by Minister Taylor are very substantial, I think—the proposal that will go to the market to look to build more generating capacity. In Far North Queensland, there is an opportunity to build a hydro power station. I know those opposite are very keen on renewables. Well, this is one that works. It is traditional hydro at Tully-Millstream—600 megawatts at an existing station which will add capacity into the market. Capacity into the market is demand and supply. The more supply you have, the less demand you have, the lower the price. But the Queensland Labor government— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 And the member for Moreton knows this; he knows this. The price of electricity in Queensland is absolutely 100 per cent controlled by the Queensland Labor government. There is no-one else. There is no other retailer. There is no other provider. There is no-one that sets the price but them. I say again to the Premier: you have an opportunity to help the people of Queensland right now. You have an opportunity to help the people of Queensland and the businesses of Queensland, and those who have to use these types of facilities from payday lenders. You can drive down the price of electricity at the stroke of a pen, and I suggest you do it and do it quickly. 16:05 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I am very, very pleased to join the member for Brand today, the shadow minister in this area, First, before the member for Hinkler leaves: he spent two minutes criticising the Queensland government for price settings when he's part of a government that could fix this right now. They could fix this today. In fact, they've done all the preparation work to fix this scourge on our vulnerable people today. There are the questions raised by those opposite. They want to know: how do you regulate free will? Well, let me tell you how you regulate free will. You bring in more severe penalties for the shonks and the shysters who are ripping people off. That's how you regulate free will. How do you regulate free will? You cap the repayments. This is your draft legislation. These were your plans, and you have lost your way. Rather than minister after minister responsible for this space coming in here and putting it to a vote, knowing full well that they will have support on this side and that we could have this legislation through, we could change these practices today and we could protect vulnerable people from the debt spiral that you've heard about from my colleagues. Let's go to some of that. It is 1,173 days since the results of the review were tabled—1,173 days of unconscionable inaction from those opposite. It is an absolute disgrace. In my electorate, these are the stories that I hear and that the people in my electorate hear and care about. Our local CLC, West Justice, did a survey at a mental health clinic day that they do. They found that 23 per cent of the people who were in an in-stay situation in our local mental health institution had a payday loan. These people are incredibly unwell—unwell enough to be hospitalised, and they've got payday loans. Of those, 25 per cent had more than one payday loan. When I first started getting interested in this, I sat with Consumer Action Law in Victoria. They told me that there were, supposedly, regulations already in place that said people could only have one loan. So how on earth do people have more than one loan? They have more than one loan because there is nobody regulating in this space. There's nobody observing this space. There's nobody ensuring that things that are already in place are being looked after. When Labor were last in government in this space, we did bring in some regulations and it's our belief now that what we did then needs further work. We agree with the government's draft legislation. We agree that a measure of vulnerability is not limited to people who are in receipt of social welfare. It's not limited. I know lots of working poor in my electorate. I know lots of people who have full-time jobs and are struggling to pay their rent and I know lots of working people who are looking to payday loans to get them over those humps in the road. I've got no problem with this industry existing. What I want to see is an industry that's clearly regulated. What I want to see is ethical compliance to a set of regulations that will protect the vulnerable people in my electorate. I want this government to give the Australian public some assurance that the banking royal commission is not a farce; it's not a sideshow. We can't wait. The assistant Treasurer thinks we can wait until after those findings. People in my electorate who are victims, who are already in this debt spiral, deserve better from this government. The people who are now contemplating taking out a payday loan deserve better from this government. The Australian public deserve better. They deserve action where it is agreed that action needs to be taken. They need a government prepared to stand up to active lobbyists and say, 'No, not on our watch.' They need a government to stare down the lobbyists and say, 'We will act in the best interests of the Australian public and not in the best interests of those people who want to exploit them and make money from them.' 16:10 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I'm pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I'd like to start by acknowledging the contribution from the member for McMillan, who brought some sense to this discussion. We all think that interest rates of 48 per cent are outrageous. I personally think credit card interest rates of 18 per cent are outrageous. We as the government hear the call: 'You're in government. Get out there and legislate it and put caps on.' That's what we hear from the other side. But the minute we do that—the minute we decide that we should put a cap on what the interest rate should be—we limit the funds and opportunity that some people will get. That's what we do. The reason why that 48 per cent interest rate is charged is that the reality is that a lot of the customers of these payday lenders simply don't pay it back. There are very high rates of default, and that is why that interest rate is, unfortunately, so high. Certainly we'd all like to see those interest rates come down. Often you think it would be great if we just legislated that. But what would be the consequences of doing that? We would be harming the very people that we think we are helping. That's what we would be doing, because there are many people in our society, unfortunately, who have poor credit records and can't access finance from our banks or the normal financial institutions. When they face an emergency situation, regrettably, they are often forced to go to a payday lender. If we put legislation in that prevents that, what are these people going to do? What are they going to do if they face an emergency where they desperately need cash if we in government have put legislation in that actually prevents them getting it because we think we are trying to protect them and save them? This is why this area has to be thoroughly thought through. Time after time in government, we see the law of unintended consequences apply, where we think we are doing the right thing and yet what looks moral and correct—'Yes, we're helping the poor'—is not thought through properly and it harms those very people we expect and try to help. One of the reasons, as the member for Hinkler mentioned, that people need payday loans is the shocking price of electricity in this nation, and nowhere is the price as shocking as in the state of South Australia, the state that decided it was a brilliant policy to have a 50 per cent renewable energy target. What's happened? We see the results. The Australian Energy Regulator's recent report shows the average residential electricity bill in Queensland is $580 and in New South Wales it's $653, but in South Australia, the state with these wonderful renewables, it is $900. If we look at the electricity disconnections in South Australia, 10,902 households last financial year had their electricity disconnected and cut off because they couldn't pay for it. If we look at that in percentage terms, you are seven times as likely to have your electricity disconnected if you live in South Australia as if you live here in the ACT. That's the effect of the policies of pursuing reckless and ideological renewable energy targets. Yet members of the Labor Party want to copy the South Australian policy, which has delivered the highest number of electricity disconnections in the nation. If they really care about the poor and if they really care about people having to access payday lending at high interest rates, they should drop that 50 per cent renewable energy target, because we know exactly where that will lead—it will lead to South Australia. We've seen the results of this failed experiment. I call on the good members on that side to drop that policy. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 43 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 43

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018

Second Reading 43 16:15 Mr HART 263070 Bass As I said before the interruption, there are also factors, such as the age profile of Tasmanians, their health profile and their lack of educational attainment, which is reflected in significant social disadvantage, which in turn mean that there are additional demands upon services, particularly health services, in our public hospitals, which impose additional financial burdens upon the state budget. On a number of occasions, I've risen in this place to offer my contribution about what can be done to improve the economic performance of Tasmania, improving health outcomes and education outcomes with long-term investment in education, health literacy and sustainable economic growth. But the fact remains that there are vital services—particularly our presently ailing, stressed health system—which are sustained to a large part by Tasmania's share of GST revenue. There's recently been public discussion about whether the present Tasmanian Liberal government has been devoting a sufficient share of GST revenue towards health funding. I agree with the general proposition that health is being underfunded from Tasmania's GST revenue. Nevertheless, future state governments need flexibility as to how GST revenue is expended, given that it is untied revenue and can be spent in the best interests of a state. It's up to the present state Liberal government—indeed, any future government of any persuasion—to justify how it spends GST revenue, particularly if economic analysis suggests that there may be an underspend with respect to a vital service such as health. Given the size of the Tasmanian budget and the disproportionate role that GST revenue plays in the provision of services in Tasmania, the provision of a legislated guarantee such as is incorporated in this bill is vitally important. Having regard to the statistics—indeed, the furious agreement by all state premiers and treasurers that a legislated guarantee was necessary—what was this government's response, at least initially? For weeks, the government, led by this Prime Minister as Treasurer, denied that such a guarantee was necessary. Even as the premiers and treasurers called for a guarantee that no state was left worse off under the changes to the GST, including Premier Will Hodgman and his Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, the Prime Minister ignored those calls. Indeed, he waited until the last possible moment to give a guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off under changes to the GST. If the Prime Minister really cared about Tasmania and the share of GST that funds Tasmanian hospitals and schools, he would have committed to a guarantee immediately. Labor recognised that a legislated guarantee was necessary, and I'm very pleased that the government finally realised that a legislated guarantee was appropriate. I would like, nevertheless, to place on record my concern and the concern of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues as to what might happen at the end of the period under which the guarantee is legislated. Given the reliance that the Tasmanian state budget places upon Commonwealth payments as a proportion of total income and, indeed, the fact that services like health and education take the lion's share of budget expenditure, there will need to be very careful consideration of the long-term sustainability of Commonwealth payments to the Tasmanian budget. There is to be a Productivity Commission review at that time to consider the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements. I would not want—nor would any Tasmanian want—to be accused of being a beggar or a mendicant for seeking what is necessary to place the funding of essential services on an equally reasonable footing with other jurisdictions under any system which is to replace the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Tasmanians—and, for that matter, the residents of any other state—need to understand that, at the end of the transition period, there may be a requirement for further adjustment and further support and/or grants through other means to support essential services within a state jurisdiction. Likewise, it would not be reasonable to have the Productivity Commission insist that, for example, any particular jurisdiction would be required to sell state owned assets as a condition of enjoying further Commonwealth support. I sincerely hope that, at the end of the transitional period, there will be a federal Labor government that will be in a position to act upon these concerns and, in particular, the concerns expressed by the shadow Treasurer for the future finances of Tasmania. The present Prime Minister is no friend to Tasmania. My good friend the member for Franklin has written an opinion piece on this very issue. It's useful to recount what she's said as to the Prime Minister's record in his dealings with Tasmania, particularly in the recent past. I must refer to the recent past because the simple fact is that, as Treasurer in this term, he spent more time in Germany than in Tasmania. He does not understand the limitations imposed upon the Tasmanian budget, which are, in the main, unrelated to decisions which might be made by either a state Liberal or a state Labor government. When he finally visited as Prime Minister this month, he came with no new ideas and no new plans for our state. Indeed, his visit to our state just highlighted how Tasmania had been forgotten by him and successive Liberal governments since 2013. In Queenstown, for example, he re-announced the government's NBN solution for the west coast of our state with great fanfare but overlooked some important facts. Only after a community campaign and Labor's promise to deliver fibre-to-the-premises NBN did his government finally commit to second-rate fibre to the node. When he visited Lake Plimsoll to highlight the Battery of the Nation projects, he offered no firm commitment to fund the pumped hydro projects and he forgot to mention that he has no energy policy whatsoever. Under the Liberals' watch, we've also seen a significant decrease in the number of public sector jobs—jobs that would help support the Tasmanian budget. Since 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has slashed almost 500 Australian Public Service jobs from Tasmania. I again express my thanks to the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, for his advocacy on behalf of Tasmania and in ensuring that all states receive some measure of protection with respect to their fair share of GST in this legislation. 16:22 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. Australia is a great Federation and we have much to be proud of. But, as we all know, Federation is not without its challenges. The issue of rail gauges is a great example of that. One of the biggest challenges in recent times has been the fair and equitable distribution of GST revenue. This bill reforms GST payments to the states and territories by providing a fairer and more sustainable way of distributing GST that leaves all states and territories better off. The GST distribution system is based on the fair-go principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. It's designed to give every Australian a fair go and a fair share, whether they're in the cities or whether they're in country Australia. This bill aims at ensuring that that fair go continues. The states rely very heavily on GST revenue. In terms of a percentage of total revenue, in New South Wales, it accounts for a 23 per cent share. In Victoria, it's 25 per cent. In Queensland, it's 26 per cent. In Western Australia, it's 11 per cent. In South Australia, it's 36 per cent. In Tasmania, it's 40 per cent. In the ACT, it's 23 per cent. In the Northern Territory, it's 50 per cent. So the issue as to how the GST pie is divided is of vital importance. Since the GST was introduced by then Prime Minister John Howard and then Treasurer Peter Costello in 2000-01, the revenue pool has more than doubled. The funding pool was $24.2 billion then and has now grown to $67.3 billion in 2018-19. This is expected to grow another 65 per cent over the next decade. As I've said, however, the distribution system needs to be fair, and, in recent times, it hasn't been working for everyone. In 2015-16, three years after the mining boom, Western Australia received less than 30c in the dollar per person of GST, while other states and territories with far smaller populations, such as the Northern Territory, received more. Not only was this unfair but it was also unsustainable. It called into question the integrity of the whole GST system. Additionally, the way that the GST is distributed in Australia has not been updated since it was introduced, despite the economic shocks over the past decade. So in 2017 the government tasked the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into the GST system, and the report released on 5 July 2018 found that, although the current distribution system functions well and does achieve high levels of fiscal equity, it can deliver perverse outcomes when there is a significant shock to the economy, including mining booms. The people of Western Australia know all too well about the perverse outcomes that it delivers, because it hasn't been fair for them, it hasn't been equitable and it hasn't given all Australians a fair share of this vitally important revenue. The government's response, therefore, proposed reforms to the way the GST is distributed. That will not only ensure that all states are better off but also protect the integrity of the system. Under the revised system, GST will continue to be distributed using the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation, and the plan will create a new equalisation benchmark—the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is higher—with all states to transition to this new equalisation standard over six years from 2021-22 to 2026-27. It will introduce a permanent in-system relativity floor of 0.7 from 2022-23, increasing to 0.75 from 2024-25. It will permanently boost the GST pool of funds available for distribution to the states and territories by providing direct cash injections of $600 million in 2021-22 and $250 million in 2024-25, indexed each year to grow in line with the GST. These top-ups are in addition to GST collections. That's the equivalent to more than $1 billion annually from 2026-27. This new system will provide short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory to keep their relativities at or above 0.7 and 4.66 respectively from 2019-20 to 2021-22. During the transition period between 2021-22 and 2026-27, states and territories will get the better of the old or new system over the period, with the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry at the end of this transition period. This will determine whether the updated system is working efficiently and operating as intended. So, in terms of the protection of the states' interests, I think they're well and truly covered by those provisions, and all states will be better off with the Australian government providing an additional $9 billion from 2019-20 to 2028-29. Now, compared to what would have occurred without these reforms, the GST pool from 2026-27 will grow by more than $1 billion each and every year. The result is that the pie is getting bigger and every state and territory is getting a bigger slice of that pie. Most importantly, the additional funding from the Commonwealth will not come at the expense of existing payments. This delivers certainty to states and it delivers fairness to all Australians, and that's why it should be supported. Indeed, it is being supported by most of the states and territories. In New South Wales, with a population of 7.7 million people, the New South Wales Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet, said: This is a great day for the people of NSW … He added that the reform: … provides certainty allowing us to plan for the future, to build the hospitals, schools, roads and rail lines to make NSW a better place to live, work and raise a family. Going to South Australia, they have a population of 1.7 million people. The South Australian Treasurer, Rob Lucas, welcomed the reforms, saying: This is a win for South Australia, and indeed the other states and territories, and will ensure we have funding certainty in the years to come. In Tasmania, the Tasmanian Treasurer had this to say: The Tasmanian Government welcomes the Commonwealth Government's announcement that there will be a legislated 'no worse off' guarantee …          …         …         … The new distribution model put forward by the Commonwealth … would leave Tasmania $112 million better off through to 2026-27. That's the story across the country, in terms of who will be better off over that period, through to 2026-27. You can take any state or territory in the nation and they will be better off through that period: New South Wales, $351 million; Victoria, $425 million; Queensland, $518 million; Western Australia, $3.3 billion; South Australia, $257 million; Tasmania, $112 million; the ACT, $46 million; and the Northern Territory, $189 million. All states benefit and all states are better off. Western Australia has 2.4 million people. The Western Australian Treasurer has also welcomed the reforms, declaring that: This is great news for WA. He added that, through the addition of the transition period reforms: … there are no excuses for any member of Federal Parliament not to support the legislation. I would encourage all other states to get behind this key reform. If there is a thought about playing politics with it, they should refrain from doing that in the national interest. They all need to be supporting it because, at the end of the day, we are a Commonwealth. That means something. We are a federation, and we have to build our country for all Australians. This legislation is a good outcome and a fair outcome for all of the states and territories, and it's a good outcome for the nation because it ensures that every Australian in every state and territory is better off no matter what their postcode is. It's delivering a fairer and more sustainable GST distribution system. It's all part of the Australian government's plan for a stronger economy, helping to deliver the essential services that Australians rely on. I commend the Treasurer for his work. I commend the Prime Minister for his work on this when he was the Treasurer. This has been something that has troubled this nation for a long time. I believe that, with this reform, it has finally being put to rest. I know that the Treasurer is particularly proud of the way that he has been able to work with most of his state and territory colleagues to get a great outcome for Australia. They call the member for Kooyong 'the new colt from Kooyong'. I think if he continues with game-changing legislation like this, they'll be calling him 'Winx' before too long. I commend the Treasurer for his work on this, and I commend this bill to the House. 16:34 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I'm very pleased to rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018, which has quite a natty title for a very important situation. This bill has been a long time coming, there is no doubt about it. Western Australians, myself included, have long been calling for a change to the GST distribution system. While Western Australians wholeheartedly welcome this legislation, we haven't forgotten how we ended up here and who has been standing in their corner in the years leading up to this change. If we revisit the recent history of GST distribution and the events leading to Western Australia's dire financial situation at the end of the mining and construction boom, we see that the Labor Party has always been on the side of Western Australians, while successive Liberal governments have clearly left them in the lurch. It should be noted I think that the GST has not always been a point of contention in WA. It became an issue for two main reasons. The first was that WA began facing the lowest GST relativities in the GST's 20-year history at a time when our economic fortunes were reversing due to the three-year assessment period in the GST, the two-year lag in the system and the incredible and somewhat regrettable, but inevitable, volatility of Western Australia's main sources of revenue—minerals and resources royalties. This legislation will go a significant way towards addressing this issue. Labor supports the legislation, but only because of the recent backflips of this government. Secondly, and more notably, GST distribution became a very serious problem for my state when the people of Western Australia were subjected to the irresponsible economic policies and actions of the Barnett Liberal state government in WA. Make no mistake, it is the Liberal Party in WA that has a track record of uncontrolled spending and budget mismanagement. According to the International Monetary Fund, the Howard-Costello government was the most profligate federal government in Australia in the last 50 years. As the mining boom was gathering pace they cut taxes so far and so fast they forced the Reserve Bank of Australia to rapidly increase interest rates. Then, walking in the footsteps of their predecessors, were the Barnett Liberal-National government in WA with treasurers Troy Buswell and Christian Porter, who managed to completely waste the biggest construction and mining boom in Australia's history. Under the Barnett Liberal-National government, WA finances crumbled, and there is absolutely no doubt that for his actions one former Western Australian Treasurer in particular, the current Attorney-General and current member for Pearce, Mr Porter, has to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the fiscal mess Western Australia found itself in. Over the first term of the Barnett-Porter government expenses grew 33.2 per cent, with no care for how the expected and utterly predictable changes in GST distribution would impact the budget bottom line in WA. During the height of the mining construction boom WA was receiving very high GST payments. At the same time, we were in the great position of being able to reap billions of dollars in mining royalties. This was because of the lag in the GST system. The Productivity Commission found that during this period WA raked in $7 billion more in GST payments than it would have if GST calculations had been made on a same-year basis. Even though the state government was warned by the WA Treasury that its fortunes would quickly reverse and WA's GST relativities would inevitably fall, Premier Barnett and Treasurer Porter decided to behave like that friend who's a little bit bad with his cash, and instead of acting like a Premier and a Treasurer they kept spending, plunging the state into fiscal disrepair. The former Treasurer of Western Australia and now Attorney-General of this country is not an idiot, that is for sure and for certain. He and former Premier Barnett knew how the GST system worked. They should have and could have planned for it. The Attorney-General is not an idiot, but he is irresponsible. This situation was utterly predictable, because we all knew how the GST system worked. I wouldn't say it is a great system, and I'm glad we're fixing it. The lag was there. Increasing mining royalties increased our GST take, which then inevitably brought our GST down to bring us into a relativity with the other states and to ensure the operation of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Instead of using discipline and foresight to manage the budget, the now Attorney-General, then Treasurer of WA, was hedging bets on there being a change in GST legislation and policy. Those bets were used to bankroll some pretty crazy Liberal spending habits. In his 2011-12 budget speech, the WA Treasurer and now Attorney-General made this reckless prediction: What we reasonably anticipate is that in 2013–14 the CGC will have brought in a new GST system. We expect it will produce a floor of about 75 per cent of our population share of the GST. Therefore we expect extra revenue of $1.8billion in 2013–14 and $2.5billion in 2014–15. The government of WA banked this money, which was in no way confirmed or even hinted at, and they kept spending with the idea: 'We expect some money to arrive in future, which will be able to go to reducing existing debt.' As we all know—and now are living with—those changes to the GST distribution system did not happen and the fiscal decisions of the Attorney-General, then state Treasurer of Western Australia, Christian Porter, left the Western Australian state budget in utter disarray. In 2007-08, Western Australia had an operating surplus of $2.6 billion and a total public sector net debt of just $3.6 billion. Nine years later, after two terms of a Liberal-National WA government, the state had an operating deficit of $3 billion and a total public sector net debt of $32.5 billion. While one of the Barnett Liberal-National government's favourite pastimes was to blame the GST for their fiscal problems, they were the ones to blame, fairly and squarely, for WA's enormous budget deficits. It's not just me who thinks this; this economic assessment of the Barnett Liberal-National government is supported by some fairly important people in Western Australia and around the country. The Productivity Commission's report into horizontal fiscal equalisation explicitly states that, while Western Australia's GST experience has been unprecedented, it was 'exacerbated by earlier budget decisions of the WA government'—quite an understatement. The 2018 Special Inquiry into Government Programs and Projects in Western Australia, carried out by respected WA leader and businessman, John Langoulant, similarly stated that if the Barnet government had heeded the WA Treasury's warnings about unchecked spending and the expected and, as I said earlier, utterly predictable drops in WA's GST 'it is highly likely that the state's current budget and debt positions would have been mitigated, and in a material manner.' Always understated, John Langoulant, but he does get to the truth. Even renowned Australian economist Saul Eslake has come out and said: WA's present fiscal woes are the result not of a flawed system of distributing revenue from the GST among the States and Territories, but rather of its inability to control its own spending. After two terms of a Liberal state government failing to manage spending, net debt increased by an incredible 500 per cent and Western Australia had its credit rating down-graded—the first time it had been downgraded in WA in 15 years; and this after the biggest mining and construction boom this country has ever seen. At the end of nearly a decade of the Barnett Liberal-National WA government, Western Australia, who had just gone through the largest mining boom in Australia's history, had the equal lowest Moody's rating of all the states and the second-lowest rating for Standard & Poor's. The reality is that Liberal governments around this country have a track record for unchecked, destructive spending habits. What this legislation really is is a chance for the Prime Minister Party to mop up the tens-of-billions-of-dollars hole one of the members of his current cabinet left in Western Australia. The Labor Party in opposition watched this budget disaster unfold in Western Australia, and we have been backing changes to the GST to protect Western Australians from suffering further at the hands of the Liberal government's continuing economic mismanagement. The Labor Party, both state and federal, has been leading the charge on GST the whole way, and this legislation is in no small part due to our efforts to always speak on behalf of Western Australians. At the end of August, last year, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced our Fair Share for WA Fund, committing $1.6 billion for Western Australia, bringing their share of the GST up to 70 per cent. At the time, the government roundly criticised us for this top-up method. The Treasurer at the time, now the Prime Minister, said that 'top-ups forever is a mugs game', but he didn't offer any alternative solution to fix the GST imbalance. The then Treasurer—now maybe the last Prime Minister in a long line of Prime Ministers under the current government—didn't really care about helping Western Australians. But now he is supporting this top-off. I wonder what he is now thinking about those statements. In July, after the government released its interim response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the GST, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, demanded the government 'make the floor the law', which would give Western Australians much-needed certainty and stability in the GST distribution. That demand was ridiculed by this government and the current Prime Minister, then Treasurer, said that there was no need to legislate the GST deal. So, again, we see the Prime Minister, then Treasurer, not really caring about protecting Western Australians. But now Liberal seats in WA and his job are at risk. Member for Tangney, I am not sure of your margin but, after the results in Wentworth, you might need to get out door-knocking a bit more, because we know the member for Pearce has to. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Order! Stick to the bill, please. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 It's pretty close. It's about jobs in Western Australia and the GST—jobs at risk. The Prime Minister now decides it's time to fix the GST with legislation. The Liberals have been ignoring the cries from my state for many years, including the cries of Western Australia Liberal colleagues, and in that I include in the member for Tangney. I know that when he was state secretary of the Liberal Party he had a good old crack, as did Premier Barnett, but we know that the five Liberal cabinet ministers from Western Australia in the government benches had been utterly unable to get the Abbott or Turnbull governments to do anything about fixing or introducing reforms to the GST distribution that would benefit our state, and, for that matter, benefit the other states. But when five Liberal seats are on the line in Western Australia the Prime Minister comes running. When the Prime Minister gets scared he'll lose his job, and that his colleagues might too, he starts to at least pretend to care for Western Australia. Even then, when the Prime Minister didn't it right, he tried to push this legislation through without including a guarantee that no state or territory would be worse off as a result of the new model. Labor wouldn't let this fly, and quite rightly. All state and territory Treasurers, including the state Treasurer of Western Australia, Ben Wyatt, called for a guarantee of funding. The government tried to make it look like Labor was not on Western Australia's side, but we have always been ready to legislate GST changes and we have been ready for over a year. We just weren't willing to accept lazily drafted legislation that wasn't in the interests of all Australians. Now, we are finally here and I'm relieved reform in this sector is finally happening. This bill will go a long way to removing the politics of GST distribution, so the state and territory governments can get on with governing and be assured of a reliable GST source for at least some time into the future. The legislation ensures there is a review of this new system. I think that's very wise. It will be a good thing to revisit at the appropriate time, as set out in the legislation. Horizontal fiscal equalisation has been important for our Federation for a long time. It ensures that if your family moves from a place in my electorate, say, Baldivis in Western Australia, to Cairns in Queensland, you know your children will have access to similar standards of education. At different times people will go on holiday—for instance, this week my mother, who lives in Rockingham, is with my sister from Queensland and they're in Tasmania right now. I know that because of horizontal fiscal equalisation they will be able to access the same level of care as they do in their respective homes. Should an accident befall them or if my mum gets a bit crook, she'll receive the same level of health care she would get at home in Rockingham. I think that's a very important part of what horizontal fiscal equalisation seeks to do for our country as a whole. I'd like to thank the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer of the Labor Party, and also the Leader of the Opposition, who consulted widely in bringing about this reform. They consulted with Western Australian colleagues, and I thank them also for their very hard work on this over many years, including the former member for Brand. I used to work for Gary Gray on this very issue. Mr Robert HWT A very decent man. Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Thank you. He is. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have consulted with all states—with state Labor. Sensible, responsible commitments have been made that have thankfully brought the Liberal government to this place. Facts cannot be avoided. They will not be forgotten. We will all remember that Labor supported WA and started this movement, and we will end this movement together with the government in supporting this legislation. I really hope this legislation brings an end to a sentiment that has been getting a bit of ground in Western Australia, which I think is very unfortunate—a sentiment that is not totally supportive of our Federation. So, I really do hope that the states and territories get their fair share of GST and that the distribution is set to be more steady. Even though it was always predictable, I hope it is even more predictable, so that Western Australians can once again be more enthusiastic about our Federation. With that, I support the bill. 16:49 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. This legislation delivers once and for all a permanent fix to WA's unfair share of the GST. It is not a bandaid. It is not a political quick fix. It is a sustainable change to the GST distribution system that delivers the GST share that WA deserves. This is a story of action and a story of inaction: a story of action by Liberals representing Western Australia, and a story of inaction from Labor Party members and senators who represent Western Australia. WA Liberal members and senators have long advocated for this GST reform. We remember when the Prime Minister announced the Productivity Commission inquiry into the GST. He said it had only happened through the strong advocacy of every single WA Liberal member and senator. I thank particularly my colleague Senator Dean Smith, who has long championed the Productivity Commission approach. In fact, it's the hard work of all WA Liberal MPs and senators, and indeed all Western Australians, that has kept this government and previous governments focused on delivering this real solution. This legislation will secure $4.7 billion in extra GST for the essential services we need. It will lock in a 75c GST floor so WA gets more of the GST that it pays. The government will rewrite the old GST formula and we will also invest more funding in the system so that WA and every single state and territory are better off. The government's GST plan is fair, reasonable and sustainable. There's a fair go principle to the way the GST is shared around the country, and I think every Australian accepts that. Strong states support the less strong states. We make sure that every Australian, no matter where they live—east or west, country or city—has access to the essential services, the things we all rely on, like frontline nurses, police officers and teachers. The fair go principle that's used to distribute the GST between the states and territories must also recognise those states that have a go. WA is an amazingly entrepreneurial state. Our state has grabbed hold of the mining resources. We have developed those resources. We have created thousands of jobs for WA families and the many thousands of people who chose to move to WA to make a better life for themselves and their families. WA drove the national economy and contributed an extraordinary amount of revenue to the development of our state and our nation. But, off the back of the mining boom, every Western Australian knows so well that the GST formula didn't keep up with the realities of the economic situation. WA got down to below 30c in the dollar. When introducing this bill, the Treasurer made the following point: The situation was so ridiculous that Tasmania and the Northern Territory both received more GST revenue than Western Australia, despite having populations that were one-fifth and one-tenth, respectively, of the size of Western Australia's population. The current system of GST distribution was effective when the Australian economy and the state and territory economies were relatively stable, but the mining boom was a shock to both the WA and Australian economies. It has exposed weaknesses in the system over the last decade—weaknesses that could not have been foreseen when the GST was introduced. So it was time to make improvements to the system. I congratulate the then Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, who championed GST redistribution and raised WA's abysmal share of GST as the No. 1 issue when he represented WA interstate. Colin Barnett well and truly brought the fight to Canberra, and he's to be credited with the fact that national political attention has been so well focused on this issue. I will defend Colin Barnett—unlike those opposite, who seek to denigrate his time in office. Under Colin Barnett's leadership of the state of Western Australia, 450,000 people came to Western Australia to make WA their home. The families of those 450,000 people had teachers in their schools. The essential services we rely on kept pace with that population growth. Labor accuse Colin Barnett of reckless spending, but they never say which projects Colin Barnett invested in that they would do without. They certainly don't do it when they're celebrating the corporate hospitality they enjoy at Perth stadium. The national headlines saw Colin Barnett arguing WA's case. Mr Barnett focused the Rudd and Gillard governments day in, day out on a better share of the GST for Western Australia. But federal Labor just weren't interested in helping the west. They were interested in milking WA. That's exactly what they did. Mr Barnett argued that WA should receive no less than 75c of each dollar we collected in the GST, and we have to remember this very strong advocacy for WA, especially when we look at where we are today, after a very long journey. This floor is now included in this legislation to lock into law WA's fair share of GST. Despite Rudd and Gillard Labor hanging WA out to dry, the first action of this Liberal government when we were elected in 2013 was to put a stop to the drop in WA's GST share. This government, our government, has invested an extra $1.4 billion in additional essential infrastructure and hospitals funding for WA to top up our GST share, the first government to do so. This government took action after years of inaction from the Rudd and Gillard governments. The top-up funding was an invaluable investment in our state. But top-up funding for individual states is never going to be a long-term solution for the GST. I've likened this to a patient who presents at the emergency ward of a hospital. That top-up funding was that patient in emergency getting much-needed pain relief. They welcomed it. It was important. It kept them going. But WA is not a state that wants to rely on welfare or pain relief. We wanted a real structural fix to the distribution of the GST that was fair and reasonable. Those cash injections and top-ups were welcome, but they weren't the solution that we so desired, because we know that the GST formula needed to change. Not once did the Labor Party advocate changing the GST formula. They wanted to keep WA on welfare in just the same way they'd like to keep so many Australians on welfare as well. So the Prime Minister tasked the Productivity Commission with reporting on the impact of the GST distribution on national productivity and economic growth. I remember that meeting well. Treasurer Scott Morrison, now Prime Minister, explained to me and my colleagues that as the Treasurer for this Federation, the Commonwealth of Australia, he needed to act in the best interests of the Commonwealth and of our nation as a whole, not in the best interests of one state over another. That's why he set in place this process for the Productivity Commission to gather the evidence that was so required to prove that the GST distribution was bad not only for Western Australia but for our entire nation. As we predicted, the PC inquiry confirmed that the system for distributing the GST was broken and needed to be fixed. The Productivity Commission review gave us the pathway to reform and the evidence we needed to make critical long-term GST reform that sticks. States that have a go will get a go with the new GST formula. Entrepreneurial states that seize and develop their opportunities, as WA does so well, will no longer be penalised. Reforms outlined in this legislation will deliver an additional $9 billion in extra untied funding to all states and territories over a 10-year period, and an additional $1 billion in perpetuity, once fully implemented, will be CPI linked. Payments will be verified annually by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and adjustments made accordingly. The government's additional contribution to the GST pool will not be offset or see a decrease in other grant funding to the states. This is more funding to invest in schools, hospitals, roads and transport. To assist the transition to the new GST distribution system, the Commonwealth will provide short-term funding to ensure no state receives less than 70c per person per dollar of GST. This rises to 75c from 2024-25. Benchmarking all states and territories to the broad-based economies of our two largest states, New South Wales and Victoria—whichever is higher—will remove the extreme circumstances like the mining boom from Australia's GST distribution system. The productivity inquiry gave the government the evidence it needed to make critical GST reform. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia and in particular its chief economist, Rick Newnham, also played an important role in ensuring that other states and territories best understood the impact that this failed GST formula had in relation to WA and in relation to the national economy. This legislation provides the certainty that is needed for the new GST distribution system in the long term. We are committed to transitioning to a new GST system and a new GST formula in a way that's fairer and sustainable and that benefits all Australians. With this legislation, Australia will have a GST distribution that protects against economic shocks and provides a more stable source of revenue for all states and territories. Every Liberal member across the country is backing hardworking Australians and backing this government to fix the GST. This commitment to backing hardworking Australians isn't always shared by members opposite, because Labor say a lot and do nothing. The Rudd and Gillard governments did absolutely nothing to fix the GST. After holding out for so long, the current Leader of the Opposition has been dragged reluctantly to support the GST reform. There has been much confusion about where Labor actually stand on fixing the GST, including fixing the GST formula in the long term. For so long, Labor clung to a policy to fix the GST formula that in fact didn't change the GST formula in any way. The member for Burt said that Labor would just have to consider top-ups, recognising the political reality that actually changing the GST is almost impossible. So said the member for Burt. The member for Burt also said that, if the government did adopt a change to the formula, it might happen in the land where pigs might fly. Well, the pigs are flying, Member for Burt. You gave up; we delivered. We got on. We are reforming the GST. You weren't. You were going to keep WA on welfare, and that was wrong. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the member for Burt is looking very closely at this government's real fix to the GST that locks in a floor, changes the GST formula and guarantees additional funding for every state and territory. Through the confusion, Labor gave up. For Labor, it all got too hard. But this Liberal-National government and this Prime Minister are not scared of the hard decisions. We've stayed the course, and we've delivered the real GST reform that we need, in this legislation. Australia is seeing strong economic growth, record job creation and a federal budget that is on track for a return to surplus. That's not good luck. Good management and fair economic policies put in place by this government have contributed to the work of so many hardworking Australians and the jobs created by small businesses in this country. The Prime Minister's leadership and determination on fixing the GST; tax relief to encourage hardworking, aspirational Australians; backing small business to create more jobs; and getting electricity prices down are delivering for all Australians. This government's GST plan is real. It's long term. It's a permanent fix to the GST solution, which the WA people deserve. It is a plan that has been delivered by the Liberal and National parties, not a plan that has been delivered in one way by those members from the Labor Party opposite, particularly those members from Western Australia from the Australian Labor Party, who have made no practical contribution at all to this real fix. As I said, the member for Burt thought it was all too hard. He explained this legislation as occurring only on the day that pigs might fly. Well, Member for Burt, the pigs are flying. The government's plan to fix the GST is real: a long-term, permanent solution that WA deserves and the plan that will benefit every state and every territory. 17:04 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I support the intent of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 to make sure that every state and territory gets its fair share of GST. But I'd just like to correct the former speaker, who was having a crack at the members of the ALP representing electorates in Western Australia. I know for a fact that they lobbied for a long time and hard to get the result we're at today. The fact of the matter is that those opposite had to be dragged to the table to agree that no jurisdiction should be worse off. They didn't want to do that. So that was a bit disingenuous, but there you go. So I do support the intent of the bill but, like everything this shambles of a government does, it does it for the wrong reasons or even, as we've seen, as a result of an administrative error—like deposing a sitting Prime Minister. Mr Robert interjecting— Mr GOSLING 245392 Don't leave now, I'm talking about when you deposed a sitting Prime Minister. Stay! Hang around. It's going to get better. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Order! Keep it on the bill. Mr Keenan E0J I don't think he's terribly interested in what you’ve got to say. Mr GOSLING 245392 Really mate? Check his download costs! But I digress a bit, Mr Deputy Speaker; you're very right. But the reasons were never explained about the Prime Minister being moved off or why they voted for a white supremacist slogan by mistake. There's been a bit of policy on a run. Let's hope that this bill is not the result of an administrative error. Let us hope that the coalition members are now paying more attention to which side of the chamber they are sitting on when they vote and more attention to what they're actually voting for. We have, as I said a little while ago, advocated for a long time for a legislated guarantee that no state or territory be worse off under changes to the GST distribution. That's important. So now the government and the Treasurer have reluctantly, it's fair to say, agreed with our position that this simple proposition, this guarantee, should be legislated, that the guarantee should be included in law. Initially, the Treasurer said that this was not necessary. But now, reluctantly, and only under Labor pressure, I'm glad that he caved in—or, perhaps to put it a little bit more charitably, he's finally seen sense and has included this guarantee in this proposed legislation before us today. I do support the amendment guaranteeing that no jurisdiction will be worse off. Obviously I very much welcome the guarantee that the Northern Territory won't be worse off. But I'm sad to say that this is an example of a government that's focused on itself and in policy disarray. It's a government that, it is probably fair to say, has almost ceased governing, reacts to pressure and gets the big calls wrong. It's been a bipartisan view for many years, in relation to the distribution of Commonwealth revenue, that all Australians have access to vital government services wherever they live in our great nation. That simple proposition—delivering it in a fair and equitable manner—is not so simple. The cost of delivery of government services varies widely across the country. I am the representative of a remote area of Australia—the northern capital but still remote from the large capitals of the eastern seaboard. In the Top End of the Northern Territory, where I'm from, we're very much aware it costs a great deal to deliver services—health, education, transport, roads, policing—and it is more expensive to deliver those services in those regional areas and remote areas than it is in the densely populated areas of south-eastern Australia. So it is not just a question of dividing up the revenue total according to population. Other more complex issues have to be considered—such as distance, climatic factors and historical disadvantage. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech, the way the GST is distributed has not been updated since it was introduced in 2000. But the GST now makes up more than half of Commonwealth payments to the states and territories. I do acknowledge that Western Australia has legitimate concerns around the current model for GST distribution. Their share fell to 30c in the GST dollar for GST raised in WA. Again, as the Treasurer said in his second reading speech, the current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation was not designed to deal with significant economic shocks. The mining boom that we saw in WA was such an economic shock. The Productivity Commission found that the current GST system can deliver perverse outcomes when there is a significant shock to the economy, such as that boom, so this bill changes the method of equalisation from the strongest state, which is currently Western Australia, to the next-strongest state, whether it be New South Wales or Victoria. The GST is distributed to the states and territories according to what is called horizontal fiscal equalisation—a term only an economist could devise. In the Territory we know the term 'horizontal fiscal equalisation' well because it has been the backbone that has enabled the Northern Territory to deliver services to Territorians. The system seeks to equalise the capacities of all states and territories by bringing them up to a standard set by the Grants Commission—and that is the fiscal capacity of the fiscally strongest state; and, as I said, Western Australia is presently nominated. This is to ensure each state and territory—whether it be where my good friend is from in Tasmania, in remote areas of WA or in any other state—has the same capacity to deliver services and infrastructure. At the beginning of the GST period in the 2000s the strongest state was Victoria, and then New South Wales. WA, as we have spoken about, became the fiscally strongest state in about 2009 because of the boom. Members will have noticed, however, that mining in WA has largely transitioned from the construction and investment phase of the mining cycle to the production phase. Of course, we hope that there will be more construction and more investment in the future. In fact, I was just in the Pilbara chairing a parliamentary hearing on how the mining industry can better support local economies. I saw off the coast of Port Hedland about 15 iron ore carriers coming to take the iron ore to the huge markets in Asia. I hope for the best for WA because what's good for the WA economy is good for our national economy. There needed to be a change to take into account the fact that there are peaks and troughs. This change to equalise to the second-strongest state, whether it be New South Wales or Victoria, will have the effect of removing from that GST process some of the effects of the extreme economic changes, like the boom. Victoria and New South Wales are two states that are have more broad-based, diversified and stable economies. They will provide a better benchmark. How do these changes affect us in the Northern Territory, particularly those who I represent who live in Darwin and Palmerston? This legislation guarantees that we will be no worse off under the new scheme for GST distribution. Thank goodness we did it too. We on this side fought for this legislative guarantee. As I've already commented, the Treasurer wasn't keen to do it. Significantly, this bill does not include additional top-up funding for Western Australia or for us in the Northern Territory, which was also announced in the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report. This funding is $1.7 billion for Western Australia and $69 million for the NT. These payments will be handled separately. In the case of the Territory I'll be watching closely to make sure that it happens. The NT government has calculated that we might have lost $500 million in GST revenue up until now. This legislation protects us from future cuts but does nothing to restore or even recognise this lost $500 million. That is $500 million less for police, teachers and nurses—and, trust me, in the Territory we need all three and more. So I will continue to stand with the Territory government—with the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, and the Treasurer, Nicole Manison—and fight for every GST dollar. Territorians deserve no less. They deserve the same level of services as other Australians. This current government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, does not appear to believe that Territorians do deserve the same level of services as other Australians. We all know—or those opposite should know—that Territorians are doing it tough. We've had our own transition from construction to production. In fact, it was just this morning that the first shipment of LNG left Darwin Port bound for Japan. That is a great thing. We have officially transitioned today from the construction phase into the production and operational phrase. But the huge reduction in jobs at the project is obviously having a knock-on effect for our businesses, retail and service industries. The Territory Labor government is working hard to develop opportunities and new economic activities, particularly in tourism, agriculture and energy. Indeed, there are boundless opportunities in the Territory, but we need some investment and we need it now. Frankly, the Morrison government is not helping. I will just give those present and those listening two quick examples. The first is the City Deal for Darwin. We need it now, not when it suits the Prime Minister and the Territory's Country Liberal Party in the lead-up to an election, whenever that may be. We need it now. It's been 550-odd days since the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the new envoy for the Morrison government promised a city deal for the Northern Territory. That infrastructure funding is important to the Territory. it means jobs and opportunities for local businesses. It means families coming to the Territory to live and work. It was promised 550 days ago—but, still, nothing. We know from leaks from the government that it's going to be $100 million, and we're happy with that. That's what we asked for. Michael Gunner's NT government put in $100 million and we said to the government, '$100 million.' We know from leaks that we're going to get the $100 million, but it's just going to be when it suits the Prime Minister to visit. But there can be no excuses when he visits next. It may be during a visit of Japanese Prime Minister Abe to Darwin next month. That city deal must be signed—no excuses. It must be signed, because Territorians, as I said, by then will probably have been waiting 570 days. Townsville, and I'm happy for them, waited 30 days for their city deal to be signed. For Launceston it was zero. I'm happy for the Tasmanians. I'm happy for the northern Queenslanders. They're our northern brethren. But it will be 570 days, if he signs it. He might just announce that he is going to sign it close to the election, and wouldn't that be a shame? The other thing we've been let down by is cuts to our Public Service. Would you believe that 40 per cent of Public Service jobs have been cut during the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—40 per cent! For those opposite, that's a lot. It's really affecting our economy. I'm happy that the GST is going to be legislated so that we are not left behind. 17:19 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. It's a rather long title, but it's very important. Deputy Speaker, before I start I want to take you back to 27 February 2018. I've got a news story here from The West Australian, written by Sarah Martin. In it she talks about the member for Burt, who said that fixing the GST system is 'almost politically impossible'. The article states: … he did not believe the Federal Government would implement any changes to the GST formula, despite the Productivity Commission reviewing the issue.    …   …   … “Whatever the Productivity Commission does they (the Government) will not implement those changes,” … He said that trying to get any changes through is 'almost politically impossible'. The article finally states: … if the Government did adopt a change to the formula—which might happen “in the land of pigs might fly”—then the Opposition would look at it. Well, the good news is that pigs are flying, they are definitely flying, and the GST fix is in, and that's what we're talking about right now. I don't want to be too harsh on the member for Burt; he does have a colourful turn of phrase. I did enjoy reading through this. Ms Butler interjecting— Mr HASTIE 260805 That's right, exactly: pigs are flying. This has been a long time waiting for Western Australians. It's been a consistent sore point for this great state, my great state. Last year, I did about 30 town hall forums across Canning and this was the issue that consistently came up—GST: it needed to be fixed. We surveyed over 40,000 Canning constituents last year, and GST was raised most consistently. We started a hard copy petition and we gained over 2,000 signatures to that petition to get our fair share. I realised it was a real issue when I went to Quambie Park in Waroona, which is an aged-care facility, which this government actually gave $1.3 million to under the Building Better Regions Fund. At Quambie Park, I was speaking to the residents, and an elderly woman in her 90s stood up and said, 'When are you going to fix the GST?' I think that really drove home the point that people in WA had had enough of the unfairness at the heart of this system. This government believes in a fair go for those who want to have a go. As Liberals, we believe in reward for effort as the proven means of providing prosperity for all Australians. At the heart of Australian culture is this idea of a fair go. WA does a lot of heavy lifting economically for this country; it is productive and enterprising. I know in Canning, especially, we have a lot of workers from the resources sector. They kept Australia going, particularly during the GFC and the years that followed, during the boom. It's really important that we get our fair share, and that's what this bill seeks to do. The old model of horizontal fiscal equalisation was based on the principle of a fair go, with each state and territory equalised to the strongest. But it became clear that it couldn't adapt to sudden changes in economic conditions. Of course, we had the boom in WA, and when the boom slowed down, WA hurt and hurt pretty bad. We went down to having a GST share as low as 30c in every dollar. And that is unfair. This coalition government, this Liberal-National government, asked the Productivity Commission to have an inquiry into the HFE. On 15 May this year, the inquiry report to government showed broad support for HFE, but it was very clear the model couldn't adapt to local economic shocks, as we saw in WA. So what did this government do? The government responded to the inquiry report on 5 July this year and proposed reforms to the way the GST is distributed that will leave all states better off while protecting the integrity of the system. What the government has proposed is a three-step transition plan that ensures that no state will be worse off under the new system. The government will provide short-term transition payments to ensure no state or territory share will fall below 70c per person, per dollar. It will put in a floor, which is very, very important. It will phase in a new HFE model based on reasonable equalisation, so each state and territory will be equalised to the stronger of either Victoria or New South Wales. Then we'll do a full transition to the new model and a permanent in-system of 75 per cent relativity floor. The government will also permanently boost moneys available in the GST revenue pool, which is another important part to ensure that no state or territory is worse off. So, on the 1st of this month, 1 October, the government further committed to no state being worse off during the 2021-22 and 2026-27 transition periods. Every state will receive funding that is at least the better of the current system or the updated system. What does all this mean for WA? It's very clear we're actually reforming the system; we're no longer just doing top-ups. This government has done top-ups for some time. Labor were for legislating top-ups. We went with the Productivity Commission's suggestion of reforming the system, and that's what we're doing. So this isn't just some political fix. This will be enduring, which is really, really important. As I said, this will be a much fairer system so no state or territory will be worse off, and, importantly, we'll see an extra $4.7 billion directed to WA, starting in fiscal year 2019-20. I really hope to see some of that funding committed in Canning. There are many projects that I'd like to see worked on. I'd like to see the Peel Health Campus developed, for example. It hasn't kept up with the pace of population growth, and we need funding to improve the services to a very senior population down in the Peel region. I want to see more roads and rail in Canning. We've got the Tonkin highway fully funded and we've got the Byford train station funded, but I'd like to see the Lakelands train station funded. I'm looking forward to seeing that $4.7 billion that's going to come to WA being put to good use—building up our public infrastructure, making Western Australians' lives just that little bit better and, of course, at the end of the day, making the system fairer, which is at the heart of this bill, and that's why I support it. 17:26 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I've often stood up in this place just to remind the House that 'WA' does not stand for 'wait a while', so it's great to see that the government is finally listening. Four weeks ago, the mighty, mighty Eagles won the grand final—against some team from Victoria that nobody's ever heard of! Those around me know that I'm not a huge fan of football. In fact, I'm not a fan of any kind of 'sports ball'. I do find it difficult to coordinate blue and yellow into a stylish outfit! But I am a proud Western Australian, a very proud Western Australian. Just as the grand final cup was brought home to WA by the Eagles, the GST is now on its way home to WA. Every Western Australian member in this House and, possibly, also in the Senate is going to claim some kind of credit for this momentous occasion. Indeed, every one of the Western Australian members of the coalition will crow about how great they are and pat themselves on the back for this. But let's not forget just how we got to this point. Labor support the introduction of the GST bill, and we support the introduction of the bill because it brings the government into line with what Labor have been advocating for some years now regarding the GST. The government has followed Labor's lead at every stage of this process. Bill Shorten first introduced a floor for WA— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Order! Please use the correct titles. Dr ALY 13050 Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition introduced a floor for Western Australia; the government followed our lead. Labor said that the GST floor should be legislated. The government first dismissed this and then adopted the exact same position. Labor committed to ensuring that no state was worse off. The government scoffed at that and then, again, adopted the exact same position. The reality is that Labor has been leading on this issue of GST distribution for years. It was Labor that announced the Fair Share for WA Fund in August 2017, an announcement that made the Liberal Party take seriously the concerns in Western Australia about GST distribution, even though at the time they had a lot of criticisms about that solution. In fact, the then Treasurer, who is now Prime Minister, said, 'Top-ups forever is a mug's game.' It was Labor that committed to legislating for a 70c floor in July of this year, July 2018, and again this government ridiculed it. The former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, first raised the prospect of a GST floor two years ago, but we saw nothing. Western Australians saw nothing—after he came to WA and promised it. If the coalition had introduced a floor back then, when the previous Prime Minister said he would or committed to it, WA would have been $3.5 billion better off by now—$3.5 billion—and I know that all of those in Western Australia know exactly what a difference that would've made to our state. Now the government has accepted a legislated floor and top-ups—showing, of course, that Labor had it right all along, despite their opposition to and criticism of the various measures that Labor has proposed over the years. When Labor and state and territory treasurers unanimously called for a guarantee within this legislation so that no state or territory would be worse off, this government said there didn't need to be one. And now, guess what? There's a guarantee within the legislation. So this bill finally legislates the government response to the Productivity Commission's report into horizontal fiscal equalisation—that's a bit of a mouthful, I must say. It will change the model of equalisation, meaning that it will no longer be measured against the strongest state or territory but the stronger of either New South Wales or Victoria. A 70c floor—which Labor has been calling for, all this time—is proposed for all states and territories, for the year 2022-23 and 2023-24, followed by a floor of 75c for all states and territories for 2024-25 and beyond. The bill also provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth to provide an additional top-up into the GST pool in perpetuity. On top of this, it contains a legislated guarantee that no state or territory will be worse off. This guarantee is cumulative, meaning that, if a state or territory's entitlement over the transition period from '21-22 to '26-27 is less than what they would have received, the guarantee will then activate. Labor supports this part of the bill, but we do have some concerns and reservations. The first of those is that the guarantee is for the transition period only. So the question is: what happens beyond then? What happens if a state or territory is worse off after the transition period? The answer to that is unclear. Would this result in a future Liberal government making cuts to schools and hospitals, as they've done before? The bill requires also that there be a review by the Productivity Commission as to whether the changes are operating effectively, efficiently and as intended, and as to the fiscal implications for each state and territory as a result of this legislation. Labor has no issues with this review. But it is worth noting—and this is a very important point, I might say—that the last time the government initiated a Productivity Commission review into the GST, it rejected the commission's findings, and rightly so, given that the commission's preferred model would have been unacceptable. The bill has been referred to a short Senate inquiry, which is to report by 8 November this year. This review will enable the states and territories to make submissions. In Labor, we will be awaiting the outcome of this review to ensure that we're listening to all Australians on how this legislation will affect them. Overall, though, it is good to see the government finally following in Labor's footsteps and recognising that the current GST system results in an unfair deal for states like Western Australia. Of course, WA is predominantly the state to gain most out of this, but it is also the state that has suffered immeasurably over the last few years, receiving only 30c in the dollar of GST. Labor takes the needs and concerns of Western Australians seriously. The WA state government is cleaning up the financial disaster that they were left with when the Barnett government left WA's state government. The Leader of the Opposition has visited Western Australia so many times that I have lost count. He's taken his obligatory selfie with a quokka, which makes him an honorary Western Australian! He has visited much more than either the previous Prime Minister or the current Prime Minister. We know that WA needs leadership on the GST. Labor has led this government all the way to this legislation. It's great that they're following Labor's lead. It's important to also note the unique position that WA is in. No other state or territory has had its GST share fall below 86c, but WA's share of GST fell to 30c in 2015-16 and in 2016-17. It's heartening to see that the government is finally taking action to ensure that WA is no longer suffering the after-effects of the disastrous Barnett government. In comments made after the government made its about face, the New South Wales Treasurer said: WA (is) being rewarded for poor financial management. That was referring to the Barnett government's failure to manage the rewards of the mining boom. These comments are an indictment of the Barnett government's management of the WA economy. They are also, and perhaps more importantly, an indictment on the role of the then Treasurer of WA, who in early 2011 decided to raise royalties in an attempt to force a change to the GST distribution so that they could keep most of the money. That then Treasurer is now the Attorney-General of Australia, the member for Pearce, who left WA high and dry for the federal parliament. The Attorney-General might be interested to know that the failures of his then WA government have delivered hard times on the people of Western Australia, including in my electorate of Cowan and no doubt also in his electorate of Pearce. After a record boom, Western Australians were right to expect that their government would not squander it away on their pet projects. They were right to expect that their government would make sure that the state was resilient to the effects of a downturn in the mining and construction industry, like we are seeing now. Instead, Western Australia has no buffer to show for the boom. In my electorate of Cowan, I hear every day from people who are doing it tough in the face of the recession of the mining and construction boom. These are people who are qualified professionals, such as engineers, who can no longer find work because the work just isn't there. Ensuring that the GST system works well for all states and territories, especially my home state of Western Australia, is key to ensuring that those people can prosper again, despite the missed opportunity of the mining boom. In closing, I just want to reiterate that this side of the House will always speak for the people of Western Australia. We have shown that in advocating for a GST system that works for Western Australia but that also leaves no other state or territory worse off. We've shown that we advocate not just for Western Australians but for all Australians in proposing top-ups where they're needed and in proposing a legislated floor. Labor has led this government all the way to this legislation, and I'm sure that we will continue to do so. 17:38 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to rise in this House today to back the coalition government's plan for a fairer and more sustainable way of distributing GST for all Australians through the bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. That's a mouthful, but I think this is a tremendous piece of legislation. I want to commend the Treasurer for his willingness to listen to the concerns of various colleagues. I know I had discussions with the Treasurer to ensure that Queensland was getting its fair share as well. The important thing about this government is that we are bringing a piece of legislation to this House today, again, that will see every state benefit, including Queensland and my electorate of Forde. This bill seeks to provide a new solution to the equal distribution of GST across the country. It is a plan that is designed to leave all states and territories better off while guaranteeing that no state's share of GST will fall below 70c in the dollar from 2022-23 and 75c from 2024-25. The way GST is distributed in Australia has not been updated since it was introduced in 2000 by then Prime Minister John Howard and then Treasurer Peter Costello, and since then the revenue has more than doubled. Not only that, but it is also expected to grow another 65 per cent over the next decade. With the conditions introduced in 2000, it's important to reflect in the changed environment that they are no longer conducive to the environment we operate in, leaving the system flawed and, as we all recognise, in need of reform. The Productivity Commission found that, although the current GST distribution system functions well and achieves higher levels of fiscal equity, it can deliver perverse outcomes when there is a significant shock to the Australian economy, such as the mining boom. Being from Queensland, I readily acknowledge the shortcomings of the system that have resulted in WA receiving only 30c in the dollar. This bill is designed to avoid the situation we've seen in Western Australia's with that record low of 30c in the dollar. This compares to Victoria and New South Wales, who saw more than 90c in the dollar, with smaller states seeing even higher rates. The current system of horizontal fiscal equalisation does not account for those unprecedented shocks or changes. The mining boom exposed vulnerabilities in the system that could not have been anticipated when the GST was introduced. But, importantly, once again it is this government that shows that it seeks to learn from those experiences and make relevant improvements to the system rather than waiting round to see what those opposite would do and see the same errors repeated. This bill will create a new standard for the GST distribution system to ensure the fiscal capacities of all states and territories are at least the equal of New South Wales or Victoria. The government's interim response was released on 5 July this year. The proposed reforms to the way GST is allocated will leave the states and territories better off and protect the integrity of the system. In essence, the states should have sufficient resources—that is, the fiscal capacity—so that all Australians have equal access to vital government services no matter where they live across the country. Importantly, this can be seen in conjunction with a number of other measures that we are undertaking. The government's plan will first create a new equalisation benchmark against New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is higher, and all states will transition to this new equalisation standard over six years from 2021-22 to 2026-27. Secondly, it will introduce a permanent in-system relativity floor of 70c from 2022-23, increasing to 75c in the dollar from 2024-25. Thirdly, this bill will see a permanent boost to the GST distribution pool of funds available for all states and territories providing direct Commonwealth cash injections in addition to GST collections each year from 2021-22 onwards. This bill will enable an initial boost of some $600 million in 2021-22 and a further $250 million boost in 2024-25, indexed each year to grow in line with GST. As part of the fourth stage during the transition period from 2021-22 to 2026-27, the states and territories will be guaranteed the better of the old system or the new system. This means that at the end of the transition period each state and territory will have received the better of the cumulative total over the entire period of either the old system or the updated system. Payments will be verified annually by the Commonwealth Grants Commission over the transition period and any adjustments will be made accordingly. The fifth stage, to be completed by December 2026, will see the Productivity Commission conduct an inquiry to assess whether the updated system is working efficiently and effectively and operating as intended. Lastly, we'll separately see short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory to keep their relativities above 70c and $4.66 respectively from 2019-20 to 2021-22. At the end of this period, at 2026-27, Australia will have a horizontal fiscal equalisation system that seeks to protect against economic shocks and provides a more stable source of revenue for all states and territories. Importantly, in my state of Queensland, over the six years from 2021-22 to 2026-27, Queensland will benefit from a $518 million boost in untied funding. This will see additional funding across the state—and, importantly, in my community—available for schools, hospitals, roads and other essential social support services. Importantly, this is on top of the already record funding we are providing to schools and hospitals, as well as infrastructure, across Queensland. The horizontal fiscal equalisation fair-go principle changes the way the GST is allocated among the states and territories to benefit all Australians. The government's horizontal fiscal equalisation reforms implemented in this bill continue to uphold this principle so that all Australians are on an equal footing no matter where they reside. This bill will see the Commonwealth injecting an additional $9 billion into the system over the 10 years to 2028-29 to make every jurisdiction better off. But the states will also benefit over a shorter period in the fact that they will receive additional funds over the next four years, as a result of decisions in this government's 2015-16 budget, from applying GST to online purchases and other compliance matters. Importantly, the additional funding from the Commonwealth will not come at the expense of existing payments to the states and will be provided in perpetuity. The Commonwealth's projections use the Productivity Commission's estimates, based on numbers that the states have provided. The government has consulted extensively with all the states on its proposal since the release of its interim response. Unlike changes to the rate and base of the GST, changes to the distribution of GST revenue do not require the approval of the states, but, to provide certainty to the Australian people, the Commonwealth is now seeking to legislate these reforms by amending the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act and the Federal Financial Relations Act. In the end, GST provides an important source of revenue to all states and territories. We have built a system that operates in a changing economy. Once again, this is a demonstration that this coalition government is focused on delivering responsible, forward-thinking economic management for the country and in particular, in this case, with the GST. It is only a coalition government that is delivering strong economic growth, record jobs growth and a stronger economy and only a coalition government that will and can deliver the real benefits for Australians right across this great country. I'm pleased to be speaking in support of this bill and commend this bill, given that it's a responsible GST plan that will benefit all states and therefore all Australians. I commend this bill to the House. 17:48 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Well, it's the day we may never have thought would arrive. Indeed, it's a day that I've previously said was almost politically impossible, and the solution before us today vindicates that position. I have been listening to the government speakers debating this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. I have personally led the debate on bringing about this GST fix for Western Australia. After years of pleading with the government, finally they have seen sense. Finally they have agreed to Labor's proposal that the GST for WA and across the country be fixed, to be made fair, and that, in doing so, no state would be worse off—the element that makes political impossibility instead a reality. What a ride we've had to get here. This is the 23rd time I've stood in this place talking about a fair share of the GST for Western Australia—the 23rd time!—and I've been in this place only since the middle of 2016. WA need our fair share of GST and we need it now. We've been disproportionately propping up the rest of the nation for too long, and it's left our state worse off. WA has a legitimate complaint. It should never be forgotten just how much WA was financially crippled by joining the federation in the first place. Indeed, it was precisely because of this that horizontal fiscal equalisation was born and formalised through the Commonwealth Grants Commission back in the 1930s, following such fiscal difficulties pushing WA to try to leave the federation. Never in the history of the GST forming the basis for funding for HFE has any other state or territory fallen below a relativity of 86c, yet we in WA copped 30c in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Even now, it has only crept up to 34c. Labor has been leading the charge to get a fair share of GST for WA from the very beginning, calling for changes to the unfair system. Labor announced our legislated Fair Share for WA Fund at the end of August 2017, recognising the issues that Western Australia has experienced. We committed at the time $1.6 billion, to be paid for with our measures to improve the budget bottom line, which would have put WA up to a 70c level. At the time, the then Treasurer, now the Prime Minister, criticised us for this top-up method, calling it a mug's game. That was despite Labor's proposal giving certainty in the medium term, compared to the government's prior approach of piecemeal, ad hoc, last-minute top-ups that caused as much fiscal harm as they did good. So it wasn't long before the government announced its own package of funding for Western Australia. Now it appears the Liberals have agreed to our position on the GST carve-up—that is, we introduce an initial floor of 70c in the dollar for WA, then for all states from 2022, and then a 75c floor from 2024. You can't trust this government on the empty promises that they make, whether it's to maintain funding for schools and hospitals, to save the ABC, to have stable government, or to keep the same Prime Minister—or, dare I say, even the same Deputy Prime Minister. So you can understand our apprehension at agreeing to an unlegislated GST floor. Bill Shorten's and Labor's position was to make the floor the law. The now Prime Minister told us in July that we didn't need to legislate a floor, that it was unnecessary; yet on our side of the House we persisted. Then, once he'd ascended his throne, the Prime Minister agreed to do it. Similarly, despite the government saying that no state would be worse off under their plan, they said that they didn't need to legislate that either. We know that the people of Australia need certainty in this era of empty promises and thought bubbles from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. The state and territory treasurers need that certainty too. We needed the assurance that no state or territory would be worse off written into law. After all, not just does Labor understand the plight of Western Australia; we understand the reliance of Tasmania, the Northern Territory and others on GST to support their state and territory budgets too. The Prime Minister got himself tied in knots a few weeks ago spruiking his GST plan ahead of the meeting of state and territory treasurers, saying it was good to go and no further assurances needed to be made. It takes a special kind of person to bring together all sides of politics from all states and territories. This Prime Minister and his Treasurer managed to do that—but it was against them. That is not to mention the prospect of the government's Tasmanian senators crossing the floor against them. Not one state or territory treasurer agreed to the GST carve-up without an assurance that no state or territory would be worse off. Even the Treasurer of the great state of Western Australia, Ben Wyatt, faced with the toughest of budgetary circumstances, supported the other states, knowing that no other state should have to suffer what WA had. And oh boy hasn't the Prime Minister undertaken the most spectacular backflip of them all in the last week? When Labor said the commitment to ensure no state would be worse off should be enshrined in law, the Liberal Party scoffed at us. Last week, they agreed to do just that until 2026. Seriously, given the short-term tenure of Liberal Prime Ministers, this one might have a future in gymnastics, because in just the last 12 months the Treasurer turned Prime Minister has held nearly every conceivable position possible on the GST. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics are not that far away, Prime Minister! Meanwhile, Labor has consistently stood for a fair go for WA and for all Australians on the GST. So what have we got before us today? This bill seeks to legislate the government's response to the Productivity Commission's report on horizontal fiscal equalisation—a response that was delayed for months. In fact, it doesn't really enact the Productivity Commission's recommendations at all. It makes you wonder why we had to wait, really. The bill will make changes to the model for equalisation to avoid abnormal variations by pegging it to the higher of New South Wales or Victoria, which have historically been the consistently better-performing states. This change will occur over a transition period, involving additional funds from the Commonwealth to ensure that Western Australia receives at least a 70c floor from 2021—indeed, through unlegislated grants from 2019—and a 75c floor from 2024, as well as to ensure no shortfalls in funding to other states and territories. This bill also seeks to legislate a 'no state or territory will be worse off guarantee' during the period of full transition from 2021-22 through to 2026-27. This guarantee will mean that, over the course of the transition period, states will be topped up to ensure they receive the better of the old or new equalisation model over the transition period. This has been accepted by state and territory treasurers. While this is reasonable, we are not totally unconcerned about this. The guarantee only sustains for that transition period. What happens after that? As I mentioned before, it appears that it is only Labor that really understands or cares for all states and territories in the Commonwealth, and in particular their own plight if they receive less GST revenues. Western Australians know the struggle and don't want to see any other state or territory face the same fate. That is why, unlike those opposite, our Labor Party has worked so well together across all states and territories on a GST solution. Our leader, Bill Shorten, and our shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, should be acknowledged for their leadership and constant consultation on this issue. The other states and territories can only hope for a Labor government to be in office at that point at the end of the transition to ensure financial security beyond the point of transition. Then there is the issue of other Commonwealth payments. It is one thing for the government to say that it will put more money into the GST pool, but what then happens to the other funding for the states, such as for schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure? I am pleased that the new Treasurer has written to his state and territory counterparts in this letter to confirm that the additional financial assistance in this legislation will not be offset or partially offset by the decrease in other grant funding to the states. Finally, this bill legislates for a Productivity Commission inquiry at the end of the transition period to make sure everything is working as it should—efficiently, effectively and as intended. Contrary to the wilfully misleading advertisements run by Senators Cormann, Cash, Reynolds and others, Labor will support this bill in the House and in the Senate. We need to get the GST fixed for WA and across the rest of the country. We need to fix this as soon as possible, because WA is currently being left behind. In fact, if the government had come on board last year when Labor made its commitment to a 70c floor and delivered a solution in its 2018 budget, WA would already be more than $3 billion better off. That $3 billion would have gone a long way in fixing the financial disaster left by the previous state Liberal government. We must not forget the role of the member for Pearce in wrecking that WA state budget. In early 2011, the member for Pearce was the WA state Treasurer. As Treasurer, he prepared the state budget on the basis of a higher than allocated rate of GST distribution. When called out for this by Labor and the media, he said that the rate of GST for WA was so low that the federal government would just have to change it. Well, since coming to this place and into government in 2013—five years ago—what has the member for Pearce done on GST for WA? Mr Hart 263070 Nothing. Mr KEOGH 249147 Nothing. All the member for Pearce has done is bake in WA state budget deficits for nearly a decade, and this is the guy touted to be the next Liberal federal Treasurer. Well, geez. God help us. Bringing us back to the present, if the GST had been fixed by the government in its last budget, WA would have been more than $3 billion better off. That would have paid for the Perth Stadium twice over. It would mean that, thanks to the strict budget management of the McGowan WA Labor government, the WA state budget could, instead, be in surplus already. But the GST should not be a political issue between us. This is not something the leader of the Senate should be writing to me about, pleading with me to agree with. It would be funny if it weren't farcical. My WA Labor colleagues and I all received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Finance, as a fellow Western Australian, imploring us to support his, the Treasurer's and the now Prime Minister's changes to the GST distribution. If you told me a little while ago that I would receive a letter from one of the most senior Liberal ministers in the country, asking me to support what was already Labor policy, I would have laughed at you, yet that's exactly what we all received. Western Australian Liberals have ignored WA too long. They've taken WA for granted for too long, and they have not been fighting for a fair go for WA. Now that they've realised that WA exists, they are in damage control trying to fix it. Well, I'm glad that the WA Liberals have finally joined Team WA, even if it is only for their own politically expedient reasons. We don't need to go to the next election with the GST issue still hanging over our heads. This issue needs to be fixed and will be fixed for all Western Australians as soon as possible. This GST legislation is a start in getting a fair go for WA and a fair go for all Australians. I proudly commend this bill to the House. 18:02 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin As Tasmanians, we know the issue about GST just as well as the Western Australians. We have had the rest of the states and the Commonwealth trying to take GST and our fair share away from us for decades. Tasmania relies quite heavily on GST. There's no doubt about that. Tasmanians, compared to the national average, are on lower incomes, are poorer, have worse health outcomes and have worse educational outcomes, sadly, despite investments, particularly from our side when we were in government, in trying to remedy some of that. The point about our state's revenue that I want to raise today is that our annual budget is around $6 billion and 62 per cent of that comes from Commonwealth revenue. That is a very heavy reliance on Commonwealth revenue for our state. We obviously need this funding to provide the same health and education services that other states expect and receive. Indeed, we know that our health system in Tasmania is currently in crisis. We know that the current state Liberal government and the federal Liberal government are currently underfunding our state's health system. We've had numerous reports about the underfunding of the health system in Tasmania at this point in time. We know that Tasmania cannot afford to lose any funding from GST. Having said that, we've also acknowledged the issue with Western Australia. The thing about the Labor Party is that we always said the same thing in Tasmania that we said in Western Australia, unlike various government prime ministers and ministers who say one thing in Tasmania and then a different thing in Western Australia, in the hope that they would never be found out. But the reason that we're here today is that this legislation finally has a no-worse-off clause in it for every state and territory. We're very pleased that it has that clause in it. The government got there but was dragged, kicking and screaming. We heard it on rumour because some of the Tasmanian Liberal senators threatened to cross the floor. We talked to the Tasmanian Liberal senators and the other senators in Tasmania. Indeed, the federal Labor team—all of my colleagues and I—wrote to every Tasmanian senator asking them to insist on legislation that Tasmania be no worse off. We have been raising this issue in the media. Prior to the Braddon by-election and prior to the state election, interestingly, we heard very little from the state Liberal government or from our state Liberal senators about GST and making sure that Tasmania actually got a guarantee that we would be no worse off. Indeed, we had the Liberal state government say before the state election, 'It's not an issue, it's not an issue, it's not an issue.' But after that, when the Productivity Commission delivered its report that was deliberately delayed for the Tasmanian state election, they said, 'Oh, we might have a problem here.' Only Labor has consistently said all the way along that we would have a problem if we didn't get a guarantee that Tasmania would be no worse off. It is only because of Labor that this clause is finally in this legislation. We stood up to the government, we stood up to the Liberal senators, we stood up to the Tasmanian Liberal state government and said: 'We need to insist on this. Our state, long term, cannot afford not to have a 'no worse off' guarantee.' And I'm pleased to see it legislated, finally. Tasmanians were really shocked, when the PC inquiry came out, in terms of what it would mean for our state. The state government modelling says we'd be $240 million worse off if that had gone ahead. Some of the other modelling on the PC's earlier interim reports had us at up to $1 billion worse off, so we know what is at risk here for Tasmania. I and our shadow Treasurer are on the record that we're concerned about what happens to Tasmania at the end of the transition period covered in this bill. I and my Tasmanian colleagues are particularly concerned and want to make sure that Tasmania's GST share does not fall off a cliff at the end of this transition period. We're also concerned what a new PC inquiry would recommend that would impact Tasmanians adversely. What we don't want to see is a PC inquiry tell us to sell our state owned electricity assets. What we don't want to see is a PC inquiry try and do a population distribution again, because Tasmania would be more than $1 billion worse off a year under that model. We need to do everything that we can and we certainly will be. Hopefully we'll still be in this place in 2026-27 standing up for Tasmania and making sure that, at the end of this transition period, Tasmania's GST fair share does not fall off a cliff. We will be making sure that the PC inquiry, when it's done, takes into account the fact that, when it comes to higher education, 27.5 per cent of Tasmanians aged 15 to 75 have no qualification beyond year 10—27 per cent of our population have no qualifications post year 10. The majority of Tasmanians have more chronic illness and poorer health outcomes than the majority of Australians. Our hospitals and health system are fundamentally in crisis in our state. We have ambulances ramping at the hospitals. We have massive elective surgery waiting lists, some of the worst in the country. We have report after report saying that our health system in Tasmania—because of our social determinants of health, because of the chronic illnesses, because of the poor health outcomes—is critically underfunded. State and federal Liberal governments need to do more to ensure that Tasmanians get the services they need, equivalent to the services of other Australians. That's today, with the current GST and that 62 per cent reliance on Commonwealth input to our state budget. Of that 62 per cent, 41 per cent is GST revenue and 21 per cent comes from other Commonwealth payments. The other thing we're concerned about is that the Commonwealth might try to claw back those other payments to make up for these top-ups. We're concerned that other funding instruments and partnerships may be clawed back by the Liberal government, because we have seen it before. We've seen the Liberal government try to undo agreements and claw back money from states before. Tasmanians know that the federal Liberal government cannot be trusted. That is why we needed the 'no worse off' clause in this legislation and that's the reason we can agree to it today—because that's actually in the legislation. We understand that that Commonwealth has given the state treasurers an undertaking that other payments will not be withdrawn from the states to make up for these top-up payments. We would like to see something a bit stronger from the Treasurer on that and to have that undertaking tabled in this place. We'd like to hear directly from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that they will not try to claw back other payments to states that we rely on. As I said, Tasmania absolutely cannot afford it. We are heavily reliant on these payments to provide just the services that every other Australian deserves and expects, particularly when it comes to health and education. If you have a look at our health and education, the current distribution of revenue represents 64 per cent of our health expenditure or 71 per cent of our education expenditure, based on 2017-18 figures. There would be an enormous impact on our state if we were to lose any of these funds at any point in time. So, if the current Liberal government tries to claw back any payments, rest assured that we'll be coming after them. We will be fighting out there every time they try and take anything away from our state that we need to deliver the same services to us as to any other Australian. And we're putting everybody on notice that, come the transition, in 2026-27, we will be fighting for Tasmania again, and we'll be insisting that our state continues to be no worse off. Indeed, we want to see our state much better off. We hope to see the outcomes, particularly in health and education, for Tasmanians improve. So I'm pleased to say that we're able to support this bill today, only because of Labor leading and Labor demanding that no-one be worse off, and because of the pressure that we put on the Liberal state government and the Liberal senators from Tasmania to insist that this clause be in the legislation. 18:11 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison In essence, this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018, is bad public policy. I don't believe it's supportable, and I won't support it. I fear I'll be the only person in this chamber who will call out, 'No,' when the key time comes. I think it's actually quite shameful that this reform is being pushed in this form by the government— Ms Collins interjecting— Mr WILKIE C2T and, I'm sorry, by the opposition. I responded to the member for Franklin, and I see the member for Bass here. I do acknowledge that the Labor Party has fought hard on this issue. But I think you've choked at the last minute. I don't think you should support it, and I'll tell you why. For a start, the no-worse-off guarantee is only for eight years. That will be here before we know it. I would have thought that any effective no-worse-off guarantee would not have a time line on it. I worry that eight years is really just to push it beyond the next election, beyond the next parliament—'It's just too hard, so we'll park it for a while'—instead of addressing the fact that there is a need to reform the GST. It clearly is unacceptable that Western Australia, as a result of the trailing nature of the calculations, is getting, roughly, only 30c in the dollar, I think. So there is a need to fix it, whereas this eight-year, no-worse-off guarantee really just parks it. To me, it reeks of a political fix, just to get it beyond the election and a bit beyond that. I think it's also an attempt to try and condition the community that there will be deep and problematic changes in the future. In fact, Deputy Speaker Hastie, you're a military man; you'd understand the term 'shaping the battlefield', and I think there's an element of that. I also worry that there's no guarantee that Tasmania's share will grow in line with the inevitable growth in national GST receipts. Of course the GST pie is always growing. So it's not enough to say, 'We won't be worse off.' We would need effective guarantees. I think it would be very difficult to actually legislate this, but I'm sure it could be done: we would need some sort of effective guarantee that, as the GST pie increases, Tasmania's gross amount also increases. So I feel that that is another significant deficiency in this bill. I note that the member for Franklin spoke about the issue of special purpose payments. I think this is a very serious issue. I think, actually—and it's through you, Deputy Speaker, to the member for Franklin—this alone is a serious enough deficiency in this bill to warrant the opposition not supporting the bill. I can see it could be very easily done, and it would be very hard to identify it clearly and to fight against it: that, in two years time, three years time or four years time, at the end of the forward estimates, our special purpose payments could be reduced—perhaps subtly, but that could still be tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars. And that would be very, very harmful. As has been identified in this place, Tasmania has a low domestic tax base and a very high reliance on federal funding, in both the GST income and also special purpose payments. If we were to see some of those special purpose payments cut or just shaved, it would have a disproportionate impact in Tasmania because of our high and completely understandable reliance on federal funding. I will wrap a bit of context around my concerns. Australia is obviously a federation. When we came together in 1901—the six states and the territories—it was agreed then, and it was really a condition of Federation, that all of the states would be equal, would all be treated equally and would all get a fair go. There is more than a whiff in these reforms of Tasmania being at serious risk, because of the sorts of limitations I have identified, and of us being a second-rate state. There's risk that there will be uniformity in the mainland and then there will be Tasmania down on the bottom, having to fight its own fight on its own. I think this bill actually betrays our founding fathers and the architects of Federation. It really does puts Tasmania at the real risk down the track of being a second-rate state. It's not like we have a lack of money. I would remind honourable members that Australia is the 13th richest country in the world. In fact, if you include Palestine and Taiwan as countries, there's something like 196 countries in the world and we're the 13th richest. We are fabulously wealthy. In fact, if you divide our riches across our relatively small population, we're the second wealthiest people on the planet. We are second only to the Swiss by one measure. In fact, I saw in The Australian newspaper a few days ago that, by another measure, we are the richest people on the planet. It's not that any state needs to go without and it's not that any state needs to be put at risk of going without in future years because of deficiencies in a reform like this. There is more than enough money and more than enough wealth and smarts in this country to ensure that every state receives the money they genuinely need and that the money equalised in an effective way to ensure that every person in this country gets adequate access to public health care, the education system and so on. The fact that there may not be enough money sometimes, or it's said that there is not enough money sometimes, is really because politicians make bad decisions and we have our priorities out of whack. I remind you that the federal budget this current financial year will be in the order of half a trillion dollars. There's more than enough money, with good decision-making and good priorities, for every state and, in particular, for Tasmania. That's including Western Australia, where you're from, Deputy Speaker Hastie. There's more than enough money that, with the right decisions and the right priorities, every state gets a fair deal and that WA's needs are met, Queensland's needs are met and the needs of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania are met. It's not that we have to engineer these weaknesses into our legislation that put us at risk in the future, because there's more than enough money to avoid us being put at risk. There have been comments too about Tasmania's special needs. These concerns of Tasmanians are very real. It is heartening that all Tasmanian senators and members have had a say on this and have all said the right thing. As we need to, because Tasmania does have particular disadvantages and special needs. We're obviously an island state. It costs money to deliver government services in an island state. We are a small market for the delivery of those services. That creates inefficiencies and often added costs to the delivery of government services as well. We have lower incomes. We are older people. I will just give some insight into the health of Tasmanians. As a general rule, we are less well than mainlanders—that's for some very understandable reasons—and the cost of our health care in Tasmania tends to be more than elsewhere. For example, Tasmanians have poorer sight compared to the national average. We have a higher rate of arthritis compared to the national average. We have a higher rate of hypertension. Actually, it is actually a markedly higher rate of hypertension compared to the national average. We have a higher rate of mental and behavioural problems compared to the national average. We have a higher rate of back problems, a higher rate of deafness and a significantly higher rate of heart, stroke and vascular disease. We have a higher rate of asthma. In fact, with most of our cancer rates, we have the highest rates of any state. In fact, it's all too often that we look at the figures, and we are second only to the Northern Territory when it comes to a lot of these measures of public health and economic disadvantage. I make the point again that, at the same time that we have the higher costs of being the island state and we have the higher costs of a more unwell population, we also have a really tiny domestic tax base. We don't have your fabulous iron ore reserves. We don't have the coal of Queensland and New South Wales. We don't have the precious metals. We don't have the uranium of the Northern Territory and South Australia. For a whole lot of reasons, we have a smaller domestic tax base, and we have a lot of inefficiencies. So income from the Commonwealth, in particular our GST share and in particular our special-purpose payments, assumes a disproportionate significance for Tasmania. That helps to explain why all of us—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and myself—are so exercised about this issue. I suppose that where I diverge from my colleagues in this place is in what I'm going to do about it. I will vote against this. If I'm the only member who does vote against it, I'll be asking that my name be recorded in Hansard. To my mind, the simple eight-year guarantee that we won't be worse off is a start, but it is not enough to make this bill supportable. If there were going to be any no-worse-off guarantee, it should not have had a time limit. Eight years will be here before we know it. And the bill is fundamentally deficient in that there's no effective guarantee to ensure that Tasmania's GST share increases proportionally with the increased receipts from GST nationally. That runs a very real risk that, in effect, we will actually be worse off in the future. As I've already said—and I'll say it again—there is that very significant deficiency that there is no effective guarantee whatsoever that we won't see cuts to our special-purpose payments. This isn't just the member for Franklin raising it to score political points. It's not just me, from Denison, trying to score political points. I note that an economist, no less than Saul Eslake, one of the most eminent economists in the country, has made a point of focusing on that risk to Tasmania that we will have cuts to our special-purpose payments in the future. I won't detain the House any longer, other than to say that I think this bill is bad public policy. I don't think it's supported. I won't support it, and I am very disappointed that I will not be joined at least by my colleagues from the Labor Party. It's one thing to voice your concerns, but it's another thing to act. I think our performance in this place should be measured by what we do, not by what we say. I am going to be very disappointed to see the ALP support the Liberal and National parties in supporting what I think is bad policy, policy that might not jeopardise Tasmania in the short term but jeopardises us greatly in the medium and especially the long term. 18:23 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I'm pleased to follow the member for Denison—or Clark, whichever it is at the moment—on this important bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018. We do have different opinions on this. Just like the previous speaker, I have my concerns about the GST and how it's calculated, and I will go into that in my speech. Where we diverge, I think, is in how we deal with it. We can't just curl ourselves up into a ball and pretend the world isn't moving on. We need to deal with the issue before us. If this bill does not pass the House, Tasmania stands—in very real terms, Member for Denison—to lose $112 million over the seven years into the future, so we're dealing with some real issues here. Labor do support the bill before the House, and we are pleased to have led the debate on this issue. Everyone in this place knows that, if it had not been for the pressure exerted by Labor, the legislative guarantee that forms the moral cornerstone of this bill would never have seen the light of day. The legislative guarantee in this bill means that no state will be worse off as a result of the changes to horizontal fiscal equalisation and the way it's calculated. It is a guarantee that carries legislative weight for seven years. Without that guarantee, without that signed-in-blood undertaking, that carries the weight of this parliament behind it, we in Tasmania know that our state faced great hardship. That's why I and my colleague the member for Franklin and my other Tasmanian colleagues fought so hard to ensure that a legislative guarantee formed part of this bill. In Tasmania, 40 per cent of all government revenues come from GST receipts. Tasmania cannot afford to lose even one dollar of GST, and that is why the legislative guarantee is so important. Without that guarantee, all that we would have had to depend on in Tasmania would've been the hollow verbal promise of this Prime Minister that he'd make sure we were well looked after. This is a 'say anything' Prime Minister who has shown time and time again that what he says one day will not last till the next. This is a Prime Minister who, by profession, thinks spin is more important than substance. The bill before the House will tie future GST calculations to the strength of New South Wales or Victoria, which are the two strongest and most broad-based economies in the Federation. The changes mean that Western Australia, which undergoes resources based booms and busts, will not be used for this calculation. The bill also provides Western Australia—and, indeed, any other state—with the comfort of knowing that its share of national GST receipts will never fall below 70c for every dollar that it contributes and later rising to 75c in every dollar. As a result of the mining and construction boom, WA's share of the GST fell to 30c. My WA colleagues may disagree, but this scenario may have been manageable, except that, by the time the GST formula had been adjusted to the lower amount, the mining construction boom had ended and mining revenues had already fallen off a cliff. So the flood of royalties slowed to a trickle at the same time that GST receipts dropped to 30c—little wonder that, even in Tasmania, we could hear the cries of pain from our friends across Bass Strait and the Nullarbor. WA was in real pain, and that is acknowledged. It is worth noting that the GST formula that led to this situation was a construction of the Howard government in concert with state governments—most of them at the time led by Liberals. Horizontal fiscal equalisation works to ensure that GST receipts are shared according to need. But, clearly, in the case of WA, something had gone askew. While most of us look at WA and see a state of wealth, I have the unique perspective among my Tasmanian colleagues of having grown up in Perth and having lived most of my adult life in Fremantle. WA is a state of diversity in terms of wealth and privilege. It's not all Beemers and Bollinger. Yes, there are the millionaire rows, even billionaire rows, along Dalkeith and Applecross, City Beach and Margaret River. But there are also places like Maddington, where I grew up, and Langford, Darch and Orelia as well as of course the Indigenous communities in the far north. I have friends in WA who tell me that the state continues to suffer from what they call a retail recession and that swathes of Perth suburban centres have had 'to let' signs on shop windows for three or four years. The state Labor government, led by Mark McGowan and Ben Wyatt, are making improvements but they were left an awful mess by Colin Barnett and the Liberals, who squandered the mining and construction boom and left the state with massive debt. So the clarion call from the WA Labor Party was to fix the GST. That was the first order of business. Anybody reading the front page of the West Australian newspaper and tuning into talkback in WA knows that this was the No. 1 issue in that state—fix the GST. It was federal Labor that listened. It was federal Labor, under the Leader of the Opposition and the member for McMahon, who first agreed to deal with this issue. It's worth noting that the current Attorney-General, the Liberal member for the Western Australian seat of Pearce, used to be Treasurer in Colin Barnett's state government. As Treasurer he brought down a state budget that depended on the federal government changing the GST formula. The change never came, and that left a massive hole in state finances. So the Liberals rewarded this by preselecting him for federal parliament, where he is bringing the same level of competency and attention to detail to his current portfolio. Tasmania's total government revenue is expected to be about $6.2 billion in 2018-19, and its largest source is GST revenue of almost $2.5 billion. As I said, we can't afford to lose even one dollar of this. GST receipts are absolutely vital to our state. Let's be clear about why. The fact is Tasmania has a limited opportunity to scale up development of our state. Not only do we have a relatively small population—just over 500,000 people—but our beautiful state is regarded by most Australians as their wilderness. We live in Tasmania, but I hazard a guess that all Australians believe they have a stake in it, similar perhaps to how Australians feel about Kakadu or the Great Barrier Reef. But this love carries a price for the people of my state. We have been prevented from developing our state to its fullest potential in terms of industry. My state was prevented by this parliament from damming the Gordon-below-Franklin river, and that is a move that would have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in hydroenergy dollars. I'm not seeking to rehash the merits or otherwise of the decision about whether it should or should not have occurred, but the fact is this parliament told Tasmania, 'You can't do it. You can't develop that project,' and that had a direct economic cost to my state. We've had similar instances over the years with pulp mills and other development opportunities. Our state has tried to progress these issues and we are told, usually by mainlanders: 'You can't do it. We regard your state as a treasure. We don't want these things happening.' That comes at a cost. It comes at a cost to the people of my state in terms of jobs and development. So somebody has to bear that cost. Frankly, if it means that we have a higher proportion requiring GST receipts in Tasmania than other states, then so be it. We should not be regarded—as I think the Prime Minister referred to the Tasmanian Treasurer, a Liberal—as a mendicant as a result, because that is simply not true. Tasmania's health system has been in the news daily for all the wrong reasons. GST revenue represents 64 per cent of our state's health budget. Even with that, we are struggling. Even with 64 per cent of our health budget coming from GST receipts, we struggle on a daily basis with overcrowded hospitals, with waiting lists to get into emergency departments, with six, seven, eight and nine ambulances being ramped at the hospital. This is why GST receipts to our state are just so vital. We cannot afford to see one dollar removed from Tasmania in GST receipts. We cannot afford to lose $1 from our health budget. Education is another area where Tasmania suffers. Our education budget relies on GST revenue. Seventy-one per cent of education funding in Tasmania is delivered through GST receipts. Yet our state still trails the rest of the country when it comes to outcomes in primary and secondary school. We have low intake into colleges and university. So, if anything—and I do take the member for Denison's point on this—we need more GST receipts, not fewer. We need more assistance in this regard. Our state needs more, not less. At the very least, what this bill does is provide a floor—'make the floor the law'. That's something Labor fought hard for. We made sure this government delivered it. It would not have happened without our side putting pressure on that side. The Prime Minister was all about saying we didn't need a legislated guarantee. It was only with Labor and the opposition leader saying a legislated guarantee is absolutely essential that it was incorporated into this bill. On that note, I'm happy to cede the floor and commend this bill to the House. 18:34 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith The Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018 is a very important bill to the entire nation, but it is of particular importance to the states that tend to have more booms and smaller populations. I include in that, of course, Western Australia and Tasmania, but I, being a Queenslander, particularly include in that the great state of Queensland, which, like Western Australia, has been the beneficiary of a resources boom and, like Western Australia, is now moving to a situation where the plants have been built, the mines have been largely built and we're moving out of construction and into operation. As you very well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, being a Western Australian, there is the example of the LNG plant—maybe 10,000 people to build one and around 300 people to run one. So there's a material jobs impact once you move out of the construction phase into the operational phase. We're very pleased in Queensland to see the progress being made in our resources sector, but, like everybody else, we certainly don't want to put all of our eggs into one basket. You have to diversify your economy and you have to have a diverse range of sources of tax revenue as a government as well. As you know, Deputy Speaker Hastie, in a country where we have both vertical fiscal imbalance, which means that the states have to rely heavily on the Commonwealth for their tax revenues, and a history of horizontal fiscal equalisation, the formulas that are used in order to distribute tax revenues are very important. We have seen, over a very long period of time, the Commonwealth Grants Commission using the principles of horizontal fiscal equalisation to try to find an equitable way to distribute Commonwealth tax revenues to the states to enable states to ensure that the services that they provide and the infrastructure they build are of a reasonable standard and that people in smaller and less populous and sometimes less well-off states aren't disadvantaged merely by geography. It's a massive challenge and we shouldn't underestimate the inherent difficulties in finding a fair way to distribute tax revenues from the Commonwealth to the states and the territories. I might also say, given the member for Solomon was here speaking so passionately earlier today, that we shouldn't underestimate those difficulties but we should expect there to be continuous attention given to seeking the fairest way of reallocating and allocating tax revenues. It is sensible that the Productivity Commission looked at the way that the Grants Commission administers the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation, and it is sensible that we're now looking at a way to update and modernise the way that GST is distributed between the states by the Commonwealth, having regard to the way that the Commonwealth Grants Commission is applying the principles that it has to use. I'm sure most people here would look from time to time at the Commonwealth Grants Commission's decisions and see the task that's before the commission in seeking to apply the principle in a way that is fair and robust. One of the things that has concerned me, being a Queenslander, in looking at what's happening to Western Australia is that I could see a similar thing possibly happening to Queensland in the future. I think it is a sensible compromise position and something that Labor has been leading on to look at a way to try to prevent the operation of the principle in a way that doesn't accommodate outliers. Of course, at the moment, Western Australia is the outlier economy. Instead of equalising to the best performing state fiscally, moving that to the second-best performing state will have a smoothing effect, which will go some way to dealing with the outlier issue. When you change formulas like that or change principles like that, you need to think about the possible winners and possible losers, to put it in particularly crude terms. I don't want my state to be a loser in relation to the GST. I'm very pleased that there is movement on having a GST floor and, of course, I'm very pleased that there is a transition period during which there'll be a guarantee that no state will be worse off. But, like everyone here, I'll be taking a very close look at what happens after that transition period, in the event that I am still in public office at that time, and I'll be taking a very close look at the way that the government applies the guarantee that they're making. We certainly don't want to see, for example, money being given with one hand and taken with the other. In other words, we want to see a very firm commitment from the Commonwealth that they won't try to recoup the money that goes to the states through the GST distribution through other means, such as cutting funding to, for example, hospital partnership agreements or remote housing agreements, to pluck two examples from the air. The state government in Queensland has been very concerned about funding cuts in both health and remote housing and has been very vocal about that, so I expect the Commonwealth to honour both the letter and the spirit of the commitment that it's making: no state will be worse off. I'm sure every Queenslander here will be doing everything they can to hold the government to account, no matter which party they're from. Whether we are from the party of government or whether we are from the party that's in opposition, every single one of us will be watching very keenly to make sure that the government honours in spirit its commitment that no state will be worse off. And we'll be watching that the government does not seek to make sneaky cuts in other places to try to recoup the money that's being allocated to prevent the erosion of states' revenue. I understand that the Treasurer has written to state treasurers to make a commitment to that effect. I don't know whether the Treasurer has tabled that letter here in the parliament yet. I certainly would encourage him, if he hasn't tabled the letter here in the nation's parliament, in the House of Representatives, to do so. It would give further assurance to Queenslanders that the coalition will be, as I said, upholding both the letter and the spirit of the commitment to ensure states are not worse off. As I said, I certainly look forward to making sure there is no erosion of the benefits of GST distribution to Queensland following the transition period as well. I'm very pleased that we've reached a position that parties and states of diverse interests can get behind. I'm pleased that we're in a position to support this government bill here in the House. I certainly look forward to seeing any comments on it that arise in the other place, but I'm pleased that there is some way of resolving this to give everyone certainty. Our state governments deserve certainty, and of course the people that we serve here in this place deserve certainty. I'm very pleased to see that the bill is progressing in this manner and I'm proud of my colleagues from Labor for the constructive manner in which they have engaged with this very difficult issue, which can pit state against state. As always, they have done it in a way that is stable and unified and where they have been kind to each other—and we could all do with a bit more kindness in public life. Ultimately, everyone has taken a very firm position, everyone has worked very hard in the interests of their own state and their own constituency, and we're in a position where we are now able to reach some agreement, as I said, across party and state lines in relation to the proper distribution of the GST. I'm very happy to support this bill. 18:42 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon This is an extremely important topic for my state of Tasmania. I would like to reiterate some of the comments of the member for Griffith in saying that this side of the House, Labor, have been very united in our position on GST distribution for all states. While working through some very challenging state-by-state situations, we've come together in a most unified way. I have to say that the history of this debate has been very long and very tortuous for states like mine, Tasmania. We have a government whose position—even when the Liberal Party were in opposition—has changed so rapidly, and now to something based on what Labor has been proposing. We've been consulting with states, consulting with each other and making our position very, very clear for the people of Australia. But when we've put forward policy positions on this, ways forward to deal with some of these challenges, we've met with considerable opposition from the Liberal Party, whether in opposition or in government. That has not given anyone in this country confidence in the Liberals' ability to put forward a proper solution for the GST and the way it's dealt with by each state. That's been an absolute shame, because on this side we've been very consistent. As to the other side, none of the states, like Tasmania, have any confidence that they wouldn't be worse off under this government. Labor worked constructively with Western Australia in particular, in recognition of their position and the challenges they have been facing. But, equally importantly, Labor worked constructively to ensure that my state, Tasmania, would not be worse off. I can't say that that's been the case for the coalition. It's been a GST merry-go-round where on any given day the policy of the coalition has changed: changing the distribution to a per capita arrangement, increasing the GST, establishing a Productivity Commission inquiry, opposing but then supporting a floor price, and opposing legislation to ensure no states are worse off. And now this is where we find ourselves today. As I've said, this issue is incredibly serious for the state of Tasmania. It's critical because of the revenue that comes to Tasmania through the current method of distribution, horizontal fiscal equalisation. It is a system designed to ensure that all states and territories are treated equitably. In 2018-19 Tasmania's total general government revenue is expected to be approximately $6.2 billion. Tasmania's largest source of revenue is GST revenue, estimated to be almost $2.5 billion in 2018-19, or approximately 40 per cent of the state's total revenue, which is quite considerable. This is a larger proportion than any jurisdiction other than the Northern Territory. Putting this into perspective, the current distribution of revenue represents 54 per cent of Tasmania's health expenditure or 71 per cent of education expenditure. So Tasmania's front-line services are incredibly reliant on GST revenue. More broadly, Tasmania's revenue sources underscore the state's reliance on all Commonwealth payments, including the GST, representing more than 60 per cent of state revenue. So you can see that Tasmania's not in a great position to start generating its own revenue. This government, and maybe the future Productivity Commission report, might suggest that Tasmania starts selling off state assets, which would be a short-term fix but diabolical for the state. So any reduction in revenue to Tasmania will see devastating consequences to our schools, hospitals, police force, emergency services and the like. Let's put this into the context of what we're facing in Tasmania now. Our hospitals are already in crisis. This is due to state and federal Liberal budget cuts. Only very recently a leaked report stated that Tasmania is facing a $100 million underspend just in health. Our school retention rates and tertiary education rates are some of the lowest in yet. Yet for the last six years the coalition has threatened Tasmania's fair share of GST revenue. The alarm bells for my state of Tasmania have been ringing since April 2012. The then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, visited Western Australia; and he then backed Colin Barnett, who was calling for the GST to be distributed on a per capita basis. Imagine what that would mean for the small state of Tasmania, with a population not much bigger than that of Geelong. This is what that member had to say at the time: 'I think that it does seem quite unfair that the people of Western Australia get so little back for their GST revenue that they provide to the rest of the country.' That's fair enough. But then he continued: 'I think that what ought to be very seriously considered by the government right now is a proposal that the GST revenue should be distributed on what is closer to a per capita arrangement. I think that makes a lot of sense.' Sadly, that make absolutely no sense for the state of Tasmania at that time. That little thought bubble would have meant that WA, quite rightly, would have received an extra $2.4 billion but Tasmania would have been $700 million worse off—that's considerable for the size of our budget and our reliance on our GST revenue—which is the equivalent of $1,300 per person worse off. It would have meant that we would have had to cut a lot of services—fewer teachers, fewer nurses. It was during the fallout of the global financial crisis, which hit Tasmania hard and a lot later than other states. Like the good soldier and supporter that he is, the great political genius Senator Eric Abetz poured further fuel on the fire when in March 2013 he said, 'The coalition might move closer to a per capita distribution.' What a good champion for Tasmania Senator Abetz is! In May 2013 Tasmanian Labor launched a 'Hands off our GST' campaign. From that point, the coalition ran dead on the issue in the lead-up to the 2013 general election. Things remained quiet until July 2015, when the Prime Minister and the now member for Warringah thought it would be a good idea to start debate about an increase in the GST itself. The member for Warringah said that changes in the tax mix were on the table and he would prefer to look at overhauling the GST rather than increasing the Medicare levy—this from the man who famously promised no cuts to health and education and, of course, said there would be no changes to the GST. We all know that was a bit of a falsification, as we know from history. Prime Minister Abbott then said he was pleased that former New South Wales Premier Mike Baird had proposed raising the GST to 15 per cent because, in his words, the tax was 'a joint exercise by the Commonwealth and the state'. There was another gem from the member for Warringah after a COAG meeting: 'I'm not ruling things in, I'm not ruling things out, but my preference would be to consider the GST issue rather than the Medicare levy issue.' History now records what happens to the member for Warringah in September 2015 but it seems that under the leadership of the former member for Wentworth and his newly minted Treasurer—who is now this week's Prime Minister—the plans to increase the GST remained. In November 2015, in a speech to the Melbourne Institute's economic and social Outlook Conference, it was reported that the Treasurer gave the strongest hint yet that the Turnbull government planned to swap income tax increases for increases in the goods and services tax. The debate continued over the Christmas and New Year period of 2015-16. On multiple occasions, the former Prime Minister and his so-called loyal Treasurer were given the opportunity to rule out an increase to the GST, but they chose not to. Finally, on 16 February 2016, the Prime Minister saw the writing on the wall and ruled out the government taking an increase in the GST to the next election—finally. That was another backflip. There are all of these backflips. But it was still under active consideration around the cabinet table, apparently. On that very same day his employment minister, Senator Cash, told the media: We haven't taken it off the table completely, not at all. This is just like juggling balls; I'm not quite sure where it's all going to land. The GST debate paused for the 2016 general election, conveniently. But, after a narrow election result, the Prime Minister and Treasurer still had a problem to resolve. Rather than take responsibility, they hived off the issue to the Productivity Commission to inquire into the effectiveness of horizontal fiscal equalisation and to make recommendations to improve the system. But Labor knew something had to be done to address the concerns of Western Australia and ensure that states—like mine, Tasmania—were not worse off. In August 2017, Labor leader Bill Shorten announced that a Labor government would invest $1.6 billion in the Fair Share for WA Fund, bringing Commonwealth funding for Western Australia up to the equivalent of a 70 cent floor. Crucially for states like mine, Labor's policy did not change the current GST distribution formula. This government then chose to ridicule Labor's plan while dithering themselves, not really having much of an answer. In October last year, the Productivity Commission released their interim report. The former Prime Minister and Treasurer had a golden opportunity to rule out any changes to the distribution of GST revenue that would reduce Tasmania's share. Instead, they chose not to. The Treasurer said that smaller states could require transition plans. In effect, that was an admission that Tasmania would be worse off. That's because the interim report revealed that Tasmania would be subject to a $168 million cut in one year alone. We would have to then beg and beg the Prime Minister and Treasurer of the day to give us a top-up each year. This $168 million cut that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were quite happy to pass on Tasmania, unless we begged hard enough, is equivalent to 1,600 teachers, 1,500 nurses or 1,300 police. The Tasmanian Treasury responded in no uncertain terms to the interim report, saying: Any reduction in revenue would have a significant impact on the State. Without any other funding from the Commonwealth this would mean either an 18 per cent reduction in expenditure on government services, or 18 per cent increase in State revenue from taxes, fees and dividends, or a combination of both. Clearly this would create an unsustainable budgetary position for the State. The Government would have to decide how it would deal with the loss of revenue. Generally, there are three main options - a reduction in spending, an increase in own-source taxation revenue or an increase in State debt. The sale of State owned assets is an option which would only temporarily address the issue … This is what Tasmania was facing only very recently: the prospect of putting up more state taxes and cutting spending and services to very vital front-line services when our health system is terribly underfunded and our education outcomes are not great. Otherwise, we could just sell off our state assets, which Tasmanians cherish very much and very much want to stay in state-owned hands. Time and time again, between the release of the interim report and the final report, the coalition was given the opportunity to again rule out Tasmania being no worse off. Time and time again, they didn't. Finally, in June of this year, the Productivity Commission released their final report. What an absolute doozy that was. The former Prime Minister was full of assurances that Tasmania would not receive one cent less than what it receives now. But you have to put that into context over a period of time, in perpetuity. The prominent economist Saul Eslake's opinion of this was: Mr Turnbull's 'guarantee' implies that Tasmania's share of the GST pie would fall from 3.7 per cent to 3.2 per cent over that period. That would mean Tasmania getting $367 million or 13 per cent less in 2021-22 than it would if its share remained at 3.7 per cent. That was another diabolical result for Tasmania. You have to think what the Tasmanian state Liberal team were doing. They were doing absolutely nothing. They didn't say a word. They were just going, 'Yes, okay. We'll cop that.' In real terms, this meant that Tasmania's share of the GST pool would decline and the ability of the government to fund essential services would have been solely reliant upon the government of the day providing those top-up payments to my state. Foolishly, the Tasmanian Liberal Premier seemed happy to sign up to the new arrangements without actually seeing the detail. He and his Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, were assured by a phone call from the now Prime Minister, the Treasurer at the time—this is all getting a little bit confusing, isn't it? But how wrong they were. Labor and economist Saul Eslake were standing up for Tasmanians while Liberal Premier Will Hodgman fell silent. Mr Eslake called on the Premier to finally start protesting loudly on Tasmania's behalf along with other smaller states that stood to lose vast sums of revenue from this new arrangement. State and federal Labor called upon Premier Hodgman and Treasurer Gutwein to not accept a deal that was fundamentally against Tasmania's long-term interests. But, of course, we saw some unedifying scenes in August this year with yet another Prime Minister being rolled. It's all very confusing. But did the chaos over the GST end? No, it only worsened. First of all, we had the revelation that the Prime Minister abused the Tasmanian Treasurer during GST negotiations, calling him a mendicant. Then, in early October this year, despite arguing for months that there was no need to legislate a GST floor, the Prime Minister decided he would follow Labor's lead and propose the legislation. We welcomed the Prime Minister's backflip—there have been a lot of those over the years on this issue—but we remained concerned that a legislated guarantee was needed so that no state would be worse off. Again, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer rejected Labor's calls. Even after every single state and territory Treasurer united in calls on 3 October for the guarantee, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refused to give it. I have to say that the Tasmanian state Liberals at that point were ready to cross the floor, bowing to the pressure of we Tasmanian backbenchers and Tasmanian Labor senators when we wrote to them to support the amendments that we were proposing to make sure that Tasmania would not be worse off. They finally said, 'We might actually cross the floor on that.' They actually took a bit of a stand. How long did it take those terrible Liberal senators to stand up for my state! That's a potted history of this government's backflipping on whether or not Tasmania should be worse off—with a Liberal Senate team not actually standing up for Tasmania but Labor arguing for six and a half years to make sure that my state and our services and the jobs of our teachers, our police and our nurses would be protected because we would have our fair share of GST revenue. 18:57 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair of GST) Bill 2018. I want to start by saying that we've seen what happened in Western Australia over the last couple of years with their share of the GST, where, for every dollar that the Western Australian people spent on GST, their state got only 30c back. People living in Perth, Geraldton and Broome wouldn't believe it if they read it—that they could go out and spend their cash, buy a new car and buy food each week and, for every dollar that they spent on GST, they'd receive only 30c back. That tells me that the way that the GST has been delivered over the last few years is broken. It just doesn't seem right. I understand that the government here is increasing a lot more funding to the states. This bill isn't just making sure that every state and territory gets their fair share of GST; it's their fair share of GST plus their fair share of the income tax that we're collecting as well. Basically, we're throwing a lot more money at the state governments. That's what we're doing here. We're giving them the GST that they collect but, in order to keep every state happy, we're also giving them a lot more in other taxes that the federal government collects. Given that neither side has run a surplus since John Howard and Peter Costello back in 2007, I do have some concerns around that. I believe in reward for effort. When I look at what some of the state governments do and how they prioritise their funding, I have a concern with giving them more cash when they waste it on a whole lot of things or when they don't look for new projects that they could do in order to bring more income into their state. If we look at Queensland at the moment, we see the Labor state government spending money left, right and centre on things which I don't necessarily think are important—for example, changing the name of the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, which is going to cost, they say, some $50 million. It will probably actually cost a lot more than that. Also, when we wanted to invest money through the NAIF to support mining jobs, we saw the Premier in Queensland using her authority to block that and block more investment, more jobs and possibly more mining royalties for the state of Queensland. We've seen massive increases in the public service, whilst they have also got some $80 billion worth of debt. Millions were spent by state government ministers on the Commonwealth Games recently on the Gold Coast for accommodation. That's just Queensland alone. If you look at Victoria and New South Wales, we're basically seeing those two states put a moratorium on gas exploration projects. They've basically said, 'No new mining projects and no new gas projects,' when Australians have actually had a shortage of gas. It's our government that's had to try to address that by basically making sure the gas companies keep more gas for Australians. They've had to try to possibly balance the projects they've had with Japan and others. We've seen states like Victoria and New South Wales say, 'No more gas.' So they're missing out on mining royalties but, at the same time, they're getting millions and millions of dollars extra from the Commonwealth in this deal. In Tasmania, too—the member for Lyons touched on it before—over the last decade we've seen that they've basically stopped logging in some ways. They have a tourism industry, but state governments and activists down there have stopped income-producing assets being continued. Then they come into this parliament and cry poor. So I do have concerns about that because, ultimately, state governments have a lot of power in our Constitution and they need to be held accountable for the decisions they make. Mr Snowdon interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 I'd ask the member for Lingiari to withdraw that comment, if he would. Mr Snowdon IJ4 Which one? Mr HOWARTH 247742 The one where you just reflected on me. Mr Snowdon IJ4 I withdraw. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Thanks. You can speak in a minute. I do have concern that state governments aren't held accountable for their actions. In this bill, we give these states the GST pool but we're also throwing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue, when we're not balancing the budget, towards them. I do understand that there will be a review of this act, kicking it down the road towards 2026, but I believe that the parliament needs to look at that and makes sure the states are held accountable. 19:03 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I thank the member for Petrie for acknowledging me! This bill—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018—is very important, but I want to acknowledge him and say that here he sits in his glasshouse— Mr Dick 53517 With a glass jaw! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 with a glass jaw but saying to the— Mr Howarth 247742 I have a right to be heard. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 You do have a right to be heard, and I'm pleased you were heard. I want to actually explain why what you said was, in a sense, an insult. What you've basically got up here and said this evening is that the governments of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia are not accountable for what they do. They, like your government, are accountable at every election. If they make the wrong decisions, they will be held accountable. Let me give you an example of a decision taken by Campbell Newman when he was the Premier of Queensland. Campbell Newman, this great, bright Premier, decided he would change the funding available to public health. As a result, he cut public health expenditure in North Queensland. It's true to say this: the fact that they cut positions in public health, at the department of health in Queensland, led to the start of a syphilis outbreak which spread across northern Australia. That was a direct result of a decision taken by Campbell Newman. He was held accountable. What happened to him? He lost government. Let's be very, very clear. State governments, which are, like governments in this place, elected by the people, are held accountable at every election. If they make the wrong decisions for their electors, for their states, they are held accountable. Member for Petrie, what you need to understand, my friend, is that that accountability goes both ways. You can spray who you like—the government of Queensland, the government of Victoria or the government of Tasmania, or the government of the Northern Territory, for that matter—but ultimately they should take responsibility, and they do. We may not agree with it, we may not even like it, but you shouldn't try to say, as you've tried to say, that they should be accountable to you for what they do. They are accountable; they are accountable every time they go to the polls. This legislation, as we've heard, will change the nature of the way in which the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation is applied. That's important, and it's important because it will have a significant deleterious impact on some communities across Australia, such as, in this case, the Northern Territory, and I want to explain why. GST is currently distributed to the states and territories according to this principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation, and, up until now, it has been based on payments to the fiscally strongest state. Western Australia became the fiscally strongest state in 2008-09, thanks to the mining boom, and will remain the fiscally strongest state for the time being. As a result, the government has now chosen to change equalisation to the second strongest state, either New South Wales or Victoria, and this, it has said, will remove the effect of extreme circumstances—like mining booms—from the GST distribution system, due to those states having broad based and stable economies. But, in a place like the Northern Territory, it means that the Northern Territory's revenues will decline. That's an issue of huge importance to the people and the economy of the Northern Territory. It is of far greater importance to the Northern Territory than to anywhere else in the country. We say that because, on the Northern Territory government's own figures, GST revenue alone accounts for 47 per cent of the Northern Territory government's total revenue—47 per cent—compared to 24 per cent of total state revenues. If there is a change in the way in which the formula is applied and if money is lost as a result of that change in the formula, then it stands to reason that there would be a long-term impact on the Northern Territory budget and on the Northern Territory economy. Since 2016, the Northern Territory's GST revenue forecasts have seen a cumulative decline of $3.4 billion over the forward estimates. This is in an annual budget of around $6.3 billion. That's a huge decline, and it reflects the significant declines in the Northern Territory's GST relativity between 2016-17 and 2018-19—from a 10-year average of $5.28 to $4.66, and now to $4.26, the lowest GST relativity in the Northern Territory's history. That's a loss in revenue of some $500 million. I live in the electorate of Lingiari. For those listeners who may not know, the electorate of Lingiari is all of the Northern Territory except Darwin and three-quarters of Palmerston. So, if you exclude the major metropolitan centre of the Northern Territory and you look at the rest of the Northern Territory, that's Lingiari. What do we know about the electorate of Lingiari? Well, 42 per cent or thereabouts of its population are Aboriginal people, with a high proportion of those living in dispersed populations across that remote region of 1.34 million square kilometres. There is a challenge for any government, whether it's Labor, which is currently in government in the Northern Territory, or the CLP, which was previously in government—not that it did it very well, I have to say; in fact, it squandered its money. I was talking about accountability. They were held accountable. They were held so accountable they've basically got only two members left in the Legislative Assembly—they're hardly an opposition. They were held accountable for the way in which they ran the Northern Territory. What I need to say here is that, whether it's the CLP or the ALP in power in the Northern Territory, they are going to be long-term dependent upon revenues from the Commonwealth. Almost 70 per cent of the Northern Territory government's budget has its source in Canberra, whether it's the 47 per cent through GST revenue or other direct payments. There's no getting away from it. Yet the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation is that you have the fiscal capacity to provide a similar level of services that are available to everyone else in Australia. Now, contemplate this. In a place like the Northern Territory, the population is dispersed, as I said, and 42 per cent live in the most disadvantaged communities in the country. I know of one community of 3,000 people where the average housing occupancy is 15. This morning in this place we had a discussion about rheumatic heart disease. Rheumatic heart disease is a disease of poverty, something which is preventable. But you won't prevent it unless you get rid of overcrowding and change environmental health and the way in which you apply health services, and that requires resources. They are extra costs which governments have got to meet. So, for the Northern Territory government to do its job, it requires the assistance of the Commonwealth. I heard the puerile statements from the member for Petrie, which just show how ignorant he is of the way in which this process operates across Australia. I want to say this: I respect the fact that the states have got to get together and work with the Commonwealth around the distribution of these resources. But it is extremely important that there is an understanding of why we've got to have this process of fiscal equalisation and why, in the way in which this formula changes, it's likely the Northern Territory government will lose further revenue unless additional resources are provided to it. I have to say that, while this bill changes the formula, it does not provide for additional top-up funding, although I note that the Treasury and the Treasurer—I'm not sure if it is this Treasurer or the former Treasurer—had agreed with the Northern Territory government to provide them with some top-up resources. But, in the long term, they're going to require this into the future. If they are going to be able to provide the resources their citizens need for health, housing, education, roads and other infrastructure, then they need ongoing recognition of this principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation and they need to address the disadvantage that people have. If we don't continue to fight for that, then we're condemning the Northern Territory into a parlous future where the infrastructure that's required to provide a healthy population with the conditions it needs to remain healthy and to provide people a safe living environment, a proper educational opportunity, job opportunities and the like will only come when we can ensure that these investments are ongoing. We know that the private revenue base in the Northern Territory is limited, but I note that the member for Solomon pointed out that they had their first sale of LNG floating out of Darwin Harbour this morning. That's a very good sign of revenues that will come into the Northern Territory and, indeed, the Australian economy as a result of gas exploitation off the Northern Territory and Western Australia and through production facilities in Darwin. We know that there are other major mining enterprises which operate in the Northern Territory and prospective mining enterprises which will operate. We know that the pastoral industry is important, that the agriculture industry is important and that horticulture is important, but together the revenues that come out of the private sector into the Northern Territory economy account for about 30 per cent. That is, taxation and other sources account for only about 30 per cent of Northern Territory government revenue. So we're going to have a consistent and continuing requirement for the Commonwealth government to accept its responsibilities, whether it's the Treasurer who's currently sitting before us as the Treasurer or a future Treasurer, to ensure that the citizens of the Northern Territory are not further disadvantaged by changes to the GST formula. I know that the Northern Territory government will continue to fight. I referred to the opposition in the Northern Territory as the CLP, and that includes Senator Scullion, but we don't see them standing up for the rights and interests of the Northern Territory community or the Northern Territory population generally. We have a responsibility in this place, as they have, to speak up for the people of the Northern Territory and to support the quest by the government of the Northern Territory to get fair and decent treatment around the issue of horizontal fiscal equalisation and the distribution of GST resources across the country. I understand what was going on in Western Australia. I have to say, I wasn't that sympathetic when I first heard it, but, nevertheless, I accept the requirement to address the losses that they incurred. We've seen that the opposition will support this piece of legislation, but we should not discount the impacts of changing GST formula for the smaller states and territories and, in my own case, particularly the Northern Territory, where, as I say— Mr Frydenberg FKL A great beneficiary. Mr SNOWDON IJ4 And they should continue to be, Treasurer. I hope you'll sign on the dotted line to make sure they are now and into the future. Mr Frydenberg FKL More for the Northern Territory than the previous federal government! Mr SNOWDON IJ4 That is simply untrue. He's a scandal, this bloke. He sits here, in all his glory, and tries to tell us that he's done more than anything else. Mr Frydenberg interjecting— Mr SNOWDON IJ4 You're in all your glory still. I have to say: with a haircut, you'll do okay! 19:18 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate, on both sides of the chamber. The bill reforms GST payments to the states and territories by providing a fairer and more sustainable way of distributing GST. It's a plan that leaves all states and territories better off. Since it was introduced in 2000, every dollar of GST raised has been distributed to the states and territories according to the system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. However, in recent years, the mining boom created significant volatility in the distribution of the GST. The government's plan will, first, create a new equalisation benchmark, the stronger of New South Wales or Victoria, whichever is the higher. Second, it will introduce a permanent in-system relativity floor of 0.7 from 2022-23, increasing to 0.75 in 2024-25. Third, it will permanently boost the GST pool of funds available for distribution to the states and territories by providing direct Commonwealth cash injections each year, from 2021-22 onwards. These are in addition to GST collections. Fourth, during the transition period from 2021-22 to 2026-27, states and territories will be guaranteed the better of the old system or the new system. The CGC will annually verify the payments resulting from the guarantee in a way that is consistent with division 1 of part 2 of the Federal Financial Relations Act. The Treasurer must have regard to this advice and consult with each of the states. The Treasurer will maintain his current role under the updated framework, consistent with the existing law and long-established practice. Fifth, by 2026 the Productivity Commission will conduct an inquiry to assess whether the updated system is working efficiently and effectively and operating as intended. Sixth, it will separately provide short-term top-ups to Western Australia and the Northern Territory to keep their relativities above 0.7 and 4.66 respectively from 2019-20 to 2021-22. All states will be better off, with the Commonwealth injecting an additional $9 billion over 10 years to 2028-29. The GST pool from 2026-27 will grow by more than $1 billion each and every year, compared with what would have occurred without these reforms. We have provided a national solution to a national challenge. That is what leadership is about. Let's bear in mind that, since the GST was introduced, the revenue pool has more than doubled, and it's expected it grow by another 65 per cent over the next decade. However, the GST as is has seen its integrity threatened and its sustainably threatened. We had a situation where Tasmania, with one-fifth of the population of Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, with one-10th of the population of Western Australia, were both getting more of the GST pie than Western Australia themselves. Clearly, that was unsustainable. What we have done is we've come up with a long-term solution, because, when it comes to the GST, we want to ensure that the services provided across the country are at a certain standard. As former Prime Minister John Howard said, 'I'm an Australian, and, as far as I'm concerned, all Australians should be treated equally, no matter where they live.' If you're in Victoria, you'll be better off as a result of the government's boost to the GST distribution pool by $425 million by 2026-27. If you're in New South Wales, you'll be better off to the tune of $351 million by 2026-27. If you're in Queensland, you'll be better off to the tune of $518 million by 2026-27. If you're in South Australia, you'll be better off by $257 million by 2026-27. If you're in Tasmania, you'll be better off by $112 million by 2026-27. If you're in the ACT, you'll be better off by $46 million by 2026-27. If you're in the Northern Territory, you'll be better off by $189 million by 2026-27. If you're in Western Australia, you'll be better off by over $3.3 billion by 2026-27. These are based on the numbers and the projections put together by Treasury and put together on the basis of the data collected by the Productivity Commission. This is an important piece of legislation. This is a result of the Commonwealth's leadership. This is a result of the Liberal and National parties taking the hard decisions and coming up with a long-term solution. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to, Mr Wilkie dissenting. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 72 19:25 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Public Broadcasting 72 19:26 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills In recent weeks, we've seen the ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie sacked, we've seen ABC chairman Justin Milne resign over unacceptable political interference and we've seen significant public concern about the coalition government's attacks on the ABC. This government, many of whose members tend to follow the advice of the right-wing think tank the IPA, the Institute of Public Affairs, have once again been floating the idea of privatising the ABC. They've gone even further than that; they're reheating the old hoary chestnut of merging the ABC and the SBS. The latest assault on public broadcasting follows the coalition government's breaking of a pre-election promise not to cut public broadcasting funding arrangements but then cutting millions from the ABC since 2014, resulting in 800 job losses. Some of those in the chamber would know that I worked at SBS prior to entering parliament. I was the executive director of corporate affairs there for almost four years. I know intimately, having worked there, the unique value proposition that the SBS provides to Australia, to the culturally and linguistically diverse communities across Australia, but also the value to the Australian public as a whole, as a public broadcaster. And there is a deep appreciation and understanding of the vital role both our public broadcasters play in our society. Whilst the coalition government complain a lot about our public broadcasters, I think it's probably true to say that public broadcasting and the quality journalism which comes with it are more important now than ever before. In many respects, the public broadcasters provide that common reference point and a trusted voice. What do I mean by that? In the febrile and fractured media market which we know exists now—which is exacerbated by somewhat of an echo chamber of cable news and social media, where people reinforce their own bias through various platforms that basically talk to them and only to them and provide them with very narrow viewpoints—people are not really talking to each other. There is the old cliche about having that water cooler moment at work on a Monday morning. I don't know whether there are water coolers anymore, but you might be talking to your coworker over a cup of coffee or tea about a particular news item you saw the night before, and you might now be talking about completely different sets of facts. In the past you might have had different perspectives and you might have disagreed, but you probably would have had a single reference point on the news that you saw. Now people are hearing a completely different set of narratives and facts from media sources and platforms. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but, without a common frame of reference, there is that additional hurdle to understanding one another—and what we now see in our society is a lot of people just screaming and shouting at each other rather than having a dialogue. The news now tends to be completely different depending on where you get it. Factually, we're in this post-fact era where people talk about fake news and different news sources have completely different sets of perspective and fact. So there is a unique responsibility for our public broadcasters to provide a public good and have a focus on that town square responsibility, if you like, of providing quality journalism for Australians to foster that constructive national engagement. We also have to distinguish between our public broadcasters. There is a difference between the SBS and the ABC. The SBS had a globally unique model that provides that provides multicultural and multilingual content for a domestic audience. There's nothing else like it in the world. We're talking about provision of over 70 languages for a potential audience of more than three million Australians who speak a language other than English in their homes. In contrast, the BBC World Service, for instance, provides only 40 languages, and those broadcasts tend to be broadcast not at a domestic audience but outwards to other countries. SBS provides this important role, this unique role, that helps inform and educate Australians around our multicultural diversity. It is a model that works very, very well and complements the ABC. It's one that I think has served Australia very well and has been a factor in making sure that Australia has become the wonderfully egalitarian and multicultural society that we live in today. Economy 73 19:31 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Wasn't it great to see the Treasurer in the House here five minutes ago legislating a fairer GST deal that leaves every state around Australia better off, including, incidentally, Queensland by about half a billion dollars. It's an historic and landmark outcome that no other government has been able to land in the 20 years since the GST debate was first had here in Australia. Our government is relentlessly focused on delivering on our plan for a stronger economy, and a big part of that is supporting small businesses, which are the real backbone of our economy and provide so many of the opportunities and so much of the prosperity we need to provide in Australia for the next generation. That's why, in addition to the GST deal that the Treasurer just passed, over the past week we have legislated to ensure that small and family businesses get their promised tax relief sooner and have their burdens lightened. On top of that we have ratified another trade agreement, this one covering 10 other countries across the Pacific, which will unlock even more opportunities for thousands of Australian farmers and businesses and which is forecast to contribute billions of additional dollars of economic benefits to Australia—and that boils down to jobs and prosperity for local families. It's all about lightening the burden on small businesses so that they can unlock their potential. Our focus on a stronger economy stands in stark contrast to the alternative plan that's beginning to be offered to Australians by the opposition, which essentially involves slapping $200 billion worth of new taxes onto workers through their income tax, onto electricity, onto housing, onto savings, onto investments and, perhaps worst and most unfair of all, onto retirement. I found out today that about 6,500 people in my electorate of Brisbane could be impacted by Labor's retirement tax. It's a disgrace that the alternative plan starting to be put forward by the opposition simply boils down to more tax, more tax, more tax and more tax. It's no way to run a $1.7 trillion economy and it's not how you foster the environment we need to see where small businesses have the incentives they need to create the opportunities and the prosperities that we need street to street and suburb by suburb right across Australia. The Reserve Bank governor spoke to the House economics committee just a few weeks back and talked about how Australia has a pretty good set of economic numbers emerging in front of it right now. We're on track for a balanced budget a year early, in 2019-20. The last budget update showed that the deficit has shrunk to its smallest size in a decade—now at 0.6 per cent of GDP. Australia is now one of only 10 countries around the world with a AAA credit rating from the three leading agencies, and economic growth is back to running well over three per cent. That makes it the fastest rate since the height of the mining boom and higher than any of the G7 countries out there around the world which we like to compare our performance to. Our unemployment rate continues to fall fast. It was great to see the jobs data come out just last week which showed it back down to five per cent. A big part of that's because we've seen those 1,100,000 jobs that have been created now under our government coming in at the rate of more than a thousand jobs a day on average over the past year, and it's a clear sign that our plan for a stronger economy is working. While the opposition have that sad history, I suppose, of welshing on tax cuts that they promise, our government over the past week have been delivering tax relief—not just the income tax relief that we were talking about some months ago; this is to those small and medium-sized businesses that I'm talking about. We're delivering that tax relief five years early by fast-tracking the promised tax cuts. They are now legislated, so businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million per annum will face a tax rate of just 25 per cent, 25c in the dollar, in 2021-22. That's five years ahead of schedule. That will benefit about 3.3 million small businesses across Australia and the nearly seven million Australian workers that they employ. Just bringing that back down to the local perspective: there are over 30,000 small businesses that will qualify in my electorate of Brisbane. And that fast-tracked tax relief obviously comes on top of the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off that we announced in the budget. Bringing that all together: it's those small businesses that employ more than half the Australian workforce. We know that helping them by lightening their burden means that they can invest, and they can create new jobs and opportunities and the prosperity we need to see. Indi Electorate: Community Engagement 74 19:36 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Good evening, Speaker. Colleagues, to many Australians the way parliament works is a mystery. How do you actually get things done? As an Independent member of parliament, it's my responsibility to represent the electorate, and I'm inspired by communities that take action. Tonight, colleagues, I will give you an example of a case study titled 'Getting things done—the Indi way'. It's the third in a series of case studies. The first was 'Towards a totally renewable Indi', and the second was 'Connecting community to Canberra'. This case study showcases practical examples of how people from across the electorate have engaged with Canberra, how communities have used the parliamentary tools and their member of parliament to take actions on matters that are important to them. Examples include local councils coming together to secure funding to eliminate mobile phone blackspots, taking action on refugee issues, and acting on higher education and a national policy on regional development. Remote Indi communities have long demanded better mobile phone services, knowing how vital phones are for our economy, social connectedness and study. The community of Indi did not wait for the government to act. Together, through the Indi Telecommunications Action Group, local government, businesses, emergency services, community groups and mobile network operators came together to form an electorate-wide strategy. The communities did the groundwork, and government responded with 48 new and upgraded mobile base stations via the federal and Victorian governments' mobile blackspot programs, making us one of the top electorates nationally to eliminate blackspots. Another example is the call from communities such as Rural Australians for Refugees for more humane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. The government's asylum seeker policy has hit a raw nerve in Indi. There are regular protests outside my office, and I receive thousands of emails demanding better treatment. As I am their representative, we have used parliamentary tools to advance the issue by supporting visits to Canberra; meeting with ministers; backing the Refugee Protection Bill 2018, introduced by Andrew Wilkie; and regularly asking questions in parliament, holding the government to account and calling for a more humane solution. The case study also includes an example of the work of communities to lobby for a regional higher education strategy. This work started with a forum in Wodonga in 2015 at La Trobe University. Since then, we have used many of the parliamentary tools to call for a national road map for postschool education in regional areas. The final example I'll mention out of this case study is the move for a better regional development policy. Since before I got elected, there were kitchen table conversations in Indi around the importance of higher education and a pathway from schools. Indi's message has been loud and clear and consistent: governments need to take action on regional Australia and a policy. A main driver of my work has been to influence this debate through motions in parliament, through legislation and through support for the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation. The committee's report—Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future—is a bipartisan report which calls for a regional Australia white paper, regional deals and a new approach to regional development policy. In conclusion, this case study, which I'm very happy to share with you, provides a snapshot of what my community has been able to achieve through using parliamentary tools, speeches, questions, inquiry, delegations, select committees and parliamentary friends. These case studies represent what we call 'the Indi way'—how we get things done, how we engage with politics positively to create effective, exciting and vibrant communities that are full of opportunities. I encourage my constituents to use their voice, to make it heard in Canberra, and to use their member of parliament effectively. All three of these case studies are available from my electorate office, in Wodonga and Wangaratta, and they're also online. Colleagues, my communities are ready to participate in the political and democratic process. They are prepared to develop their own solutions to the issues they face and they are looking forward to continuing to work with their member of parliament. Small Business 75 19:41 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor Small business is the driving force of our economy. In fact, almost seven million people are employed by the many small and medium sized businesses across Australia and 19,265 of those businesses reside in my electorate. One of these is a trucking firm, Southern Haulage, based in the great southern town of Mount Barker. Recently I took the Minister for Small Business and Family Business, Senator Michaelia Cash, to meet the owners, Chris and Penny Pavlovich, during their recent visit to my electorate. This first-class haulage company employs more than 100 people, including three young apprentices. The business also participates in work experience programs, providing opportunities for local school students to build their resumes. Chris and Penny reinvest as much money as they can into their business to ensure success. They have recently purchased a state-of-the-art tracking system to ensure the safety of their drivers and to better track their growing fleet. Chris and Penny believe in giving back to their regional communities as well, providing sponsorship to local organisations year in, year out—organisations like the Mount Barker Bulls footy club and the Mount Barker Turf Club. On the same visit, I also took the minister to Albany's Wilson Brewing Company—no relation to me unfortunately! In August 2016, owners Maddie and Jess Wilson sold their family home to pursue their dream to craft the perfect beer and create a fantastic family business. Many people don't understand how much families put their livelihoods on the line to start and maintain a small business. Thankfully, that gamble paid off for the Wilson family, and their award winning beers are now building Albany's craft beer profile. They employ 13 people. That is 13 jobs that weren't available two years ago. Wilsons Brewing recently won the people's choice award at the Perth Royal Show and their beers have been picked up by BWS, who are marketing their product in 30 outlets in WA. After seeing what they have achieved in two years, I cannot wait to see what they can achieve in the future. Visiting these successful businesses around my electorate, I think it's important to remember that not every business enjoys immediate success. Many small family-run businesses struggle to stay afloat and get ahead. They invest all their money, blood, sweat and tears into a business that might not ever become successful. Unfortunately, government policies can often affect how successful that small business can be. That's why I'm so pleased the federal government is now fast-tracking plans to provide tax relief for small and medium sized businesses through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018 that passed the House last week. It is worth noting that we are achieving this five years earlier than planned. These changes are part of our plan for a stronger economy and will benefit the 3.3 million small to medium sized businesses Australia wide. Under the new legislation, a business with a turnover below $50 million will have a tax rate of just 25c in the 2021-22 financial year. Similar timing changes will also apply to the rollout of the 16 per cent tax discount for unincorporated businesses. When businesses are able to keep more of their own money, they are able to invest back into their businesses to create jobs, to boost their productivity and to grow. It might mean an owner-operator, like Southern Haulage, could take on an extra apprentice and provide a promising future for a school leaver. More jobs mean more consumer spending, which in turn helps to grow the economy and provide more jobs for everyday Australians. Under the economic leadership of the coalition government, the economy has grown at 3.4 per cent this year. That's the best result since the mining boom. More than one million jobs have been created since we came to government in 2013, as promised. Just this week, the Treasurer announced that the unemployment rate had dropped to five per cent, giving the hope of a prosperous future to more Australians than ever. Our plan to fast-track tax relief for Australian businesses is an important investment in the future economic growth of our nation. I believe it's important that we put more money back into the pockets of business owners. It's the business owners who are in the best place to know how to spend their profits, rather than it ending up in government coffers. This legislation builds on the first stage of the company tax relief that our government delivered in March 2017. This is a government that believes in a fair go for those who have a go. That's a fair go for the Wilson family in Albany and a fair go for the Pavlovich family in Mount Barker. That's what our tax plan is all about. Hospitals 76 19:46 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The member for Cook was just two weeks into his prime ministership when he launched his latest attack on Australia's public hospitals. Every Liberal leader takes the axe to health care eventually. They simply can't help themselves. But even by their standards this was a pretty swift assault. When he was Treasurer, the Prime Minister oversaw $2.8 billion in cuts from public hospital budgets going forward. Those are savage cuts that the Labor Party has promised to reverse with our Better Hospitals Fund. Evidently, the Prime Minister wasn't actually content with that. Now he's trying to retrospectively claw back hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for services that have already been delivered in our public hospitals. The Victorian government estimates that the new retrospective accounting changes would see more than $200 million slashed from its state's public hospitals alone. Queensland says that it will rip $80 million out of their hospital budgets. If the Prime Minister thinks that there are issues with the calculation of public hospital funding, he should work with the states and territories to fix them. We are open to hearing the government's ideas, but we're not open to this kind of retrospective funding attack. States have already delivered these services in good faith, consistent with the rules that were already agreed to three years ago. To shift the goalposts now is both unfair and simply unacceptable. But the Prime Minister doesn't seem to care about that. He's just seizing the opportunity to rip out more money from our public hospital system. The last thing we want in this country is a return to the days of the hospital wars, when the Commonwealth was in a constant battle with the states and territories over hospital funding. Labor worked hard in office to end these hospital wars once and for all by introducing activity based funding and proposing a fair 50-50 funding model for hospital growth. Australia can ill afford to go back to those bad old days, where there were fights between the Commonwealth and states constantly around cost shifting for public hospital delivered services. Yet with one of his first acts, this Prime Minister is risking exactly that. He has started a dispute with every single state and territory, including the Liberal ones. The government argues that it is following the advice of two independent bodies, but the states say that the Commonwealth has politicised these two bodies in order to make savings. The COAG Health Council's ministerial communique from 12 October states: All states and territories oppose the proposed adjustments by the national bodies … At the same meeting the states gave the Commonwealth just two weeks to reconsider its position. We in the opposition urge the government to do exactly that. If they don't, the state health ministers have said that they will relative the dispute to an official COAG process by the end of this week. They will invoke section 23 of the National Health Reform Agreement, a dispute resolution mechanism that, to the best of my knowledge, has never actually been invoked before. That is how seriously the states are treating this issue. This would be a significant move. Our hospitals are already in crisis, with ballooning emergency department and elective waiting lists, and these cuts will only make things worse. Doctors, nurses and patients will suffer across communities. This current dispute is over the 2016-17 funding, as I said, for services that have already been delivered by public hospitals. It's important to note that there was a similar dispute over the 2015-16 funding. That dispute arose after then Treasurer Morrison directed the independent umpire to audit the 2015-16 funding. So he has form. This is not the first time he's interfered with the independent hospital funding model. So, while he might be trying to remake his image as Prime Minister, this shows that he is simply up to the same old tricks when it comes to hospital funding. Ultimately, it's clear that it doesn't matter if it's the member for Warringah or Malcolm Turnbull or the member for Cook or Peter Dutton in charge of the Liberals; health and hospital cuts are simply part of the DNA of the Liberal Party. This is a very serious dispute with the states. To date, the Commonwealth has shown itself entirely unwilling or unable to actually resolve this dispute with the states, which is potentially cutting millions of dollars further out of our public hospitals. Freedom of Religion 76 19:51 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I am an unashamed advocate for freedom of religion, the foundation of liberalism itself. Liberalism is based on the idea that the individual is sovereign and that sovereignty is respected by their unlimited freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is, of course, the foundation of freedom of religion. People are free to think as they see fit. I said 'unlimited' because that is what I mean. In a Liberal democracy, government are not the thought police. That was recognised in section 116 of the Constitution, which says: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The importance of freedom of conscience is directly connected to the freedom of speech. You cannot think if you cannot learn. Free speech is essential for imparting ideas and having them tested, challenge, absorbed and dismissed. Freedom of religion is about the freedom to exercise your conscience to choose a faith—critically—or not. It's an exercise of freedom of religion to choose to be Catholic, Muslim, Pentecostal or Jewish, among many other faith traditions. It's also an exercise of freedom of religion to be agnostic or atheist. That is what people misunderstand about freedom of religion and religious freedom: it's for everybody, because everybody has a conscience. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate on the marriage amendment bill last year, a free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but, instead, affirms individuality and diversity and fosters tolerance and mutual respect. Freedom of religion is foundational to a pluralistic society. Freedom of religion is about the manifestation of that conscience consistently. But, like a lot of freedoms, it is rightly tempered by a need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. So a call to act consistent with your conscience is exercising assembly and coming together in faith communities, but it is equally an exercise of a nonbeliever to come together with others on that basis and without their faith. Periodically, we get into debates about the limits of that freedom. In a social democracy the state prescribes how people can manifest that conscience. In a liberal democracy we start by assuming the exercise of that freedom and merely identify the line where it causes harm to others, guided by an interest to expand the space of freedom for everybody. These principles date back some 116 years to when the great John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that: … the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Herein lies the challenge of contemporary debates. 'Freedom of religion' and 'religious freedom' sound the same, but they're actually different things. Freedom of religion is about freedom of conscience and manifesting that freedom principally for worship. Religious freedom extends beyond that principle in how far all people, of faith or otherwise, can use their conscience to justify conduct. People don't get bonus freedom for having faith, nor for the absence of it. They have the same freedom. It is only their motivation that differs. In the coming weeks, we're going to have a discussion about what that means, and I'll be guided by the understanding I've outlined already. Already we've had a debate about religious freedom and children. Human rights are fundamentally an adult concept. Parents, of course, have a right to raise their children in their faith and cultural traditions. But, when it comes to children, their health and welfare must come first, ahead of the world view of their parents—no matter what it is, whether religious or otherwise. How religious freedom is interpreted and balanced in law is a critical conversation for our country to have. But we have to make sure that we understand that we're not just talking about people of faith communities; we're talking about the freedom of everyone, and how it's consistently applied. As many people will understand, as we debate these issues in the coming weeks and months, the standard which you apply to others, you have to accept, in law, will be applied to you as well. Now is a time to call people to reason and respect, so that we can live in this great country, peacefully, together. Whitlam Electorate: Suicide Prevention 77 19:56 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Suicide rates in this country are too high. Over 3,100 people in the last 12 months lost their life to suicide. The rate amongst males is more than three times higher than that amongst females. In my own region, 40 to 60 people take their lives each year, and that's above the state average. I want to heap some praise today on an initiative, the Suicide Prevention Collaborative, which is a collaborative of businesses, community organisations, the Public Health Network and the local Fairfax newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury. They have set themselves the task of reducing that rate to zero. We know that we've got a big task ahead of us. In 2017 alone, the South Coast branch of Lifeline received over 20,000 calls which were suicide-related calls. So I want to heap some praise on the Suicide Prevention Collaborative. I want to particularly thank Dr Alex Hains for his work in advocating a new program of training which has been made available, the QPR—or Question, Persuade, Refer—training, which has been made available online. I'm going to do something unusual, Mr Speaker. You know that normally, when I stand at this despatch box, I'm usually having some harsh words to say about the government. But I do want to give some praise to the Minister for Health. I phoned him a few weeks ago and said, 'I want you to support this; I want you to match the funding that has been given by the New South Wales government to fund access to free online training as a part of this initiative.' He didn't flinch. He said: 'Of course we'll do whatever we can.' I'm very pleased to report to the House that he did, in fact, honour that commitment. So I want to do a rare thing and heap praise on the health minister for making this significant commitment, which will make a difference. Hopefully, sometime down the track, I'll be able to report that we've made a big dent in that number—the 40 to 60 people who take their lives in my region each year. The SPEAKER 00APG The House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow. House adjourned at 19 : 59 NOTICES 78 NOTICES

Tuesday, 23 October 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Wicks) took the chair at 16:00.

 

Immigration Detention

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:00): I take this opportunity to respond to the hundreds of people who have reached out to me recently to urge an end to the physical and mental trauma facing children on Nauru. Every day my office is inundated with calls, emails and letters from people just saying 'enough'. Indeed just before I left for question time today I received a call from Joy in my electorate, who added her voice to the chorus of people calling for a solution to this medical emergency. To every person who has reached out to me to demand change, I say thank you. I also acknowledge the strong and principled position of the Australian Medical Association and all of the doctors, including those from my electorate of Newcastle, who have contributed to this call for national action. It is timely to think that only yesterday this place joined in total unity and sincerity to apologise to the survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions, yet as a country we continue to maintain an offshore indefinite detention regime that inflicts deep and lasting trauma on detainees. It is no secret that this is a wicked problem with a fraught history, but it doesn't mean that we need to keep going down this path.

However, the answer will require a genuinely multipartisan response, because no private members bill has a hope of passing if the government won't list it for debate, and no legislation can proceed without majority support from this place. A solution shouldn't be beyond us. Recently the Prime Minister indicated that he might be willing to accept New Zealand's longstanding offer to resettle sick and vulnerable children and their families. While Labor has long supported this deal, we hold grave concerns about the government's proposed legislation, which would ban anyone who has sought to come to Australia by boat from ever visiting at any time in the future even as a tourist. While we think this legislation is an extreme overreach, we understand that this situation cannot go on. That's why last night Labor reached out to the government with a number of compromises that we would be willing to accept. Today I urge the government to engage with Labor and the crossbench in good faith to negotiate with open hearts and minds to find a solution that we can all accept and break this cycle of trauma and despair. We simply cannot keep holding people in indefinite detention when all the evidence shows how utterly detrimental this is to the health and wellbeing of these detainees. It is time to close the door on this chapter in our national history. (Time expired)

Banks Electorate: Community Organisations

Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) (16:03): This afternoon I would like to talk about a number of great community organisations in my electorate of Banks. On Sunday 23 November I attended the Connells Point Netball Club's presentation night at club central in Hurstville It was a great honour to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards to the recipients and hear about the great successes of the season. I thank the club's president, Julian Finch; the secretary, Maureen Finch; the treasurer, Sheree Smith; and the whole committee, in fact, for all of their hard work over the year. Connells Point Netball is one of the largest netball clubs in the entire Banks electorate. It proudly participates in the very strong Sutherland competition, and it was great to visit them and to hear all about the important improvements coming up at Poulton Park, which will be of great benefit to the club.

On Friday, 12 October I attended the Georges River Light the Night event at Diggers in Panania. It was a great night, with attendees receiving a lantern in order to raise awareness about blood cancer. Over 25$,000 was raised, and all proceeds go to the Leukaemia Foundation. There were hundreds of people there. It was a fantastic night. Lots of effort and organisation went into it. I'd like to thank Joanne Tonks, Brad Tonks, Lauren Maras, Andrew Banks, Collette Ide, Kate Larsen, Jenni Ballard, Katrina Larsen, Andrew Larsen, Rodney Thomson and many others for all their hard work. It was great to be able to support the event, and I look forward to attending again next year.

On Sunday, 23 September, I attended Oatley Rugby Club's end-of-season sporting presentation down at Maso's in Mortdale. There were five very worthy recipients of the junior 2018 Banks sporting achievement awards. Thanks to Juniors Vice President Mike Heal as well as coaches Mark Bushby, Willy Trostel and Ben Prangell; assistant coaches Ian Langley and Daryl Glendenning; and all the volunteers at the club for everything they do for Oatley Rugby. It is the only rugby union club in the Banks electorate and plays a very important role in our community.

On Saturday, 29 September, I attended Revesby Public School P&C's Bunnings barbecue fundraiser down at Bunnings in Milperra, near the airport. It was great to be able to help out, sell some food and drink and help to raise funds for the school's P&C. Thanks to P&C President Amy McGauran; Principal Narelle Nies; Gloria Hansen, who has been involved in the P&C for so many years; and everyone else who was there on the day. Revesby Public School is a very-tight-knit community. It's the only school in the entire Banks electorate that has its own museum, reflecting its long and proud history, and it was terrific to be able to support the school at the Bunnings P&C fundraiser.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:06): In the past few months we've seen trusted Australian institutions come under sustained attacks. This goes all the way to the very top, including the office of the Prime Minister, as those opposite know only too well. I made mention earlier in the House today the book by David Speers, On Mutiny. He had to say something about the government and their own internal battles. What it reveals is a deceitful, treacherous and toxic government hell-bent on plotting, revenge and undermining to remove a Prime Minister, all the while forgetting about the Australian people.

But government attacks have not just been on themselves. They've aimed at iconic institutions like the ABC, which Australians have loved and trusted for almost 100 years since it was founded on 23 November 1923. There has been outrage in the community—and rightly so. That's why over 100 local residents joined me at our save-the-ABC community forum last Friday at McLeod Country Golf Club to voice their support for protecting the ABC. Let's not forget that this is a government that has cut $83.7 million from ABC funding in their last budget, taking total cuts to $282 million in reduced funding since 2014, resulting in a loss of 800 jobs and a reduction in Australian content.

These are all devastating blows for our national broadcaster, which is continuously torn down by this government. But I'm here to say Australians won't stand for it. At last Friday's forum, residents came forth and signed our ABC pledge to show their support so the ABC is independent, free from political influence, properly funded and a voice for all Australians. We saw last week Senator Fifield table a statement and the report of his Clayton's inquiry in parliament. It was nothing more than a whitewash designed to cover up the government's involvement in the recent political interference scandals.

With all due respect to the secretary of the department, who was placed in an invidious position by the then minister, the inquiry report creates more questions than answers. It was unable to ascertain all the facts, given lack of powers to compel parties or documents. It leaves key questions unanswered and points to an insidious level of government pressure, with both the former chair and managing director expressing the view that there was no doubt about the government being very concerned and that 'these concerns would affect the ABC's standings, relationships and support within government, including for future investment and funding support.

On this side of the House we were and are still very keen to get to the bottom of this, and that's why we called for a Senate inquiry into the alleged political interference with the ABC. The fact that the government voted with the Greens is proof that Senator Fifield did not want to face Labor's inquiry. Labor's proposed inquiry would have ensured a forensic and constructive focus on governance at the ABC. Instead the Liberals and the Greens teamed up for an ill-defined inquiry that may simply provide the government with yet another avenue to attack the ABC. These undermining attacks have gone on long enough.

Today I call on the government to cease with the undermining and wrecking of the ABC and instead protect it as all Australians would expect.

Emerald State Emergency Service

Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:09): I rise today to congratulate the Emerald SES and in particular some awardees from their recent awards night. It was a great night at the Emerald RSL—and can I congratulate Peter Maloney, the past president of the RSL, who's retired after five years, for doing amazing work. The Emerald SES is a volunteer based organisation within the Victorian State Emergency Service which provides emergency assistance to the community 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A special thank you goes to Ben Owen and his team—his committee members and all the volunteers who, at the drop of a hat, will go out at midnight to help. The SES is the control agency during emergency responses to floods, storms, tsunamis and earthquakes in Victoria and it is the largest provider of road crash rescue in the state. I believe last financial year they attended roughly 800 jobs, and the previous year it was 1,000 jobs. I would like to congratulate those who received awards, including David Wilson, who won the members' choice award, Peter Copp, who won the road rescue volunteer of the year award; and Derek Harris, for being the most active responder.

The Emerald SES is responsible for road rescue around Emerald and beyond. It is also responsible for storm and flood responses from Gembrook to Olinda. Covering the Dandenong Ranges, obviously every time there's a storm a number of trees come down. I was delighted to meet the enthusiastic volunteers at the Emerald SES. What greatly concerns me, though, is that they only receive $32,000 of state government support each year for running the SES, and they have two rescue trucks and two rescue support vehicles—four-wheel drives. But the really big issue impacting on them is the fact that their current facility is completely run down and too small for what they require. The state Labor government committed $1.8 million. The problem is it's not enough to buy the land and build the facility they need. They do an incredible job, the SES volunteers, and I do say volunteers. They are volunteers who go out to help other people in the local area. They need a facility. They need more than $1.8 million. I call on the state Labor government to get serious about this and make sure the Emerald SES has the facility it needs. The same goes for the new facility at Officer and also Clyde. We need money to make the SES work effectively and continue to deliver.

Rudd, Hon. Kevin

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (16:13): In an article in last Thursday's Sydney Morning Herald by Latika Bourke, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in an excerpt of his about-to-be-published memoirs, presents an account of an event at the Lodge on 3 June 2010, where a number of people were organised at the behest of the former Prime Minister, including myself, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, Robert Goot SC, chair of the national Jewish organisation, and my friend Albert Dadon. Mr Dadon and I both recall that one of the other participants, Mr Mark Liebler, was direct and abrupt, as is his normal style. On one occasion, as he said in a subsequent statement to The Sydney Morning Herald, he interrupted Mr Rudd and urged him not to be defensive, but Mr Liebler did not threaten Mr Rudd. It would have been absurd and ridiculous for him to do so, given Mr Liebler, then and now, can't influence members on such serious matters as party leadership. The unpleasant words attributed to Mr Liebler were simply not said. Such dramatic, incendiary and inappropriate words would have been seared into our memory if they had been said; they simply were not.

The truth is that the Australian Jewish community, including all of those who attended the dinner that night to meet Mr Rudd, have always regarded him as a firm friend of Israel and the Australian Jewish community. We were reminded of a story published in the now defunct Bulletin magazine. In the mid-1990s, Jeremy Jones, who compiles an annual report on anti-Semitism in Australia, received a call from a woman in Brisbane about a giant swastika. He told her to go back, photograph it and remove it. 'When she returned, there was someone whitewashing it over,' Jones recalled. He introduced himself. It was Kevin Rudd. This tells us what really matters about Mr Rudd. That's why we prefer to remember him with respect. It's perfectly possible for busy and stressed people, such as sitting Prime Ministers, to have imperfect recollections of the torrent of events constantly swirling around them.

It is understandable that former Prime Minister Rudd would be disappointed and sad about being replaced as Prime Minister in 2010. Many Australians were just as sad that his prime ministership didn't work out. I also note that a friend and colleague of mine, Mr Robert Goot AM SC, in Sydney, wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald saying, 'I was present throughout the dinner and paid close attention to what was said by the then Prime Minister and his guests. When I first read Ms Bourke's article I thought it must have been a different occasion altogether.' Mr Goot says the claims that Mr Rudd was berated or menaced simply did not happen. He says, 'The exchanges with the Prime Minister, including with Mr Lieberman and myself, were both polite and unexceptional. The event as described about Mr Rudd is fictional.' (Time expired)

Dunkley Electorate: Roads

Small Business

Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (16:16): I recently had the opportunity to have the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, Andrew Broad, visit the Dunkley electorate to inspect two road safety upgrades that have now been completed: Wooralla Drive in Mount Eliza and the Skye Road-Inglenook Crescent intersection in Frankston. These projects are just two of the 11 projects across Dunkley that have received funding under the Black Spot Program, which will see a total of $3.2 million invested by the Morrison Liberal-National government to target dangerous roads and to deliver lifesaving improvements. The coalition government has contributed $989,000 to the Wooralla Drive upgrades in Mount Eliza, which has seen a new T-intersection, a roundabout at St Kilda Street, a centre median near Brighton Crescent and a guardrail extended. With a contribution of $148,000 from the Morrison Liberal-National government, at Skye Road-Inglenook Crescent in Frankston, the kerb was realigned to increase deflection at the roundabout, helping to slow down drivers and to increase safety. The Dunkley electorate is also looking forward to seeing the completion of Potts Road from Gumnut Drive to the Cranbourne-Frankston roads, which is part of the Langwarrin project currently underway, with a contribution of $54,000 from the federal government.

The Black Spot Program is evidence of the coalition government's commitment to reducing road deaths and injuries across Australia and to ensuring that our loved ones get home sooner and safer. This, combined with the recent Roads to Recovery funding that has been delivered in Dunkley throughout the last term of government—since I became a member of parliament in 2016—contributes to not only providing road safety but getting locals home sooner and safer to their families and loved ones and to ensuring that we resolve a number of issues the community faces, whether they be accidents, deaths or other issues, at more dangerous intersections and roads.

I also note that the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, Andrew Broad, visited those two intersections as well as the wonderful Massoni Wines in Mount Eliza, in my electorate. We had an opportunity to visit their site and see the wonderful wines that they produce from chardonnay to shiraz. They produce a wide range of different blends. They are doing a great job in the Australian market. We continue to support businesses like them in our electorates, whether that is through our small business tax cuts and other measures such as the export trade deals to help small businesses, wineries and others in the agricultural sector to produce, to employ and to do well.

Centrelink

Mr CONROY (Shortland) (16:19): A complaint that all 150 of us in the House of Representatives would be familiar with is their constituents' frustrations, particularly elderly and vulnerable Australians, regarding delays in accessing benefits through the Department of Human Services. I particularly want to raise the issue of one of my constituents, who waited over six months for her application for the aged pension to be processed. It was only approved after my office became involved. Unfortunately for my constituent, Faye Geraghty of Budgewoi, her application was sitting idly in a processing queue—not actioned for months.

The average waiting time for processing age pension payments increased from 36 days to 49 days last financial year. Fay waited over 130 days. Let me repeat that: whilst the average waiting time is 49 days, Fay waited over 130. That is more than one-third of the year. This is just not on in a modern and advanced democracy such as ours. There is no great secret behind these delays and backlog. Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull and the new Prime Minister have sacked thousands of public servants within DHS since 2013. The public cannot access public services if there are no public servants to do the work. It is a pretty simple equation.

Fay's experience is not a meaningless statistic. She deserved much better treatment than she received. This government often talks about providing dignity in retirement for older Australians, but there is nothing dignified whatsoever about Fay's experience. The Prime Minister or the Minister for Human Services should have a coffee with Fay and hear firsthand the impacts their brutal cuts have had on the lives of hardworking Australians, who should have been afforded the dignity the coalition so often talk about. The most frustrating part of Fay's experience is that, once my office became involved, a relatively minor administrative oversight was able to be fixed and she was granted her pension with full back pay from the day she made her claim. Older Australians who have played by the rules and worked hard all their lives, like Fay has, should not be treated so shabbily. Australians deserve better than this.

When the Prime Minister declared that he was 'on your side'—meaning the people's—on being elected Liberal leader, my constituents saw this as more meaningless and hollow rhetoric from a government that is totally and completely out of touch with the lives of the people they purport to govern for. My constituents who apply for Social Security should never have to experience almost never-ending delays. Elderly and vulnerable Australians deserve so much more. I have had pension applicants waiting for over six months before being granted. Yes, they received back pay, but that provides cold comfort—

An honourable member interjecting—

Mr CONROY: I hear 'two years' over here. It's a disgrace. Pensioners deserve the very best treatment. This government claims to provide that but in the end we see public service cuts that mean huge waiting lists. Our people deserve better.

North Sydney Electorate: Returned and Services League

Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (16:22): I rise to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the North Sydney Sub-branch of the Returned and Services League. The North Sydney sub-branch was established in the shadows of World War I on 26 November 1918, just 15 days after the Armistice. In the early days of the First World War, it was evident those returning from Gallipoli and the Western Front would require support, along with the families of those who would never return. This ethos of compassion and service remains the motivating force within the RSL today. In North Sydney 4,000 men enlisted to serve in that war. This represented something like 10 per cent of the local population at the time. It is estimated 750 never returned, and it is possible that almost double that figure came home with physical injuries.

Many of those who perished in World War I and in conflicts since are honoured on the North Sydney cenotaph in St Leonards Park, which was constructed through the donations of local residents who were determined to ensure their sacrifice was never forgotten. This imposing cenotaph stands sentinel at the top of Walker Street, North Sydney, and proclaims to all who pass that, 'Greater love has no man than this: that he give his life for the life of his country.' The generosity of grateful North Shore residents extended beyond the construction of the cenotaph. One of Sydney's great citizens, Sir Thomas Dibbs, donated his imposing mansion, Graythwaite, in North Sydney to become a convalescent home for our returning veterans.

The North Sydney RSL Sub-branch has a proud history of supporting our veterans from this and conflicts since. For many years, it based its activities at the Anzac Club in Cammeray, until the club was closed. More recently the sub-branch has been located in St Leonards Park, close to the North Sydney cenotaph. While the sub-branch today is undoubtedly smaller than in the days immediately following the First and Second World Wars, what it lacks in numbers, it makes up for in enthusiasm and dedication. Its work has included the Anzac dawn service, which is now attended by thousands of local residents, and each year its Remembrance Day ceremonies have grown in attendance as well. It has served as the custodian of the cenotaph and, with North Sydney Council, has worked to see it protected and restored. The sub-branch also led efforts to restore the Northbridge War Memorial, which had fallen into disrepair. I was pleased to secure some federal support for both of these projects.

I am proud to be associated with the sub-branch, and was incredibly honoured when its members, who have given so much to this country, invited me to become its patron. I particularly acknowledge the current executive of the sub-branch, led by President Alex Wilson and supported by Geoff Watson, Peter Kendall, Bronte Pollard, Len Schulz, Carolyn Watson and Stu Schon. To all the members of the sub-branch, I say thank you for keeping the mission of the RSL so strong in North Sydney. Our community remains in your debt.

Coalition Government

Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (16:25): Yesterday in estimates it became very obvious that the Liberal state and federal governments have continued to mismanage the infrastructure rollout in Tasmania. It was just astounding to hear yesterday that the business case for the Bridgwater bridge—which is between the member for Denison's and the member for Lyons' electorates—that the Liberals made a big fanfare about in the state election in March this year still has not been submitted to Infrastructure Australia. After being told it was just weeks away in August, it still hasn't been done.

The Liberal state and federal governments continue to mismanage and slow down the rollout of critical infrastructure in Tasmania, particularly in my own electorate. The Hobart Airport roundabout was the only commitment of any substance that the Liberals made to my electorate in the last federal election. They only made it because federal Labor made a more significant announcement in relation to the Hobart Airport roundabout weeks earlier. They were copying Labor; they were dragged, kicking and screaming, to actually do something about this roundabout. And now here we are, on the eve of another federal election. and work is finally going to start in the coming weeks—on an interim solution. This is a roundabout on the way to the airport. How can it possibly take three years for state and federal governments to get their acts together to just start on an interim solution.

The people of my electorate have had enough. They are so sceptical of this government because of its ineptitude in actually delivering on things on the ground. They just don't believe that the government is going to do anything anymore. We still don't have a proper date for completion for the roundabout; it keeps changing from 2021 to 2022. How many elections does the government have to win to actually deliver something in my electorate?

It is a far cry from when we had Labor state and federal governments, because we continued to deliver infrastructure project after infrastructure project, including in my electorate. We had the Kingston Bypass, the Cygnet medical centre, the Huon Valley Trade Training Centre, the Blundstone Arena redevelopment, the Kingston Twin Ovals and the Huon Highway-Summerleas Road intersection. This has only just been completed because, of course, when the Liberal state government got elected in 2014, it slowed down that project massively. It has taken years to complete because the state government has mismanaged it. We have got the Huon Valley water scheme, the south-east water scheme, the Kangaroo Bay redevelopment of the barbecue area and the playgrounds, which are near my office. That has been a tremendous success. These were all projects supported and funded by state and federal Labor governments, and, importantly, we actually did the work to deliver them on the ground. These Liberal governments think they can say anything and not actually deliver on the ground, and my electorate have stopped believing them.

Groom Electorate: Unleash the Beast

Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:28): Unleash the Beast was the title of a writing and wellbeing symposium held in Toowoomba on 10 October, which was World Mental Health Day. This reportedly was the largest event of its type in Australia on that very important day. I was very pleased, honoured in fact, to be part of a three-person panel on the opening night. I sat alongside John Minz, a community leader and former CEO of Heritage Bank, based in Toowoomba. He is also chair of Darling Downs and West Moreton PHN and Toowoomba Together, and he's a White Ribbon ambassador. I also sat alongside John Anderson, deputy headmaster of Toowoomba Grammar School.

This 'John-a-thon', as it was termed by the MC, Mr Derek Tuffield OAM, CEO of Lifeline Darling Downs and South West Queensland, provided a wonderful opportunity for all of us to hear from John Minz about White Ribbon, and in particular the importance of a collaborative community to support wellbeing, and from John Anderson about the guidance and development of young men on such issues at Toowoomba Grammar School, which is one of the leading schools not only in our community but also in the country. Most notable, I think, was that well-known author and columnist Peter FitzSimons led a panel discussion about male depression and the experience of former Defence Force and police force representatives recovering from PTSD, and their giving back, if you like, to their community in their willingness to talk about their journey.

'Seek help', was certainly the key message. Just as important was the need for all of us to be vigilant about the apparent wellbeing of those around us. As the organisers, led by Emma Mactaggart, reminded all of us, one in four adults and one in five young people are living with mental health issues on a daily basis. The workplace, retirees, Indigenous, gender equality, bullying intervention for children's mental health, nutrition, sleep, rural communities, immigrants, domestic violence and suicide were among the various topics discussed during the forum.

We had a whole range of supporters and sponsors: PB Agrifood, Toowoomba Wellcamp Airport, Mort & Co, Rugby Farm Group, Avis Toowoomba, Colliers International Toowoomba, Taylor Safety Equipment, Tilly's Crawler Parts and Fitzy's on Church, just to name a few. I congratulate Emma Mactaggart and her team. It was fantastic to see Lifeline Darling Downs and south-west Queensland supported through this event.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): In accordance with the resolution agreed to in the House previously, the time for members' statements has concluded.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 85 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Death Penalty 85 16:31 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) that 10 October 2018 was World Day Against the Death Penalty; (b) the bi-partisan position of Australian governments over many years in their continued opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances for all people and their commitment to pursuing the universal abolition of the death penalty through all avenues available; and (c) that the theme of the 2018 World Day Against the Death Penalty is to raise awareness of the inhumane living conditions of people sentenced to death; (2) acknowledges the Australian Government's Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty, which details Australia's reasons for opposing the death penalty because: (a) it is irrevocable, miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified, and no legal system is safe from error; (b) it denies any possibility of rehabilitation to the convicted individual; (c) there is no convincing evidence that it is a more effective deterrent than long term or life imprisonment; and (d) it is unfair—it is used disproportionately against the poor, people with intellectual or mental disabilities and minority groups; and (3) notes that on World Day Against the Death Penalty, the Australian film Guilty, which documents the final 72 hours in the life of Myuran Sukumaran, the Bali Nine convicted criminal who, along with Andrew Chan was executed by a firing squad in Indonesia on 29 April 2015, was screened in every state and territory in Australia. On 10 October we commemorated World Day Against the Death Penalty. On that day, we, as a nation and as members of a concerned international community, reaffirmed our commitment to the pursuit of a world free of the death penalty. On 10 October this year we received the very welcome news that the Malaysian government has decided that it will abolish the death penalty. It's my hope this will encourage other nations in our region to follow suit, reigniting the debate about the relevance and role of capital punishment in today's society. I hold strong views against the death penalty. To me, capital punishment is the most cruel and inhumane response to crime. My opposition to the capital punishment is universal; it's not only when it involves Australians. It is inevitably associated with the miscarriage of justice, the inadvertent execution of innocents and the disproportionate execution of poor people and those of religious minority groups. The death penalty is also irreversible, and no legal system is free of error. As long as the death penalty exists, innocent people will be killed. In 2016, Amnesty recorded 60 cases where prisoners were sentenced to death but were found to be innocent of the crime with which they were charged. Most credible research also indicates that capital punishment does not deter crime. In 2009, a survey conducted by the University of Colorado, which remains one of the most authoritative studies conducted on the issue of deterrence, found that 88 per cent of the nation's criminologists did not believe that the death penalty had any value in terms of deterring crime. This finding is borne out by the actual experience in Canada. In Canada, they stopped executing in 1976. The murder rate has in fact fallen by some 44 per cent. In modern society, I believe we've got the adequate means to punish people for the crimes they commit, but I also believe we have a process to assist people with genuine rehabilitation. The international community has come a long way towards abolishing capital punishment. Recent statistics from Amnesty reveal that 142 countries now have abolished the death penalty, and that compares to only 16 back in 1977. Unfortunately, there remain 56 countries which actively retain the death penalty. Australia can be very proud of its longstanding and principled opposition to capital punishment and its support for the work of the United Nations on abolition. Most recently, as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Australia pledged to continue its strong commitment to the global abolition of the death penalty. I'm pleased that the Australian government has recently released its whole-of-government strategy outlining Australia's overarching approach to pursuing global abolition of the death penalty. The strategy implements one of the main recommendations of the report compiled by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled A world without the death penalty. The strategy focuses on bilateral and multilateral advocacy, engagement with civil society organisations, support for research in the field, the need to strengthen the safeguards currently in place to prevent exposing people to the death penalty and the role that various government agencies can play as part of this advocacy. Simply put, we have a responsibility to continue to use our various platforms to support, inspire and encourage other nations to move towards abolition. Digressing slightly, we should spare a thought for the people of the Philippines, where the death penalty does not exist at the moment but where the rule of law has now been set aside by their government, which has granted police impunity, effectively giving them a licence to kill based on mere suspicion without any judicial oversight. I conclude with the words of the former Chief Justice of South African Constitutional Court, Ismail Mahomed: The death penalty sanctions the deliberate annihilation of life … It is the ultimate and the most incomparably extreme form of punishment … It is the last, the most devastating and the most irreversible recourse of the criminal law, involving as it necessarily does, the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is there a seconder for this motion? Ms Vamvakinou 00AMT I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:37 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I rise to speak on this important motion moved today regarding World Day Against the Death Penalty. It is an important issue to raise, in particular noting Australia's own abolition of the death penalty many years ago and our continued stance against the death penalty not only in Australia but also in our region and internationally. Our position and the position of the Australian government in a bipartisan fashion across parliament and all parties has been that the death penalty is wrong, and we are very clear and unequivocal in our opposition to the death penalty. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances for all people. We are committed to its universal abolition, and we will pursue that through all possible avenues. Recently on Monday 15 October at Parliament House the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, officially launched Australia's whole-of-government strategy for the global abolition of the death penalty. Australia is committed to being an international leader in the efforts to end use of the death penalty. The strategy, which is the first of its kind in Australia, will see our nation work very closely with partners around our region and around the world to protect and promote our shared human rights and responsibilities to take action against the death penalty wherever it is supported. It outlines practical measures and steps that ministers, parliamentarians and Australia's network of embassies, missions and others can take to advance the global goal of abolishing the death penalty. It is built four particular principles. Firstly, the death penalty is irrevocable and no legal system is free of error. If the convicted is later found innocent, that is a miscarriage of justice that cannot be rectified. Secondly, it denies the possibility of rehabilitation of the convicted individual. Thirdly, the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent than is long-term or life imprisonment. Some would even argue that life imprisonment is a greater penalty, for those who have to spend that time not only go through a rehabilitation period but also get to the point of acknowledging their own crimes. Fourthly, it is unfairly and disproportionately used against the most vulnerable members of many societies. In some countries—in some rogue nations—it also is used against those who are critics of the government in circumstances where, for example, individuals have simply stood up for human rights and the rights of the individual. As a member of UN Human Rights Council for the first time this year, Australia is advocating for the abolition of the death penalty and it's doing so in a constructive and pragmatic manner. We are working across parties, across both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party and with the crossbenchers, to ensure that we are taking action and are taking pragmatic steps to encourage those in our region and around the world to abolish the death penalty—respecting, of course, the cultural and social contexts of all states who retain the death penalty around the world, particularly in our own region of influence in the Indo-Pacific. Our diplomatic efforts and our diplomatic network, through our ambassadors, ministers and others, will continue to create a clear and articulated plan for engaging with all non-abolitionist states. DFAT will also engage closely with civil society through a new forum established by the strategy. Lastly, the consultative group will meet in the margins of DFAT's annual NGO human rights forum in Canberra. This group will share advocacy priorities, update civil society on bilateral and multilateral trends in abolition, and coordinate responses to individual cases, as well as exploring joint public diplomacy opportunities. Finally, this strategy is focusing on Australia's advocacy as opposed to just operational issues. This requires police-to-police assistance and work through our aid programs. I note that through my chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs and Aid Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I'm also a strong advocate, and our committee is a strong advocate, for working with our partners through our aid program to abolish the death penalty. I'm very pleased today to once again support this motion, and I thank the member for moving it. 16:41 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I'm very pleased today to speak on the motion raised by the member for Fowler, which affirms Australia's commitment to the abolition of the death penalty on a global level and also acknowledges the bipartisan position of Australian governments over many years in our continued opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances for all people. I want to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the work that the member for Fowler has done over the course of many years in this place in pursuing this issue. The death penalty has, as far as I'm concerned, no place in a modern society, and my own personal opposition to it is absolute. It comes from my own profound belief that no human being has the right to take the life of another human being under any circumstances. It is also central to the tenant of our belief—and my belief—in human dignity and the power of forgiveness and mercy. These are values that we have seen expressed also by the broader Australian community. They did so—it was palpable—during the period when we, as a nation and as a parliament, appealed for clemency to be granted to the two Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Also, ten years prior to that, there was the effort put into appealing for clemency for Van Tuong Nguyen, who was executed in Singapore in 2005. The parliament's opposition to the death penalty, as has been noted by the member for Dunkley and the member for Fowler, is bipartisan. In 2010, this parliament passed laws to ensure Australia's continued prohibition of the death penalty, which were described at the time by the former Attorney-General Senator George Brandis as a joint condemnation of torture and the death penalty. Over 140 countries have abolished or put in place a moratorium against the death penalty. But many nations, albeit fewer than 40, still impose capital punishment. Amnesty International reports that in 2017 there were at least 933 executions across 23 countries. I also want to welcome, as my colleagues did, the announcement by the Malaysian government on 10 October that it plans to abolish the death penalty and introduce a moratorium on executions immediately. Australia and other like-minded nations have a collective responsibility to advocate for the abolition of capital punishment, and we must do this not just globally but also within our own region. I'm pleased that we actually lead the way. As a parliament we have pursued ways we can advocate for the abolition of the death penalty within our region. Amnesty International estimates that there were at least 21,919 people on death row at the end of 2017. The death penalty should never be an option. There are a whole lot of reasons it should never be an option. Some of the more obvious ones—and they have been spoken about many times—are the sheer human error in the legal system and deliberate miscarriage of justice, as has been referred to by the member for Dunkley, where governments choose to punish people, especially dissidents. In 2016 Amnesty International found 60 cases where prisoners who had been sentenced to death were subsequently found not guilty. The death penalty cannot be reversed. It is irreversible. There's no compensation great enough to make up for the erroneous loss of a human life. There is no denying that reprehensible conduct must be met with action by our judicial system, but there is no evidence that capital punishment reduces the incidence of crime. I also want to spend a bit of time congratulating and commending Australian cinemas across our country for screening the film Guilty on World Day Against the Death Penalty. Guilty is a powerful and important film which documents the final 72 hours in the life of Myuran Sukumaran. It shows firsthand the impact that this barbaric practice has on the convicted, the families and the community, but it also shows the tragic waste of life, particularly of a rehabilitated man who made a big mistake when he was a younger man. I want to end with a quote from the director of the film, Mr Matthew Sleeth, who said: This film was a way to try to do something out of a very traumatic situation for everybody involved … After living through it and watching the excruciating slowness of it and the intimacy of it and the effect it has on families and the lawyers and anyone else who really came into contact with it, I was completely convinced – even more than I was before – about how wrong the death penalty is. 16:47 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I would also like to lend my voice in thanking the member for Fowler for moving this motion, which serves as a reminder in this House not just of Australia's commitment to abolishing the death penalty but also of our bipartisan position over many years in continuing to pursue the abolition of the death penalty not just here but worldwide. In doing so, I should acknowledge also the member for Dunkley for his contribution here today. And also I acknowledge the Australian government's strategy for the abolition of the death penalty, which details Australia's reasons for opposing the death penalty. The theme for this year's World Day Against the Death Penalty is to raise awareness of the inhumane living conditions of people sentenced to death. Indeed, one of the most prominent reasons for the abolition of the death penalty is its arbitrary application, which can never be ruled out. The death penalty is often used in a disproportionate manner against the poor, against minorities, and against members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups. I must also make mention here of related laws, particularly in countries like Pakistan, of apostasy and blasphemy that are punishable by execution. I reiterate here my hope that those laws be abolished not just in Pakistan but also in other countries, where they are—blasphemy and apostasy laws in particular—used arbitrarily to condemn people to death. While the theme is improving the inhumane living conditions, I think it is appropriate that we should also not take our eye off the ultimate goal of the abolition of capital punishment across the world. In preparing for today, I had a look at Australia's record on this. It's quite interesting to note that, while we abolished the death penalty in 1973 at the Commonwealth level in respect of offences under the law of the Commonwealth and territories, state legislation in some states took a little while to catch up. New South Wales was the last to abolish the death penalty, in 1985. Though it had abolished the penalty for murder in 1955, it retained the death penalty for treason and piracy right up until 1985, which really wasn't that long ago when you think about it. It also shows how far we've moved in such a relatively short period of time—a matter of decades. We now have over 140 nations that have abolished the death penalty, but there are still too many people being executed around the world, including in countries that are our close allies. It is important for us to continually be reminded of the opportunity for Australia to take a lead in encouraging the United Nations to support a global moratorium on the death penalty and to use our voice and our position in the region to do so. I trust and hope that the government strategy for the abolition of the death penalty goes some way to doing that. The reasons why the death penalty should be abolished have been outlined here today by several speakers. Probably one of the most apparent reasons is that it risks the execution of innocent people. The justice system is fallible. Humans are fallible, and in many systems humans are often the weakest link. There are several cases of innocent people who have been executed, most recently in the US, for example, for crimes that they did not commit. It's also incompatible with human rights and human dignity. As a country that considers itself progressive, particularly in the upholding of the very basic human rights, it would be remiss of us to not continually state our opposition to the death penalty and to do everything that we can to ensure that more and more countries sign up to abolishing or at least having a moratorium on the death penalty. Finally, the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Debate adjourned. Economy 88 16:52 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert This motion speaks to how completely out of touch this LNP government is. They try and brag that things are going well, that the economy is going well, that jobs are on the increase, but what is actually happening is the numbers are being skewed. The only things to rise under this out-of-touch LNP government besides degrees in climate and the tempers of every day Australians are the unemployment figures. Does this LNP government even know how regional Queenslanders are struggling under this government? Does our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, know the detrimental impact he caused by making cuts to various sectors across regional Queensland when he was Treasurer? Those opposite try and skew the numbers. They have put a new face on their leader, thinking that everyday Australians will just forget what those opposite have done. But we won't forget when the architect for the job losses and cuts is now the Prime Minister. The LNP's economic plan is for Sydney and Melbourne, not for regional Queensland. The LNP's planned tax cuts for banks and big business weren't for Townsville, but they were for their banking mates. The majority of Townsville businesses are not big businesses. While the Sydney and Melbourne economies are growing, Townsville's local economy has been demolished under consecutive LNP governments. This government likes to recite numbers, so allow me to recite a few. These are factual numbers. 5.6 per cent—that was Townsville's unemployment rate when Labor left office. 9.7 per cent—that's Townsville's current unemployment rate. Unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled under this government. Three thousand—that's how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in Townsville since the LNP were elected. One hundred and forty-nine—that's the number of Australian tax office jobs that have been lost under this government. Fifty—that's the number of Defence jobs cut. Nineteen—that's the number of CSIRO jobs cut in Townsville under the LNP. Forty-six per cent is the percentage of trainees and apprentices we have lost in Townsville, which equates to 1,557 people, all because consecutive LNP governments have cut $3 billion from the TAFE sector; 2,484—that's how many families also be worse off under the LNP's changes to child care; $2,000—that's how much extra an average family will have to pay under early childhood learning changes; seven per cent—that's the percentage of North Queenslanders who, due to the LNP government's Medicare freeze and the high cost of excessive medical services, have stopped accessing care when needed in the last year; $142 is the median out-of-pocket cost for a North Queenslander to access medical support; 26 per cent, 6,475 people or 55 people a day is the number of people who over the last six months have presented to the Townsville general hospital with ailments like coughs and colds because they couldn't afford their GP because of the Medicare freeze. Twelve doctors and 24 nurses—that's how many jobs will be lost at the Townsville Hospital because of the LNP government's $9 million cut; $36 million—that's the amount this government has cut from Central Queensland University. The number of jobs lost because James Cook University has been forced to cut its arts degree because of the LNP's $34 million cuts to JCU is 14; 442 is how many fewer construction businesses there are in Townsville than when Labor left office—that's a drop of 15.7 per cent; 153—that's the number of retail businesses that have closed in Townsville under the LNP, a fall of 17 per cent; seven is the number of jobs lost on Palm Island because of this government's cut to the national partnership and remote housing program. Zero is the amount of money the LNP has committed to stage 2 of the Haughton pipeline, which will give us long-term water security for Townsville. Zero is how much money the LNP have delivered for energy infrastructure for Townsville. These are the numbers the Morrison government needs to be working on because it is the government that has caused these disturbing numbers. But here are a few more numbers: $100 million is Labor's commitment to deliver long-term water security for Townsville; $200 million is Labor's commitment to deliver energy infrastructure for Townsville; $14.1 billion—that's Labor's commitment to public schools; $1.7 billion—that's Labor's commitment to early learning. Those numbers will make a huge difference to the people of Townsville. Only Labor will deliver for the people of Townsville. I have one last number—18 May. That's the last day an election can be held and regional Queensland can vote out a government that forgets us and vote for a Labor government that will deliver for us. 16:57 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand We saw on the weekend an extraordinary advertisement for just how out of touch the Morrison government is with the Australian public. The biggest by-election swing against a government on record in the seat of a former Liberal Prime Minister no less shows how disconnected the coalition MPs in this building are from voters out in the community. Indeed, we see how out of touch they are in the motion of the member for Forde before the House today. Only an out-of-touch government can pat itself on the back for effective economic management when we all know that Australians feel the economy simply isn't working for them. We see it, how out of touch the government is, when the government congratulates itself while everything is going up, except for wages, and it sits back and does nothing. We see it when the Prime Minister tells Australians in a media puff piece that he has an average size mortgage that he's dealing with like any other family, while earning over $500,000 per year—10 times the average Australian salary. We see how out of touch the government are when they cut penalty rates for hundreds of thousands of hospitality workers. We see it when young working and middle-class families cannot afford to purchase their own homes, and the former Treasurer tells them to 'get a better job' and the former PM tells them to get richer parents to shell out for them. We see how out of touch they are when they spend years fighting for billions of dollars of tax cuts for the big banks, while cutting funding for schools and hospitals. We see it when the former minister for jobs and innovation says that she can empathise with the less fortunate Australians because 'when I backpacked for three years, I had practically nothing'. We see how out of touch the coalition government are when they refused to initiate a royal commission into the banks for over 600 days while everyday Australians continued to be ripped off and exploited. We really see how out of touch they are when Prime Minister Morrison described Labor's call for a banking royal commission as 'nothing more than a populist whinge' and then voted against it 26 times. We see how out of touch they are when the member for Chisholm told Australians that she could live on the Newstart rate of 40 bucks a day when even the Business Council of Australia agrees that the rate is too low. The Liberal Party leads an out-of-touch government working for the top end of town. The Liberal Party has failed to solve the problems middle and working class Australians face every day: housing affordability, stagnant wages and rising inequality. In contrast, for the last five years Labor has been listening to the Australian community and working hard to develop the kinds of policies needed to respond to Australians' real concerns about how the Australian economy operates. Only Labor has a plan for a fair go for all Australians, for a fairer economy and for a more prosperous nation. Labor will improve housing affordability by reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax policies. Labor will reduce intergenerational inequality by investing in universal early childhood education for three- and four-year-olds. Labor will restore funding to schools, reversing the damaging cuts made by the successive Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Liberal governments. Labor will reverse cuts to penalty rates and fight for Australian workers' pay and conditions. It is no wonder that the Liberal Party's former Treasurer, Peter Costello, describes that out-of-touch rabble opposite as 'operating in a parallel universe'. This isn't the time for an out-of-touch government to be engaging in self-congratulatory backslapping on the economy; this is a time for this out-of-touch government to listen to the Australian people, to listen to the message from the public in Wentworth—real Australians, unlike what the Menzies Research Centre and some of those opposite would like to tell you—and the Australian community and finally call an election. Put an end to the nonsense, the division and the Itchy & Scratchy fighting that we have been seeing from this government for the past five years. It is time for this out-of-touch government to let Australians decide to elect a party that can deliver a fair go for all Australia. Bill Shorten's Labor opposition is ready. We've been doing the hard yards in opposition. We've been listening to the Australian public. We've been doing the policy work, getting ready to offer the Australian public a choice, a proposition for a fairer Australia, for a fair go for all Australians, for a fairer economy, for a more prosperous country, for an economy that's not just managed for the interests of the top end of town and the big banks but for the interests of working- and middle-class Australians, an economy that works for all of us, not just the mates of the Liberal Party members. It's time to call an election and let the Australian public choose. 17:02 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Forde who, strangely, is not in the chamber and couldn't get anyone from his own side to support his motion. His motion makes three points, and I'll speak on each of them in turn. The first is on growth in the economy. Like all sensible Australians I'm pleased that the global economy has strengthened, but the International Monetary Fund has recently downgraded economic growth expectations for Australia. The IMF, hardly a left-wing organisation, has raised risks about our future outlook. This downgrade, occurring on Prime Minister Morrison's watch, indicates that heightened global challenges are on the horizon. The IMF is urging countries to build up fiscal buffers and to urgently adopt policies promoting strong and inclusive growth. Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, the ATM government, growth has been less than inclusive. Treasurer Frydenberg has abandoned the Liberals' own rules for budget repair. Despite favourable conditions and billions of extra dollars of revenue flowing into government coffers, this hapless ATM government has managed to worsen the budget position. The deficit for 2017-18 has blown out to almost four times worse than the Liberals forecast in their first budget. Gross debt has crashed through half a trillion dollars for the first time in Australia's history and now sits at a record $540.1 billion. Net debt has doubled since they came to office. In the 43rd parliament I remember a truck being driven around Parliament House that talked about a debt-and-deficit disaster, but this government has shown itself to be hopelessly ill-disciplined when it comes to budget repair. In contrast, if elected, a Shorten Labor government will take budget repair seriously. We'll have a better plan to pay down debt. We have a plan to deliver bigger cumulative surpluses over the forward estimates. We'll put the budget on a more structurally sound footing with reforms to negative gearing—prospective only—capital gains tax, dividend imputation and trusts. These are difficult policies, tough policies, but they're appropriate in light of the Liberal deficit and the IMF warnings. The second point raised in the member for Forde's motion refers to employment. While there has been an improvement in the unemployment rate, the underlying structural problems, like stubbornly high underemployment and stagnant wages growth, continue. The number of jobs created may have slightly increased, but the participation rate dropped by 0.24 per cent, so the number of people looking for work fell sharply. Particularly concerning is the youth unemployment rate, which is more than double the national average, at 11.4 per cent. Underemployment remains high, at more than one million Australians. So together there are 1.7 million Australians who want work or more work, but can't find it. For example, a report by Anglicare Australia reported that there are 111,000 entry level jobseekers, but only 26,000 jobs. The motion from the member for Forde makes a leap of faith when it states that, 'wages can be expected to rise if economic growth remains strong'. 'How?' I ask the member for Forde, through the chair. Relying on rich corporations to share their wealth is nothing but delusional. Trickle-down economics has been comprehensively discredited by eminent economists across the world, yet the ATM government has continued to run their economic agenda with blind faith in this fiction of trickle-down economics. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations and suppressing wages for everyone is A-OK by the Liberals, but not by sensible Australians. This is an agenda that will look after the top one per cent but not most people. The motion also talks about the participation of the women in the workforce, but what it doesn't mention is the gender pay gap. Australian women effectively work for the first two months of every year for free, compared to their male counterparts. The gender pay gap is one of the most persistent forms of inequality in our economy, and the lifelong effects for women are felt long after they've left the workforce. Pay inequality drives a huge gap in women's superannuation. The fastest-growing group of people falling into homelessness are older single women. Yet this Morrison government won't do anything to address the gender pay gap or Australians suffering from insecure work, stagnant wages and skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures. Everything's going up except wages. The third point the motion makes is calling on the government to remain 'resolute in its effective economic management to ensure funding for the essential services we need'. That's where they put it—right at the end. They talk about essential services. They give tax cuts to the big banks and tax cuts to the top end of town, but trickle-down economics is supposed to actually help most people. Those opposite are tone deaf when it comes to the egalitarian Australia we need. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. MOTIONS 91 MOTIONS National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 91 17:08 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Yesterday was a very emotional day for many people across Australia and in my electorate of Ballarat. The national apology that we witnessed is a welcome step, and it will be and was a very important moment for many survivors. The apology is a recognition that finally, after far too long, the Australian government and the entire Australian community have at last listened to survivors and advocates. The apology is an acknowledgement that successive governments have grossly failed in their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. It's an apology that, while long overdue, I have mixed emotions about. It can never be enough. No words and no deeds can ever be enough because of what has happened. The most important role of government, its integral duty, is to protect our citizens. Government is meant to be a shield that protects those most at risk and offers a hand to those who need it. When we hear the stories of those abused by the people they trusted and the failure of authorities, communities, schools, sporting groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, youth groups, churches, police and government institutions and organisations, including the ADF, it is clear that we failed. It is a failure that has had to be carried by survivors and their families ever since, and one that they will have to go on carrying for the rest of their lives. Ballarat, the community which I'm honoured to represent in this place, knows all too well the legacy of child sexual abuse. Generations have been hurt in Ballarat by the cruel acts committed in our schools, our institutions and our churches across the city. When we heard the stories of the royal commission when it carried out hearings in our town, it shone a light on what had, for too long, been buried in our community and in communities all around the country. I cannot thank enough or speak highly enough of those survivors who were able to tell their stories. And to the many who were not, we absolutely want you to know that you are believed as well. Many of these people were not telling their story for the first time; it was just that this was the first time that they were actually heard and listened to. Shamefully, this reckoning came too late for many who had passed away—as the Prime Minister said earlier, too often by their own hand. When the royal commission sat in Ballarat, we heard the story of a woman who attended a primary school in Ballarat in the 1970s. She had a photograph of the grade 4 class at that school. Of the 33 boys pictured, 12 in that class had committed suicide. There were 33 boys in that photo, all of them ten years of age. Twelve are dead. There are 21 survivors. Twelve lives were cut too short. For some, we will never know if that was because of the actions of the clergy, the teachers, the staff and the authorities who ran the school that committed these crimes and failed to act. Twenty-one more lives were altered forever because of the cruelty and the evil of those who were in a position of authority to do something. When you look at a school photo of yourself at that age, you look at the faces of those around you. My little boy is in grade 4 and he's 10 this year. You think of the last time you saw those children. You remember the times you spent with them. You think about what they're doing now, and it's almost impossible to put into words that such a tragedy could occur. You cannot comprehend how you would feel to be a mum of any of those 33 boys. Even worse, as I said, you can imagine any of your own loved ones in that class, but your mind can't even think about or understand what that could mean. At that school, all of the male teachers and the chaplain, every single one of them, were molesting children. What is a child meant to do and where can they find help in those circumstances? It's incomprehensible: the fear, the uncertainty, the confusion, the hopelessness, the misplaced shame and the terror. To live through that, to string together a life after such betrayal and hurt, is nothing short of heroic. I remember Phil Nagle, one Ballarat survivor and tireless campaigner, described the crimes committed as basically a crime against humanity. These were crimes which denied the humanity of those children and stole the lives that should have been theirs. The perpetrators showed a disgusting and terrifying lack of humanity as they abused those under their care. Those above them showed a terrifying lack of humanity as they put the interests of their organisations against these defenceless children. The school and the building where these crimes occurred is still there. Its towering red brick buildings stand prominently on your left as you come into my hometown. Now, its fences are covered in ribbons, symbolising that the victims are remembered and that they are believed, and that these crimes could never be allowed to reoccur. There is a reason the Loud Fence Movement started in my hometown. It symbolises that the children who go to that school today are safe and that they are happy, but that every one of us in our community remembers what happened there. Similarly, occupying an entire block of the grand old Sturt Street, St Patrick's Cathedral—the centre of the diocese which the royal commission described as showing a 'catastrophic failure of leadership'—now has in place the memorial garden recognising the crimes of the past. Ballarat has begun its reckoning with the crimes of the past, just as communities all around the country have. I have never had more respect for anyone in my life than I do for the survivors of such crimes, both those who came forward to tell their stories and those who are not yet ready and may never be ready to do so. It is for horrors such as those that occurred at that primary school and were repeated at other sites across the region and the nation that the apology occurred. Any government worthy of the name should have been protecting those children, should have ensured that laws were in place that ensured children had somewhere to go for help and ensured that institutions could not ignore what was going on under their watch. I understand that many of the survivors in the community in Ballarat and across the country are conflicted and some are opposed to the apology that occurred yesterday. One survivor was quoted in the front page of my local newspaper yesterday, saying, 'A solid apology is the least that they can do', and she is right. The events of yesterday are symbolic, and that is important. But what is, of course, even more important is providing the support needed to survivors, giving them justice for the crimes that have been committed against them and ensuring that such acts never happen to children again. Just as those memorials at buildings, schools and churches around Ballarat signify community support for survivors, the apology does signify the parliament's support. As the survivors of Ballarat say: 'We do need to do more'. The parliament has already passed the National Redress Scheme. This legislation is not perfect. It's not the scheme the royal commission recommended. It would be remiss of me in this place to not say what we need to do to rectify the scheme, to rectify the harms of the past and to make sure that survivors in my electorate are given the assistance that they need. Survivors do and will need ongoing support. They need counselling and they need financial support, and they need it in full and as quickly as possible. We know that the commission recommended $200,000 as a maximum for redress claims. It now sits at $150,000. It's impossible to put a price on the childhood lost and the ongoing trauma, but to reduce the amount recommended by the commission was, frankly, a mistake. Too many have already died without receiving justice and we cannot let any more pass without receiving their due. When it comes to the opt-in nature of the scheme, my concerns are well and truly on the record, but I again reiterate: for any institution to not be part of this scheme, perpetrates the violence and the criminality that was done against those children and the institutions need to be held to account. There are more than 60,000 survivors of institutional sexual abuse in Australia. Where that abuse took place should have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the redress and support given to survivors. Over the years, I've heard countless story of survivors who have never been able to work, who have in later years lost jobs and businesses, and who are suffering from significant financial insecurity. I've heard and seen the generational effects of this trauma, how it carries on down the years and has caused a wound through the heart of our entire community that is yet to heal. Of course, many never, ever heal; they just manage. These stories are all around us and they're part of the history of my community—incomprehensible acts of cruelty, neglect and abuse which are impossible to imagine and forget. These are acts that occurred in the centre of our community, in the schools and parishes, fire brigades and sporting clubs across our community. I'm sorry that there are many who were not able to be in the parliament and in Canberra to witness the words that were spoken in this place and to see the emotion. I know many were watching from home in Ballarat, and there are many who simply couldn't face hearing those words. The apology was not about politicians or us. It was about the survivors, the survivors who are with us today and those who are not, those who died as children in care, and those who died later in adult life, the burden of what happened to them too much to bear. We are truly and deeply, as a nation, sorry. 17:18 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins The royal commission's report has laid bare the devastating impacts of institutional child sexual abuse. Over 16,000 individuals contacted the royal commission. Over 8,000 personal stories were shared in private sessions and more than 1,000 survivors provided written accounts of their experience. I want to thank those who had enormous courage in laying themselves bare to contribute to the royal commission and to share their deeply personal stories, in what must have been a traumatic and harrowing experience. Truly, they are some of the bravest amongst us. As a government, we have no higher duty than to protect the most vulnerable in our community. There can be none more vulnerable than our children. As a mother, I think of my own two children: my 3½-year-old and my 18-month-old. My job is to love and to cherish them, to teach them and to guide them and to keep them safe. And I can only imagine the heartbreak of so many parents and families learning of the terrible suffering of their children, who experienced such horror at the hands of such vile perpetrators. Whilst yesterday we delivered in this place a national apology, it is very long overdue. What must follow is strong deeds to ensure justice for all of those who are impacted. I also want to make special mention today of a number of very strong people who have also created the opportunity for this very important national apology. I want to make special mention today of two Victorian MPs, Georgie Crozier and Andrea Coote, for their work on the report that paved the way for this very important royal commission. This original report came about because at that time Victoria—particularly around Ballarat, as we've just heard from the member—was the epicentre for reports of institutional abuse. In early 2011, former Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu announced that the parliament of Victoria's Family and Community Development Committee would hold an inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organisations. This inquiry, which was chaired by Georgie Crozier and which reported in November 2013, became known as the betrayal of trust inquiry. Andrea Coote recalls that this was the very first time that many of these victims had told their stories before officials. They brought in photographs of themselves as they once were—innocent young boys and girls. She said: 'We were the first group of officials these people had ever spoken to who believed their stories. For us, it was a deeply moving experience, but we saw many of them walk in on their heels and walk out on their toes. Such was the importance of being believed.' In November 2012, while this inquiry was still underway, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to call the royal commission. Like many others over the past couple of days, I want to join with them in commending Ms Gillard for taking such an important and far-reaching decision. The 17-volume final report of the royal commission contains the all-too-many case studies—frankly, to call them 'case studies' does not, I think, do them justice—about the profound and wide-ranging impacts on survivors both during their childhood and throughout their subsequent adult lives. The trauma that they experienced as children continues, for so many, to have such a devastating impact today. In my own area of ministerial responsibility now, in jobs, we work in the hope that every young person gets the chance to fulfil their potential and is able to do the very best that they can in the field of endeavour that they wish to follow. But how much harder is it for those who have suffered severe trauma, who have had their future in so many ways stolen from them? Not only do they suffer the pain of abuse; but, for many, the trauma affects them for the rest of their lives. The commission's report told the story of one man, John, who experienced physical and sexual abuse during placements at three separate institutions from the 6th grade and who eventually ran away to live on the streets when he was just 14. As a result of the abuse that he suffered as a small boy, John told the royal commission that, even to this day, he finds it difficult to take a shower. I have never met John, but the story he heroically told exemplifies and brings home the problems that so many of these people experience throughout their lives. As a result of the sexual abuse that he experienced, John has suffered from ongoing anxiety and depression. Despite his best efforts to educate himself, he could not complete courses and gain certificates, which, in turn, has affected his ability to remain in steady employment. No-one should see their opportunity to build a life for themselves and their family impacted by the unthinkable, evil actions of others. No-one should see their future robbed or thwarted by the twisted, horrible actions of predators. Sadly, there are all too many of these people left facing this situation today. This week in the federal parliament we have tried to give an acknowledgement of that. What we have also tried to acknowledge is the betrayal and hurt that so many experienced, whether it be in their school, their church, their Scout group or their sporting or other voluntary organisation, and the fact that when they spoke up they weren't believed. But what I think is most devastating is those institutions that covered up this terrible and predatory behaviour, priests who moved some of these predators from parish to parish, which is, in my view, completely and utterly unforgiveable. We all acknowledge that we need to do better in protecting our young people. On behalf of the parliament, I extend my sincere sympathies to all of those who have been deeply impacted. I want to thank those who contributed to the royal commission and acknowledge those who were not able to contribute because they have passed or because they simply felt they could not relive that pain. I want to thank those who worked on the royal commission—the royal commissioners and the staff who assisted so many in being able to give voice to their personal stories. As I said at the beginning, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our community. We have a duty to protect our children, and with this national apology we must make clear that we can never, ever fail them again. 17:26 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I'd like to acknowledge the words of the member for Higgins. Obviously, this is deeply emotional content and certainly a difficult thing to rise in here and speak about. Yesterday, as a parliament, on behalf of our nation, we did take that fundamental step towards justice for the survivors and the victims of child sex abuse. This is a very, very small step but one in the right direction, and I'm deeply saddened that it has taken us so long to right the wrongs of the past injustices. To all of those with innocence stolen and childhoods lost and who went on to suffer the effects of abuse induced trauma caused by people who should've known better, the apology is not just a sign of righting wrongs; it is a commitment to do better. I have raised my own children to say sorry, but only if they are, and, in being sorry, to make a commitment to never commit the same mistake again. This is with moderate success with children, but for adults there should be no excuse. I heard many stories throughout the royal commission of terrible injustices. A now grown man with grandchildren of his own, six in all, told me of his abuse in an institution. I heard from a man who, since the time of his abuse as a child in a boys home, had not told anyone in his family about his mistreatment, not one single person—not the woman he married, not his siblings, not his parents; no-one. What an isolating and sad secret that is to keep. After his initial abuse in the boys home, he did tell someone though. He disclosed his treatment to another adult at that facility—an adult in a trusted position who should've known better, an adult who should've done something, an adult who should've cared and who should have acted, an adult who, in acting, may have prevented this perpetrator from committing more abuse on another child. But that didn't happen. Instead, the young boy was taken to the hospital wing to recover from the abuse and then remained there until they relocated the perpetrating adult to another facility to repeat the sins all over again. This young, traumatised boy grew up, like we all do, bearing the scars and hangovers of our childhoods. He became a school dropout and engaged in petty crime. As the stresses of day-to-day life mounted, he spiralled into a life of alcoholism. He became a violent perpetrator of domestic violence. This little boy, who had his childhood interrupted by an adult behaving badly, became a man whose life became ruined. Later on, he would spend time in jail. This little boy grew into a man with trauma so deep, it impacted every single corner of his life. This is a man I know well, a man I have known my entire life, who held a secret so close to his chest for nearly all of his life. Only through the process of a royal commission, only through hearing the stories publicised, reading the papers, and revealing the ugliness of the abuse was he able to speak about it, to raise his voice. I thank all of those people who spoke out. It is in their power and their courage that allowed people like this little boy, now a man, to speak up. I'm grateful for them and I call them the real heroes of this story—a story that I hope will not become a set of recommendations in a report somewhere gathering dust. I'm grateful for those in this place who brought forward the royal commission and showed leadership—something so many others are too scared to do. Too often the courage the do what is right is absent and condemned to popular opinion or pressure only. I want to thank Joanne McCarthy, the journalist at the Newcastle Herald. I note the member for Newcastle is here now and she will probably be up here later to talk about exactly that. Jo McCarthy followed the story and brought it to light. She gave so many who had no voice the courage and she showed her journalistic craft as being what it should be. She showed personal integrity, and followed the story to where it got to, where we saw it. I would like to commend the courage of Chrissie Foster and her family, who, even through deep personal tragedy, still fought for others; and Leonie Sheedy at CLAN for making sure there was somewhere for victims to turn. None of these people wanted to be in this position, to draw the thanks of the houses. But to help so many people, I am thankful they were and I'm sorry that they had to. I will always wonder, for that little boy who grew into the man, what kind of life he might have gone on to have. If not for the abuse, if not from living through adults doing bad things, he, I am sure, grieves for a life of a potential unmet, a life denied the freedom of a safe childhood, a life impacted and stained forever by actions of adults who had a choice and who chose to behave in this way. This is but one story. I sure, though, it reflects so many stories and so many unmet potential lives. There were 8,000 victims who provided submissions in private sessions, 1,000 victims who provided written submissions. Half of those victims were between 10—that's the same age as my youngest child—and 14 years of age at the time of suffering the abuse; 64.3 per cent of those victims were boys at the time the abuse occurred, with 93.8 per cent of the abusers being men and 83.8 per cent of those abusers were adults. This House can be powerful and I pay tribute to the monumental work of then Prime Minister Julia Gillard when on 12 November 2012 she announced the decision to establish a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. She said at the time that the allegations that had come to light recently about sexual abuse had been heartbreaking. They were then and they still are today. These are insidious evil acts to which no child should be subject. The individuals concerned deserve the most thorough of investigations into the wrongs that have been committed against them. They deserve to have their voices heard and their claims investigated. She believed that a royal commission was the best way to do this, and there were people that said that it wasn't, but I'm glad that she persisted. It was the Gillard Labor government that created the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse in 2013, and this is the exact kind of thing a royal commission ought to be used for. The royal commission gave the victims of child sexual abuse hope that they can have a future in which they can move on from the past, where they were wronged. I want to thank all of the commissioners and the staff, who, for months, listened to what would have been incredibly heartbreaking and disturbing testimony of the courageous men and women who provided it. Your work is appreciated and will not be forgotten. I want to thank the survivors of sexual abuse, who have been waiting their whole lives for someone to take accountability for what was done and for someone to address the horrific crimes that were perpetrated against them as children. Our communities, our institutions and our nation do better into the future to pay those survivors the ultimate honour by making sure the crimes of the past are not committed into the future. Thank you. 17:35 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I want to start by acknowledging former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's commitment to undertake this royal commission. It was an important decision. It was a line in the sand in addressing the unspeakable. I want to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in their speeches to the parliament. Yesterday the Australian government, on behalf of the Australian people and our parliament, delivered a national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The national apology recognised the appalling abuse of children in institutions and acknowledged the profound and ongoing impacts that this abuse has had, scarring the lives of too many Australians. As a federal member, in my own seat I meet constituents who have experienced the hell of being abused as a child. I meet with them to discuss opportunities for them to access some form of support, because many have kept it bottled up within for a long period of time. One gentleman, who was at Leeuwin, talked of his experience—the feelings that he had, but, more importantly, the fact that he couldn't tell his wife what happened to him, because he was worried that his relationship would suffer. This is like so many of the people I meet and talk with—including a man who wanted to meet with me to talk, and we went into a shopping centre. He knew the owner of the shop. We sat out the back of the shop on boxes. He shared with me the story of what happened to him when he was in Castledare—the daily beatings, the treatment, the sexual abuse, but also the vivid memories. If we think about this, every one of us when we have experiences have a visual recollection or imagery within our minds of the event that has occurred, from both pleasurable through to what people who were abused would have experienced. The element of touch becomes something that they wish to abstain from but, in order to cope with life in relationships, they allow that to occur. My own understanding and journey in two cultures is that we have had two reports—this report, which is 17 volumes of the experiences of people whose harrowing childhood memories are based on the lack of trust and the betrayal of trust by those who had a responsibility to care for them and look after them. Over 17,000 survivors came forward to the royal commission, and nearly 8,000 of them recounted their abuse in private sessions to the commission, resurrecting the memories of the things that had happened to them, the experiences that robbed them of their innocence, the experiences that would leave them marked for life. Whilst we are resilient as human beings, you cannot erase the things that have hurt you the most. One of the elements of the conversations I've had with people in my own electorate was the issue of the betrayal of trust, the failure of adults to listen to their stories, the failure of those who they thought they could go to. In recent times, I still hear of experiences within communities where children are still being abused, whose innocence is being destroyed for the pleasure of another who they trust. And I think of their life for the future, those who have taken their lives because the memories are too great. I think of the boys of Kinchela in New South Wales when I was there. I listened to their stories of what happened to them and how those memories cannot be erased. But the challenge that's become more marked for me is being the Minister for Aged Care, where I have people from the CLAN—Leonie. I have people from Fairbridge. I have people from other institutions who say to me, 'I am not going into an aged-care facility, because the abuse I experienced in an institution I was associated with as a child I do not want to revisit in my ageing years.' And the sad part is that some have said, 'I would rather commit suicide than go into an another institution.' That's an indictment on our nation. It's an indictment that we couldn't say to these children, 'We believe you.' An apology does make a difference, but it doesn't undo the scars of what has happened to you. Those scars are as real as the scars after surgery except they are within the mind, in the heart and in the psyche of an individual. And so the work that we do as members of this parliament is to ensure that the recommendations of this royal commission are implemented. It doesn't matter which side of politics we're on. This is about the consideration of those who have lived with the experience. I know there are many still who have not talked about their experience, because they fear what they will feel when they reopen the wounds of the past and that the challenges that they face in sharing it with family are always going to be a challenge for them emotionally. The Prime Minister announced further actions to support survivors with annual reporting on the progress of the royal commission's recommendations and working with survivor groups to establish a national museum to ensure their stories are recorded. But what I want to see is that we don't see stories recorded from contemporary Australia today. We should all be vigilant and call out those that we suspect. We should listen to a voice that reaches out to us to say, 'Something is happening to me that's not right,' and we should have the courage to ensure that an action is taken. I think of a town in WA where I have written to all the relevant state ministers of the information that I have been given. What frustrates me is the slowness of bureaucracy in responding to the actions that need to be implemented on the ground to intervene and to put into place interventions to protect children. I cannot comprehend any adult who determines in their own mind that it is right to be a paedophile, to abuse a child in a way that you would not expect a decent human being to ever do. I have seen too many scarred people over my lifetime who were abused as children sexually. They cope to some extent, but there are times in which that coping mechanism of theirs gives way and they experience the memories of those traumas. Their health suffers and their whole life and interaction on a social basis is impacted by the memories of the past. And the other part that has been very telling are those who have said they have been cheated because the person who was the perpetrator has passed away, when they had an opportunity to seek to charge, to seek to have them held accountable. And in those circumstances it's always hard. But children should always feel safe and be protected from abuse. Children's safety is a paramount consideration. To all of the people that I've met and to all those who were here in the House and those who weren't able to be here: we are truly sorry for what happened to you. We're truly sorry that many of the things that happened to you happened under the supervision of adults who should have shown far greater responsibility and civility. So, we will work together in this House and in this parliament to ensure that the future is safe and, more importantly, to look at ways where we recognise and take care of the elements that made your life the hell that you experienced. 17:45 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton Can I recognise colleagues from all sides of the political aisle who have spoken in this debate, in particular, my dear friend Ken Wyatt, who spoke just then, as well as many others. Throughout my life, I have been very deeply involved in a number of apologies. I was here as the Director General of the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs when Kevin Rudd, in 2008, gave the apology to the stolen generations. I was part of the reconciliation council during the special commission that led to that recommendation. I was in this place when I think the Prime Minister of the day, Ms Julia Gillard, made the apology to the forgotten Australians. I was also the Minister for Community Services in New South Wales and had the responsibility and leadership for organising the apology in New South Wales to the forgotten Australians. Of course, yesterday, I was here in this House, incredibly humbled, as we all were, to participate in the apology to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I think the most important thing that I would like to say in this debate today—and I'm sure other people have done this already—is that it is not just about those individuals who were directly affected by the terrible actions and policies during the stolen generations; it is also about the intergenerational trauma, and that needs to be focused on as well. Perhaps many of the people we saw yesterday were older people, as we did see with the stolen generations. And many of them have passed on. It is not just the pain of those individuals; it is actually the intergenerational effects of those policies and actions which we must also be most mindful of. There is a group who was not mentioned yesterday, but I would like to mention them today—the child migrants. Many children came here from the British Isles as a result of World War II. They were caught up in shocking situations, and so they should also be recognised as part of this cohort—which is a very corporate word to describe the group of people whom we apologised to yesterday. As other members have said in this House, we join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the most heartfelt of apologies. In so doing, we acknowledge the terrible evils, the breach of trust and the systemic failings committed by the very powers—governments and religious and social institutions—that were entrusted to care for and look after these children. We saw many adults yesterday, but we must remember them as children and also remember their children. I want to particularly acknowledge—I won't say their names, because I have not sought their permission—the mother and daughter who experienced these horrors and who attended the apology yesterday from the electorate of Barton. To those two extraordinary people, I hope that it was healing and that it did help. We know that for too long your pleas were ignored. We also know that the horrors were hidden away and the abusers were moved from place to place. Absolutely outrageous behaviour by people in powerful positions, who may have not been abusers themselves, but, certainly in my eyes, were as guilty as those that were abusing because they knew what was going on and covered up those horrors. I'm sure the member for Newcastle will speak about this. No apology can ever repair the pain and suffering inflicted. I know that for many there are wounds that will never heal for them and their families. It's also clear that these crimes cannot go unacknowledged, and that is what this apology has done: acknowledged and paid honour to the stories that many have come forward with. People have spoken about Leonie Sheedy and Chrissie Foster and many others, but every single person—whether they came to the parliament yesterday, whether they have decided to be part of the redress scheme, whether they have said an apology isn't good enough and they're going to take their chances in the courts is really not the issue. For me, the issue is that finally, out of all those letters, all those emails, all those private sessions, all those public hearings, all those referrals and all of the callings to account of the authorities, we saw thousands of brave and courageous individuals sharing thousands of brave and courageous conversations—and, as the member for Lindsay said, probably for the first time in their lives. I do want to acknowledge the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the former Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, in advancing these reforms. They are three remarkable women in the public life of this country. This apology cannot mark the end. It marks a new beginning. It is incredibly important that we do remind ourselves that sexual abuse does not discriminate: not only does it affect the individual, but also friends, family and subsequent generations. I want to say very, very clearly, as others have said, that we can't be naive about this. As the shadow minister for families and social services and as a previous New South Wales Minister for Community Services, I know that most of the abuse that happens in this country happens behind closed doors, in the homes of children who are still experiencing these horrors. It is important also to recognise the commissioners who were involved—it must have been horrendously difficult—and the brave people who came forward. We cannot undo what's happened. It can't be undone. But it can be acknowledged, and that's what apologies are about, as the member for Hasluck has said. And I do want to say in the last couple of minutes of my participation in this particular debate—and this is also from personal experience—in the late eighties in Australia we had a royal commission into Indigenous deaths in custody. You would remember that, all of you, very well. Unfortunately, the recommendations of deaths in custody royal commission were cherrypicked terribly by both federal and state governments. Perhaps if they hadn't been cherrypicked, we would not see the level of incarceration of Aboriginal people in the adult prison system or juvenile justice system today. So let us commit ourselves in this parliament, and I think the Prime Minister has articulated this, that this royal commission is not cherrypicked so that only recommendations that are convenient, cheap and easy are undertaken. We have to see it in its entirety and it must be dealt with in its entirety, otherwise this horror will continue, and this horror will be another generation of young people that are abused in institutional care. Institutional care and child protection should be about intervention, and early intervention, not dealing with it when those children have gone over a cliff. So, once again, I just say an enormous thank you to all of those who participated, the people who helped organise, the people who have spoken in this debate. But, most importantly, I thank the people who suffered these horrors at the hands of people they thought they could trust. 17:55 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Mr Deputy Speaker: I believe the children are our future Teach them well and let them lead the way Show them all the beauty they possess inside These are the words of the song Greatest Love of All, written by Michael Masser and Linda Creed, but most famously sung by Whitney Houston. They could not have been more true. Children are our future. They are to be protected, loved, nurtured and cherished. But, sadly for some children, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, neglect, violation and exploitation robs them of their ability to reach their potential and see their true beauty. Trauma, betrayal, shame and paralysing fear have no place in the life of a child. Children subjected to abuse are often never rid of the feelings, even in adulthood. Yesterday in this place the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and our nation apologised to the children who have been crushed and broken and scarred forever by an abomination. The most unthinkable betrayal is the abuse of a child at the hands of an adult. The Prime Minister tabled a formal apology in the parliament on behalf of the Australian people, the Australian parliament and the government. We hope this can help the healing process for all of the survivors. Many brave victims contributed to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse commissioned by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November 2012. Following the release of the final report, the Australian government has accepted 104 of the 122 recommendations handed down by the royal commission and 18 are still under consideration. None have been rejected. We are determined that the voices of the abused will no longer be silenced and we've committed to report every year for the next five years on the progress of the royal commission's recommendations, and a report will be handed down in 10 years time. Institutionalised sexual abuse affects children and adults across every element of the community: ethnic, socioeconomic, educational, religious, geographic. Those among us who spent our childhoods completely unaware, because we were in lucky and blessed households, never knew how many survivors there were in our communities—those around us. The inquiry opened the floodgate of misery, torment and agony. The commission received more than 40,000 telephone calls and 25,000 letters and emails and held about 8,000 private sessions. The stories of the survivors are emotive, heartbreaking and beyond comprehension. I have a real character who lives in my electorate. He's a bit alternative. He's adopted an unusual name and is a regular in my office for a chat. He's a highly intelligent, caring man. One day he brought in something for me to read. It was pages of laboriously handwritten memories of his childhood. He had been spurred to put his experiences on paper when the royal commission was announced. He'd never told another soul of the things he had written down, they were so buried inside. Once read, those words could never be forgotten. His was the story of a little 4-year-old boy who, with his brother, was put into care by his father. It was a story of abuse in every form at the hands of carers, carers in orphanages, foster carers and older institutionalised children. He was abused, neglected and tortured. He never knew a loving touch; he never experienced care or a hug. He only knew pain, humiliation, shame and hurt. My constituent is a survivor, but the cost has been enormous and every single day is a challenge. There are many survivors like him, but, sadly, there are many who could not survive the pain. We owe it to every victim to do our best to make sure no child will experience what my constituent lived through every day of his childhood. Sexual abuse is a sinister betrayal because of the shame it instils in the victim. With childhood sexual abuse, victims are often too young to know how to express what is happening to them or to seek help. When children do report abuse, they aren't believed. The result can a lifetime of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and pain, and people charged with looking after vulnerable, defenceless, innocent children, are too often the abusers—teachers, priests, scout masters, coaches—and the most trusted in communities. In the past, for much of the time that the royal commission examined, those most at risk were in orphanages, group homes, foster homes or under the care—at least for periods of time—of church figures who normally receive the greatest respect. And I suspect, hope and pray that, largely, those times are behind us. But as the member for Barton raised, and I must say, on this sombre occasion, while we have made good ground in this area, the high rate of family failure in the modern world has opened up opportunities for other depraved individuals closer to home. Perhaps rates of neglect and abuse are not higher than in the historical context, but I suspect that that is not the case, and children are regularly mistreated in settings much closer to home. In fact, the high level of intervention coming from state departments as they try to deal with the failure of family is only too evident. The overloading of the kinship care model and the necessity for some children to be removed from family care and be housed in motels with departmental officers is a graphic example of the outcome of the failure of family. As a society, we must have nil tolerance for child neglect and abuse. If anyone knows and they do not act, they are complicit. We must act because 50 years on is just far too late. We know all forms of abuse can cause harm to a child's health, survival, development and dignity. Children deserve our love and care and they need to know that we will never betray their trust. And that is why wall members of the parliament pledge to ensure that all children today and in the future are protected to the best of our ability, and those who are victims of abuse are believed and cared for. 18:02 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle It is an honour to be able to stand in the Australian parliament to make a contribution to the debate that began yesterday when we, really, stood as one in the Australian parliament to deliver a national apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. It's one of those days that I had many people contact me from my electorate of Newcastle to say that's the kind of parliament that we want to see, a parliament that worked constructively together to deliver a very long-overdue apology. That will be met differently by each person who heard it and people have felt the impact of that abuse in different ways over their life. But there is a universal agreement, I think, that the parliament stood yesterday as one and acted on a very grave wrong from the past. And that was coming off a very long history of this parliament trying to come to terms with what has been a really horrific and appalling part of our national history, of the deep, systemic abuse that has existed in institutions. Yes, there were people who heckled yesterday. There were people who made their own very vocal contributions from the floor in the Great Hall, and indeed, from the galleries but I think both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition showed great grace in accepting that there were different points of view and that, notwithstanding those points of view, this parliament had to, really, still acknowledge the grave and systemic abuses that have taken place in so many of our institutions over time. I want to pay tribute, first and foremost, to the survivors and indeed to acknowledge those who didn't survive to see that apology yesterday. There were many, many people in that room who carried a lot of stories of their brothers and sisters and other family members who didn't survive to see that apology yesterday, and I think it's really important that we acknowledge those people who are no longer with us and feel the pain of those families who continue to grieve. I'd also like to acknowledge that, whilst we had the apology here in the national parliament, there were many local events taking place across the country and in my home town of Newcastle. I thank the lord mayor and the Newcastle City Council for hosting a screening in the city hall so that the many, many people in Newcastle who are deeply touched by this chapter of our history were given an opportunity to be with friends, family and those who support them as they witnessed the screening of the apology. As I said, I pay tribute to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for leading the debate yesterday. I was truly honoured by the presence of Julia Gillard, returning to this House—as she should, given her very primary role in the establishment of the royal commission. I think it is one of the extraordinary hallmarks of her prime ministership. I have a very strong memory of the note she penned to Newcastle Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy in the last hours of her prime ministership, thanking Joanne for never giving up, for being that journalist who was relentless in her pursuit of truth and in exposing the shocking and deep systemic forms of abuse that were happening in Newcastle and the Hunter region in those religious institutions. Jenny Macklin, Nicola Roxon and now Linda Burney will be three other Labor women who will play a very prominent role, I believe, not just in the apology that was delivered yesterday but in what this parliament does going forward. I think Linda Burney will be playing a critical role in helping us shape the way that the redress scheme will work in this nation. I want to touch on the work of the royal commission. There was some extraordinary testimony given in that royal commission that would shock anybody to their core. There were over 16,000 people who reached out to make contact with the royal commission. I thank each and every one of those commissioners, who to this day provide us with a model of the gold standard royal commission in any community. Their capacity to do the outreach work into communities to ensure that everybody coming forward was well supported in doing so was extraordinary. We had many weeks of testimony in Newcastle, and, to our deep regret, we have volumes in that royal commission dedicated to the abuse that took place in our region. As I said, Joanne McCarthy from the Newcastle Herald and Peter Fox, a former detective from the New South Wales police, were incredibly brave people who were determined, against all odds in the early days of these discussions, to shine a great big light on this part of our national shame and to do so in a way that ensured that those survivors and victims did not ever feel shamed. Their approach was always one that was what I would call very survivor centred. They believed from day one the voices of those survivors, and of course what went on to become so important in the Royal Commission, was the fact that people were able to speak very freely about some of the most horrific aspects of their childhood. But they knew they were being believed. They were being listened to. They were being well supported into giving that evidence, and they had faith that the royal commissioners would come down with strong recommendations, which they did. That really brings me to the challenge before this parliament today. I was honoured, as was my colleague Steve Irons opposite me. We were very privileged, as were some colleagues in the Senate, Derryn Hinch and Rachel Siewert, one from Victoria and one from WA, I think, to be part of the Prime Minister's reference group in helping to shape something of the apology yesterday. I don't take any credit away from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—they were their own words and speeches—but we assisted in a series of 58 face-to-face consultations and lots and lots of work around what it was that survivors wanted to see in that apology. I did want to give an acknowledgement to Cheryl Edwards, who chaired that, and Caroline Caroll, Chrissie Fosters, Craig Hughes-Cashmore, Hetty Johnston, Leonie Sheedy, Richard Weston and the four parliamentarians who I spoke of before. It was a real privilege to be a part of that group, and I am still constantly in awe of the generous spirit with which people came to the consultations and gave openly despite often reliving trauma themselves. But it does bring us to the very real work of this parliament going forward now, and that is ensuring that this National Redress Scheme supplies the body of real action and long-living response to the royal commission. I think what we need to be very mindful of is ensuring that this is a scheme that is co-designed at every step of the way and that survivors are always front and centre of everything we do from now on. 18:12 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to support the debate on the motion moved by the Prime Minister for the national apology to the victims and the survivors of institutional child sex abuse. Before the member for Newcastle leaves the chamber, I'd like to thank her for her input to the Reference Committee and also, I guess, the journey of discovery along the way for her of finding out what the member for Jagajaga and I have been dealing with for a long time. There are some terrible stories, but there are also some wonderful stories, and we see humanity in a different light when we see it not being served well, as it should be, not only in this place but in every place around Australia, particularly in the institutions that treated our nation's children with despicable behaviour and the destruction of their lives. So thank you for being a part of that and thank you for your contribution. It was in this place 10 years ago that I delivered my maiden speech in the House of Representatives chamber. I said that I wanted to draw attention to the national issue of institutional child sex abuse. As a former ward of the state, I saw it as my responsibility to champion the issues of care leavers and children who had suffered abuse in institutions across the country. So for the last 10 years I've continued to advocate for a redress scheme, which we now have seen has commenced. We would see institutions that inflicted this abuse held accountable for what they did to far too many of the nation's children. I mentioned the member for Jagajaga also. In her speech that she gave to Peter McClellan she said it was a problem of our entire society. In my maiden speech I also mentioned a little girl named Shellay Ward. She wasn't in an institution, but she starved to death in a home in New South Wales under the care of her own parents. We've heard many stories about institutional child sex abuse over the last 10 years. They're often reflected in private homes around Australia as well. There will be no redress for them; there is no form or, I guess, visiting their experiences for us as well either. After our achievement today, we need to look at child abuse in private homes as well and how children continue to be returned to their abusers. That was in a speech that I made earlier this year. I would like to thank many people for the experience and for the many contributions made by many people over a long time to get to yesterday. First of all, I'd like to thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their heartfelt speeches. I met with some of the survivors and victims yesterday and today who said that they were happy with the way they were delivered. Some of them said that those speeches and the way they were delivered had actually restored their faith in this parliament—and the fact that politicians do have empathy for them. One of them, Peter, from my electorate, who I saw today in my office, came in and said that the words that the Prime Minister used in his speech to describe the horrors that were visited upon children, 'under the shield of faith', was something that hit home to him—that the politicians who were delivering these messages had actually got the issue. I also spoke with Patricia who said that the word 'anger' used by the Prime Minister in his speech was something that really hit home for her. So the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition had differing effects, and the words that were used in those speeches made a different impression upon each one of them, but they were delivered with genuine, heartfelt empathy and they were delivered to achieve not a closing of the experiences these people had—we've heard the word 'healing', but, as we know, these people never heal. It's a lifetime of pain, a lifetime of fighting and a lifetime of horror and terror that they will always remember. But what the speech did yesterday was give them the benefit of the fact that we do believe, as a parliament, the suffering they've experienced and we recall their stories, which were delivered during the royal commission, to make sure that this nation never forgets. It would be very easy for us to stand up in here and promise for it to never happen again, and I notice the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition didn't do that, because wherever there are opportunities for the evil in our society to exist and take place, it will happen. We must be forever vigilant to make sure that we minimise the dangers to the children of our nation. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did call for people to be ever vigilant and make sure that, if ever a child comes to us and says that they've been abused, we make sure that we believe them or at least give them the opportunity to have that investigation visited upon those who would deliver that evil and criminal sexual abuse upon them. I did a speech last year and I spoke about what was mentioned by many survivors and victims, that they were often queried about the harm that was being done to them and the abuse that was being done to them by the people who were actually visiting that abuse upon them. And they weren't able to give evidence sufficiently in the fact that they knew that when they were going to get back to that institution, or that person who was their abuser, they would be abused again. We saw a case in New Zealand where that had happened, where the stepfather had abused the two daughters and, finally, abused them and then murdered them. That is a case where many times the authorities and the people who were there to protect the children just didn't listen to the stories of the children. So, if there is one thing that can come out of all of this sorrow and all of this pain for these people, it is that we can promise them that we will make the people who look after those institutions, or look after child care, as safe as possible. Unfortunately, we can't make it 100 per cent. As we know, even in the Northern Territory, there are still things happening today and all around Australia probably still. But we need to make sure that we get the pieces in place to make sure that we can try to let these children live a better life and be nurtured and protected and loved as they should be. There are a few people that I'd like to mention: firstly, all the victims and survivors who turned up yesterday. I knew that there was an air of excitement, but there was also an air of a lot of pain and anger in the Great Hall when we walked in. I'm just trying to give a bit of a picture to the people listening who might not have been there yesterday. I warned both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that they were going to get a few shouts at them, and they did, and I thought that they weathered the storm well. This is the way that these victims and survivors live. They have lived through antagonistic, angry and aggressive childhoods, and this is all some of them know. They've never had the education that we've been lucky enough to have. I think that their shouts reminded both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the anger and the pain that they've been through in their times. I also thank the advocates of the victims and survivors who have been fighting for years and years to see redress finally implemented in this nation on a national basis and to make sure that we sign up as many as we can of the churches, charities and other institutions who so far haven't been part of any of the redress schemes, because they need to pay up. They were paid handsomely by state and federal governments to look after these children, and they didn't, so they should be part of the redress system and should be apologising, and I'm sure many of them have. Some of the institutions and churches have come on board, but some are still not committed enough, and we heard the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both say, 'You can't get off the hook, you need to be a part of this scheme and you need to be able to support the victims and survivors whom people in your institutions visited abuse upon.' As we heard yesterday, there was a system that fostered and ignored abuse, and the people who survived in that arena were the abusers. They used the system and were allowed to use the system. Stump up, please, churches and charities and other institutions! If you haven't signed up, we need you to sign up for this redress scheme for the benefit of the children of our nation. There are lots of people whom I've thanked over many years in many speeches on this road to national redress, and I reiterate that it has been a great journey for me. I know that my siblings went through hell when they were in institutions as kids. My sister, Jennifer, died at the age of 12 while in an institution. Luckily enough I found her unmarked grave about 2½ years ago and she now has a headstone. I'm sure there are many cases around Australia like that, and I've heard great stories of people being reunited with their families many years after they were separated as youngsters. To all of the victims and survivors out there, please get on with your lives, get your national redress, and I look forward to seeing you again back in this place or out in the communities around Australia. Australia does love you as you should be loved. 18:22 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Before he leaves, I thank the member for Swan for his contribution today and over the decade he has been in parliament, highlighting, as he did in his maiden speech, issues that have been addressed now and for which we apologised yesterday. I say thank you most sincerely—and for your work with the reference group and with your colleagues, particularly the member for Newcastle, who I think has done a sterling job as well—but you in particular, because of your own background, have made a significant impact on this place and you should understand that, so thank you. Yesterday we were privileged to be part of that historic apology from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from the parliament on behalf of the nation. I was here when Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations, and yesterday we saw another significant day in our parliament's history. As others have pointed out, it shows the best in us. Despite the battle that goes on outside and inside the parliament on a daily basis over the political differences that we have, make, construct or connive, we have it in our hearts to talk as one when it comes to issues like this on the care of Australian children. I think it needs to be acknowledged that, whilst it's historic, it's not unprecedented. It is important that the Australian community sees that this parliament is as one in accepting its responsibility to undertake the work initiated by Prime Minister Gillard which yesterday came to its conclusion with this fantastic apology, a moving occasion affecting tens of thousands of Australians. As the member for Swan said, it's now time for those people to move forward and see that they are loved by us all, for us to reflect upon our role in this place and elsewhere in the community around them and for us show our support for them and our love for them. In the last 12 months, I went to my 50th anniversary of leaving school. Now, you could say—looking at me—'How could that be?' But, nevertheless, it was. It was at a school here in Canberra, a Christian Brothers school, and there were about 40 of us in attendance. We'd been to school together. About 11 of them or thereabouts had started primary school together and another significant proportion had started at another school and joined us in 4th class so we went through school together. At this reunion, we were discussing the issue of abuse of children. One of our number said, 'Look, we must visit the change rooms.' So we said, 'Well, we will,' because the change rooms were where the children were molested. So we walked down through the building to the change rooms, which were no longer used, to the place in which at least one of our number of that day was abused. It was a cathartic experience. As it happens, a couple of the teachers from that period were then prosecuted for their behaviour. But I had no idea about the extent of this abuse at my school that I was at yet here it was in front of us and it was a cathartic experience. So when we saw yesterday this welling of emotion, of love and support, I thought that there would be many more Australians who have never reported their abuse, who will never disclose their unease, who have never disclosed the pain and the suffering that they've endured for many years. Sadly, of course, as others have said, many of those who were abused are now passed. Many abusers have now passed. The fact is, there are many who still live with the pain and suffering, the hurt, the ignomy of being abused. As I've said in this place previously, there are many, many Australians who have suffered as a result of the perversity and the horrendous victimisation by abusers and suffered the depravity of the abuse perpetrated upon them. As a parent, I can't imagine how that could possibly be yet we know it to be. I want to make reference to a particular group of people. They are people in the Northern Territory hit by the double whammy of being members of the Stolen Generation in the first place and then being abused in one of the homes they were sent to on behalf of the Commonwealth government, homes such as the Croker Island Mission, the Garden Point Mission, the Kahlin Compound, Retta Dixon Home, Emerald Hill Mission, St Mary's near Alice Springs racecourse, the Bungalow at the Old Telegraph Station at Alice Springs. Thousands, literally, of young people, were taken to these places. Between 1905 and 1969, it's estimated that one in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander children were stolen. Think about it. Some have received compensation as a result of a court action taken by residents of Retta Dixon Home as a direct result of the royal commission. They were able to take the Commonwealth to court because of a lack of a duty of care. That's not for everyone who suffered because of the lack of a duty of care; a particular group of people at one home were compensated for the abuse they suffered when the Commonwealth was their carer. It seems to me we have a number of things yet unfinished in this place, one of which is to compensate members of the stolen generation, for being members of the stolen generation—for having been stolen. I'm proud to say that Bill Shorten and the Australian Labor Party are committed to that process. Yesterday I met quite a few members of the stolen generation who were here for the apology—for the emotion, the support. I want to thank them for coming here and allowing us to be part of their lives. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I thank the member for Lingiari for his contribution. It being 6.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). Debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 103 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Morrison Government 103 18:31 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Labor believes in a fairer Australia for this generation and for the next. The foundation for that is a stronger economy, most importantly in the future as well as now. Our nation faces a number of challenges for the future that quite frankly I don't believe this coalition government can meet. Over the weekend, the voters in Wentworth sent the Morrison government a clear and undeniable message. Yet watching the government over the last few days I don't think they heard it. The changing world is filled with both challenges and opportunities, yet we have a government that is afraid of the present and terrified of the future. In the time allowed today, I hope to cover just some of the actions that our next generation in my electorate are calling for. In my electorate of Parramatta, people are concerned about the inaction of this government on climate change and what it will mean for future generations. A fair go for future generations for our children and our grandchildren requires that this generation act on climate change. The recent IPCC report is alarming. It outlines how much we have to do to hold the warming to 1.5 and that is net zero emissions by 2050. It shows 1.5 degrees centigrade is enough to unleash climate mayhem, and the pathways to avoiding an even hotter world require a swift and complete transformation, not just of the global economy but of society too. We have around 10 years to make a difference, yet the current government will not act on climate change and for that reason alone they have to go. We cannot waste another four years; it's not fair to those who will come after us. Yet this government has been responsible for tearing down policies designed to make the necessary changes to our economy. Let's be frank, large numbers of those on the government benches do not believe the science. The Morrison government cannot do what is necessary; they will not. They can't even begin to make the necessary changes, and for that reason they have to go. We also know that we have to act on species protections. Species extinctions on land and water are appallingly high. We are seeing a dramatic loss of insects. Australia has one of the highest extinction rates in the world. Yet we have a government that together with the state Liberal counterparts has seen increases in land clearing, extraordinary loss of koala habitat in the Sydney basin, an inexplicable decision to hand half a billion dollars to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation without tender or grant process and, as many people in my electorate know well, the winding back of protection for our marine parks in what is the largest removal of areas from conservation in history. The changes allow commercial fishing in 80 per cent of the marine park areas. There is no fairness in this. It is a lack of concern for the environment that we leave our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren. This government quite frankly has to go. They are not preparing our nation for the future ahead, even in areas that are well understood. They have deliberately destroyed our capacity to compete in the digital world by destroying the NBN. When the Labor government designed the NBN, we designed something to meet our needs in decades to come. The fibre network can handle incredible speeds and can be upgraded for very small expense to very rapid speeds. Other places in the world, including New Zealand, Singapore and many of our neighbours to the north, are already delivering gigabit services. The fibre network would have been capable of that upgrade. But make no mistake about this: the copper parts of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's broadband are at the limit of their capacity. They cannot get faster on copper. They are done. The physics is in. It cannot do gigabit speeds. We are calling on the government to go fibre to the kerb for the bits that haven't been rolled out yet—so, between now and the next election—but we expect by the next election that the rollout will be complete and we will be stuck with something that cost this country billions of dollars, was out-of-date before it was built and cannot do what this nation needs it to do. It isn't just about households or businesses; it's about the ecosystem that encourages the innovation and design of products that we can then sell to the world. You need a certain market size to drive innovation in the games industry, in start-ups, in the delivery of health and education and the internet of things, and this nation has been denied that opportunity by this government. You name it, the rest of the world is moving on it, and we are stuck without the infrastructure that is basic in today's world, let alone the next decade or the next 50 years. Even though everybody, except the government, seems to know that it is a disaster, they still persist with their second-rate rollout. For their lack of vision then and now, they have to go. For their complete lack of understanding of the changing face of work, they have to go. We are facing a loss of jobs that we now take for granted. We already have a workforce that is underemployed, both in the number of hours worked and, in my electorate, in the work they do relative to their skill level. We are looking at a future workforce that has to retrain—move from sector to sector—that will need creative and strategic skills as well as new knowledge areas. We know the gig economy is coming, and for many people who work in that economy there is no training on the job. You arrive fully skilled. In fairness to all children, we have to invest in education. It is an essential for the future world. Yet, what have we got from this dreadful government? We got $14 billion cut from schools. We got the defunding of universities. We got the decimation of TAFE. We got no funding in the budget for preschool for four-year-olds—zero dollars in the budget. We got no commitment at all to fund preschool for three-year-olds—again, something that is starting to happen around the world as other countries understand that education from zero to five forms the basis of future prosperity. Again, for their lack of vision, for their lack of fairness, for their willingness to leave children behind, they have to go. For their lack of understanding that the quality of education for children born today will be one of the main determinants of whether they prosper as individuals but also whether this country prospers, they have to go. And for their complete disregard for our capacity to innovate, for the cuts in funding to science, research and innovation by 7.7 per cent, they have to go. This is a government that is frightened of the present and terrified of the future. This is a government incapable of accepting indisputable evidence before it, let alone asking the questions that need to be asked if this country is going to prosper for the next generation, and the one after that. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you ever noticed in Australia that, under conservative governments in particular, we tend to get rid of things just as they become valuable. Rather than investing in our future, they either passively watch or actively participate as sectors with future competitive advantage fade away. We watched food processing shrink dramatically in the Howard years. Now we find that clean, green Australian food has a rapidly growing market, but we got rid of ours just a little bit too early. It is the same with car manufacturing. As supply chains fragment around the world, in 10 years time it wouldn't have been the main car manufacturer that was the source of our competitive advantage but the components manufacturers that were specialising and feeding the global fragmented supply chains. It just went a little bit early. As our neighbours to the north are discovering, they need high quality vocational education. We had one of the best TAFE systems in the world and the government has managed to do incredible damage to it. And they are doing it now to data. In the next decade, data will become incredibly valuable. People talk about it as the oil that will drive the economy. Rather than ensuring that we have open data, what's the government doing? They're segmenting our data and selling it off to anyone who wants to buy it, whether it's the privatising of the processing of visas through the immigration department or the privatising of the cancer register. You name it, this government is setting about selling off the stuff that will underpin this nation's prosperity, just before it becomes valuable—and I would say, too, before they actually know what it's worth. One could say the same about regulation. We have some very good regulation in Australia. It's copied around the world. Our building codes are copied across the Middle East. You find building codes being copied to the north. We are actually good at it. It is a saleable exportable commodity. This government does everything it can do every day to weaken it. We also privatise things just when we should use them less. We privatise the electricity grid just when we need to use less electricity, not more. We privatise rubbish collection when actually we should be reducing our waste. We privatise roads when in the next 10 years we'll have fewer cars. We privatise hospitals when actually we should have fewer people in them. We have a government that doesn't understand the issues that we face and the ways that we have to go about improving our capacity and our prosperity. Perhaps most importantly at this time we have a government that is also destroying our capacity to think. It is dramatically cutting the public sector. At the moment it's the smallest it has been in 12 years, which means we have lost incredible corporate memory. One of the by-products of doing your job in the tax office is this extraordinary understanding of the way things work. We are effectively outsourcing our capacity to think and are weakening it along the way. There are a whole range of other things I could mention—the rising cost of living, the epidemic in obesity and mental illness, and housing becoming unaffordable—but I just want to say in conclusion that we have a government with its head in the sand and a government that has had its finger on the pause button for five years. In fairness to future Australians and in fairness to those kids who are now three-, five- and 10-years-old, we must act on the challenges that this country faces and we must do it now. The future of this country depends on it. Bonner Electorate: Health Services 105 18:41 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner I've always made the issues that are important to my constituents my priority. One of the most important is access to health care. For my constituents on Bonner's bayside affordable access to MRIs has been an issue for some time. A few weeks ago I had a very informative meeting with the CEO of Queensland X-Ray, Dr Robert Clarke. I met with Dr Clarke to discuss the fact that Bonner is one of the most underserviced primary health care networks for MRIs in Australia. There are only 0.5 Medicare-eligible MRIs per 100,000 of the population. This represents the equal third most-underserviced area in the country. My constituents in Wynnum and surrounding areas have to drive around 20 kilometres to attend the nearest fully-funded MRI unit in inner metropolitan Brisbane, and that's about a 40-minute drive for potentially lifesaving scans for cancer, stroke, heart and other medical conditions. In most instances there are extremely long waitlists for Medicare-eligible outpatient scans. The latest show that patients can expect a 70-day wait for an appointment at the PA Hospital. Dr Clarke and I agreed that a full Medicare licence is needed for the MRI unit at their Wynnum practice. A full MRI licence will allow them to charge MRI services to Medicare, significantly reducing the cost of MRI scans to patients. This would help alleviate the burden on other providers. Also, if Queensland X-Ray Wynnum were to receive a MRI licence, they would commit to provide same-day bulk-billed appointments. This would help provide affordable and equitable health care to people who need it the most in Bonner. The health and wellbeing of my constituents is paramount, so tonight I'm throwing my full support behind Queensland X-Ray's Wynnum campaign for a full MRI licence. The government has invited applications for up to 20 additional MRI licences across the country. This will be a highly competitive public application process. No doubt there will be many others applying for consideration for a licence and there will be a number of representatives going into bat for them. I'm prepared to fight to the end to secure a full licence for my bayside constituents. I've already met with Minister Hunt and explained to him the facts that I'm sharing with you tonight. I want to thank the minister for his time and hearing out the stories from my constituents, who would benefit so much if the MRI at their local practice were fully subsidised. The government has already announced 10 locations that will receive Medicare-subsidised MRIs from 1 November this year. The total 30 sites that will receive subsidised MRIs will provide more than 400,000 Australians with access to lifesaving scans, with a total investment of $175 million. It's all part of this government's commitment to providing high quality health services when and where they are needed. Our commitment to 30 additional sites will bring the total number of fully Medicare eligible MRI machines in Australia to 204. That represents a more than 17 per cent increase across Australia. That comes on top of our boost earlier this year to Medicare support for a new MRI scan for prostate cancer checks, helping 26,000 men each year, as well as the new Medicare listing for 3D breast cancer checks, helping 240,000 women each year. We've guaranteed Medicare spending, which is increasing each and every year, and I'm campaigning hard on behalf of my constituents and asking for strong consideration to be given for a full Medicare MRI licence for my Bayside constituents. I'm hoping to provide a positive update in the future, but rest assured I'll be fighting every step of the way to deliver life-saving, affordable and accessible MRI services for my constituents. Defence Industry 105 18:45 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield My great fear is that, despite the government's assertions about shipbuilding in South Australia, we are slowly sleepwalking into a shipbuilding skill shortage. Now, the minister, Christopher Pyne, says that 'the valley of death is over'—I'm quoting him here from his press release of 12 October last year: The valley of death is over and we are now seeing a upturn of employment in naval shipbuilding in our state that will only continue to increase as these new projects gain momentum. This is despite the most recent announcement that another 90 jobs will go at the government-owned ASC. That is a very concerning thing. Behind all of those redundancy announcements made by ASC—there are something like 1,000 jobs gone in the last few years as a result of this government's decision—and despite Minister Pyne's assertion that employment will be going up and that we are through the valley of death, we find jobs continually shed at ASC. And these are real people—people like my mate Daniel, who's an electrician who just took a redundancy at ASC. He said to me: 'I knew it was coming. I thought I would take one now.' He is not the first electrician I have known who's taken a redundancy. I know Andy, who also took a redundancy a year before and has been in and out of different employment as an electrician since. Now, behind their very human stories—and they are capable people, so they will do other things—there's a decline in shipbuilding skills in South Australia. This is very, very serious. I have here a graph. This is out of the ANAO report. You can see the graph there. It starts off high and goes down low, and then it's projected to go back up again. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Order! Mr CHAMPION HW9 I know you're going to say I can't use props, but it's a very important graph and I'm only illustrating to those who might be watching that they should go and have a look at that report by the Auditor-General and the ANAO, because it makes a number of important points about the government's Naval Shipbuilding Plan. The plan itself is very important. Presumably I can refer to the Naval Shipbuilding Plan. But on page 64 of that it says 'why it is critical to manage this workforce growth.' It makes the point that one of the things that bedevilled both the air warfare destroys and the Collins-class constructions was not inefficiencies in terms of people not doing their jobs; it was the growth of that workforce and the acquisition of skilled workers. That just doesn't happen overnight, and that's what the report makes clear. That is an economic risk to those projects, and presumably it will be an economic risk to future projects. Interestingly enough, on page 68 of that report it talks about the rehiring of former naval shipbuilding workers. There's an interesting point in there where it says: However, the longer these workers are out of shipbuilding jobs, the greater the chance they will find attractive work in another industry or exit the labour force. Mature age workers could potentially fill vital foreman and middle manager roles, or supervise the training of the future generation of naval shipbuilding workers. It also goes on to talk about recruiting people from the oil and gas industry and from the automotive manufacturing industry. But the government's done absolutely nothing about either of those things, and it's still letting people go at the ASC. This is a critical economic risk to shipbuilding in South Australia. If you don't believe me, have a look at page 29 of the ANAO report: Has defence determined its workforce requirements? There is a box that says: Defence has not determined industry workforce requirements for naval construction programs. The report goes on to say: The assumptions of Defence’s current workforce planning activities are not based on a cost-benefit analysis. In particular, whether maintaining the shipbuilding workforce between the Hobart Class Destroyer and follow-on surface-ship builds is the most cost-effective way of establishing the naval shipbuilding enterprise. Think about that. What that's saying is that this government did not look—did not look!—at the cost of redundancies at ASC or at the cost of dispersing the shipbuilding workforce at ASC versus holding it there and having those workers continue to be employed. They could have trained another generation of shipbuilding workers and they could have trained apprentices. ASC could have been the host employer to build and maintain that shipbuilding workforce. I put to you the cost of making these workers redundant and the cost of those redundancies: the cost of having someone to manage the redundancies, the cost of the redundancy itself, the economic cost to that worker, the cost to the community and then the cost you have to contemplate of going out there to find that electrician, to find that rigger, to find that welder. That's a cost too. So, we're dispersing the workforce, as this graph shows, completely destroying it, running it down to zero, and then we're going to run it back up again—running it down at great cost, running it up at great cost. This is this government's magnificent achievement: the destruction of one workforce and the creation of another, at great economic cost and without a cost-benefit analysis. What they have done is set up a Naval Shipbuilding College. We will hear all about that, this Naval Shipbuilding College. In the mind's eye, you can imagine people training in rooms and the like. But that's not what this Naval Shipbuilding College does. What it actually does is broker, apparently, between private industry, who have to be the host employers to these apprentices, and all the other providers who are currently there at the moment—providers like PEER, which is the group trainer for electricians in South Australia. Why do we need this middleman? The price of this college has blown out from $25 million to $62 million; the cost has blown out by 2.5 times already—to perform a function that I'm a bit curious about why we need it. Why do we need this $62 million middleman? Here's the rub. I know employers of welders. I know welding shops who look down the track. They have their own apprentices, they do their own workforce training, they are industrious employers and they are profitable employers. They don't need help from government, truth be known. They can go out there and make a profit without us. But here's the thing. They're terrified that one day soon, when the frigates kick off, we are going to see a wage spiral. This has happened before, whenever there is demand for skilled workers. We know these workers. You can't produce them overnight. It's four years to produce an electrician, plus another year to get them really up to scratch in shipbuilding. These are not the sorts of skills that you can acquire overnight. It's the same thing for a welder and the same thing for a rigger. For white-collar workers it's even worse. For engineers, you do a three-year degree and then it is three years, really, getting your head around shipbuilding. So, these are workers that cannot be produced overnight. We have welding shops in my electorate that are terrified of losing their welders to the shipyards in three or four years time. And they're expected to do this government's job; they're expected to take on extra apprentices, perhaps to get the shipbuilding college to be the broker between them and the group trainers. This is a ridiculous situation for us to be in: the destruction of one workforce—the redundancies and the pain and suffering that goes with that—and, on the other hand, we face a skill shortage in the shipbuilding industry in South Australia in the future. This is what this government is going to bequeath to us. This is the cost of having three different prime ministers, I've forgotten how many defence ministers, at least two defence industry ministers now and this revolving door through the ministry. This is the cost of it. This is the price that the workers of South Australia will pay, and this is the price that these projects might well pay in the future. And what will the government—the future opposition—say then? They'll say, 'It's all the workers' fault,' just like they've done previously. 18:55 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Today I rise to speak on immigration. Immigration isn't an end in and of itself, but it's a policy tool that we use to build our nation. My friend, the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, said that Australia is a country with an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character, and I think he well sums up the nature of the country. Convicts, soldier, administrators, free settlors and all those who came after carved out of the harsh Australian environment the most successful democracy and most successful country on earth. More than seven million people have immigrated to Australia since the Second World War. Migrants have made a huge contribution to this country, one which we should take real pride in celebrating. Each new citizen adds their distinctive story to the broader Australian story. It's with some considerable pride as a Liberal that I recall that it was the government of Harold Holt, the minister Sir Hubert Opperman and his departmental secretary, Sir Peter Haydon, who dismantled the White Australia policy at a time when the Labor Party was led by Arthur Calwell, whose response was the famous 'Two Wongs don't make a White.' The people who migrate to Australia ultimately help determine what sort of a country Australia will be in the future. Immigrants help fill skill shortages in our economy. They bring new ideas and new ways of doing things. They strengthen Australia's international reach and provide us with connections to markets in other countries. Migration helps broaden the tax base and allows to us pay for the ageing population and the services we need. A larger economy also helps attract and maintain businesses in Australia, giving them access to a larger domestic market. Deloitte Access Economics estimates that the contribution of the 2014-15 migration cohort alone over 50 years will be in the order of $9.7 billion. With little to lose and so much to gain, migrants bring to our country an entrepreneurial spirit, such that one in three businesses in Australia have been started by migrants and those businesses employ 1.4 million people. We can all think of major success stories, from Sir Frank Lowy, who founded a small deli in Blacktown, with his friend and fellow immigrant John Saunders, which went on to become the global behemoth Westfield, to Shemara Wikramanayake, who at the end of next month will become the new CEO of Macquarie Bank. New migrants have helped us to create new industries. The international education industry was in its infancy over 30 years ago, and yet today education is our third-largest export industry, bringing $30 billion in revenue to Australia every year. Australia is a nation of immigrants: 49 per cent of us were either born overseas or have one or more parent born overseas. Despite these strengths, immigration as a policy can only succeed while it retains public support. Three things weaken that public support, and I want to talk about them today. The first of those things is when we fail to control our borders. Australia and America are both immigrant societies, but the ethos around immigration is different in both countries. Australia has never been the country of Emma Lazarus, whose famous poem adorns the plinth on which the Statue of Liberty stands: … Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me … Part of Australia's success as a country is that we've always been selective about our immigration program. Public support for immigration has been built on the notion that, in John Howard's famous words, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come.' Under Labor, 50,000 people sought to come to Australia in 800 boats, providing a sense that we, as a sovereign nation, had lost control of our own borders, weakening public support not just for the humanitarian intake but for the migration program in general. It took our now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and Operation Sovereign Borders to restore border integrity and public confidence in the immigration program so it could be expanded both on a humanitarian and an economic basis. The second factor that weakens public support for immigration is the question of whether people coming to Australia will fit in. Do they share our values? Can they get along in our society? Have we given them the tools to make a success economically and socially in our country? Unfortunately, there are a million people in this country who have little or no English, and some of them have been here for more than 20 years. This means that such people are socially isolated in our communities, and their opportunities to integrate within society and to join the economy are much more limited than those who have English as a language. This is why our government has repeatedly sought to ensure that new migrants have the best chance of succeeding. I note the work the government has done to bolster English and refocus the Adult Migrant English Program, which this year is celebrating its 70th birthday. We've also strengthened the Australian citizenship test to prioritise integration and Australian values, to ensure people coming here accept the values of our country. Australian citizenship is and has always been a privilege, and should be treated accordingly. The third major concern in relation to immigration is that it leads to more congested cities. I understand the problem of congested cities. In Sydney, we're still suffering from Bob Carr's appalling period of office as New South Wales Premier, including the time when he said, 'Sydney's full,' and stopped spending any money on infrastructure. Today, our government, working with the New South Wales coalition government, is taking up the infrastructure backlog, which was 16 years in the making. I know people are feeling the pinch and I know these projects can't come on quickly enough, but these projects take time. Not only do we have to build infrastructure of the future, but we're also still catching up on the Carr-Iemma-Rees-Keneally created backlog. Major infrastructure takes many years to come online, from inception to delivery. Some projects take up to 20 years to deliver. The Carr era means that New South Wales is only now starting to move ahead. The population pressures that we feel in our cities are built by Labor's poor planning. In my own electorate, on bad days it can take more than an hour to travel the six kilometres from Hornsby to Pennant Hills. The appalling state of Pennant Hills Road means that people take rat runs and clog them up too. Bad traffic congestion means people are spending more time in their cars and less time at home with their families. That's why our government is delivering NorthConnex, which will take 5,000 trucks every single day off the worst road in Australia, Pennant Hills Road, bypassing 21 sets of traffic lights and even at the quietest times save drivers up to 15 minutes in their travel. This $3 billion project will transform Berowra and boost the national and New South Wales economies. This project is part of our government's $75 billion infrastructure investment across Australia. I also hear complaints in my area about the New Line Road, and I understand the need for action on this road as well in order for people to travel from the rapidly transforming rural areas in my area, and in neighbouring electorates, to reach major motorways that take them to the CBD, Macquarie Park or south-western Sydney. The issue of congestion isn't just one for my electorate, but affects all of the city. Today, travelling in peak times in my city takes 65 per cent longer than the same journey does off-peak. Part of the reason for this is the lift in the immigration rate that occurred under Kevin Rudd in his quest to create a bigger Australia. Rudd lifted the total population growth rate from 220,000 to 375,000. In 2002, the Intergenerational report said that Australia would increase its population by 2½ million over the next 15 years. Well 15 years later, the population has actually grown by five million. To solve these congestion issues, we obviously need to think about faster infrastructure construction and a more even distribution of migrants than simply to Sydney and Melbourne, and I applaud Minister Tudge for his recent speech about looking at encouraging people to go to other states and to rural areas. There are some in our community who call to stop immigration. I think this would have unforeseen consequences in our country. Since coming to government, we've created over a million jobs. Last year, we created over 1,000 jobs every single day. We have an unemployment rate of five per cent. In the old days, they used to describe that as full employment. There are many businesses in my electorate who can't get the skilled worker they're looking for. If we stop migration, then we put the growth of the economy at risk—and that ultimately risks our national prosperity, because these businesses won't be able to expand and do the things that they need to do without the workers that they need to do them. It was the Howard government who first recognised the importance of matching our workforce pipeline, through skilled migration, with new jobs coming online. John Howard's policies led to an historic first. For the first time in history 50 per cent of migrants were skilled migrants. Fast forward to last year's program and about 70 per cent of permanent migrants were in the skilled stream. One of the reasons we need to have more skilled migrants is Labor's failed education policies. Time and again Labor tinkered with the education system, leading to students graduating from courses with skills and qualifications unrelated to the types of jobs needed to advance this nation. Labor meddled with the vocational education system, allowing dodgy providers to rip off unknowing students. Under Labor's scheme, unethical training providers were able to target the vulnerable or unsuitable, who were signed up to training courses they had no chance of completing. Quite often students had no capacity, yet were offered inducements to complete these courses. Some students didn't even know they were signing up to courses. All of this indicates that we need to have a properly focused migration policy. We need to ensure that we are building public confidence in all three of those aspects. We need to ensure that we are providing the skills for our country's prosperity into the future. Climate Change 109 19:06 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I have four young children and, like all parents, I want to ensure that my kids have a better future than our generation. I want them to have a clean environment and sustainable oceans, and to be able to enjoy the great natural beauty of the wilderness we have at home in Australia and across the planet. That promise to our kids is in jeopardy because of the failure of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government to develop an energy policy. When we talk about the year 2040 and beyond, this isn't a hypothetical future for the next generation; these years will be their reality and the world where they will be raising their own kids. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius should be a wake-up call for this government. The report outlines the consequences of its continuing divisions over the need for real action to tackle climate change. The IPCC highlights the world we and our children face under the prospect of exceeding a 1.5 degree temperature rise by 2040. At such an increase we lose between 70 and 90 per cent of the world's coral reefs. In Australia that means that the vast majority of the Great Barrier Reef will disappear. Think about that: on our watch, because of the decisions that have been made by this government, we face the real prospect of the Great Barrier Reef being wiped out forever. The reef has already undergone severe damage due to bleaching events caused by climate change. A rise of 1.5 degrees means more extreme hot days, more extreme droughts and more climate related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth. These are risks that we as parliamentarians cannot ignore. Australia and the world must take action to reduce carbon emissions and boost uptake in renewable energy. We know that this government has no energy policy. Many of those opposite didn't even bother to read the IPCC's crucial report. The Liberal Party has ignored local communities and the global consensus. Indeed they've outsourced policy development to the hard Right as part of an anti-science, anti-renewables and anti climate-change agenda. It's all about ideology over evidence. They're selling out their responsibility to our kids, to future generations of Australians. Mr Morrison, the Prime Minister, and his divided Liberals have absolved themselves of any responsibility for tackling climate change. The latest data, which they've tried to hide, shows that carbon emissions are again on the increase under this government. They rose by 1.3 per cent last year. The government's own pollution projections also show that emissions will keep rising all the way to 2030. This exposed the Prime Minister's repeated claims that the Liberals don't need a climate change policy, because we're going to meet our Paris climate targets 'in a canter' as nothing more than a lie. That lie was further exposed by the chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, Laurence Tubiana, who said recently: … the consensus in the scientific community is that Australia is not currently on track to reduce emissions and meet its Paris Agreement commitments. Like Labor, Ms Tubiana points to the dangers and missed opportunities of failure to implement meaningful climate policy, saying that a failure will have 'profound consequences on the country's standing in the international community and its future prospects in terms of innovation and economic opportunity.' The divisions and the turmoil within this government are badly damaging Australia's international standing and our reputation, particularly within our neighbourhood, the Pacific. That's why we welcomed Australia's decision to sign the Pacific Islands Forum communique and Boe declaration, committing member states to the Paris agreement on climate change. The declaration makes clear that Pacific nations regard climate change as the number one issue, as their greatest concern, saying: We reaffirm that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and our commitment to progress the implementation of the Paris Agreement … Pacific Island states need certainty that Australia, the largest economy in the Pacific, will support that declaration through actions, not just words. They need to see us commit to genuine action on climate change to meet Australia's Paris targets. After snubbing the region's pre-eminent forum in one of his first acts as leader, the Prime Minister must now show that he's listening to what the Pacific Islands leaders are telling him is their most pressing issue. Yet the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has given up on this issue and given up on finding a solution. It comes after more than five years of failure on this issue. It's been more than five years of war within the coalition between those who believe in climate change and support clean energy and a National Energy Guarantee and those who don't believe in the science. We just want to end this climate war. Those of us in the Labor Party want to reach an agreement, a consensus, with the government to get on with finding a policy to reduce carbon emissions. We've been trying to do this now for close to four years. That's why we tried to reach an agreement with the government to tackle this climate change threat when they initially proposed an emissions intensity scheme. They asked the Chief Scientist to come up with this proposal, and he did, and we said that we would look to agree with them and work with them, and then they dumped it. Labor said that we'd look to and try to reach an agreement with the government when it came to a clean energy target—both mark 1 and mark 2 of that policy. Again we tried to reach an agreement with the government, and they dumped it. Then we had a complete hat-trick when the government proposed the National Energy Guarantee. After they'd appointed a panel of experts, at the cost of about $10 million, to advise the government about developing a policy to reduce carbon emissions and, at the same time, reduce energy prices, they said that they would implement this, and then they dumped it. They not only dumped the policy; they dumped the Prime Minister as well. The Prime Minister, when he was still the Treasurer, pointed out that he'd not seen an initiative in his 10 years in the parliament with broader support than the National Energy Guarantee. But then, when he became the Prime Minister, his first act was to dump it. It shows what a hypocrite he's been on this issue. Business groups across the country were calling out for certainty and backing the National Energy Guarantee, yet the Liberals walked away from it. Somehow, again, they've managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfortunately, it's not going to end the bipartisanship. It will come if Labor is elected. It's in the interests of Australian consumers now and in the future that we transition away from dirty coal-fired power to renewables that bring an additional supply, provide certainty and ultimately reduce electricity prices for small businesses and households. This government promised to reduce electricity prices by $550 when they were initially elected. What's actually occurred is that, over the last couple of years, increases to electricity prices across Australia have been in the nature of $630. They haven't been able to make a decision on electricity for the last five years, and consumers have paid the price. We saw in Wentworth that communities are sick of having climate and energy policy dictated to them by the member for Warringah and the hard Right of the coalition party room. It's not good for our country, it's not good for our economy, it's not good for our Pacific neighbours and it's not good for our children, whose futures they are selling down the drain by this war that's going on within the Liberal Party. If Labor is elected at the next election, we will end this climate war, we will get serious about action on climate change, we will take our responsibility to tackle climate change very seriously and we will have the policies to do that, including a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Labor's targets will cut pollution, bring down power prices and transition Australia to a cleaner future with good news for jobs, good news for investment in renewable technology and, of course, lower electricity prices, because we all know that with renewables, once you get over the initial capital cost, the fuel is free. It's time Australia had a government that cared about these issues and our international climate obligations. That includes taking real action to combat climate change. All governments across the world, including our own, are confronted with this grave responsibility of acting on climate change, and that means doing all that we can to ensure that our children and our grandchildren and generations beyond are able to live in a safe, clean environment. Queensland: Four-Wheel Driving 110 19:16 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman A federalist nation as Australia is, we can often sit back, grab popcorn and watch the devious antics of the seven other states and territories. If you're a four-wheel drive owner, you don't have to go far past the Queensland government for a case study in complete incompetence. Four-wheel drive owners are passionate people. They're not hoons. They're family people. They love their vehicles. They love to raise and lift their vehicles within safe limits so that they can engage in the simple pleasures of enjoying the great Aussie outdoors. They travel all over the far corners of this great nation, which offers you incredible getaways, places you can take your family and allow your kids to explore the real Australia, and do it in a safe way. Nothing is more satisfying, I think, than going to the hardest-to-access far corners of this beautiful nation. Four-wheel drive owners—member for Flynn, sitting next to me—are not people who every day read The Sydney Morning Heraldor The Australian, or watch SkyNews. They are ordinary, everyday Australians who just want governments to stay out of their lives. They all understand that there's a role for government; of course there is. There's a role for federal government in monitoring quality and standards for imported new vehicles—beyond that national code of practice, an arrangement for state codes of practice for vehicles once they're registered and, at that point, we allow states to take over. But, of course, common sense allows in a federated arrangement, working groups that involve each of the states and territories in the Commonwealth in how we continue to regulate vehicles on and off our roads. It was all a pretty sleepy sector until about 12 months ago, when, somewhere deep inside Queensland's department of main roads, someone decided to start a solo flight—that's right, a crackdown on lifted four-wheel drives. Now, it may well have been an incredibly tragic four-wheel drive accident where an investigation found that there were a multitude of possible causes, including driver error, unfamiliar terrain, youth and inexperience, potentially alcohol and also a raised vehicle. At what point do we say levels of lifting are safe or unsafe? It is an incredibly complicated area. There are, of course, experts around much of Australia—engineers permanently focused on this issue of modification plates stating that a lift is safe. It's not simple. It's not just a matter of saying that mark X lifted this far and these tyres are safe. It's very, very hard to make that assumption. But most states maintain a panel of engineers who do that complicated job, because every person buys a different mark, a different model, a different variation, with different racks on the roof and different lifts, different variations and weight distributions. To work out if it is safe, there are many ways of getting around it. But what we know in Queensland is that it is completely impractical in this great state, which is the mecca for four-wheel driving in Australia for both locals and tourists, to send your vehicle down to rural Victoria and spend nearly $20,000 on testing. That $20,000 investment in your vehicle involves taking off the front and rear bumpers, putting seated robots inside, doing swerve tests, using cameras. It's not a simple process. It's ridiculous to expect the average Australian to have to go through that testing procedure. Most states and territories will accept an engineer's report, and that can involve a more simplified swerve test together with an arrangement of data that's available to engineers, not to politicians. But Queensland decided that that just wasn't good enough. So what we know is that last year, in around November, the Department of Transport and Main Roads started to get a bee in their bonnet about lifted four-wheel drives, and we really don't know why. They decided that they were going to increase the pressure on those who had already lifted their vehicles and set a hard stop at 50 millimetres. That meant that if you had already lifted your suspension, as is legal around the country, and put a new set of tyres on that put you to 75 millimetres then suddenly that was unacceptable. I need to make the point that, unlike someone who says that the speed limit is changing, when you change the lift limits, everyone has to spend hundreds of dollars remodifying. This was a tragic set of circumstances because no other state or territory was even slightly seduced into such a ridiculous operation, as they called it in Queensland. And then we had the drag nets. Police were picking up four-wheel drives the minute they left your electorate, Deputy Speaker, and drove into electorates like the Gold Coast. No sooner would you be there than you were pulled over by the police and given a ticket that would never be issued in any other corner of Australia except Queensland in a drag net that was effectively ticked off by a department minister in a Labor government telling his police colleague to go ahead with Operation Lift. It wasn't even that simple, because four-wheel drive groups all around the country had been begging, pleading, engaging with the Queensland government to say, 'What do we have to give you to satisfy you with what the rest of the world is doing and every other state and territory, is okay?' This wasn't a government that needed to kick the hornet's nest, but no matter how hard we tried, they were led like a fly to a light to take on this issue, and sure enough, in early September, Operation Lift began. But it wasn't without warning. It wasn't without repeated efforts by the AAAA, the After Market Association of Australia, to meet with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, but no progress. The more they met with them, the angrier the departmental officials got and then, when they had the temerity to write to their own minister from those organisations, that's where the department went absolutely rogue. The communications stopped, and we had Operation Lift a week later after a commitment was given to talk. A commitment had been given to exchange data, and this was something that could have been resolved far more simply than it was. Operation Lift now is history because, after a two-week campaign that I was integrally involved in along with a number of state MPs raising this issue—we went to four-wheel drive expos and had one million Facebook hits on the AAAA Facebook page and 800,000 reach on my own small and humble page, we got a complete and utter backflip from the state minister. You will clean up once for a minister but the following time, normally, they have to wear it. This is about the fifth time that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has had to airlift Mark Bailey out of the red zone and protect him from himself. It happened again in the last sitting week, where this guy ignominiously rolled into question time and gave a statement where he managed to, very cleverly, blame the Commonwealth. I mean, the Commonwealth regulates the importation of new vehicles and that's it. The minute a vehicle is registered to be on the road, it becomes a state code of practice, but he managed to blame the Commonwealth. What we now know is that Queensland was down nickel-and-dime in Victoria to try to entice them to do the same thing. There are two types of bad governments in the country. There are governments who do know better—bad ones like Victoria—and there are bad governments who simply don't know any better and that's Queensland Labor. Queensland was down there trying to get Victoria on side and they couldn't even get them over the line for this crackdown on the four-wheel drive owners because there's no evidence, is there? So, believe it or not, it's only Queensland that is stupid enough to persist. They've now said in a speech in parliament that we will now go back to the old 50 plus 25 limits, which are legal around the rest of the country, for vehicles with electronic stability control, ESC. And for those who don't have ESC, primarily before 2012, the limit is actually 150. In that same speech, the minister said we will also move back to 150, only to have the department come out later and say, 'The minister said that, and you can go to 150 but you've got to go and pay the $17,000 for your vehicle to be individually tested.' Completely ridiculous. So the minister was speaking out of one side of his mouth to save his political career and then using the department to go out and do the rest. It reminds me of Steven Miles, the health minister up in that same state of Queensland, when they decided to tear down the name of Lady Cilento in the most humiliating and embarrassing way, removing that great woman's name from the children's hospital on the pretext that people didn't know it was a public hospital because it had a lady's name on it. Five kilometres away is the Princess Alexandra Hospital. They don't have any problem with that. That's a public hospital. They spent half a million dollars to do it and, for good measure, reduced funding to that hospital by 10 per cent while the Commonwealth tops up their funding by 10 per cent to keep that kids' hospital's doors open. In this absolutely heinous crime that they've committed against our Queensland kids' hospital it was the same pattern. Do you think it was the minister who came out and phoned the Cilento family to tell them of their decision? No, no; they used a departmental official to make a phone call to the Cilento family—too gutless to make that call. They were happy to spend half a million on it, happy to make the decision that ripped the name off the hospital but too gutless to pick the phone up. Back here on the four-wheel-drive issue you've got exactly the same circumstance: too gutless to actually give the true conditions in that speech. We've got Mark Bailey as the transport minister up there who then used the department to say what he actually said there doesn't count at all. We don't stand behind the words of the minister, because we've always got some fine print. There's always a little asterisk in what the Queensland Labor does. I've said there are governments that should know better and there are governments that simply don't. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 112 ADJOURNMENT 19:26 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:26   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 113 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Gender Equality (Question No. 1013) 113 1013 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 14 August 2018 : (1) In respect of Australia's Official Development Assistance, can the Minister provide a list of current programs that work towards gender equality with adolescent girls as the primary beneficiary.(2) What was the total expenditure for (a) bilateral, and (b) multilateral, programs where the principal or significant objective was achieving gender equality for girls 10 to 19 years of age in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(3) What was the total expenditure for (a) bilateral, and (b) multilateral, programs that assist adolescent girls in staying free from gender-based violence in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(4) What was the total expenditure for (a) bilateral, and (b) multilateral, programs designed to keep adolescent girls in lower secondary school in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(5) What was the total expenditure for (a) bilateral, and (b) multilateral, programs designed to keep adolescent girls in upper secondary school in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(6) What was the total expenditure for (a) bilateral, and (b) multilateral, programs that focus on economic empowerment for girls 15 to 24 years of age in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(7) How many girls 10 to 19 year of age were direct beneficiaries of Australia's bilateral aid program in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016-17, and (iv) 2017-18.(8) How many girls 15 to 19 year of age were direct beneficiaries of Australia's bilateral investment in women's leadership programs in (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16, (iii) 2016‑17, and (iv) 2017-18. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian aid is categorised against the criteria of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD DAC). While DAC members are required to indicate the main sector an aid investment is designed to support, investments are not disaggregated by age. It is therefore not possible to provide a list of current Australian aid programs that target or include adolescent girls as the primary beneficiaries. (2) Please see answer (1) above. (3) Please see answer (1) above. (4) Please see answer (1) above. (5) Please see answer (1) above. (6) Please see answer (1) above. (7) Please see answer (1) above. (8) Please see answer (1) above. Foreign Affairs (Question No. 1016) 113 1016 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 14 August 2018 : (1) Does the Government aspire to meet the internationally-agreed Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending target of 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income; if so, by which year does the Government expect to reach this target, and if not, why not.(2) What proportion of Australian ODA was spent on the Pacific, in (a) 2013-14, (b) 2014-15, (c) 2015-16, (d) 2016-17, and (e) 2017-18, and what proportion of those amounts was expended (i) bilaterally, and (ii) multilaterally.(3) What proportion of Australian ODA was spent on South-East and East Asia, in (a) 2013-14, (b) 2014-15, (c) 2015-16, (d) 2016-17, and (e) 2017-18, and what proportion of those amounts was expended (i) bilaterally, and (ii) multilaterally. Mr Pyne 9V5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The Government will not commit to a prescriptive, time-bound aid target as a percentage of Gross National Income until the budget is back into surplus and Australia is in a fiscally strong position to support this aspiration. (2)   Note aid allocations are not reported as bilateral programs per se so it is not possible to break this figure down further. (3)   Note aid allocations are not reported as bilateral programs per se so it is not possible to break this figure down further.