The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BUSINESS
Federation Chamber
The SPEAKER (12:01): I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 10 May 2017, at 10 am, as the time for the next meeting of the Federation Chamber, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Interference with Parliament
The SPEAKER (12:01): At the end of the autumn sittings, on 29 March, the Manager of Opposition Business asked me a question in relation to a Senate Committee of Privileges report on Search warrants and the Senate. I undertook to report back to the House in response after I had time to consider the Senate report and any aspects of relevance for the House of Representatives.
As the member referred, the Senate committee considered that the execution of certain warrants may have had the effect of interfering with the duties of a senator, and with the functions of the parliament more broadly. To address this, the committee concluded that there was a requirement for remedial action in relation to the AFP national guideline for the execution of search warrants where parliamentary privilege may be involved. The committee stated further that it would be addressing this issue in its inquiry into intrusive powers.
As the AFP national guideline was developed jointly by both the House and the Senate committees of privileges, some years ago, I would consider that the House Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests should also involve itself in any reconsideration of the guideline. I will leave it for the House committee to determine how best it might involve itself in the matter.
BILLS
Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016
Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017
Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016
Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017
Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017
Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8) to page 3 (line 3), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Commencement information |
||
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Provisions |
Commencement |
Date/Details |
1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
2. Schedule 1, Part 1 |
1 July 2016. |
1 July 2016 |
3. Schedule 1, Part 2 |
1 July 2017. |
1 July 2017 |
4. Schedule 1, Part 3 |
1 July 2018. |
1 July 2018 |
5. Schedule 1, Part 9 |
1 July 2024. |
1 July 2024 |
6. Schedule 1, Part 10 |
1 July 2025. |
1 July 2025 |
7. Schedule 1, Part 11 |
1 July 2026. |
1 July 2026 |
8. Schedule 1, Part 12 |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
9. Schedule 2, Part 1 |
1 July 2016. |
1 July 2016 |
10. Schedule 2, Part 2 |
1 July 2024. |
1 July 2024 |
11. Schedule 2, Part 3 |
1 July 2025. |
1 July 2025 |
12. Schedule 2, Part 4 |
1 July 2026. |
1 July 2026 |
13. Schedule 2, Part 5 |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
14. Schedule 3, Part 1 |
1 July 2016. |
1 July 2016 |
15. Schedule 3, Part 2 |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
16. Schedule 4, Part 1 |
1 July 2016. |
1 July 2016 |
17. Schedule 4, Part 3 |
The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
18. Schedule 5, Part 1 |
1 July 2016. |
1 July 2016 |
19. Schedule 5, Part 2 |
1 July 2017. |
1 July 2017 |
20. Schedule 5, Part 4 |
1 July 2024. |
1 July 2024 |
21. Schedule 5, Part 5 |
1 July 2025. |
1 July 2025 |
22. Schedule 5, Part 6 |
1 July 2026. |
1 July 2026 |
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, Parts 4 to 11, page 9 (line 1) to page 17 (line 18), omit the Parts, substitute:
Part 9—Amendments commencing 1 July 2024
Income Tax Rates Act 1986
33 Paragraph 23(2 ) ( a)
Omit "27.5%", substitute "27%".
34 Subparagraph 23(3 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "27.5%", substitute "27%".
35 Subparagraph 23(4 ) ( c ) ( i)
Omit "27.5%", substitute "27%".
36 Subparagraph 23(6 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "$832", substitute "$817".
37 Paragraph 23(7 ) ( a)
Omit "41.25%", substitute "40.5%".
38 Paragraph 25(a)
Omit "27.5%", substitute "27%".
Part 10—Amendments commencing 1 July 2025
Income Tax Rates Act 1986
39 Paragraph 23(2 ) ( a)
Omit "27%", substitute "26%".
40 Subparagraph 23(3 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "27%", substitute "26%".
41 Subparagraph 23(4 ) ( c ) ( i)
Omit "27%", substitute "26%".
42 Subparagraph 23(6 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "$817", substitute "$788".
43 Paragraph 23(7 ) ( a)
Omit "40.5%", substitute "39%".
44 Paragraph 25(a)
Omit "27%", substitute "26%".
Part 11—Amendments commencing 1 July 2026
Income Tax Rates Act 1986
45 Paragraph 23(2 ) ( a)
Omit "26%", substitute "25%".
46 Subparagraph 23(3 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "26%", substitute "25%".
47 Subparagraph 23(4 ) ( c ) ( i)
Omit "26%", substitute "25%".
48 Subparagraph 23(6 ) ( b ) ( i)
Omit "$788", substitute "$762".
49 Paragraph 23(7 ) ( a)
Omit "39%", substitute "37.5%".
50 Paragraph 25(a)
Omit "26%", substitute "25%".
(3) Schedule 1, item 57, page 18 (lines 12 to 26), omit subitems (4) to (8).
(4) Schedule 4, Part 2, page 36 (line 1) to page 39 (line 19), omit the Part.
(5) Schedule 4, item 58, page 40 (lines 2 to 6), omit the item, substitute:
58 Application of amendments
The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply to the 2016‑17 income year and later income years.
(6) Schedule 5, Parts 3 to 6, page 43 (line 1) to page 51 (line 29), omit the Parts, substitute:
Part 4—Amendments commencing 1 July 2024
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
17 Paragraph 65 ‑30(2 ) ( a)
Omit "0.275", substitute "0.27".
18 Paragraph 65 ‑35(3A ) ( a)
Omit "27.5", substitute "27".
Part 5—Amendments commencing 1 July 2025
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
19 Paragraph 65 ‑30(2 ) ( a)
Omit "0.27", substitute "0.26".
20 Paragraph 65 ‑35(3A ) ( a)
Omit "27", substitute "26".
Part 6—Amendments commencing 1 July 2026
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
21 Paragraph 65 ‑30(2 ) ( a)
Omit "0.26", substitute "0.25".
22 Paragraph 65 ‑35(3A ) ( a)
Omit "26", substitute "25".
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:04): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
In recent weeks, during the parliamentary sitting recess, I have travelled to many locations listening to and hearing directly from hundreds of small business owners. Every day I have been encouraged by the positive response to the tax cut we have already delivered for small business and the anticipation for the tax cuts to go further and to be extended to more businesses. The government's enterprise tax plan will deliver tax relief for 3.2 million small and medium businesses, which employ more than 6½ million Australian workers. They are at the forefront of this amendment before the House today. We all want more jobs. We all want better opportunities. We all want higher wages.
The government has accepted the Senate's amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Small and medium businesses with turnovers of less than $50 million a year are set to benefit from their tax rate falling to 25 per cent. It will deliver new job opportunities and increase wages. This amendment will enable businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million to receive a reduction in their tax rate to 27½ per cent this financial year—the lowest it has been for many, many decades.
Under our reforms, small businesses with turnovers of up to $10 million will also receive access to tax concessions, including immediate deductibility for assets costing less than $20,000 acquired before 30 June 2017—another tax simplification provision. Our plan is to cut taxes, put small businesses in the driver's seat and Australians in jobs. Above all, it is a plan to create new opportunities and secure Australia's future. It is small business, not government, which creates jobs and opportunities. This government is serious about energising enterprise. As a country MP, I think I am pretty fortunate. As local members we travel about towns, villages and communities in our large, diverse electorates, and locals will always stop us and let us know what is on their minds. They are very frank. They are very free with their advice. I am reminded, as ever, what inspired me to run for parliament in the first place: to work as hard as I can on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my small businesses each and every day. It is the conversations and interactions with local people that inspire me to come back to this place and to talk up small business.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the clamour from those opposite. They should also know how important small businesses are, as the engine room of our economy. When visiting Esme's cafe in Forbes in my electorate, Linda Rees, the owner, pulled me aside. She said she wanted to show me the instant asset write-off. She wanted to show me exactly how she had invested in her business: the new industrial dishwasher and the new stainless steel servery. She was considering selling the business and, indeed, she got so many more customers through the door she maintained the ownership of that business for quite a bit longer. Then, indeed, she did sell it for a higher price than she would have got had she not invested in the instant asset write-off. Now, on the brink of making the decision to sell the business and move on, the instant depreciation of new equipment helped Linda and helped Esme's cafe, to make the business more viable and to make it more saleable. Indeed, she got a higher price. Ask any Australian small business owner what they would do with a tax cut and you will learn about their ambition.
In Gumdale in Queensland, in the member for Bonner's electorate, Joy de Beer, who runs Take Away Bins—a skip and industrial bin hire business—told me how her business would have closed but for the tax cut that we have delivered. She said: 'The tax would have killed us. The federal government saved my business.' That is what she said in Queensland. She said, 'We would've gone under without the tax cut.' It is a never-ending story of putting the investment in their pocket. That is what the coalition is doing.
Tanya Simmons from Bennetts Steel in Wauchope, in the member for Lyne's electorate, explained how the extra cash in her pocket from paying less tax will help her hire more local trainees and apprentices. They design and manufacture a flat pack fireplace—the perfect addition to your camping and caravanning get away. It is local innovation at its best. This government is made of members who understand small business. We have run our own small businesses. We have not run them into the ground, like those opposite would. We have employed our own people. We understand that in business you have to take on risk to get ahead of the game and to get more customers through the door.
Another central tenet of this plan is changing the definition of 'small business' to a business with an annual turnover of $10 million, giving thousands and thousands more small businesses across this wide brown land the tax cut I mentioned earlier. It is a genuine plan for growth, to create more jobs and to create more opportunities for more Australians.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (12:09): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 amendments. We oppose this motion. The Treasurer has had a great revelation in the last few days. He has had an epiphany and he has revealed something to the Australian people. 'Budgets,' he has told us, 'are about choices.' I am not sure what he thought they were about before the last few days. They are about choices, and this government makes the wrong choices every single time. This week we have seen those choices laid bare, and we will see more tonight.
The government had part of their one-point plan for jobs and growth pass through the Senate. It is part of their one-point plan. It is now a fraction of a one-point plan that they have passed through the Senate. Out of their one-point plan, they got some of it through. This one-point plan is going to generate an economy one per cent bigger in 20 years time. What they did get through will cost over the next decade $24 billion. This week we heard the minister boasting that they have cost the budget $24 billion as they cut $22 billion out of Australia's schools. Those are the wrong priorities. They are the wrong choices for Australia's future that this government is imposing and will impose tonight. By the end of the decade, their corporate tax cut in the total package they are committed to, and have told us they will introduce any time now for the rest of the $50 billion, will cost the budget—wait for it—$14 billion a year. That is what they are boasting about. They say difficult decisions are necessary and they say tough choices are necessary. At the same time, they say they can afford to give this money away but they have to take $22 billion away from schools.
The same government this week told the Australian people that their housing affordability plan involves university graduates paying back their debt earlier, at $42,000 a year. Now, $42,000 a year is not a high salary, but this Prime Minister thinks that that is when you can start to afford to pay back your HELP debt. This is about wrong priorities. The government are increasing student fees by eight per cent, making graduates pay earlier, ripping money away from schools and sending the Catholic education system into meltdown due to their lack of consultation and their lack of policy nous at the same time as they are boasting about their priorities.
This is an important day in this parliament. I tell you what, Mr Speaker, 1 July will be an important day for Australia because that is when the choices made by this government will be made clear. Let's call it 'Choice Day' because this government's choices—the decisions this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and the entire government have made over recent weeks and months—will be made clear. On 1 July high income earners will get a tax cut as the deficit levy comes off. On 1 July Australia's workers who commit no crime other than working on a Sunday will take a pay cut due to choices by this government. On 1 July some businesses will receive a tax cut as well due to choices by this government.
Yes, budgets are about choices. Budgets are about priorities. Budgets are about values. The choice is clear in the contest of ideas between the two sides of this parliament. We will wage that battle in this room, in the other place and in the community. That is a battle we relish because we welcome this fight over choices and because we are proud of the ones we have made. We are proud of the choices we have made, as difficult as some of them have been, because we have put Australians first when it comes to homeownership. We have said we will reform negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is good for the budget, good for financial stability and good for homeownership. This government says it will do none of the above. This is a government whose one-point plan is now a fraction of a one-point plan, and they boast about it at the same time as making the wrong choices for Australia.
The Australian people have a very clear choice that will be laid out tonight as this government's priorities are there again to see. You can have a choice between a corporate tax cut or better funding for schools, but you cannot have both. You can have a choice of a government which believes the answer to low wages growth and record high profits is a corporate tax cut and a cut to penalty rates. If they think the answer to the challenge in Australia of low wages growth is to cut wages further, that says it all. If they actually think, when they sit down and look at the priorities and the values for the future, that they can justify a corporate tax cut when they lecture us about tightening our belts, when they lecture Australia's families and workers about the need for tough choices and when they boast about this resolution they are bringing into the House today, it says it all. It says it all about a Prime Minister on borrowed time—a Prime Minister who is clinging onto his job, so desperate for one Newspoll that is positive— (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:14): I rise again to speak on these amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2017. The shadow Treasurer talked about 'Choice Day'. Indeed, it is Choice Day. Labor can come in here and they can vote for the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan. They can vote for lowering the company tax rate. They can vote for a redefinition of what a small business actually is. They can vote for jobs for Australians. They can vote for more hope and for more prosperity for Australians. Or they can continue to be obstructionist. They can continue to be negative. They can continue to run small businesses down. As I said before, in my summing up, when I go around I do not just sit in darkened little rooms, like the member for Fenner, and write stupid little press releases and not always get them quite right. What I do—
The SPEAKER: The minister will not use unparliamentary language.
Mr McCORMACK: Well, they are not very well written press releases, Mr Speaker, with all due respect. What I do is to get out and about—out and about, right throughout the electorates of Australia. In fact, I visited 24 electorates in recent weeks—24 electorates! I heard how companies and how small businesses want some relief. They want the 27½ per cent; indeed, they want the instant asset write-off. And that is something that the member for McMahon also once aspired to. In Hearts & Minds in 2013, in a chapter on promoting growth through cutting company tax, he said:
… Keating knew that the corporate tax rate needed to be cut to make Australia competitive, that capital and investment would flow to tax-competitive nations and that this was an important job-creation move. Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is competitive.
Well written! The member for Fenner ought to take some lessons in how to write from the member for McMahon. He continued:
And the United Kingdom, facing a much tougher fiscal situation than Australia's—
bear in mind that this was 2013—
cut its company tax rate to 23 per cent in April 2013, to be reduced further to 21 per cent in April 2014.
And he also wrote:
At 30 per cent, our company tax rate is now above the OECD average … it is how the rate compares to that of our competitors that counts.
That counts—indeed, so true! And here is the pivotal moment. We talk about epiphanies and here it is—this is the member for McMahon, writing in Hearts & Minds in 2013. Are we all listening? This is good—you need to listen up to this! He said:
… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Why, then, does the member for McMahon come to the dispatch box and talk about running businesses into the ground?
I put this: he just said to the House: 'Here is the challenge, here is the opportunity. Here is the choice. It's "Choice Day".' Back small business or go to the next election and say that you are going to increase tax. What is it? Will Labor repeal this when in government? Will Labor, if they ever get back into the government—and God help us, if Labor ever do get hold of the Treasury benches again—overturn reducing the company tax rate to 27½ per cent for businesses with up to $10 million in turnover? Will they overturn the decision to back small business, to make small business able to have a go, to make small businesses able to be their best selves, to make small businesses able to create jobs and to make small businesses of up to $50 million turnover able to reduce their company tax rate to 25 per cent?
Or will Labor, indeed, overturn that and go back to 30 per cent? What is it? What is it going to be? I invite the shadow Treasurer to come back to the dispatch box and indeed tell us what it is going to be. He is right: it is Choice Day. It is a big choice day. We have a choice to back small business to be able to create more jobs and more opportunities, thereby getting more Australians to work, or for Labor to oppose this by coming to the dispatch box and saying that after the next election they will increase small business company tax rates. There is the clear decision. The member for McMahon said, 'We will fight you all the way to the election.'
Well, we will! Indeed, we will fight you all the way to the next election, because we stand up for small business. We stand up for lowering the company tax rate and we stand up for more small businesses being able to take advantage of the instant asset write-off, to be able to invest in their capital equipment and in their businesses, and to be able to employ more Australians.
I would have thought that Labor, once the party for the worker, would also have stood up for the same things. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:19): I rise to speak on the amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016.
In July 2009, the member for Wentworth, in his first stint as temporary leader of the coalition, launched the coalition's debt truck. He said:
The debt truck is an important way of drawing to the reality of this debt. This is not a question of spin.
Speaking on the AM program, Mr Turnbull said that the country's debt levels would be 'dramatically' lower under a coalition government. Of course, at that stage, gross debt was around $100 billion. Now, as the member for Rankin has frequently pointed out, we are within 100 days of gross debt crashing through the half-a-trillion-dollars banner.
The SPEAKER: The member for Fenner will resume his seat. We are going to cover some old territory, which I have covered with the member for Fenner before. I do allow some latitude, but he needs to be relevant to the matter before the House. He does not need to be relevant to something he has prepared on another topic. He needs to relate that material, and we have gone quite a way into it already. So the member for Fenner will need to relate his material to the substance of the question before the House.
Dr LEIGH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If you cut the company tax rate you will have more debt, and right now we have debt rising faster than it was during the global financial crisis. We have, from this side of the House, a series of constructive policies that would see Australia retain its AAA credit rating, such as Labor's negative gearing, superannuation and capital gains tax changes. From the other side of the House, we have a tax cut delivering $16,400 to millionaires, and we have a corporate tax cut which is going to cost the budget billions of dollars.
The argument we get for this corporate tax cut is that Australia has a peculiarly high company tax rate. Let's look to the evidence on that. In March of this year, the US Congressional Budget Office brought down a report on corporate tax rates in G20 countries. The report shows that on the statutory corporate tax rates, Australia is not at the top but slap-bang in the middle. Australia's statutory corporate tax rate is average for the G20. But the CBO then goes on to look at our average tax rate—that is, the amount of company tax paid as a share of corporate income. It found that was 17 per cent—the fourth lowest in the OECD. And we have recently had—thanks to Labor's tax transparency laws—the revelation that one in three big Australian companies do not pay any corporate tax. So this idea that Australian companies are being slugged a uniquely tough burden just does not stand up to the facts. The Congressional Budget Office finds that whether you look at statutory rates, average rates or effective marginal rates, Australia's company tax rates are average or lower than the G20.
The government's own modelling suggests that this delivers extremely little for the economy. Their own paper Analysis of the long term effects of a company tax cutfinds that in the first instance most of the benefits of a company tax cut flow overseas. As the Grattan Institute's John Daley has noted, benefits only flow to domestic shareholders if the profits are reinvested rather than paid out. Indeed, if US-based multinationals repatriate their profits then there will actually be a benefit to the US taxpayer from a cut to the Australian company tax rate. But the benefit to Australian households is tiny. The benefit to households, on the government's own modelling with the most credible scenario, is 0.1 per cent. It is not annualised; that is 0.1 per cent in total.
We are being asked here to support a budget-busting tax cut for big businesses—a tax cut which is coming at a time when this government has turned one debt truck into five debt trucks and is still driving them out the door. They have a convoy of debt trucks, as the deputy leader has pointed out, yet they still believe the right prescription for Australia is not funding Medicare or looking after schools but giving big company tax cuts for the big banks and the big multinationals and a $16,400 personal income tax cut to Australia's millionaires. When inequality is at a 75-year high, living standards are sluggish and underemployment is at a record high, this is the wrong prescription for the nation. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK ( Riverina — Minister for Small Business ) ( 12:24 ): The shadow Assistant Treasurer talks about that great movie Convoy—'So we crashed the gate doing ninety-eight. I says "Let them truckers roll, 10-4."' That is what Labor did when they were in power. It was the debt truck out of control. How hypocritical of him to come in here and talk about a debt truck, let alone a convoy. Labor has not produced a surplus since 1989, so I would not be talking about debt trucks if I were you, shadow Assistant Treasurer. I would not be talking about—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Leave! Go an put another media release out about the member for Maribyrnong. It was a good one yesterday.
Labor's hypocrisy on the government's enterprise tax plan is a repudiation of decades of bipartisan support for small and medium sized businesses. On 3 June 2016, former Labor Party president Warren Mundine wrote in TheDaily Telegraph:
Past Labor leaders understood government can only create the conditions for jobs and enterprise to thrive. It's business that generates economic growth through investment and innovation. Federal Labor don't seem to get this.
They did not seem to get it when Warren Mundine wrote that in 2016. I would argue, as would those behind me, as would the small business community and as would many Labor leaders of the past, that it still rings true on this day—'choice day', as the shadow Treasurer said.
Many past Labor figures, figures in the Rudd government, commissioned Ken Henry to review the tax system. The final report, released in August 2008, recommended a tax burden on Australian business, focused on the need to support small business to grow the economy. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, in a speech in Bankstown back in 1993—the member for Fenner likes to dig into history, so here is one for him—said:
We will need to grow companies committed to Australia, with workers committed to Australia.
Our success as a nation will depend upon our companies …
It was true then and it is true now.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in question time on 13 March 2012, said:
People who care about small business would care about delivering a tax cut to small business. People who care about small business would be interested in delivering an instant asset write-off benefit for small business.
So why does the member for Fenner, why does the member for McMahon and why does the member for Maribyrnong want to oppose that now? Why would they want to oppose giving it to more small businesses than just those with under $2 million turnover? Why wouldn't they want to give it to businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million? Why wouldn't they want to lower the company corporate tax rate to 27½ per cent for businesses up with a turnover of up to $10 million? Why wouldn't they want to get on board with the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan, so that eventually businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million could take advantage of a company tax rate of 25 per cent?
Greg Combet, in question time on 14 February 2012, said:
That is why we are introducing important reforms that will boost productivity, lift workforce skills and improve the competitiveness of the economy. How are we doing it? Labor wants to help companies invest, and one of the important ways of doing that is to cut the company tax rate …
That is what Greg Combet said. Wayne Swan is still in the building. He is still the member for Lilley. Back in March 2012 he was the Treasurer. He said:
That is why we are putting in place the big economic reforms to ensure prosperity for the future. That is why we on this side of the House want to cut company tax by one per cent …
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I have far more material. I have reams more material. I have gathered that material from real businesses and from real people running those real businesses in Queensland and in the ACT. It does not matter what state or what territory you go to, whether it is in Gippsland, whether it is in Melbourne—in your home town, Mr Speaker—or wherever it is, companies want the tax rate lowered. Companies want access to that instant asset write-off. Companies want this side of parliament to continue to back them, but they also want that side of parliament to back them. They cannot understand why that side of parliament just wants to be a roadblock in their pathway to success, in their pathway to prosperity, in their pathway to making sure that there are more Australians employed. That is what we want to do. We want to back a tax cut for small businesses. We know that small businesses always reinvest any money that they get, or almost always, into their business and into creating job opportunities for more Australians, sooner.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (12:29): I rise to speak on the amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016.
The government's $50 billion handout to multinational corporations and the big banks says more about them and more about their budget than all of the spin, all of the glossy documents, all the political patch-ups, all the pre-rehearsed lines and all the market-tested slogans like 'fairness and opportunity and security' that we heard from the Treasurer this morning in that embarrassing doorstop interview out the front of this building.
As some of us were listening to him, we started to think, 'Where did he all of a sudden get this conversion? Where did he get this idea that, all of a sudden, fairness and security and opportunity were important things for people to aspire to in this country?' I remembered this article from April in The Daily Telegraph by Sharri Markson. It said:
The Daily Telegraph has learned the Liberal Party commissioned research firm Crosby Textor to help Mr Morrison formulate his second Budget, at a cost of more than $200,000.
An opposition member: Two hundred thousand!
Dr CHALMERS: Two hundred thousand dollars. When I thought about that, I thought, 'No wonder the budget's in so much trouble.' This is a Treasurer who spends $66,666.67 per word on a three-word slogan. It cost him $200,000 at Crosby Textor to learn, all of a sudden, to his great surprise, that people care about fairness and security and opportunity. This is a guy who learns about fairness from a focus group. On this side of the House, we do not need a focus group to know about fairness; we are here because we believe in fairness—it is the reason why we are here. You do not need a focus group to learn about fairness; you need a heart, and that is what is missing on that side of the House.
The government are on about these things today because the focus group told them to be on about them today, after they dropped $200,000 on that cynical political patch-up. That is why they are pretending now to care about Medicare and pretending to care about our schools. They are trying to distract from these big increases to the cost of living and all the rest of it. They have the nerve to talk about fairness when they want to take money from students in this country to fund a $50 billion tax cut. They talk about security when job security in this country has never been worse when it comes to underemployment and wage security—things like penalty rates. They talk about opportunity at the same time as they want to close off access, for kids from areas like mine and so many that we represent on this side, to university and to getting a decent start at school. For as long as this $50 billion tax cut is in their budget, for as long as it is their one-point plan, it will be the symbol of a government who shower largesse on the top end of town at the expense of people who work and people who struggle in this country.
We will get an update of the numbers tonight. All will be revealed in the next few hours. But we know enough about it and we know enough about them to know that it will be another shambles. It will be another shambles from an arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister and a divided and dysfunctional government. Theirs is a record that they want to run from, but they cannot hide. They have been asking for some years now—and this will continue tonight—the most vulnerable people in this country to carry the can for their budget failures, and that is why, no matter what they try and fix up and patch up tonight, we will still have the attacks on health and education and family living standards in this country.
The Treasurer has tried as well, in his typically and characteristically ham-fisted way, to redefine debt to hide from the fact that debt and deficit—this might be news to the Minister for Small Business—have blown out substantially under those opposite. You think of the deficit for this year alone. It was about $11 billion in their first budget; it is now about $37 billion—it has more than tripled on their watch. When you think about net debt, there has been a blowout in net debt for this year of about $100 billion. You think about gross debt. Gross debt is about to crash through half a trillion dollars in this country. And they wonder why the AAA credit rating is at such serious risk.
This tax cut is not about growth; it is about trickle-down economics at its worst, paid for by families and paid for by students. That is why everybody on this side of the House will oppose this tax cut, this corporate largesse, on behalf of people who work and people who struggle, who do not get a look-in from this government and will not get a look-in tonight.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:34): The member for Rankin was in the member for Lilley's office when the member for Lilley was the Treasurer. The member for Lilley stood at this very spot—he did not do a great job—and said during a budget night speech:
The four years of surpluses I announce tonight—
I mean, what an absolute joke! The member for Rankin probably had a hand in writing that speech—absolutely ridiculous. There is not as big a deficit, Member for Rankin, as the member for Lilley produced with you in his office writing his speeches and providing advice. I mean, really! Come on! Be a little bit fair dinkum.
I would like to quote now from the member for Fenner, because he has made some interesting remarks. I read his contributions very carefully, as do the readers of the Fairfax papers. He said in a speech delivered at the corporate tax and transfer pricing summit, reported on 18 November 2015:
… Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Please be quiet, Member for Fenner, so you can listen to what you wrote, because you might need to take this in:
… Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have outlined Labor's long-term objective to lower Australia's small business tax rate to 25 per cent.
There you go—25 per cent. That is what we are trying to do, Member for Fenner. He continued:
We know this can't be done tomorrow with the deficit as it is … we've called on the Government to work with us on achieving that objective in the years ahead because we understand the corporate tax rate is part of the calculus that affects investment.
Then he was on Sky News, on AM Agenda on 21 March 2016.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, he went on Sky, Member for Rankin. Kieran Gilbert was interviewing him—a good bloke, Kieran Gilbert. He quizzed the shadow Assistant Treasurer and said:
… if you look at the current situation in terms of the corporate sector, you've got 28.5 per cent for small business and 30 per cent for big business. It makes sense to get them on the same level doesn't it?
The member for Fenner answered:
Long term that would certainly make sense.
Well, this is long term, Member for Fenner. This is a 10-year enterprise tax plan. But in the short term we need to get the company tax rate down to 27½ per cent. We need to make sure that more small businesses are eligible, and that is why we are lifting the threshold of turnover from $2 million per year to $10 million per year. Labor does not always understand that just turning over, say, $5½ million does not mean you are taking that home. In many cases, some of the small business people opening their doors very early of a morning, closing them very late at night, going home, doing all the domestic things that small business owners and operators do and then getting stuck into the paperwork—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: They laugh over there, but they do not understand that small businesses might have high turnover but low profit margins. Indeed, some of these owner-operators are taking home less than the people they employ. How is that fair?
What we want to do on this side is give them a bit more money so that they can reinvest in their business if they so choose. Many of those small businesses do choose to reinvest in their business, and by doing so they employ more Australians, and that is a good thing. They employ more Australians. I would have thought that Labor—once spelt with a u and once a party that supported—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I think it might have been, so you might just check your facts on that. Anyway, we will ask the member for Fenner to do an op-ed on that, perhaps—but eyether/eether. Labor, with a u or without—it matters not—talked about workers. It was supposed to be the party for workers. By opposing this very good legislation, this very good bill before the House today, Labor is showing that it does not stick up for workers. Labor is showing that it does not want small businesses to get some relief, ease some of the burden and be able to put on more Australians—to hire that young apprentice, put on that older Australian and give somebody a go, perhaps in their first start or perhaps to give somebody who has been long-term unemployed a crack at a job, because the best way out of welfare is by having a job. I would have thought that for this country's small businesses—the millions of small businesses across this country who employ 5½ million Australians—those opposite would have wanted to ease the burden, ease that pressure and enable those small businesses to employ even more Australians. We need those small businesses to be humming along nicely. We need them to be able to create more jobs for more Australians.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:39): I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to these amendments. We are opposed because they represent a dodgy deal with the Senate crossbench, from a dodgy government. What they will do is see Australian workers, pensioners, students and families worse off, yet at the same time they are offering a tax cut to some of the biggest corporations in this country. So the government are going to say to Australian workers: 'We'll make life harder for you. We'll make it harder for you to make ends meet.' The government are giving students the one-finger salute by saying, 'We're going to make you pay more for your university fees to get an education in this country.' For students in our schools, they are cutting $22 billion from the schools education budget over the course of the forward estimates. And they are making families far worse off by cutting family payments. Yet, at the same time, they want to offer a tax cut to Australian businesses.
They have brought these amendments here with a threshold of $10 million, but as we will see this evening in the government's budget their clear intention is to raise that threshold over time so that that tax cut applies to all Australian businesses. Let's look at some of those businesses that will benefit from this government's tax cut. The mining and resources companies are clearly doing it tough at the moment! Some of those that are subject to the petroleum resource rent tax, in particular, are clearly doing it tough! They are clearly paying too much tax at the moment!
Then, of course, there are the big four banks. Australia's big four banks have made an art form out of ripping off their Australian customers over the course of the last decade. Well, they clearly need a tax cut, don't they! The banks have been in the media again this week because some of them have announced their half-yearly profits. This week we have seen that Westpac has announced a half-yearly profit of $4 billion, which is close to a six per cent increase in their revenue over the course of the last six months. A profit of $4 billion is clearly not enough money! And this government thinks that they deserve a tax cut. Then of course there are our great friends the CBA, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, who went through the CommInsure scandal and who have gone through their wealth management scandal that resulted in nearly every single customer's file having to be reviewed not only by them but by ASIC as well. They made a half-yearly profit of $4.9 billion—again, close to a six per cent increase in their revenue. Clearly, the government believes that this is not enough; this simply is not enough. So it says: 'We'll give them a tax cut. We'll give those organisations that have been ripping off Australian workers, pensioners and families a tax cut. We'll make it life easier for them, but we'll make life much harder for Australian workers, families and pensioners.'
A policy like this would make some sense if it produced an economic benefit for the country. But those on the opposite side, like the Trump government in America, believe in this notion of trickle-down economics: if you cut taxes for corporations, everything will be all right and all of that benefit will flow down through investment and will trickle down to the average Australian worker. Well, it is complete rubbish. It does not work and it has never worked, but that is the twisted belief and the twisted priority of this government when it comes to budget priorities and budget planning. All that we will see is Australian workers worse off, real incomes cut, Australian pensioners worse off and Australian students worse off.
Treasury's own modelling on this tax cut produces little or no economic benefit over the course of the next decade and beyond. In fact, the benefit to the economy, in terms of GDP over the next 20 years, is less than one per cent and there will be no great effect on employment either. But at the same time they are going to cut $22 billion from the schools education budget over the course of the next decade. So here we have a $50 billion tax cut taking $50 billion out of the budget through a big tax cut for some of the biggest businesses in the country, which clearly do not need it, but at the same time they will take $22 billion out of the schools budget and make it harder for schools to make ends meet and for our kids to get a decent education. Those are the twisted priorities of this government, and that is why these amendments must be voted down.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:44): I encourage, urge and implore the member for Kingsford Smith to listen very carefully to the Treasurer in relation to education in his budget speech tonight, I really do, and I urge all Labor members opposite to listen to the entirety of the speech, because it is going to talk about fairness. It is going to talk about making sure that our small businesses get the fairness they deserve. They deserve a lowering of the company tax rate. The member for Kingsford Smith used the typical Labor lines of demonising banks and demonising mining companies. They employ Australians too. They do. They employ them in regional areas. The member for Kingsford Smith should get out of Mascot sometimes and come over the Great Dividing Range. There is a whole wide world out there of small businesses, from garages in Gippsland to bakeries up in Capricornia. It does not matter where you go in this great country of ours, there are small businesses relying on the government to largely get out of the way, to give them a tax break; give them that instant asset write-off; make sure that we back them; make sure that we are talking positively about them; make sure that we are lowering the compliance burden; make sure that we are easing their red tape burden; but largely, Member for Kingsford Smith, get out of their way and let them do what they do best.
The member for Kingsford Smith talked about trickle-down economics. The member for Griffith went, 'Hear, hear!' The member for Griffith went, 'Yeah, that's right, trickle-down economics.' I do not hear anybody talking about trickle-down economics when I go out there and talk to small businesses. The ladies in the bakery are not talking about trickle-down economics and the blokes in the garages are not, but I will tell you what they are talking about. They are talking about jobs. They are talking about their own jobs. They are talking about their kids' jobs. And they are talking about their grandkids' jobs. That is what they want. Whether they are small businesses or not, they want to hear their government, their parliament, talking about them. They do not want to hear about trickle-down economics. They do not even talk to me about that. What they want to hear about is lowering the company tax rate, easing red tape, making sure that they can buy capital equipment and making sure that there is going to be job security. That is what they talk about. They do not talk about all this highfalutin economics stuff that the member for Fenner writes in his op-eds. They do not talk about that. What they do talk about is jobs.
That is why this policy, this bill, is so important, and I just do not why you do not get that. I just do not know, Member for Kingsford Smith, why you do not understand that, because it is about jobs. It is about making sure there is job security for the future, making sure that our small businesses, whether they are in your great electorate—and it is a great electorate; I know it is a great electorate. I know there are some fine constituents in your electorate. I know they do not all vote for my side of politics—I do know that. But even those who do not vote for our side of politics understand how important small business is. They understand that when you ease the tax rate for small businesses they employ more people, when you ease conditions for small businesses—as in red tape, as in bureaucracy, as in green tape, as in compliance, as in all the paperwork—they get on with the job of employing more Australians, whether it is in Kingsford Smith, whether it is in the Riverina and the Central West or whether it is in Capricornia, Gippsland, Rankin or McMahon; it does not matter. But they understand that it is all about jobs, not necessarily about trickle-down economics but about jobs.
That is the crux of this plan today. It is about good jobs, secure jobs, more jobs—good, secure and more jobs—because that is what this government is absolutely committed to: providing the economic conditions for our small businesses to get on with the task of repairing the economy.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Member for Whitlam, I do not know why you are standing up. You have not got the floor, and in your seat you should also be backing small business. You are pretty good at putting out media releases about regional Australians when you do not quite understand, but I tell you what—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: that is all you people ever do. It is what you did in government. It is what you are doing now in opposition. It is bureaucracy by press release. That is what you are doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I remind the minister that his remarks go through the chair.
Mr McCORMACK: Yes, Mr Chair, and certainly this small-business tax cut is so crucial. It is so crucial for our 3.2 million small businesses. It has a threshold up to $10 million turnover to allow a lowering of the company tax rate to 27.5 per cent. That is a company tax rate that will enable them to employ more Australians, to give that young Australian a go, to give that older Australian a crack at perhaps their first job in decades.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (12:50): Mr Deputy Speaker, when the government have to put out the Minister for Small Business to defend a policy, you know they are in trouble. His greatest claim to fame when he retires and hangs up his boots will be stuffing up the ABS census. You know they are in trouble. This debate is about the eighties. The eighties are back, and you only have to look at this debate to understand it. When people say that the eighties are back, you can imagine the member for Riverina with a Flock of Seagulls haircut; you can imagine, maybe, the member for Gippsland with a Hypercolor T-shirt and cut-off jeans shorts. That would be a good revival of the eighties. But instead we have a sad and tragic revival of the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics, because this entire policy debate is based on these discredited economic policies.
The Laffer curve, the great brainchild of Ronald Reagan's economic guru, and trickle-down economics are two policies discredited in the 1980s and revived by this hopeless government, a government whose economic credentials are in tatters, with $500 billion in debt, triple the deficit, flat wage growth and a 75-year-high inequality rate. This is its economic legacy, which will be worsened even more by this embrace of the Laffer curve, which says that, if you cut taxes, you will see a rise in revenue. That was discredited in the eighties, and this policy will be discredited again.
The shadow Treasurer has put on record again that this policy not only will cost $48 billion but, by the peak, will cost the government budget bottom line $14 billion per annum. Goldman Sachs, the Prime Minister's own favourite merchant bank, has found that 60 per cent of the benefit will go to foreigners. In fact, the US Internal Revenue Service will be the greatest beneficiary. They will get $8 billion of the $48 billion. And who is the greatest beneficiary in Australia? The banks. The big four banks will get $7 billion of this $48 billion. What is the pay-off? What is the pay-off for this?
We had this rant from the Minister for Small Business: 'It's all about jobs. It's all about jobs.' He says we are betraying Australians because we are not talking about jobs enough. Their own modelling—their own highly optimistic modelling—finds, in 20 years time, a 0.1 per cent increase in employment. That is not per annum; it is overall: a 0.1 per cent increase in jobs. That is incredible. That is a rounding error.
Mr Bowen: That is the full plan.
Mr CONROY: Exactly. That is the full plan. This is half a plan, a quarter of a plan—a 0.1 per cent increase in jobs. And how are they paying for it? There is a $3 billion cut to our universities, a tragic cut that will have a massive impact on my region, and a $22 billion cut to school education.
The Treasurer said one correct thing this morning. He got one thing right. A broken clock is right twice a day, so he is halfway to his KPI. He said that budgets are about choices. Budgets are about choices, and this is what this is. This is a choice, a choice to cut education by $25 billion to fund a corporate tax cut, a corporate tax cut based on discredited economic theories, based on the Laffer curve and trickle-down economics, based on all those flawed economic policies. And what is the pay-off? A 0.1 per cent increase in employment.
I would submit, and most credible economists would agree with me, that pumping $48 billion into education or into productive infrastructure would have a much more meaningful impact on economic growth and jobs than this cut. But this is what we are talking about: a government that has lost its way. In 2015, those opposite had just knifed the Prime Minister. They needed some sort of economic centrepiece to run to an election on, and they had 'jobs and growth'. Their one policy on jobs and growth was this hopeless corporate tax cut that will have an infinitesimally small pay-off for the economy, at best; will heighten inequality; and will blow out the budget bottom line, all to reward their corporate mates. It will go down in history as another flawed economic policy from this flawed government.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (12:54): In an earlier offering the member for Fenner questioned the amount of tax being paid by our big multinationals, but he knows as well as anyone that the profits diversion tax legislation—I hope Labor supports it—is, hopefully, going through. He knows also that there is a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance. The Turnbull government's tough new laws provide the Australian Taxation Office with the powers and indeed the penalties that it needs to ensure the Australian people receive the tax owed to them.
Australian small businesses open their doors, pay rent, turn the power on—in South Australia sometimes they do not get that option, because of the Weatherill government there and its manic policies, which are quite unreasonable—and pay their staff. Small businesses pay rates and all the rest. Why is it fair that they are open for business and multinationals operating in Australia are not? That is why the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services put out a joint media release on 6 April—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: Member for Rankin, this is a good media release, unlike some of those written by those opposite. In the release the two aforementioned ministers said that the ATO has made significant progress and confirmed that it has raised $2.9 billion in tax liabilities against a group of seven multinational companies. That was money that was escaping the net when Labor was in power. That was money that was escaping the net when the now member for Rankin was providing advice for the then member for Lilley, the then Treasurer.
Indeed, the ATO is auditing 59 multinational corporations and hundreds of other companies to ensure that compliance with our taxation laws, including the government's new multinational anti-avoidance law, is followed through. The Treasurer said:
Our multinational tax laws are having an impact and we now have one of the toughest, if not the toughest, anti-avoidance tax regimes in the world. Multinational companies are being put on notice.
He continued:
The Australian people expect all corporations to pay the right amount of tax …
He is right, of course. Minister O'Dwyer said that it was important that everyday Australians pay their tax. They cannot avoid it, so it is absolutely right that any large corporation that is not paying the right amount of tax should be vigorously pursued by the ATO through the court system.
A special 1,000-strong task force within the Australian Taxation Office has been investigating the tax arrangements of a large number of companies, including multinational corporations operating in Australia. The ATO crackdown includes 71 audits in the large business area and covers 59 multinational corporations—this is underway—as well as hundreds of other companies being reviewed for compliance. According to the tax office, at least seven major national audits are expected to come to a head before the end of this financial year: four in e-commerce and three in the energy and resource industries sector. As a result of this, the tax office has confirmed that it has so far issued $2.9 billion in tax liabilities due for multinational enterprises. That is important. It is expected that some of these will be settled by the companies involved and others are likely to be litigated.
One way or the other, the money is owed to Australia. One way or the other, it needs to be spent on schools, roads, health facilities and all those important things. Australian companies pay tax; why shouldn't the multinationals? That is why this legislation brought into this place by this government and passed through the Senate is so crucial, so integral to making sure that companies are paying their fair share. The ATO has recently met with 175 affected taxpayers or their advisers about their structures and to ensure they are compliant with the requirements under this legislation. Combating tax avoidance, especially by multinational corporations, will assist in ensuring the government can sustainably fund the services that all Australians rely upon, that all Australians demand, expect and deserve. Labor opposed and voted against the legislation, would you believe? They are all talk when it comes to multinational tax—all talk. We have heard the member for Rankin do it. The government is getting on with the job of ensuring that multinationals pay the right amount of tax. I thought I would make those few points so that the member for Fenner, who raised this earlier, was advised of the correct legislation in the House.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:00): It has been a bravura performance from the Minister for Small Business. He has mentioned our friend the member for Fenner so many times that I was wondering whether they were having a fatal attraction moment. He talked so often about him that you get this Pavlovian response: every time the member for Fenner opens his mouth, the minister has to jump to his feet.
The other bizarre thing was the reference back and forth about National Party members and voters in the member for Kingsford Smith's seat. This made me think: what do you call a National Party member in Maroubra? An anomaly. I know the member for Whitlam would refer to them as tourists, but it is an anomaly. We have gone through everything. The reality is that this plan is thrashing around for purpose. This plan is thrashing around for reason. This plan is thrashing around for any attempt, anything whatsoever, to save the Prime Minister, to be able to demonstrate that something, anything, is being done. It is not being done with any economic thought in mind and it is not being done to actually improve the economy in any meaningful way. For example, those on the other side say: 'We need to do this to help companies. We need to do this to boost their profitability. We need to do this so that they can operate more efficiently.'
Mr Laundy interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Let me explain it to you this way, Member for Reid: look at where dividends have gone from 2014 to 2017. Dividends have gone from $40 billion to $70 billion—that is, $30 billion in three years. We need to put in a tax plan to be able to help those companies that are paying out to investors an extra $30 billion. The money is there. Are they spending it on better wage outcomes? No. What have we got? We have got record low wages growth. What else have we got? Record high underemployment. These companies are not handing it out in terms of employees. In fact, it will be interesting to see, in their own budget, what impact wages growth has on the budget. We will be interested to see that. Are these businesses that have billions extra in dividends investing? No. What is capex doing under your watch? What is the level of business investment in this country under your watch? Tanking. Absolutely floored. It is not that the money is being used for workers and it is not that the money is being used to improve the economy; it is going straight to investors. So what do these guys do? For those opposite, their great plan is to take a big chunk of money that would go into investing in, for example, the skills of future Australians—by putting it into education, TAFE, schools and universities—but, no, they are not going to invest in that. What they are going to do is take a big slice of federal funds and hand it to a bunch of investors who have already got $30 billion extra in dividend growth and then they are going to fund an even greater amount of money by taking if off schoolkids and giving it to investors. This tells you exactly what the values of those opposite are. They do not see an investment in education as a proper thing to do. No, that is bad debt. We do not invest in schoolchildren. What we will do is hand over all this money. As you have heard, as the member for Shortland rightly pointed out, where does the bulk of the money go? Eight billion dollars of it goes offshore. It is not invested here. It goes offshore. It goes away elsewhere.
This is what I am saying when I indicate to people that this is not a plan mired in improving the economic viability or the strength of the nation. No. This is not a plan for a longer term view about what we should be doing as a country. No. This is just an idea. This is thrashing around for something, anything, to save those opposite and to be seen to be doing something. But here is the thing: longer term, we lose out. We do not have that money for education, we do not have that money for infrastructure and we do not have that money to actually strengthen the economy. It will just go straight out the door. It will be forgotten like yesterday's headline. As a result, if we were to get this plan through, what would happen? They would go on to the next big thing and stuff that up anyway. The very thing that is being promoted as some way or some means of saving the Prime Minister will be forgotten in a heartbeat tomorrow. What we need is a longer term view about what is good for the country. We do not need the short termism that is being promoted by those opposite.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (13:04): I thank all the members who have spoken in this debate; it has been a robust one. And it should be a robust one, because small business is important. Small business is absolutely vital to the economy. Whether it is in an area that is remote, regional, rural, suburban or metropolitan—right in the inner heart of our large capital cities—small businesses are vital. They are working each and every day to get on board with helping us to reduce the national debt; they are helping us to employ more Australians and they are making sure that they do the right thing by the economy. And we are doing the right thing by them, by levelling the playing field through section 46: goods and services tax on online purchases; making sure that companies which are trading into Australia and have a turnover of $75,000 are paying GST; unincorporated tax discount—that has been a good move too; the appointment on 11 March last year of Kate Carnell to the position of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. There are those two words in there: 'family enterprise'. There are so many of our small businesses which are mum-and-dad operators—family businesses.
Then there are the unfair contract terms for small businesses; we are getting on board with that. There is the National Innovation and Science Agenda; there are so many things that we are doing for small business. I would urge and encourage anyone out there listening to this debate to search for 'small business'; it will take you straight to business.gov.au, which has so many tips for small businesses on how to create even further opportunities for themselves. Perhaps it is through our trade agreements that we have been able to broker with South Korea, with China and with Japan. Perhaps it is compliance and how we are simplifying the business activity statement from 1 July. Perhaps it is through the instant asset write-off program and how they can take advantage of that up until 30 June this year.
I urge and encourage everybody in this parliament to get on board with making sure that small businesses have the ability to back their own dreams. That is what it is all about. Australia's economy is strong thanks to small business. It is Australia's job to create a small business sector; it is not government. As I said before, 3.2 million small businesses employ 5.5 million Australians. The small business sector makes a huge contribution to our economy. We want small businesses to grow. We want to back them. They take the risks. We want to make sure that those risks are met with a lowering of the company tax rate and are met with all the good policies which are all incorporated and embedded in the Treasury laws amendment.
Small businesses make up 99 per cent of Australian businesses, contributing more than $380 billion to our economy. The federal government backs them. We get behind them through lower taxes, simpler paper work, help to purchase new capital equipment and access to new markets through those fantastic trade agreements that we have been able to manage. We want to keep small business in the driver's seat. Lower taxes enable small businesses to grow, to employ more Australians and to get more customers. This is the start of the Australian government's plan for small business, and those opposite should heed the words of some of their luminaries who in the past said such things as:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.
Julia Gillard said that as Prime Minister in March 2012.
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
That was said by the member for Maribyrnong. The member for Grayndler said:
… there is also the reform of company tax. We on this side of the chamber believe it should be reduced by two per cent.
He said that in June 2010.
So there we have it: Julia Gillard, the member for Maribyrnong, and the member for Grayndler, all getting behind cutting company tax rates. Then why do not those two aforementioned members who are still in this parliament get behind it now? With that, I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [13:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (13:21): The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
The House divided. [13:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Attempted Censure
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:24): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That:
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) is cutting $22 billion from schools to pay for his $50 billion big business handout, including to the big banks;
(b) is cutting an average of $2.4 million from each school, a cut which is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers;
(c) is attacking public education, with only one in seven government schools reaching a fair level of funding by 2027;
(d) ambushed the Catholic school system with cuts that will increase fees for parents by thousands of dollars each year or force schools to close; and
(e) refuses to acknowledge the unfairness of his schools plan despite criticism from state governments, educators, schools, teachers, parents and even his own MPs; and
(2) censures the Prime Minister for taking money off schoolkids and giving it to bankers and foreign shareholders.
Leave not granted.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) is cutting $22 billion from schools to pay for his $50 billion big business handout, including to the big banks;
(b) is cutting an average of $2.4 million from each school, a cut which is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers;
(c) is attacking public education, with only one in seven government schools reaching a fair level of funding by 2027;
(d) ambushed the Catholic school system with cuts that will increase fees for parents by thousands of dollars each year or force schools to close; and
(e) refuses to acknowledge the unfairness of his schools plan despite criticism from state governments, educators, schools, teachers, parents and even his own MPs; and
(2) censures the Prime Minister for taking money off schoolkids and giving it to bankers and foreign shareholders.
Isn't it incredible that tonight, on budget night, we are going to have a Treasurer who stands up here and defends a decision to give a $50 billion tax giveaway to the biggest businesses in this country, including the four biggest banks, at the very same time that he will be cutting funding to Australian schools? What we have is a government who are trying to get away with this fiction that they are somehow increasing schools funding. Hang on a minute—what are they doing? They are doing something not quite as bad as Tony Abbott did in 2014, and for that—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. I have made it very clear to members that they need to refer to other members by their correct titles. I have even sat down the Deputy Prime Minister on the subject. The member for Sydney will refer to members by their correct titles.
Ms PLIBERSEK: You are quite right, Mr Speaker, and I am very sorry. The member for Warringah, when he used to be Prime Minister, cut $30 billion of school funding. Because this government is only cutting $22 billion, we are supposed to tug our forelocks, take our porridge bowls away and say, 'Thank you, I've actually got enough; I don't need any more.'
This is a cut, any way you look at it. The evidence that this is a cut is in the government's own briefing document, which they gave to every single journalist last week when they were trying to sell this dog of a policy, where it says the difference between Labor's policy and this policy is $22.3 billion. That is a $22.3 billion cut, any way you look at it. Those opposite try to say that this is somehow fairer. How can this be fairer when the vast majority of government schools will never reach their fair funding level? Under our proposal, the majority of schools will get there in 2019; Victoria in 2022. Under this new proposal, one in seven schools will be there at the end of the decade and the rest of them will never get there. Not in the foreseeable future do they get to that schooling resource standard—that fair level of funding described by the Gonski needs-based funding report.
And then there are the Catholic schools. If it is so fair, how have the government managed to unite government school advocates against the cut with Catholic school advocates against the cut? We went to a meeting last night. Hundreds of parents, hundreds of teachers—
The SPEAKER: The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Illicit Drugs
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (13:30): Shortly after my election, I heard from an anxious mother seeking advice on how to deal with her ice addicted 17-year-old son. She was afraid of her son's violent episodes and told me that she felt helpless and completely without support. This is the human face of the ice epidemic, which affects the families of more than 200,000 ice users Australia wide.
Prior to my election, I committed to working with the community to tackle the health, law and order, and other issues stemming from drug and alcohol abuse. So last month it was a privilege to join with the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, and Peninsula Health CEO Sue Williams to announce funding for our Local Drug Action Team on the Mornington Peninsula, the first of 220 task forces nationally to be funded by the coalition government. The local drug action task force will receive an initial $40,000 to engage with 95 peninsula sporting groups to prevent drug use as part of the government's $298 million National Ice Action Strategy. I am proud to say that I am working hard to deliver on my promise and to support my community. The establishment of the local drug action task force is the latest in a series of actions to improve the health and wellbeing of residents in Dunkley. I acknowledge and thank Peninsula Health, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Alliance, RAD-FMP and education, sporting and other community leaders for their continued local engagement and support. I look forward to delivering this initiative.
Budget
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:31): Tonight is budget night, and as the member for Canberra I have come up with a wish list for the Treasurer. Wish 1: ditch the decentralisation plan. It is a thought bubble that has morphed into yet another attack on Canberra and underscores the government's complete disdain and contempt for our national capital. Sixty-two per cent of government agencies are already outside Canberra, so which part of the remaining 38 per cent do you want to get rid of, decentralise or take out to the regions? This is the seat of democracy. What is the government's plan for decentralisation of the remaining 38 per cent?
Wish 2: ditch the cuts to schools. Over a decade, $22 billion is being cut, which is $2.4 million for each and every school in Australia and here in Canberra. Wish 3: ditch the health cuts. Canberra has one of the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country, if not the lowest. Canberrans should not have to pay yet more to visit their GP or optometrist.
Wish 4: ditch further cuts to the national institutions. We are not cutting into fat anymore and we are not cutting into bone; we are cutting into vital organs. Wish 5: ditch further cuts to the Public Service. A favourite pastime of this government is cutting the Public Service and sacking public servants. Thirteen thousand jobs have already gone. How many more are to go tonight? Finally, wish 6: back off Canberra— (Time expired)
Forbes, Mr John
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:33): I wish to inform the House of an amazing night that the Rochester community had last Friday. It was the same week that Murray Goulburn announced it was going to close its dairy processing plant in the town in the next three to six months, but this particular night was a time for the Rochester community to come out and celebrate the decision of local legend John Forbes to donate his entire collection of sporting memorabilia to a community museum.
Video messages were played, from the great Shane Warne, Merv Hughes and a range of other sporting identities. There was a message from Tony Lockett. There were panellists, including Brownlow medallists, who were there to pay homage to a sporting legend who for many years has worked for the Puma sporting goods company. It was a celebration of his life, even though he is still with us. It sounded a little like a wake, with all the testimonies throughout the night, giving so much adulation to the character of John Forbes, who has always been there for many sports stars when they have been going through tough times. Australian netballers of the past—Sharelle McMahon, a local from Lockington, and Liz Tavenor from Shepparton—were also there to pay homage to the bloke who was best known as 'Forbsey'. His collection, which has been collected over many years, will be given to the Rochester community to show forever.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:34): Just this morning, I was stunned to receive an email from David, who lives in the suburb of Wheelers Hill in my electorate. I have been helping him for some weeks to get the phone and NBN connected. His email was about the latest stuff-up by the NBN. In the more than 100 cases that I have helped with in the last few months, this one is peak stupid.
David is a type 1 diabetic. He requires the phone so that he can make emergency calls, yet it is now 161 days and counting since he first tried to get the NBN. This morning, out of the blue, at 8 am, a contractor turned up at his home. You would think that was good news—but no. This is the fifth time the NBN has appeared at this property and again they have sent the wrong guy. They sent the guy with the cherry picker to do the cable, despite the work order saying that a trenching crew was needed.
The senior people at the NBN simply cannot fix this and, to me, this reveals a lot. I would like to make four points. Firstly, there is no accountability in this system. The telcos blame the NBN, the NBN blames the telcos, but no-one is responsible. Secondly, people like David get stuck in a loop. When there is a stuff-up—and stuff-ups happen—there is no capacity to reschedule the job. You get put to the back of the queue. Another two months go by and then they stuff it up again. Enough is enough! Thirdly, it is time we had a daily compensation penalty to incentivise performance if the service is not provided on time. We used to have that under the customer service guarantee when we had ADSL, and we should have it with the NBN. Finally, it is time the Auditor-General used his powers to investigate the relationship between the NBN and the telcos and get to the bottom of this mess, because the government will not act. (Time expired)
DANII Foundation
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:36): For the last four years, the DANII Foundation has been knocking on politicians' doors to raise awareness of a technology that prevents type 1 diabetics dying in their sleep as a result of deadly low blood sugar, hypoglycaemia. In my electorate, Cairns mum Vicki McDonald has been a very strong advocate for making this lifesaving technology known as CGM, or continuous glucose monitor, more available. Vicki's daughter Rhianna, now 11, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of nine. Rhianna was lucky enough to trial a CGM and found it life-changing, because the CGM provides peace of mind, with early warnings of high or low blood sugar.
I am very pleased that the coalition government has now provided $54 million for the rollout of CGM technology to type 1 diabetics aged under 21 years. This move has been welcomed by families across Australia, and the DANII Foundation is now running an education and awareness national roadshow on behalf of the government. The roadshow arrives in Cairns tomorrow, 10 May, and will bring together health professionals, CGM manufacturers and also type 1 diabetics who are already using the technology. I strongly urge anyone interested in this to head along to the roadshow at Rydges Esplanade from 6.15 to 8.15 pm, tomorrow, 10 May. People must register and can register at www.danii.org.au. (Time expired)
MV Rushcutter
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:38): On Sunday morning, we commemorated the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea with a ceremony at the USS Peary Memorial on Darwin's Esplanade. Known as the 'battle for Australia', the conflict saw US and Australian forces combine to ward off the Japanese attack. It cemented a very close bond with our American allies. I am extremely proud that this friendship continues today, with a group from the Marine Rotational Force - Darwin helping to save an Australian-made World War II patrol boat that sank in Darwin Harbour last year.
The MV Rushcutter, known as HDML 1321, was active during World War II, taking Australian Z special forces behind enemy lines. A group has come together in our community to save the vessel. These dedicated people have been campaigning long and hard to honour those who served our country. I want to thank all those who have got behind this project, which aims to enhance our military tourism venture for the Top End. I thank the NT government and the Darwin Port authority, who have given the Rushcutter a 'stay of execution'. This is appreciated. I also thank the Paspaley Group, who have offered a space at the 'duck pond', where restoration can be carried out, and Bhagwan Marine, who have put on a barbecue today for the US marines who are working to lighten the load in the vessel so that we can lift it onto a truck and get it to the Paspaley yard. I give my heartfelt thanks to the US marines who are helping to save our military heritage. Semper fidelis—forever faithful.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (13:39): I rise today to highlight one very important program that will be a part of the budget delivered here tonight. Last week, I was joined by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, and we visited the Brisbane Broncos in Red Hill in my electorate. We met with Justin Hodges and the Broncos CEO, Paul White, and we announced an expansion of the Beyond the Broncos Girls Academy for Indigenous women. It is $5 million of funding that will have a profound and lasting impact on young Indigenous women across Queensland and northern New South Wales.
The funding follows the very successful test of a smaller program that provided Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women with an opportunity to be mentored and encouraged to increase their school attendance. The test program of 300 places was very successful. Younger women experienced better outcomes in attendance, better results at school and better job outcomes, so this funding boost follows proven success. This program is a great example of how this coalition government is delivering on its commitment to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. I am also very proud to represent a sporting club like the Brisbane Broncos, which has such a strong history of giving back to the community and has never forgotten its grassroots, not just in Brisbane but right around regional and remote Queensland.
Top End IDEAS FEST
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:41): I want to draw to the House's attention a terrific initiative, the Top End IDEAS FEST, hosted last month by our friend and colleague the member for Solomon. It was the first ever community-led innovation festival in Darwin. Emerging entrepreneurs were able to come along with their ideas, be mentored by business community leaders in a wide variety of fields, develop pitching skills and build their own networks for help and assistance down the track.
The day was a great success. There was a fantastic turnout and a huge breadth of ideas, including an interactive historical attraction for Darwin, a start-up Indigenous tech company and a program to revitalise an under-utilised sports centre in Darwin. All of these things came out of the Top End IDEAS FEST. The calibre of ideas as well as the talent waiting to be unearthed in the Top End are truly incredible. It was inspiring to see the number of people that came out on the day and to see the passion of the people behind it.
I want to thank the sponsors and acknowledge the organisers, particularly Rust490, Think Smart NT, Thinklab, Cloud Mine, Google Indonesia, the mighty NT News, the Northern Territory government, Mix FM, Charles Darwin University, Telstra, Quest Palmerston, Darwin Airport and Paspalis. Paspalis have subsequently been awarded a $500,000 regional innovation grant to establish a Darwin innovation hub. Thank you to all of the participants. I look forward to joining the next Top End IDEAS FEST.
Williams, Mr John
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:42): I stand here today to recognise a truly outstanding member of my community. John Williams is a kindergarten teacher and assistant principal at Wheeler Heights Public School in Collaroy Plateau. For his inspiring and innovative contribution to teaching, John was awarded the ASG National Excellence in Teaching award. The accolade belies over 15 years of dedication and care for the welfare of young students in our community. John's greatest strength is building strong relationships. He speaks of the fundamental importance of developing and supporting quality teachers and equipping students with the skills they need to be successful learners and navigate our era of rapid change and development.
Brilliant education is the most valuable gift we can provide for our children, and the teachers who impart this gift are among the most valuable individuals in our community. The unfailing commitment and sacrifice of the educators in our schools is the backbone of Australia's future. To teach truly is to lead and it gives me great joy to sing the praises of one of the unsung heroes of our community. To all educators and to John Williams, I say thank you. I will not take your role in fostering the next generation of Australians for granted.
Herbert Electorate
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:44): I rise in this place today proud to stand with Labor. On Tuesday, 2 May 2017, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and I stood at the Ross River Dam in Herbert electorate to announce Labor's commitment to Townsville's water security and to reducing energy costs. A Shorten-led Labor government will commit $200 million in financing to construct a new hydroelectric power station at the Burdekin Falls dam, putting downward pressure on power bills and creating 150 local jobs.
Labor will also commit $100 million to ensure much-needed water security and local jobs for Townsville by incorporating the findings of the water task force in consultation with the city council and the Queensland government. This may include a gravity-fed pipeline that will reduce evaporation and secure water for Townsville residents and businesses.
Recently, the Townsville Water Taskforce, chaired by local businessman Brad Webb, held three community consultations in Townsville. I attended each of these consultations, and the message from residents was very clear. They are sick and tired of feasibility studies and bandaid solutions. They simply want real action. Water and power are critical issues for the Herbert electorate, and once again Labor is leading the way by committing funding to these infrastructure projects and creating local jobs. Labor led the way with our stadium, and now we are doing it again with water and power solutions. If the Turnbull government continues to turn a blind eye in the north, these issues will only become more desperate. I strongly urge the Turnbull government to match Labor's commitment and to understand that, if it is good enough for the south, it is good enough for the north. (Time expired)
Brighton Districts and Old Scholars Football Club
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:45): I would like to congratulate the Brighton Bombers football club on their White Ribbon Day event held on Saturday, 29 April. It was an honour to address the players, their families and spectators on the day. The Bombers raised money for the White Ribbon campaign, and we all pledged our respect for women. As we are sadly aware, too many Australian women are victims of domestic violence. This is why the Turnbull government has committed over $200 million in federal funding through many programs to address violence against women. To see one of my local footy clubs raising funds and awareness is a credit to all at the club, from the male and female players to the coaches, leadership team and volunteers.
The Brighton Bombers were supported by my state parliamentary colleague the member for Mitchell, Corey Wingard MP, and the Mayor of Holdfast Bay, Stephen Patterson, who is also the Liberal candidate for Morphett. We were very lucky to have the South Australia Police band perform and to be joined by Assistant Commissioner for Police Philip Newitt. Also in attendance was the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Mr Michael O'Connell APM.
From our footy clubs and community groups through to our senior leaders, we are all addressing the issue of domestic violence and respect for women. I again congratulate the Brighton Bombers; their president, Kym Steer; and all at the club on this important event.
McLachlan, Mr Dave
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:47): This evening there is going to be a lot of talk about creating jobs, but today I am asking for the support of this parliament to save a bloke's job. The guy's name is Dave McLachlan. He is a coalminer, 48 years of age, who supports his family and who has worked for 32 years in the industry. By my calculation, that means he went down the pit at the age of 16. He has an unblemished record on the job. He is the sort of bloke that politicians love to get their photo taken alongside during an election campaign in their safety kit and their hard hats. Well, now Dave needs your support.
A few weeks ago, Dave's workplace organised a protest because their employer, South32, had been very, very tardy in providing protective equipment and the correct laundry facilities as provided for in their enterprise agreement. They organised a humorous protest. They got together with their mates in their underwear to prove the fact that the employer was not meeting its obligations. Well, he got sacked from the job. He got sacked for organising that protest.
I have asked the company to give the guy his job back, and I want all members of this parliament to join with me in that call to give the guy's job back. It was a humorous protest, the sort of thing that Aussies love. We laugh about a bloke who is taking the micky out of a serious issue. We say that South32 is out of step with community attitudes, and I want the support of every member of parliament to drive this message home.
Murray Darling Medical School
Mr GEE (Calare) (13:48): I rise to provide an update to this House on the push for the Murray Darling Medical School. The Murray Darling Medical School aims to train doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. It is needed because the current system of training, dominated by the big city universities, is failing country Australia, where it can take weeks in some places just to see a GP. People living in regional Australia deserve the same access to health care as people living in the cities, including access to doctors. Presently, less than 10 per cent of medical students trained by the big city universities go on to practise medicine in the country. The current system is not working, because the model is flawed.
A recently released report prepared by PPB Advisory showed that the Murray Darling Medical School graduates would be four times more likely to practise medicine in the regions. The same report has found that the Murray Darling Medical School would be three to five times more cost efficient in terms of Commonwealth-supported-places expenditure than metropolitan universities in training doctors who will work in the bush. The PPB report also showed that the Murray Darling Medical School would help solve doctor shortages in the country by providing around 90 new doctors for the Murray-Darling region each year—and not only this, but the Murray Darling Medical School would improve health outcomes for country Australia and bring around $2 billion in additional benefits to the Murray-Darling region.
The closed shop needs to be opened. The time for the Murray Darling Medical School has come, and our country communities deserve nothing less.
Battle of the Coral Sea
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:50): A moving ceremony to mark the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea and unveil commemorative street signs was held on the weekend at South Maroubra in our community. The event was staged at Coral Sea Park, named in honour of those who fought and lost their lives in the fateful Pacific air and naval battle against the Japanese, and it featured wonderful speeches from veterans, local political leaders and the United States consul general, as well as a barbecue for locals and the unveiling of the street signs.
Our local community has a very strong connection to the great wars. The Randwick naval depot resupplied and rearmed Allied ships. Both Rosebery and Randwick racecourses hosted numerous Army encampments, and Anzac parade, of course, is named in honour of those Anzacs who marched from those racecourses down to the docks at Circular Quay. Following the wars, many servicemen and servicewomen returned to settle in our community in suburbs created specifically to welcome them home and to ease their transition back into normal life. Over a dozen streets in the suburb of Maroubra are named after warships related to the Battle of the Coral Sea—in particular the Lexington, Yorktown and Chicago. Our community is proud of our connection to this fateful battle and I pay my respects to those who fought those many years ago. Lest we forget.
Western Australia: Roads
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:51): I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister that the federal budget contains $2.3 billion in road and rail funding for Western Australia—in particular, $145.8 million that will be spent locally on vital roadworks at three key sections of Wanneroo Road. Wanneroo Road will be widened to a dual carriageway between Joondalup Drive and Flynn Drive, at an estimated cost of $31 million. The busy intersections with Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road will be grade separated, with the traffic signals replaced with new bridges and flyovers to take traffic over Wanneroo Road, at an estimated cost of $50 million and $64.8 million respectively. These roadworks will benefit residents in the neighbouring electorates of Moore, Cowan and Pearce by opening up the Neerabup Industrial Area, resulting in a boost in economic development. Joondalup CBD will become an attractive centre for banking, professional services, retail and hospitality for businesses in Neerabup. Similarly, the bridges across Wanneroo Road will allow traffic to flow more freely, improving east-west connectivity for residents commuting to Wangara, Malaga, Ellenbrook and beyond, with inward-bound motorists accessing our local commercial and district centres for professional services, retail and hospitality. During the construction phase, it is estimated that 805 construction jobs— (Time expired)
Oxley Electorate: Broadband
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:53): I rise in the House today to bring to the attention of the House the poor and failing record of this government when it comes to the NBN in the southwest of Brisbane. Time and time again we have heard horror stories from local residents across Australia who are suffering at the hands of this Prime Minister and this government. Local residents in Springfield and Springfield Lakes have had a gutful. I hear it every single day when I am out in the community. The front page of this week's Springfield News says it all. People are being stranded and left behind as a result of this Prime Minister's failure to deliver the modern 21st century infrastructure that our community deserves. Time and time again people in business and the education sector have raised with me that they are fed up with this government when it comes to their NBN rollout. The Hodgson family of Springfield Lakes is just one example that this local paper has focused on. It says:
WHEN the Hodgson's home was linked to the National Broadband Network they were "beyond excited" to get connected, but less than a month later they want their old service back.
Since switching to the NBN, their internet is averaging a download speed of four megabytes per second, and is without any connection for about an hour a day.
For five days last month they had no internet or phone line at all and were forced to increase their mobile phone data plans just to get by.
It is not good enough, and this Prime Minister needs to fix this mess. (Time expired)
Veterans
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (13:54): On Sunday, the government announced $133 million to fund gold cards for surviving participants in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force and the British nuclear testing program. This is big news for some of Australia's most patient, long-suffering ex-servicemen. Canning is home to several members of the 'Wills intake'. This group of 88 national servicemen from Western Australia served on the HMAS Fremantle and the HMAS Juneein theMontebello Islands in 1956. These men worked on islands very near nuclear test sites. They wore only shirts and shorts alongside British scientists who wore full hazmat kits. Many were on deck to witness a nuclear blast only miles away. They still remember the rush of light, heat, wind and radioactive particles only seconds after the blast. Almost half their number have since either suffered from or died from cancer.
When I first met with members of the Wills intake some months ago, it was obvious that these men deserved a gold card. This was a case of natural justice and one that had been delayed for much too long. This government has acted; it has done the right thing. I thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, for working closely with many members of this House to right this wrong. The $133 million allocated to their care represents all Australians' ongoing duty of care to those who serve our country. We can all be proud of this decision.
Broadband
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:56): Bendigo is home to some very innovative manufacturers—manufacturers like Industrial Conveying (Australia), who have designed systems that big businesses like Arnott's, Schweppes, Qantas and even Australia Post use. But, like so many of our manufacturers in Bendigo, they are struggling because of the terrible connectivity of this government's inferior NBN. Industrial Conveying employ up to 90 people, pay $6 million a year in wages and have an annual turnover of $20 million, yet this government's plan under the current NBN is that they be allocated satellite services. This is a manufacturer in Bendigo. They are 650 metres from fibre to the node and a kilometre away from fibre to the curb, yet this government is saying: rely on satellite. We are not talking about farmers; we are not talking about people in remote Australia. We are talking about a manufacturer in Bendigo, and this government is saying: you can have satellite.
They are not the only manufacturer in this position. Deepcore Drilling has also been told it can rely on NBN satellite. This government is a disgrace when it comes to its rollout of the NBN. The manufacturers in my electorate blame one person and one person only for this woeful plan for the NBN: the Prime Minister.
Manufacturing
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:57): Tonight our budget will be all about growing the economy, investing in jobs and in our future. I am delighted that, as announced yesterday, our government is investing $100 million for an advanced manufacturing fund to create more jobs and grow businesses, including in Geelong and my electorate of Corangamite. There will be $47.5 million for an advanced manufacturing growth fund, more money for the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, $20 million for large-scale advanced manufacturing research and $10 million for an innovation hub. This is a great announcement for manufacturing. It is open only to Victoria and South Australia, so I expect Corangamite to be in the box seat to attract some of this funding. We have so many wonderful manufacturers in our region, from Viva Energy to Carbon Revolution, Chemring and Boundary Bend. This comes on top of the GRIIF, the growth fund; the Geelong region job connections program; and our local $20 million jobs and investment fund.
While I continue to celebrate our region as a manufacturing centre of excellence, all we have heard from the member for Corio is more negativity. Let's not forget that Ford announced its closure under your watch, Member for Corio. He talked about a $10 million fund but he got his numbers wrong. It is actually $100 million; it is in today's Geelong Advertiser. It just goes to show that Labor, when it comes to numbers— (Time expired)
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (13:59): Tonight I will be studying the budget hard to determine how much the Deputy Prime Minister is going to spend on the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale in his own electorate. Will it be $24.9 million of taxpayers' money? Will it be $50 million of taxpayers' money? Indeed, will it be $60 million of taxpayers' money the Prime Minister is going to allow the leader of the National Party to spend on this boondoggle in his own electorate? It is a boondoggle which is going to destroy the capacity of this authority to do the important work it does on behalf of farmers in this country, and not just farmers but consumers of food which has been treated with crop protection.
This is the worst pork barrel I have seen in the history of this parliament, and the Prime Minister will sit back idly and allow his Deputy Prime Minister to get away with this boondoggle at great expense to the workforce of the APVMA, at great expense to the farmers of this country and at great expense to exporters in this country, whose challenges will be made much harder by the lack of capacity of this authority to properly do this work. The Prime Minister should show some leadership. He should stand up to the Deputy Prime Minister and say, 'This is a total waste of taxpayers' money.' Relocating the authority to Armidale— (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will be absent from question time until 22 June. She will be represented in question time today by the Minister for Social Services and by the Treasurer for the remainder of her leave.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister choosing in tonight's budget to cut $22 billion from schools to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and big business?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): The government have announced that we are committed to nationally consistent, fair, needs-based funding for all Australian schools. That is what we are doing. You know, Mr Speaker, we have the endorsement of David Gonski. Who gives a Gonski? We are delivering Gonski's model. We are delivering needs-based funding and fair funding right across the board to ensure that all Australian students get a fair chance to get ahead.
Of course, with one of his characteristic backflips, the Leader of the Opposition now wants to denounce it. Yet we have identified in excess of 75 occasions—he was certainly sticking to the script on this occasion—when he has said fundamentally that needs-based funding will give children across Australia the best start in life. He has said that again and again and again. Instead, he did not give a Gonski. He delivered 27 conflicting deals which gave Australian children totally different levels of Commonwealth government support depending on what system they were in, what state they were in and whether they were in independent or systemic schools. It was a complete shemozzle and impossible to understand.
What have we done? We are delivering a uniform, fair, consistent system as recommended by David Gonski six years ago. We are committing an additional $18 billion over 10 years. Most importantly of all, David Gonski will chair a second review, Gonski 2.0, with a view to achieving educational excellence in Australia. We know that whilst the money is important it is critically vital that we ensure that we raise the educational standards we are achieving in our schools. We know there has been more funding going into schools and results have been declining relative to those in comparable countries. That is something we are committed to reverse.
Our quality schools agenda delivers fair, national, consistent, needs-based funding. We will deliver the improvement in standards overseen by David Gonski himself to make sure that all of those dollars count. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who betrayed the principles of the Gonski review, who betrayed the school children of Australia, we are standing up for them to ensure that they are treated fairly and that they get the results they deserve and they need to succeed in the 21st century.
Battle of the Coral Sea
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:05): My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recent commemorations of the Battle of the Coral Sea and the importance of a US-Australia alliance?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. Seventy-five years ago the Japanese advance seemed utterly unstoppable. Pearl Harbor had been attacked. The pride of the US Pacific Fleet had been sunk or damaged. Singapore had fallen. Most of our Army was either in the Middle East or captives of the Japanese. The Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, was taken. The north coast of New Guinea was taken. Japan's next inexorable advance was to seize Port Moresby, and from there cut Australia off from the United States and take us out of the war. They were dark times. Menzies described that time as the 'hinge of fate' and so it was.
Brave Australian and American sailors and aviators went into battle on the Coral Sea 75 years ago and they turned back that invasion force. They saved Australia in those dark days of 1942, and we have commemorated their heroism and their service in the last few weeks. In Townsville, where I was a week ago, and in New York, just a few days ago with President Trump, we acknowledged the service of those brave Australian and American sailors, who were there in their nineties. They turned the tide of war when they were teenagers. One of them, Norm Tame on HMAS Australia said the Japanese torpedo bombers flew so close he 'could have hit it with a spud.' They were so brave, at the very edge of the abyss of being cut off from the United States and taken out of the war. It set up the victory at Midway.
Those Australian and American sailors and aviators succeeded in sinking one Japanese carrier and disabling two others, at heavy losses on the allied side. The USS Lexington was sunk, an oiler was sunk and the destroyer Sims was sunk. Over 600 Australian and Americans were killed in that battle, but they turned the tide of war. It reminded everyone there on the Intrepid, as it reminds everyone today, of the absolute solidarity between the United States and Australia in freedom's cause. From nearly 100 years ago in the mud of Hamel, when Australians and Americans first went into battle together—led by John Monash—to the waters of the Coral Sea, to the sands of the Middle East—where I was on Anzac Day, thanking our troops for their service—we stand side by side with the Americans, our allies in freedom's cause, as we always have.
On the Intrepid in new York last week Australians and Americans, leaders of our nations, veterans and service men and women recognised and honoured the service of those who saved our nation 75 years ago, just as we honoured the service of those in uniform who defend our freedoms today.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): I acknowledge the Prime Minister's remarks. I would like to associate the opposition with the anniversary of the Coral Sea battle 75 years ago. 1942 is a year of significant anniversaries for us, now, 75 years on. Singapore had fallen. Australian troops were captured in Rabaul and on the islands there. Australian troops were hurriedly being sent to defend Port Moresby. Darwin had been bombed. It was a very grim time. Indeed, our troops in Timor had been stranded, and we should acknowledge and remember the sacrifice of the Timorese people who supported our troops there.
The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first occasion where the Japanese navy was defeated at sea. There is no doubt that the Japanese imperial forces planned to envelop Papua New Guinea, with the possibility then of invading the Australian homeland. It was the first time in our history up to that point—and, indeed, ever since—that Australia itself was threatened.
I had the opportunity to commemorate Anzac Day at Bomana, which holds 3,000 Australian graves. It is one of the largest Commonwealth war graves of Australian soldiers. At that fight on the Kokoda Trail, in the Coral Sea and in the skies over Port Moresby, Australia stood up and defended not only against the Japanese imperial forces but, for the first time, our homeland.
The Prime Minister is right to acknowledge the importance of the American alliance. It was the Americans who supplied the Kittyhawks which the famous 75 Squadron fought with over the skies of Port Moresby. But, for me, when I meet people who question the American alliance, there is one fact which speaks now, 75 years on, and helps explain why the American-Australian alliance is so important. One hundred and eighty-eight Japanese planes bombed Darwin in the first raid in 1942. More bombs were dropped on Darwin than were dropped on Pearl Harbor. Ten planes went up into the air to fight this armada of Japanese bombers. Nine crashed. In the case of four of them, the pilots were killed. But, for me, what sums up the importance of the American alliance and the ongoing relevance is that every plane was an American plane. American pilots went up against overwhelming odds in defence of this country, and from that day on, I believe, an alliance which was strong was made irrevocable.
Budget
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, despite all the cuts since this government was elected and despite all the years this government has wasted on wrong priorities, gross debt will still blow out to a record half a trillion dollars on this government's watch?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:12): The honourable member went to the last election promising $16 billion greater deficits. That was his policy. He went to the election promising higher deficits and more debt. The Labor Party has opposed again and again our efforts to bring the budget back into balance. Again and again they left us with a massive deficit. They left us with a structural deficit and now they stand in the way of budget repair, reckless to the consequence of their waste in office.
One of my colleagues observed that the honourable member should win a prize for chutzpah with that question. He really should. Never have I seen somebody so responsible for so much debt stand up and suggest that we are doing anything other than inching it down. We have brought this budget back into a form where it is under control, and honourable members will see at 7.30 tonight, when the Treasurer presents the budget, further progress as we deliver the fairness, the security and the opportunity and as we demonstrate that we will live within our means and not fling, as Labor did, a mountain of debt onto the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.
Economy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are delivering opportunity, security and fairness so that all Australians, including those in my electorate of Hughes, benefit from economic growth?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. Every policy of my government—every measure—is driving stronger economic growth, without which we cannot achieve the rise in incomes, the new opportunities, the environment where businesses can prosper and where Australian families can get ahead and realise their dreams. We know that, although we have benefited in Australia from a record run of economic growth—26 years—not all Australians have benefited equally from that. Many households, many families are doing it tough under the weight of cost-of-living pressures from rising energy costs to child care. That is why we are taking those important steps to ease those cost-of-living pressures.
Our energy policies are delivering affordable and reliable power. We are securing Australia's domestic gas supply. It was under the Labor Party that those measures were taken to export gas from the east coast, which has had the consequence, coupled with ideological policies, especially in the state of Victoria, of a shortage of gas on the east coast. Tens of thousands of Australians would lose their jobs, so we intervened. Under the Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, Australians can be confident that there will be adequate domestic gas supplies—essential for keeping prices down.
On electricity, we have instructed the ACCC to scrutinise retail electricity prices to ensure that Australians are getting a fair deal. By also making markets and trading in the gas market transparent that will deliver fairer and more accessible gas supplies for Australian industry. We are making renewables reliable by investing in pumped hydro at the Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will increase the size of the Snowy Mountains scheme by 50 per cent—the biggest addition to pumped hydro storage in our nation's history. It will make, as I said, renewables reliable.
You would think that the opposition would welcome all of these measures, but what they have done is persist with energy policies that are all ideology—no engineering and no economics. They have pursued the policies that caused the blackouts in South Australia. They have created an enormous renewable resource there, capable of supplying all of the state's electricity at one moment and then none at the next. It is connected by nothing more than an extension cord to the Latrobe Valley.
Labor has failed on energy. They have failed on energy like they have failed on child care. They have failed to protect Australian families from rising cost-of-living pressures. We are protecting them. We are delivering them the growth that they deserve and their children deserve— (Time expired)
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to a report from the ABC where the principal of St Clair public high school in Western Sydney says the government has 'wiped out' the funding increases his school would have receive under Labor’s education funding plan. The principal says the funding for his school will be cut by $300,000 in the next year alone, and he will have to cut literacy and numeracy programs. He said:
… every school in NSW that would have received that money will now receive less under what the Government has promised this morning.
What does the Prime Minister say to the principal of— (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has failed to promise to put back the money that was never there—this $22 billion—never, ever funded and no way of paying for it. It was a promise that mocked Australian schools. It mocked Australian schools and it mocked that principal. What we are delivering is $18.6 billion of additional funding over the next decade. The schools that the honourable member referred to are receiving increasing funding. Not only that but it is needs-based, it is fair, it is consistent and—something that will come as a big shock to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and her leader—it is transparent. It is transparent! Parents can see exactly what their schools will receive in additional Commonwealth funding. They can see it. No secret deals. No 27 deals—the details of which are never revealed. A simple principle: national, fair, consistent and needs-based funding, as David Gonski recommended in 2011.
We will fund 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for government schools and 80 per cent for nongovernment schools. Again, all set out and available now so parents can see. That is the big difference. Labor talks about needs-based funding, but does 27 special deals. We are delivering a national, consistent, fair, needs-based and transparent system. The schools the honourable member refers to in Western Sydney: they are beneficiaries of that, as their principals, their teachers, their parents and their students can see when they consult the application on the education website. Transparent, fair, needs-based, consistent: exactly as David Gonski recommended, which is why he has endorsed our plan. He has endorsed it because he knows it is fair, it is needs-based, it is consistent and it is national. It does not discriminate between systems. It is exactly what he recommended, and honourable members opposite should stop fooling people about their imaginary funding promise and support a fair model recommended by David Gonski.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:20): I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the former member for Hasluck Mr Stuart Henry. Welcome back again on behalf of all members.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Infrastructure
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:20): Minister for the Environment and Energy, you are aware of Hells Gate dam: irrigation, baseload power, Townsville water supply earning $3,000 million a year; the Galilee coal rail line, earning $6,000 million a year; the phosphate fertiliser project: Burketown's first Australian YIPIPI transportation waterway with prawn farms, earning $7,000 million; and Cape York silicon: the solar key, earning $5,000 million. That is $21 billion a year; $6 billion in tax revenue. If you initiated north Australia's Snowy Mountains authority to build these four projects, as initiator would you then become a Ben Chifley, a great nation builder, as was a previous member for Kooyong, Robert Menzies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:21): I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I think they need Sir John Monash in the role in order to use his engineering expertise to build those dams. The coalition has allocated more than $2 billion to new water projects. Indeed, we have a feasibility study underway for Hells Gate. We have allocated more than $100 million for the new Rookwood Weir, but if those opposite could speak to their friends in the Palaszczuk Labor government, it would be good to get some cooperation there.
There is the Nullinga dam and the Urannah dam, and obviously with the Galilee coal mine. These are projects that we are awaiting a decision on, like the Galilee rail line. We are awaiting a decision by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Those opposite do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha on that. One union has one view; another union has a different view. Our position is we will await the decision of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but we are in favour of more jobs in the region, whether it is in water, in energy or, indeed, in coal.
Agriculture Industry
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on action taken by the government to ensure the Australian agriculture sector continues to strengthen the economy and regional communities? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to this sector and the thousands of hardworking regional Australians that it employs?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. He will be more interested than most during the budget discussions tonight, because I know of the interest he has in such great projects as the inland rail. Inland rail has been discussed by so many governments before, but this is the government that is actually going to deliver on it. This is the government that will deliver on bringing an economic corridor of commerce from Melbourne up to Brisbane on standard gauge, revitalising places such as Albury and Dubbo, making sure that Narrabri and Moree, Goondiwindi and Toowoomba are all part of a new horizon of economic growth that is closely associated with vital infrastructure and with agriculture.
The bulk movement of products of wheat, of coal, of cotton, of beef: these are the projects that we know will assist our nation to pay its bills, to get ahead, to give people an economic opportunity in the western districts to go out and have the chance to buy an affordable house and have the economic prospect of actually having a good job.
When we came to government, we were given an awesome task. They talked about doubling our economic production—it was $48.6 billion then—and we are well on the way. We are 31 per cent there. The member for Parkes realises this and understands very well the record prices we are getting for cattle, the record prices we are getting for meat sheep. I sold sheep the other day myself, and we got record prices there. The record prices for goats—and here's one!
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister will return to the microphone and withdraw. Then he will resume his seat straight away.
Mr JOYCE: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Now having dealt with that, we have a very poor record on these points or order.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right! The member for Hunter—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: again, rewinding the tape. You have not got the call yet. The member for Hunter on a point of order. If it is a frivolous point of order, he knows the consequences.
Mr Fitzgibbon: It is a very serious point of order on relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister was not asked for a list of commodity prices. He was asked, 'What action is the government taking'—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat. The member for Hunter well knows that there are a number of elements to the question, and the Deputy Prime Minister is in order.
Mr JOYCE: Amazing. We have just been discussing inland rail and exactly what it is going to do to assist regional production. I am absolutely proud that I am part of a government that is actually delivering this. It is going to be seminal to the advancement of these regional areas. But what is also amazing about the inland rail is that it gives us the chance for further production of steel—maybe steel in places such as Arrium at Whyalla. I was at Whyalla last week and at Whyalla they are very excited about the 800 kilometres of steel they are going to lay down for the Adani mine.
We actually believe in working men and women having a job, and they will be supported by this. It looks like we have some interesting friends. It looks like the CFMEU are onside with us and the AWU are onside with us. But there is one group that are not onside with the steelworkers. There is one group that is not onside with the coalminers and that is the Australia Labor Party, because the Australia Labor Party have given up on representing labourers. They are too cool for labourers. They think that labourers are a bit passe. They have moved on from labourers. So we will start looking after labourers, we will start looking after the people in the steelworks and we will start looking after the coalminers, because we know Labor are not going to look after them. We will start looking after them by making sure that we rollout the inland rail and the steel requirements and making sure that we support these jobs and that we give these people these opportunities. So it is a great future we have in agriculture. We have the runs on the board. We had 23.7 per cent growth in the 12 months to December 2016. We are actually making people wealthier. We have record prices in cattle— (Time expired)
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister is his last answer refer to funding as 'consistent' when his own briefing document reads, in relation to the funding standard, that it is 'misleading to say a consistent share'?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:28): I cannot follow the honourable member's question, but I can add to my previous answer. The—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Well nobody else understood what she was talking about. I am not Robinson Crusoe. The honourable member mentioned St Clair High School in New South Wales. Consulting the education department's app and website, I see the estimated Australian government funding for that school this year is $2.4 million. It will increase by $121,000 next year. To 2027, it will increase to a total funding of $31 million, increased by nearly $7½ million over that period.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right and the Leader of the House. The member for Sydney on a point of order.
Ms Plibersek: On relevance: I was asking about the Prime Minister's own comments in his last answer and his own briefing document distributed to journalists about his own education funding package.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. Members will cease interjecting. As all members know, the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble at the start of his answer. He has used that in reference to the previous question. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: The government's funding model is as recommended by David Gonski; it is the Gonski model. The model is that government schools are funded based on the Schooling Resource Standard and non-government schools are funded on the Schooling Resource Standard adjusted by the community's capacity to pay, as estimated through the SES data, which has been used, as honourable members know, for the best part of 20 years for that purpose. The model sets out, as the government has described and laid out, that 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard will be met for government schools, with the addition, obviously, of loadings for various categories: disabled children, children from very low socioeconomic groups, children from non-English-speaking backgrounds and so forth. There are five categories; I think the honourable members are aware of that. That Schooling Resource Standard is the benchmark as recommended by Gonski and the Commonwealth will fund 20 per cent for the government system—with the balance, obviously, being covered by the states and territories—and 80 per cent for the non-government system. Reaching that level will be achieved at the end of the 10-year period. That is the commitment. It is thoroughly consistent across non-government schools and across government schools.
Global Security
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:31): I have an intelligible question for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Canning will come straight to his question.
Mr HASTIE: Will the minister update the House on how the government is ensuring the safety of Australians both at home and abroad?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:31): I thank the member for Canning for his question and I acknowledge his deep and abiding interest in national security and the safety of all Australians either at home or abroad. The threat of terrorism continues to challenge us. We were reminded of the mindless hatred of violent extremism again last week when we saw the images of the son of Australian Khaled Sharrouf posing before the crucified body of yet another victim of ISIS. The terror threat continues to evolve and our focus on countering it remains our priority.
In Iraq, Australian service men and women are supporting the Iraqi security forces in their efforts to liberate Mosul, the ISIS headquarters in Iraq, and that work is progressing and progressing well. We are also determined, along with the 68-member coalition to counter ISIS, to take back Mosul—the self-described caliphate—from ISIS so that it can no longer be an inspiration to violent extremists and terrorists around the world. Recently, the Prime Minister was in Iraq and he confirmed that Australia would provide an additional $110 million to the Iraqi government for humanitarian and stabilisation efforts. It is essential that Iraq is able to retain control of its borders and we are working with Iraq to ensure that.
At home, we are preventing Australian citizens from travelling to Syria and Iraq to become experienced foreign terrorist fighters, and to date 205 Australian passports of those who were seeking to travel to Iraq and Syria have been cancelled. In addition, 200 Australian citizens are currently under investigation for providing support or assistance to ISIS in Syria and Iraq. I can confirm that from 1 July there will be a Global Watch Office within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This will ensure that we have strength and capacity to monitor and respond to overseas events as they emerge. There will be real-time information provided to Australians on a 24/7 basis—twenty four hours a day, seven days a week—to ensure that those Australian citizens who are affected by a crisis receive information and support as the crisis occurs. In that way, we are doing what we can to keep Australians safe when as they are involved, tragically, in events that occur overseas. This government is increasing resources to our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and can be trusted to do all it can to keep Australians safe.
Education
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to acknowledge that his school plan represents a $22 billion cut over 10 years, when that is exactly what his government's own briefing document states?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:35): The honourable member knows full well that the government of which she was part—the Labor government—had no means, no capacity—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: and no plan to fund the so-called $22 billion. It mocked Australian students. It absolutely distorted and, in Ken Boston's words, corrupted the David Gonski recommendations, because it was not consistent, it was not needs based—it was not fair. It was not one, single, funding model across Australia. It was not consistent in any way at all. It was 27 separate deals, incomprehensible to those who knew the terms of them and of course completely obscure to everybody else, to whom they were not disclosed.
The reality is the Labor Party betrayed the principles of the review David Gonski chaired. They betrayed Australian students, they betrayed equity and they betrayed their pledge—their alleged commitment—to needs based funding. The honourable member knows full well that their schools policy was all about politics and nothing about students. She stood up a moment ago and raised a school, St Clair High School, which over the decade will receive $7½ million of additional funding under our plan. That is a commitment.
What we have demonstrated is that you can have an affordable, consistent, national, needs based school-funding model which recognises the different responsibility of the federal government to the non-government sector, where we are the majority funder, as opposed to the government sector, where we are the minority funder. It recognises those. It is fair, it is transparent, it is needs based, it is consistent and it is national. Honourable members opposite should support it.
Defence Procurement
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on the government's national defence industry project that guarantees the future security of the nation and supports our economic prosperity? How does this compare with other approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:37): I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. I can tell the member for Brisbane that just last month I cut steel on the first of the 54 vessels that this government has committed to building in Australia.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Well may the Labor Party laugh, because in the six years that they were in government they commissioned not one vessel, creating the very valley of death that we are seeking to ameliorate by making the decisions that we are getting on with. Just last month I cut steel—I pressed the button, Mr Speaker—at HD Plasma and Laser Cutting services on the first of 54 vessels—the Pacific patrol vessels, 21 vessels creating over 500 jobs and costing $300 million. That is just the beginning, because from the Pacific patrol vessels we go to the offshore patrol vessels, 12 vessels being built in Osborne and Henderson, costing $5 billion, and then to the future frigates, a $35 billion project creating nine vessels to be built at Osborne, and then to the 12 submarines, a $50 billion project creating thousands of jobs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Labor think it is hilarious. In the six years they were in government they managed to reduce spending on defence to 1.56 per cent of GDP. The last year in which a government in Australia managed to achieve that was 1938, when the government of the time was part of the appeasement movement around the world. That is what Labor managed to do. Labor managed to reduce our spending to 1.56 per cent.
Mr Champion: You're a liar!
Mr PYNE: Sadly, for the member for Wakefield, you have to face the reality of it. I would not even bother to ask you to withdraw, because you have no credibility—none—and you never have. This government's decisions in defence industry mean that we will have 5,000 new direct jobs in naval shipbuilding alone and a further 20,000 indirect jobs, driving growth, investment, new businesses and new offices being set up across Australia. Under Labor, the contrast could not be more appalling: 119 projects delayed, 49 projects reduced and eight projects cancelled altogether. That is the record of the Labor Party in defence. Ours is proud; they should be ashamed of theirs.
Schools
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Reverend Anthony Fisher, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, has said of government education policy:
… the government's new "capacity to pay formula" will force fee rises of over $1000 for a very significant number … of the Catholic primary schools in Sydney … For some areas of Sydney fees could more than double. Modelling in other states has found the same.
Does the Prime Minister agree or disagree with the archbishop?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for his question. The funding for the Catholic sector will increase substantially. It will grow at around 3.7 per cent over the period. There will be more money going into Catholic schools and that is readily demonstrable on the website. If the proposition is that the Catholic system is receiving billions of additional dollars over the period, and if the proposition is that they are receiving that additional money and fees will have to go up at some schools, then presumably fees would go down at others.
The reality is this: what the government is doing is significantly increasing the funding to government and, indeed, to non-government schools. That is what is happening. That is what is going on across the board. I can provide the actual percentages. Over the period of the plan, we will see substantial growth in all parts of the system—in government schools and in non-government schools. What that will mean is that it will be allocated on the basis of need.
If the Catholic system wishes to reallocate money according to its own objectives, its own agenda and its own perception of need, it is perfectly able to do that, as is noted on the government's website. The allocation is being done based on a school's educational need and capacity to pay, in the manner that I have described. Then, of course, a school that is part of a system can reallocate as it wishes.
Migration
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to strengthen the integrity of our migration and citizenship programs? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:43): It is very clear that the Turnbull government is the greatest friend the Australian worker has ever had. There is no question at all. You only need to look at the dodgy 457 visa that Labor presided over. I notice this week that the Leader of the Opposition is out there pretending he is the best friend of the worker, but it was not the case when he was the employment minister in the grand, glorious days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period in this parliament. As it turned out, the Leader of the Opposition, whilst he is pretending today to be the friend of the worker, presided over a dodgy 457 visa program which saw 40,000 additional foreign workers coming into our country to go into jobs that should have been taken by Australian workers.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs has been warned.
Mr DUTTON: So we are not going to be lectured by this Leader of the Opposition.
It is obvious that it has not been a good week for the Leader of the Opposition; I think that is a statement of the obvious. It has not been a good week. His old mate, the member for Grayndler, has been out there correcting him and calling him into line—monstering him when he needed to be. And I see in The Australian that it has been well documented. There is an authoritative piece in The Australian—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: I will not have you rubbishing The Australian newspaper—
The SPEAKER: The Minister the Immigration and Border Protection will resume his seat.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have asked you to resume your seat, that's what it is! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, the minister started being relevant. At the moment he is not being in any way directly relevant to the question. I would ask you to bring him back to it.
The SPEAKER: The minister needs to tread very carefully; I have a summary of the question in front of me.
Mr DUTTON: I think we have established this, and I think it has been pointed out by his colleagues opposite, that this Leader of the Opposition could not lie straight in bed. The Australian public know one thing about this Leader of the Opposition: they know that he cannot be trusted. It does not matter what he says on what topic, this Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted.
He said to the Australian workers, to the Australian public, that he was a great friend of Australian workers. When he was a union leader he ripped off those workers. We know that as fact, and many of his colleagues opposite, who used to be his supporters—including the member for Grayndler—are now pointing out the many deficiencies of this Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection needs to come back to the question immediately!
Mr DUTTON: In the 457 program that I was asked about in relation to this question—I was asked on 457 visas—the Leader of the Opposition pretended to be somebody he was not when he was the employment minister. That has been demonstrated time and time again in this place—
A government member: We have highlighted it.
Mr DUTTON: And we will continue to highlight it, as we should, because we have been able to knock out that crazy 457 Labor-supported program.
At the same time, I was asked about the citizenship changes. We made an important point in the last fortnight. We have made the important point that we are going to stress a new set of rules for people to become Australian citizens, because we want people to adhere to Australian laws, we want them to abide by those laws and we want people to abide by the laws and values of this country. It is important.
But, importantly—and we are going to spend a lot of time on this—we have not heard any response yet from the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the changes that we have proposed. It says a lot about the character of this Leader of the Opposition— (Time expired)
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it true that, because of this Prime Minister's $22 billion of cuts to schools, only one in seven public schools will reach their Schooling Resource Standard within the next decade?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:47): The government, under the policy announced last week, will be increasing spending on all schools by over $18 billion over the next 10 years. The Catholic systemic schools, which I was asked about a moment ago, will receive a total of $28.3 billion in recurrent funding over the next four years, and a total of $81 billion over 10 years.
For the information of members, average per student funding for the Catholic sector, by 2027, will be $12,493, while the independent sector per student funding—
Ms Plibersek: Mr Speaker, on a point of order. It is a point about relevance. I asked about government schools and the Schooling Resource Standard, and the fact that only one in seven will be there after 10 years.
Mr Pyne: What are the states doing?
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. As I have said before, the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble, but I do point out to him that the question was about public schools. He is on the policy topic but I am sure he will come to that part of the question.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member's inquiry is presumably about the federal government's funding of government schools. If that is the case, then by 2027 the Commonwealth will be funding government schools to 20 per cent of the funding standard—that is the Schooling Resource Standard—reflecting our role, as the Commonwealth, as the minority public funder of government schools.
Education
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister advise the House how the government's wide-ranging education reforms will deliver choice, fairness and opportunity for students and families? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:50): I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and note her deep commitment to ensuring better school-funding for the 40 schools in her electorate. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of visiting Koonung Secondary College with her last year, where she got a rockstar welcome from those who know how strongly she defends the schools in her electorate.
Education is absolutely critical to our future prosperity and to our future harmony, and that is why it is the first defence of the nation. In our school funding reforms that we have announced, we will be supporting students on the basis of need. We will be giving them, for the first time, the real Gonski needs-based funding. We will be ending the 27 special and secret deals that the Labor Party cut. We will be ensuring $18.6 billion worth of new funding over the coming decade. This will include an announcement of an additional $2.2 billion in tonight's budget, a 75 per cent increase in school funding over the next decade.
We have also tasked David Gonski to do an inquiry into ensuring how we get better results. How do we get more excellence for the money that we spend, building on the reforms that we already have underway, to get better parental engagement, better school autonomy, better work around phonics and literacy and reading skills? That is why our reforms have been welcomed by everyone from the Primary Principals Association to the independent schools, to the Australian Council of State School Organisations and to the Grattan Institute. The work that we have done on schools complements the announcement that we made around preschool funding—an extra $428 million to ensure 15 hours of preschool funding for the year before these kids start school, benefiting more than 340,000 children. And then there are the higher education reforms. There will not be any full fee deregulation, there will not be a 20 per cent cut to universities, and we will ensure a world-class loan program.
Back in 1942, the founder of our party, Sir Robert Menzies, in 'The Forgotten People' address, said, 'Over every school should be written in gold: "Here we deal with our future."' And today our school reforms, our reforms to preschool education and our higher ed reforms will ensure greater excellence, a more sustainable future and a fairer system of education for all.
Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:53): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why is the government creating an infrastructure financing unit in the Prime Minister's own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and sidelining the independent Infrastructure Australia?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for his question. I was noting the number of schools in his electorate that are going to see substantial increases in funding over the next decade and I had hoped he was going to ask me about that.
The infrastructure financing unit addresses a different task to Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia's job is to assess business plans, rate them and provide the government with advice about the relative merits of different infrastructure projects. The infrastructure financing unit is designed to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the taxpayers' investment; to ensure that we leverage every dollar we can of taxpayers' money; and to ensure that we get the most infrastructure, the most rail, the most road, the most urban amenity, the most benefits for regional communities, and the most regional rail for the best outcomes. That requires a more creative approach to government financing than we have seen in the past, which has been limited—as the honourable member knows very well—in large part to simply making grants and being an ATM. We have got to do better than that. In these times, we need to make the taxpayer's dollar work harder and go further, and that is what the infrastructure financing unit is doing.
Australian Federal Police
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on action taken by the government to ensure that the Australian Federal Police have the necessary capabilities to tackle emerging threats such as serious and organised crime and terrorism? Are there any alternatives to this approach?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:55): Can I thank the member for that question and his interest in the national security of our country. No government has been more dedicated to the capability and resourcing of the Australian Federal Police than this one. We have invested $1½ billion to combat terrorism, $116 million for the National Anti-Gangs Squad, $128 million for the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce and $180 million for the physical protection of the Australian Federal Police, the officers who protect us. And yesterday, on top of this funding, we announced a $321.4 million increase in the AFP's domestic capability. This represents the single largest funding for the AFP's domestic capability within the past decade, and it represents our unwavering commitment to fighting crime and protecting Australia's national security.
We know that the criminal threats facing Australia are becoming more complex, and the Australian Federal Police require specialist capability and specialist personnel to effectively respond. This funding that we announced yesterday will provide an extra 100 intelligence experts, over 100 tactical response and covert surveillance specialists and almost 100 forensics specialists to advance our fight against crime and terrorism. Specifically, this will equip the AFP with specialist response capabilities, including negotiators, tactical response officers, bomb squad technicians and canine resources capable of detecting drugs, cash and explosives. It will also equip the AFP with extra covert, physical and technical capabilities, which include surveillance teams, online investigators, online operations members and police technical functions. Finally, it will give them extra forensics and intelligence capabilities, including digital forensics, crime scene investigators, firearms specialists, biometric experts, forensic intelligence analysts and operational intelligence professionals. This will allow the Australian Federal Police to fast-track criminal investigations, lock up criminals sooner and target specific crime types including terrorism and the organised criminal gangs that peddle the misery of drugs.
I have been asked by the member about alternative policies. This record investment that we announced yesterday is in stark contrast to the six years of the Labor government between 2007 and 2013. During that time, they systematically stripped funding, capability and personnel from our law enforcement community. Let me just go through the record. From the Australian Federal Police, a quarter of a billion dollars and almost 100 personnel were cut, and $22 million was cut from the Australian Crime Commission and a third slashed from their personnel. Only the coalition government protects Australia's national security. Only the coalition government funds the Australian Federal Police— (Time expired)
Australian Federal Police
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (14:58): My question is to the Minister for Justice. Last year, your government cut over $430 million from the Australian Federal Police. It is in your budget papers. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that he will restore $320 million of these cuts. So isn't it actually the case that, despite the Prime Minister's so-called funding boost, the Australian Federal Police will be over $110 million worse off?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! Members will cease interjecting.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:59): I thank the shadow Minister for Justice for giving me an opportunity to go through again the record investment in the Australian Federal Police we announced yesterday—the largest single investment in our domestic capability since the Howard government. I am very happy to go through the record of this side of the House compared to the shameful record of Labor when they were in office. They constantly returned to slashing our national security community, budget after budget.
Let me go through it; I am very happy to go through it again. There is $1½ billion to enhance our counterterrorism capability, funding agencies such as the Australian Federal Police, our intelligence community and the other agencies that make up our law enforcement community. There is $128 million for the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce. This goes after people perpetrating serious fraud against the Commonwealth and involving themselves in complex foreign bribery cases overseas. There is $116 million for the National Anti-Gangs Squad, which sends the Australian Federal Police out to sit side by side with their state and territory policing colleagues in a way that has never been done by any government in Australian history. There is $25 million to expand the AFP's National Forensics Rapid Lab. This gives them the ability to detect large drug importations coming into the country. There is $21 million to extend the trade union royal commission task force, going after corrupt union officials. There is $15 million to support the Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre. There is $180 million to give Australian Federal Police officers the personal physical protection they need in an environment where they are targets for terrorists.
Again, I am happy to contrast our record with the record of the Labor Party when they were in government. Labor's cuts to federal law enforcement left Australians vulnerable. That is why we saw things like the importation of 220 Glock pistols.
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Justice will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The question compares a $430 million cut with a $320 million announcement, which asks: doesn't that mean that the AFP is still $110 million worse off?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House! I am actually trying to hear the point of order.
Mr Burke: The minister has referred to many things in his portfolio but not that, which is in fact the question.
The SPEAKER: I will just make the point as clearly as I can. The minister is addressing the question of the funding components, which are part of it. Certainly, it was a more specific question—there is no doubt about that. I am listening to the minister carefully and he has a minute to go. I do point out to the Manager of Opposition Business that he cannot compel, in the last line of a question, the minister to answer it a certain way. I am listening and he is on the policy topic. He will need to start to bring himself to that particular part of the question or wind up his answer. I point out to all ministers that it is not compulsory to go for the whole three minutes.
Mr KEENAN: Mr Speaker, I can give you a preview: I will be using my next minute to go through the record of this side of the House versus the record of the other side of the House because their record was completely shameful.
The premise of this question is complete and utter fantasy. What has happened since we arrived in office in 2013? We have consistently provided the Australian Federal Police and all the other law enforcement agencies we have responsibility for with the funding they need to do this job. Unfortunately, the opposition has a very limited understanding of the budget process. I am happy to provide the shadow Minister for Justice with a briefing. What I will explain to her is that the budget process happens over a period of four years. This shadow minister has a record. When we announce new funding for the Australian Federal Police—say, if I were to announce $100 million for the Australian Federal Police starting next year—she will subsequently put out a media release saying we are cutting the Australian Federal Police budget by $100 million in four years time. This is the level of understanding that is had by the shadow minister over there. The Australian Federal Police has never been better off than it is at the moment.
Gambling
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, representing the Minister for Communications. Will the minister update the House on the government's changes to gambling advertising? How are these important measures going to deliver for the Australian community?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:04): I thank the member for his question. The member for Banks, of course, before coming into the parliament was a very senior executive in the media industry. This is an area that he knows backwards. And he is a parent and, like so many parents, very concerned about the question of gambling advertising on our television screens.
Over the weekend, we saw the Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts announce a comprehensive package of reforms to the media sector. It included the abolition of broadcasting licence fees for radio and television, the introduction of a price for the use of spectrum and amendments to the antisiphoning scheme and list. All of these are very important from an economic perspective, from a competition perspective and from a policy perspective. But the most important element of this package as far as Australian parents are concerned is protection of their children from being subjected to a barrage of gambling advertising while watching live sport on television. This is a very important reform.
Today live sport features gambling advertising very extensively, and the government believe that the present arrangements do not meet community expectations. That is why we are introducing an important safeguard. It applies between five in the morning and 8:30 pm, and during that time all gambling advertising and promotions will be prohibited from five minutes before the scheduled start of play of a live sporting event until five minutes after the conclusion of play. That will come into force from March 2018. It will apply to commercial television, commercial radio, subscription television, SBS and online services directed to Australia. It is a measure which will provide a clear and practical safe zone for children watching live sport on television. It will apply to all broadcasting of gambling promotions, including advertising, in-program promotion of betting markets and odds, and sponsorship announcements.
The package that the communications minister announced over the weekend is a comprehensive one which delivers significant economic policy benefits, but it also delivers very important protections for Australian children and Australian families, because parents can now be confident that, when their children are watching live sport events on TV, they will not be subjected to gambling advertising. It is very important that we do not have exposure to these advertisements which encourage vulnerable people to gamble and normalise perceptions of gambling. It is an important reform and an important social dividend from this package of reform.
Climate Change
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night on Four Cornersthe Prime Minister's former energy adviser Danny Price referred to an emissions intensity scheme, which is Labor's policy, and said:
If an Emissions Intensity Scheme had been put in place customers would have been seeing a price reduction in absolute terms.
Instead, wholesale power prices have doubled since the election of this government, and Mr Price predicts prices will rise further by around 30 to 40 per cent. When will the Prime Minister stand up to the hard Right of his party and put in place a policy that provides price relief to households and Australian business?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:08): I thank the honourable member, fresh from South Australia, that triumph of energy policy, where you have got 100 per cent of your electricity from wind farms one minute and then zero—no storage, no planning, no engineering, no economics, just ideology. The reality is that the Labor governments failed to develop our gas resources on the east coast of Australia and in particular in the state of Victoria, where you have in many respects the largest demand for gas for industry and the largest resource and yet a government that is determined not to allow access. There are 40 years of gas under the ground in Victoria, and politics stops it coming out.
The reality is this: the gas price scandal—and that is what it is—is one that has been created by Labor governments, by a reckless lack of planning and awareness and by the calculations of people like the gentleman the honourable member referred to that you will find were all based on $4-a-gigajoule gas, which, regrettably, is very much a matter of the past. We are tackling that problem. We are sorting it out. It took a long time for the Labor Party to create this gas crisis, but we are sorting it out with our export regulation, with our determination to get more exploration and with our commitment to ensure that there is more transportation and more affordable, more reliable, more plentiful supplies of gas right across Australia, but especially here on the east coast, where so many jobs depend on it.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for Port Adelaide seeking to table a document?
Mr Butler: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker, a document titled 'Wholesale power prices have doubled since the carbon tax was axed', a newspaper report of 9 March 2017—
The SPEAKER: No, the member just has to ask leave to table a document.
Mr Butler: I seek leave to table that document.
Leave not granted.
Veterans
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister inform the House how the government is enhancing services and support for veterans and their families?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (15:10): I would like to thank the member for her question, and I note her commitment to veterans and ADF members in her electorate. On Sunday, we announced landmark funding for veterans and their families. As the Prime Minister has said, we best honour the diggers of a century ago by supporting the service men and women, the veterans and their families of today. This funding will do just that. The funding will give an extra $350 million to veterans, which will add to the $12 billion we spend on veterans each year. It will see two of the biggest challenges facing veterans addressed: mental health issues and claims times.
Previously, veterans had to prove that mental health conditions were service related and wait for claims to be processed before being treated. Twelve months ago, the government provided a free and immediate treatment program for five mental health conditions for veterans and serving defence personnel. This funding will now include an extra $33.5 million to expand non-liability health care from five mental health conditions to all mental health conditions. It will mean any Australian who has served a single day in the full-time military will get access to free and immediate treatment for any mental health condition without having to prove it was service related. This is critical. No veteran or ADF member will be without the mental health care they need, and they can get that help immediately—because everyone in this House knows the importance of early intervention. It is a measure that is demand driven and not capped. If an eligible person requires treatment, it will be paid for.
This funding will also begin the government's response to the National Mental Health Commission's report into veteran suicide by providing $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve care and support. We will also expand the eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service by increasing funding by $8.5 million. The partners and children of our contemporary veterans who have had one day of full-time service will have access to the services and support provided by the VVCS.
Importantly, this funding will also deliver for veterans by investing $166.6 million in changing the Department of Veterans' Affairs processing of claims. When completed, it will mean that wait and claims times will be reduced and that veterans and their families are served by a 21st century department.
These are only some of the measures that the government will deliver for veterans and their families in this funding. It is funding that will honour those who have served by looking after our current and former serving men and women.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Schools
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:14): The honourable member for Sydney asked me about when schools would be at the Schooling Resource Standard and I advised her that, by 2027, the Commonwealth will be funding the government schools at 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard and non-government schools at 80 per cent.
I add for the benefit of honourable members that under the existing arrangements that were put in place by the Labor Party, by 2027, 6,966 schools out of over 9,000 schools in Australia would still have been below the full Schooling Resource Standard by an average of approximately $690,000. The reality is that under the Labor Party's plan, it would have taken 150 years for the Schooling Resource Standard to be met and for equitable, fair and consistent needs-based funding to be achieved. On that note, Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Budget
The SPEAKER (15:15): I ask members to remain in the chamber. We have some housekeeping matters to deal with. It is a special day and week, as you know. The Deputy Prime Minister almost made it out!
I want to go through some arrangements regarding the budget speech this evening and the budget reply on Thursday. I would like to briefly deal with those housekeeping arrangements for tonight's speech. I ask that all members note that the usual arrangements—importantly, the courtesies—will apply to the Treasurer's budget speech and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply on Thursday evening. As with all proceedings of the House, the member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. In accordance with the precedent, should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94A, the member will be advised by written note.
I ask members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in good time to undertake the secondary security clearance and to be seated in the galleries before 7.10 pm. As previously advised, guests arriving at Parliament House will be required to present photographic ID and to have their ticket to enter the galleries. As was the case last year I trust there will be cooperation from members and their invited guests in the galleries, for whom they are responsible. It should be the aim of members that both nights proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and for those watching and listening to the proceedings.
Parliament: Dispatch Boxes
The SPEAKER (15:16): I would also like to make another short statement. Today marks 90 years since the Australian Parliament met here in the national capital for the first time at provisional Parliament House, or Old Parliament House as we know it, on 9 May 1927. To mark the occasion of that historic first Canberra meeting the House of Representatives was presented with the two ornately decorated dispatch boxes which rest here on the table of the House, as a personal gift from His Majesty King George V. They were presented to the Speaker, Sir Littleton Groom, by the then Duke of York at Parliament House in Melbourne on 26 April 1927 as the parliament was finalising arrangements for the relocation to Canberra.
Now as then, the dispatch boxes contain religious texts for use by members when making their oath of allegiance following their election to the House. What is perhaps not so widely known is that the dispatch boxes on the table today are exact replicas of those that lay on the table of the United Kingdom House of Commons for many years prior to their loss when the Commons chamber was destroyed in an air raid during the Second World War, in fact on 10 May 1941. For that chamber’s reopening in 1950, the Commons received replacement dispatch boxes as a gift from New Zealand, with a design based on the boxes here at the table completing the circle of parliamentary tradition.
Twenty-two prime ministers and 27 leaders of the opposition are among those who have addressed the House from the dispatch boxes. In these 90 years, they have become an enduring symbol of our Australian system of parliamentary democracy. They serve as a reminder of our parliamentary inheritance and of our continuing strong link between this House and the House of Commons at Westminster.
DOCUMENTS
Seacare Code of Practice Approval 2017
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:18): For the information of honourable members in accordance with the Legislation Act 2003, I present a copy of advice to the Minister for Employment received from the First Parliamentary Counsel relating to gender-specific language included in the Seacare Code of Practice Approval 2017.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 46, 47 and 48 of 2016-17
The SPEAKER (15:19): I present the following Auditor-General's performance audit reports for 2016-17 entitled Audit report No. 46, Conduct of the OneSKY tender: Airservices Australia; Department of Defence, Audit report No. 47, Strengthening Australia’s tourism industry: Australian Trade and Investment Commission; Tourism Australia, and Audit report No. 48, Future Submarine—Competitive evaluation process: Department of Defence.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:19): 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.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:20): by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
Leave of Absence
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:20): I move:
That leave of absence from 9 May 2017 until 22 June 2017 be given to Ms O'Dwyer for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Schools
The SPEAKER (15:21): I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government cutting $22 billion from schools.
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—
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): We have seen over the years a series of budgets from this government that have raised a series of thought bubbles—the 15 per cent GST, state income taxes—that have popped almost as quickly as they have been released. Just a few weeks ago the centrepiece of this budget was going to be housing affordability. I am not sure if we are still talking about housing affordability. When it comes to education funding, this is a policy announcement—a week before the budget—that has been completely pulled apart. It has completely unravelled in the course of the week since it was announced. The Minister for Education and Training has claimed that his proposal will increase school funding, improve fairness and be simpler. None of these things are true.
John Dewey said:
What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children.
I have used that line before in this place and in speeches that I have made because I think it is such a beautiful illustration of exactly what it is that we are trying to do with schools funding: we are trying to provide the best possible education for all Australian children. As parents, we know the sort of effort we put into raising money in our own schools. I think I am going to a comedy night at one son's high school this Friday. We have a film night at my daughter's school in a few weeks time. The last election day, I was up till all hours the night before baking cakes for the election cake stall at my youngest son's school. I think that is the experience of parents right across Australia, whichever system they are in and whichever school their children attend. They are gathering together those small amounts—the thousand dollars from a sausage sizzle, cake stall or fete—that make all the difference to resources in their schools.
How can it be okay, then, for those opposite to cut $22 billion from our schools? They say, 'It is not a cut; it is an increase.' It is an increase from Tony Abbott's $30 billion cut from schools.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I remind the member—
Ms PLIBERSEK: 'The member for Warringah'—you are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The member for Warringah, when he was Prime Minister, presided over the deepest, meanest and most unfair cuts. The member for Warringah was prepared to rip $30 billion from school funding. The fact is that those opposite have not been able to get that through the parliament and have not been able to get states and territories or the Catholic and independent schools to agree to $30 billion of cuts. That they now say, 'We are only cutting $22 billion,' and we are supposed to be grateful for that is so insulting to Australian parents.
Who is it that says it is a $22 billion cut? The Prime Minister acted surprised when I said earlier today it was in their briefing note. Well, here is the briefing note that they handed around in the press conference last week: 'Key funding figures and qualifiers … 30 April agreed costs,' blah, blah, blah. 'Total funding growth … Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' It is, seriously, the third line in the briefing document that they handed out to journalists on the day of the announcement. So any pretence that this is an increase has been shot down in pieces.
Talking about fairness, I think it is extraordinary that those opposite like to say a funding agreement or a funding proposal that rips the guts out of public schools and shocks the Catholic system into the biggest political action we have seen in decades is somehow fair. If it is so fair, why do states and territories, public educators, principals, teachers, P&Cs and Catholic schools all hate it? Why is this proposal completely friendless if it is so fair?
Under Labor's policy, more than 80 per cent of extra funding would have gone to public schools, because they are the schools that educate the greatest number of disadvantaged children. AEU modelling shows that, under the Liberals' policy, less than 50 per cent of funding will go to public schools, compared with the 80 per cent that would have gone there under our proposal. Under our proposal, the majority of schools would have reached the fair funding level, 95 per cent of SRS, or Schooling Resource Standard, by 2019—Victorian schools by 2022. Under those opposite, the vast majority of schools will never get there. A child starting in primary school this year in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory or South Australia will never attend a school that reaches their fair funding level. In fact, only one in seven government schools will reach their full fair funding level by 2027.
It is shocking when you look at the figures for public schools, but equally appalling are the figures for poorer Catholic schools. St Thomas More's Primary School, which we visited yesterday, charge $3,000 a year in fees. They will lose $214,400 a year. That is not my figure; that is the figure they got in the letter from the government with Simon Birmingham's signature on it. That is what they will lose. The Sydney Church of England Grammar School, or Shore, with fees for primary school children of around $25,000, will actually get—get this—an $11½ million increase over the same period. That is fair?
That is what those opposite call fairer and simpler. Really? Simpler? This is 24 different arrangements. It means, for example, that students in the Northern Territory public system will actually get the lowest rate of increase of any public system across Australia. So the kids who are years behind their peers on the national tests and are in tiny, remote schools that are hard to staff are actually going to get the smallest rate of increases for government schools. It means that every state system is getting a different indexation rate, and it also means that funding beyond 2021 is actually unknown. The government are actually asking states and territories and Catholic and independent schools to sign up for an agreement where, for their funding after 2021, the government are saying: 'Uh, I don't know. We'll let you know when it happens.'
The government are saying that funding after 2021 will be indexed on a variable rate based on wage price index—75 per cent of the new figure will be based on the wage price index, with the consumer price index making up the other 25 per cent. What the education minister is saying in his modelling is that wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent that year. What was it last quarter? It was actually negative last quarter. I do not know where Treasury is coming up with these figures, but 3.3 per cent wages growth does not reflect any reality that we have seen in this country any time recently. If the assumption is that it is going to be 3.3 per cent, write that into the agreement. I dare you to. If you think wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent, write it into the agreement.
The member for Warringah has made very clear what he thinks. Perhaps we should put him on this new panel that is helping David Gonski with his review of what should happen in schools. The member for Warringah said:
I think any move by the Commonwealth to relatively disadvantage independent and Catholic schools and relatively advantage public schools—
It does not do that.
I think is just wrong in principle.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that the funding needs 'further tweaking'. I am looking forward to seeing what 'further tweaking' means. Senator Abetz said:
… genuine parental choice in education is at the heart of Liberal Party values and beliefs and I will be analysing the proposal from that perspective.
I can tell you something: you can only have genuine parent choice when you properly fund public schools as well as Catholic and independent schools. This is cutting funding from public schools and Catholic schools and, at the same time, managing to advantage some of the wealthy schools that the government say they are going to go after.
Last night, I heard the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, Zed Seselja, say:
My message to the Minister, and I have put this to him personally, is to have another look here in the ACT … I've put my case very forcefully to the Minister and he's listened.
He might have listened, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is going to act in any way. I want to remind those opposite that one of the best and most important investments we can make as legislators, as we do as parents, is an investment in our children's education—all our children's education. It does not matter which system, it does not matter which state, these $22 billion of cuts do the opposite. (Time expired)
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (15:31): It is back to school time for Labor. They cannot do the maths. Their comprehension ability is clearly limited, and that has been reinforced by the member for Sydney in her dissertation on the Quality Schools reforms that have been widely supported throughout the sector; their support is widespread. I will come back to all the support and go through it chapter and verse. Our policies, I can assure you, are far from friendless. So Labor need to go back to school. Concentrate on your maths. Concentrate on your comprehension. Concentrate on listening. Concentrate on learning. That would actually be a positive. On top of the issues that they need to concentrate on, I would have to say that what is particularly interesting about the position that Labor have taken on these reforms is that they have set themselves up as the national advocates against consistent funding for schools, against fair funding for schools and against needs-based funding for schools. By their very own actions they have carved out their own special niche in Australian politics, and that is as the anti-education party.
We on this side of the House have spent considerable time looking at and consulting on the much-needed reforms in the school sector. We have put considerable time into making sure that we are in a position to announce some much-needed and widely respected reforms to the education sector. There are two parts to what I would like to speak about today: firstly, the money, which I will cover next; and, secondly, time permitting, the issues of quality and quality education. I have said many times before to the mums and dads of Australia that their children are going to get a much greater quality education under a coalition government than they will ever get under a Labor government.
Let me just turn to the money. This government, the coalition government, is going to commit an additional $18.6 billion for Australia's schools over the next decade, starting from 2018. It is going to be distributed according to a model that is fair, that is needs based and that has transparent funding. Under what is clearly a landmark in school reforms, the Quality Schools reforms, Commonwealth funding for Australian schools is going to grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. This includes more than $2.2 billion in new funding over the first four years to be included in this year's budget, following on from an additional $1.2 billion in last year's budget. It is a record $242.3 billion that will be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 through to 2027, including $81.1 billion over the period 2018 to 2021.
We are going to do a number of things with our reforms, but, critically, we are going to end Labor's 27 special deals with states and territories, unions, and non-government school leaders. Labor traded away the principles of Gonski, and they did that for political expediency. It is very interesting that they do not seem to talk about Gonski very much anymore, but I will come back to that. The changes we are making—our Quality School reforms—are going to ensure that all schools and states transition to an equal Commonwealth share of the resource standard in a decade, unlike the 150 years of inequity that current arrangements would entail.
Let me go through a few more numbers. Let me make clear at the outset that the state governments are the major funders of state schools. The Commonwealth will meet a share of the Gonski recommended school-resourcing standard: 20 per cent for government schools, up from 17 per cent this year, and 80 per cent for non-government schools, up from 77 per cent this year. I need to address the confusion over the Catholic education sector funding, and our very strong support for parental choice. We continue to support parental choice in education, and we do that by funding both government and non-government schools. Under our funding model, in 2018 a student in a government school will receive an average $2,863, growing to $4,453 in 2027; a student in an independent school will receive $7,571, growing to $10,853 in 2027; and a student in a Catholic school will receive $9,166, growing to $12,493 in 2027. These funding figures clearly show our enduring support for the decisions that parents make when choosing the best learning environment for their children.
How much does the Catholic school system receive? Over the next four years, from 2018 to 2021, annual average per-student funding to the Catholic school sector across Australia will grow by 3.7 per cent. The growth will be 3.5 per cent for Victorian Catholic schools, 3.8 per cent for New South Wales Catholic schools, 3.7 per cent for Queensland Catholic schools, 3.8 per cent for South Australian Catholic schools, four per cent for Western Australian Catholic schools, 4.4 per cent for Tasmanian Catholic schools and 5.8 per cent for Northern Territory Catholic schools. ACT Catholic and independent schools will have neutral growth and no cuts over this period. These increases are above both inflation and the projected wage-price increase and will begin to transition each state Catholic sector to an equal footing regarding needs based funding.
I am conscious of the time, and I am well aware that a number of my colleagues will be following me in the debate on today's MPI. They will be very well versed in all the reasons why the Quality Schools reform is actually in the best interest of the students and also of the parents of those students. So what I would like to do is address one of the issues that were raised by the member for Sydney when she said that our policy was friendless. It is not friendless; it actually has a lot of friends. Quite frankly, I might run out of time before I get through even the few that I have here, so let me start—I cannot wait.
Government members interjecting—
Mrs ANDREWS: You are right, I am beside myself with excitement over this. David Gonski AC, in a media conference on 2 May 2017—I have to hurry up to make sure I get through a bit of this, let me tell you—said:
I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I am very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
Bill Scales, one of the original Gonski panellists, said on AM in an interview on 3 May:
This is about how to provide the highest quality of education for every student and we shouldn't make that a political issue.
We also have Principal Michael Honey, from Nazareth Catholic College Primary Campus, in an interview on ABC Radio Adelaide, on 3 May:
I think this is a fabulous deal for South Australia … Every school in South Australia will benefit from this, every single one …
And there are more. Shelley Hill from the Australian Parents Council in a media release on 3 May said:
The Australian Parents Council welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister and Education Minister …
"It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools …"
And there is more. But I will have to leave that to my colleagues. But let me say that I am so proud of what this government has proposed to reform the schools sector in this country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Before I call the member for Scullin, I remind members on both sides that they are out of their places and they are being disorderly. I now call the member for Scullin.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (15:41): The assistant minister has just demonstrated very effectively two things. The first is that 10 minutes can sometimes seem like a very, very long time—and we are sympathetic. But she has also shown herself worthy of promotion, because what a homage she has delivered to Minister Birmingham, the man who can talk around any subject without getting to the nub of the issue—almost as good as the impression given of our Prime Minister by Lawrence Mooney, but perhaps you can get there, Assistant Minister.
The assistant minister made a number of references to the process this government has gone through—and I will come back to them—but what we need to start on here is the nub of this issue, and that is this: in 2014 this government declared war on schools. This government declared war on Australian schools in ripping up the unity ticket that it proclaimed under the member for Sturt and the member for Warringah. They probably do not remember that. It is very clear that the Prime Minister does not remember it. I think he should look at the Hansard of question time today; he will find it very awkward reading. They have declared war on schools funding. Today they come into this place and ask for credit for ending the war that they started. That is the insult. The injury is that, instead of cutting $30 billion, they are cutting $22 billion—nearly $6.5 billion over the forward estimates, and this goes to the crux of it.
Listen to the mutterings from the table. They are using David Gonski as a human shield because they cannot confront the simple fact that what David Gonski did in 2011 was to call for urgent action to deliver needs based funding, and what do we get from this government? The absolute reverse. Let's forget about the obfuscation. Let's forget about the play with numbers. Under this government's proposal it is not only less money; it is guaranteeing that most kids in public schools—in fact 85 per cent—will not be at schools under the schooling resourcing standard in 2027. On this side of the House, education is a priority. On this side of the House, we see investing in quality school education as the key to every child fulfilling their potential—but also to Australia fulfilling our potential. That is something that is missing from those opposite. They are oblivious. The Prime Minister should also reflect not just on the sound and fury of today at question time but on his past commitment to innovation. This is stripping our future, in harness of course with the cruel cuts to higher education which have been persisted with, despite some other sophistry in the form of window-dressing by the minister.
I do think it is worth reflecting on the Prime Minister's performance in question time today: sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. It was very interesting that he started question time talking about fairness. When the pivot came to education there was a word he did not say. What was it?
Opposition members: Fairness.
Mr GILES: Because he understands, as do all Australians, that, whatever else this policy is, it is not fair. I will give the Prime Minister some credit. There was a person less convincing than him in question time today. It was the minister who took the Dorothy Dixer. He spoke of harmony and prosperity when it came to education, and he conjured up images of the forgotten people. We, on this side of the House, know the forgotten people are Australian kids. They have been abandoned by this government.
But it is not just the Prime Minister. It is not just Minister Frydenberg. I think we also need to reflect on two other parties that have a role to play in this debate. Senator Hanson-Young appears to be the only person who is buying what this government is selling. The attitude of the Greens to this massive betrayal of equity is tantamount to the weakness of the case that has been put. I was so disappointed the assistant minister did not have more time. I hope that other speakers will go through the stakeholders who are supportive. Every day we will come here and talk about education and the poverty of your government's vision.
I have not had a chance to speak on the failure to support remote and regional students—a matter which should be of interest to the Nationals—and the complete abandonment of students with a disability. One thing is very clear under this government: every Australian does not count when it comes to a schooling education. These are $22 billion worth of cuts that will constrain the future of Australian kids everywhere, and they will constrain all of our futures. The government stands condemned for this policy. (Time expired)
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:46): I might just point out to the previous speaker, the member for Scullin, who speaks of this policy having no friends, that I can tell him how much negative contact I have had into my office since this policy was announced—none. Zero. I always have a fair idea when government gets a policy wrong, because my phone runs hot, mate. It runs hot. But not on this one. I have been asked about it once at an opening of an Apex shed on Friday night, where the gentleman asking the question was not across all the details. I said: 'Don't worry, mate. We've got your back covered.' And we have. Senator Birmingham is completely on top of the job on this game.
Let me tell you, this is a sad place the Labor Party have brought themselves to. Nothing gets stuck in their craw more than watching a coalition government do the things they wish they could have done themselves. There was a time when they wanted to lower taxes to big businesses, but, no, now they have to go out and say, 'That's a terrible idea.' There was a time when they believed in an independent Fair Work Australia. They said: 'Keep your hands off it, you filthy, stinking Liberals. Don't you touch Fair Work Australia. Don't you tell them what to do. Oh no, now we need to interfere with Fair Work Australia.' There was a time when they supported mining jobs, but now they cannot bring themselves to come up and say, 'We support Adani.' They cannot bring themselves to come up and say, 'We support the steelworkers,' in my electorate in Whyalla who are going to blow the steel for the Carmichael mine in Queensland. And they could not bring themselves to support the naval shipbuilding industry. The whole time they were in government, they could not even order one ship.
Now they cannot bring themselves to support the true Gonski. They cannot bring themselves to support needs-based funding. We remember Julia Gillard going around and trying to cobble her response together—27 different funding agreements. Talk about a national response! It was a national emergency at that time for the Labor Party, and they had to do something. What we have done now, what the minister has done, has brought a true needs-based funding process to Australia. He has not backloaded it. He has not loaded up the front years or loaded up the back years. We are going to have a gentle 10-year progression, so everybody knows exactly where they are heading in the next 12 months. Incidentally, it has been pointed out that we are only guaranteeing the 3.6 per cent increase for the first four years. Well, that is correct, because that is as far as forward estimates go—you remember that story. But then we go to a model which adjusts itself to the increases of expenses of the education sector. It is all very well to say 'Wages mightn't grow that fast.' They might grow faster. It makes sense.
Mr Conroy: Not under your government.
Mr RAMSEY: There is a fair chance, mate. If you are sitting around long enough—I suspect you may not—you might found out that it does. Let me tell you that the correct way to deal with this is to have a mechanism that responds to the conditions of the day. I have had a run through and I have had a look at the schools in Grey—on My Schools—and guess what? Everyone is going to be better off. Every single one of them. No wonder my phone hasn't been running hot. Over this period the government is making a very important statement that we are up to the game for the long haul. We are going to push Commonwealth funding for state government schools, and remember these are state government schools, to 20 per cent—up from 17.6 per cent.
I will point out that in the state of South Australia, at least, 50 per cent of the income of the state government comes from the federal government anyhow, but we are pushing up our contribution to 20 per cent. For the non-government school sector we are going to 80 per cent. These are nice, simple figures. You can call it the 80-20 rule or the 20-80 rule if you like, but it is the rule which will guide government over the next decade. Schools know what they are dealing with. They know that they are going to receive funding on their needs—on the SRS model that the Labor government of the time put in place.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (15:51): Like many parents, I have two sons doing a NAPLAN test today. If they get a maths question that says, 'If a government takes $30 billion away and then gives $22 billion back, is this an increase or a decrease?' I am hoping both my sons are smart enough to work out that that is actually bad.
Mr Giles: Smarter than Michael Keenan.
Mr PERRETT: Smarter than the education minister. What does a $22 billion cut to education mean? It is equivalent to a cut of $2.4 million for every school in Australia. We have had a bit of misinformation flowing from those opposite, so I want to give a little bit of history. We have 27 systems, because we have government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. About 2.5 million kids go to government schools, about 800,000 to Catholic schools and about 550,000 to go independent schools—the Christians, the grammars and so on.
Let us have a look at how they have changed over the last five years. In government schools there has been an increase of 142,749 kids over the last five years. That is a 6.1 per cent increase. What does that mean? That means, if you had 20 kids per class, about 7,137 teachers. I know it is not as simple as that, it is primary and secondary, when we come to calculating money. The reason I say this upfront is these growths of 6.1 per cent in government schools, 4.1 per cent in Catholic schools and 7.1 per cent in independent schools over the last five years indicate that there will always be increases in funding for education. This is a smoke and mirrors operation saying, 'The Prime Minister says we are increasing funding in education.' Guess what? Those 7,137 teachers in the government schools all have to be paid and it obviously costs money to build classrooms to put the kids in, and there are all the other associated costs.
We need to look at the details and look at a bit of history. We are a federation. The Constitution provides that basically the schools, including the non-government schools, are overseen by the states and the money is distributed according to some decisions made by Canberra. If we go back to 1964, we brought in capital funding for schools for the first time, then recurrent funding for school students, and the Australian Schools Commission was set up. Then we look at what John Howard did in 2001 where he brought in the socioeconomic status system. Remember that 48 per cent of the schools covered by that model were 'funding maintained', meaning they sat outside the SES model because they were going to be worse off. The Catholics did not actually join the SES model until 2005, because they have a different mechanism, which basically means the richer parents distribute money to the poorer schools in the Catholic system.
We need to look at the 27 different systems, because educating in Queensland is different to Victoria; educating in country New South Wales is different to inner-city Sydney. We need to understand that. There are different costs associated with primary and secondary students; therefore, we need to be careful about how we distribute our education funds. Gonski, the banker, made it clear that there is a good economic return, a much better economic return on education than giving money to big business. Strip away the morality of the bleeding heart leftie, and you actually get a better economic return by investing in kids; it makes sense to do so. Gonski understood that as did his expert panel.
Where we can do this, we should be investing in schools as much as we can but we have sadly got a government that is giving with one hand and taking away with the other and is going to leave schools worse off. We know that we have to get the best possible return on that investment so that the smartest kids get a chance in life. We cannot let those that are hampered by things like being from the bush or being Indigenous or having English as a second language—all those other things that come into play—be a disadvantage.
We on this side fundamentally get needs based education funding. Those opposite are dressing up a five-year-old wether and calling it a lamb. It is not going to fly at all. We need to keep fighting to make sure that every child in every school has the opportunity to reach their educational potential. We know that when the Prime Minister talks about fairness, he is really just reading from his talking points; he does not fundamentally get needs based education funding because he never understood those schools in his lifetime.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (15:56): I think we all agree this is quite an outrageous MPI that we are wasting our time on today. I think we all know there are no cuts, none. We are moving away from overfunded, bloated schools—many on the east coast—that have had it too good for too long and giving back to those schools, in particular in Western Australia and South Australia, that those opposite have ignored for too long. We on this side are going to fix the mess.
There is a lot of negativity coming from those on the other side, despite the fact that we here are talking about significant funding in schools. We heard the deputy minister talk previously of a total of $243 billion in total school funding between 2018 and 2027. I do not know about you but that is a big number and I think that is something we should be celebrating. But I think we all know why those opposite are negative. It must infuriate the Labor Party that they failed to deliver a proper needs based education system model. But we on this side, the coalition, are managing to do it, and I dare them not to support these changes. It must infuriate the member for Sydney and her colleagues opposite that the special deals that the Labor Party were able to cut to let some of the schools off the hook and not require hard choices to be made are now going to be made by us on this side; it must stick in their craw.
The Labor Party and the member for Sydney talk about their Gonski model, their needs based funding model. They do not have one. I thought they liked Mr Gonski. Obviously they do not like him anymore. They do not give a Gonski anymore They cut special deals all over the country so they would not need to roll out a needs based funding model. My state of Western Australia was the big loser. It takes a mature, responsible government like us on this side to make the hard decisions and to allocate money to those schools that need it most. We heard previously that there were some 27 special deals cut by those opposite, and they sold out West Australian children. They underfunded the entire state and used that money to cut special deals predominantly on the east coast.
Currently regional West Australian schools receive: middle-of-the-road federal funding if they are a Catholic school—that is pretty good; they are the second-lowest funding level if they are an independent school—not great; and they are the lowest if they are a government school—that is disgraceful, and we are going to fix this mess. Under Western Australia's guidance, when Colin Barnett was running the show, the West Australian government contributed more to public education than any other state in Australia and should be commended for that but it had to step in because the federal government had not contributed what it was required to do, and this is exactly what this package is designed to correct. It is disgraceful that the Labor Party are not getting behind this package, and are instead reverting to their old scare campaign tactics to discredit this government and this fabulous reform.
This model provides a tangible boost to regional education and regional schools, and that is simply a fact. I have a nice list in front of me of some of the schools in my electorate—they are all going to better off, but I just want to give you an example of what 10-year funding will approximately be in my seat of Durack: $5 million, Bruce Rock District High School; $12.4 million, St Lawrence School in Bluff Point, Geraldton; $11.3 million, St Mary's Star of the Sea, Carnarvon; $7.1 million, Kununurra District High School; $6.2 million, Yiramalay/Wesley Studio School, Fitzroy Crossing; $2.7 million, Mount Magnet District High School. It is a very long list, and I will not bore you with them all. They are all really important schools doing great work, and I am very proud that that is the money that we are going to commit to them over the next 10 years.
But we know it is not just money that we should be focused on. We also know that we need to talk about quality education for all Australian children. That is why the second Gonski, Gonski No. 2, will investigate how we can improve our system to ensure that every Australian child gets a better education. With the time I have got left, I want to give a big shout out to the fact we have committed $15 million to expanding the Geraldton Universities Centre model, which is a fantastic model for regional students. It enables young people to stay at home. It alleviates the financial stress on families because young people can actually stay at home and get their education. I hope we can expand that into places like the Goldfields, where my friend, the member for O'Connor is, and the Kimberley and the Pilbara. I am very proud of that.
In closing, I would like to say to my friends opposite: please, vote for helping the communities in rural and remote Western Australia. My Labor colleagues on the other side from Western Australia, I plead with you to please put your support behind this. Vote for needs-based funding— (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:01): I rise with absolute relish to speak on this MPI today, because, as everybody in this building knows, education is what I was involved in for 27 years before I joined my colleagues in this place. When I rise to talk about this government's supposed new policy, its supposed new funding for education, it is with absolute assurance that I say that you cannot turn a $22 billion cut to schools and education into a positive. You just cannot do it.
Look at what those cuts mean state by state: in New South Wales, that is a $6.9 billion cut; in Victoria, it is a $5.4 billion cut; in Queensland, it is a $4.6 billion cut; in South Australia, it is a $1 billion cut; in WA, it is a $2.4 billion cut; in the ACT, it is a $390 million cut; in the NT, it is a $240 million cut; and in Tassie, it is a $470 million cut. That is what these cuts mean.
I know that those opposite are excited to come into this chamber, because they think they have got a good news story to tell about schools. I understand that for the last four years, every time we mentioned schools, they ran away and hid because they knew they did not have a good story to tell. Now they have listened to our Prime Minister—Prime Minister 2.0—try to reset this debate and reset this conversation with the Australian public. Guys, it is a fizzer. This announcement is an absolute fizzer, and no ready reckoner is going to get you out of that. The cuts are real: the schools know the cuts are real; principals know the cuts are real. They know that in 2011 the review happened. They know that there was an urgency about making sure that we implemented a needs-based model. They know that those opposite have not been able to put the words 'needs-based' into a sentence for four years. They know that those opposite made a promise and then broke that promise. Former Prime Minister Abbott made a promise, and then he walked into this place and broke that promise. And standing next to him was the member for Sturt, remember? 'It's a "Conski",' he kept saying. 'It's a "Conski".' Well this is a 'Conski'.
This is not going to deliver for our schools what was promised when Gonski did that review with the expert panel. It is not going to deliver needs-based funding to schools, and schools and families will know it, because they know who ended the funding wars. The whole of Australia knows who ended the funding wars in education. Her name was Julia Gillard, and it was her life's work to end those funding wars and set us on a plane where the federal government could make a contribution to schools across this country regardless of sector. They know that sector-blind modelling is the only way for this to happen.
Even today in question time, although those opposite managed to use the phrase 'needs based', they did not understand what it means. They do not understand 'sector-blind', because if they did the Catholics would not be up in arms about this. If it were sector blind, there would be nothing to complain about. This is a $22 billion cut from what schools were promised at an election by a Liberal Prime Minister. It is a cut that will be felt across this nation in classrooms everywhere, and it is an absolute disgrace.
When the Prime Minister last week announced that he was going to end the funding wars, I set my clock, just as I set my clock when the then opposition leader said he was on a ticket with us on funding these schools. I set my clock for how long until that little bubble burst, in the same way I did when sitting as a candidate and listening to the member for Warringah make his promise and then break his promise.
You have not just got an issue with people going to the detail in this. Of course, that will happen across the next month. When we go to the detail, and when every principal in this country goes to the detail, they are going to know what they are not getting. You can tell them as much as you like. Go to the ready reckoner and see what you are going to get. They have been here for four years. They know what the promise was. They know what they expect. Their families know what they expect. The sectors know what they expect.
With 12 seconds to go, I just want to reiterate this: when is COAG, and when are you going to talk to the states about this? There are 27 agreements because there are 27 different sectors, and you are about to find out how you have to negotiate with all of them.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (16:07): I relish the opportunity to speak again on this MPI. This is the third education-related MPI that I have spoken on, and it is just as outrageous as the previous ones. There are two very common themes from Labor on education matters of public importance. First, once again they are completely and utterly misleading the Australian public, and quite frankly we are all sick of it. Second, once again there is not one single South Australian on the other side. I would love to see one of my South Australian federal colleagues among the members opposite in this chamber for an education matter of public importance. I am going to come back to this, but there is a very good reason why we do not see them in this chamber: they are embarrassed. They are embarrassed by federal Labor's record on education. They are even more embarrassed by the state Weatherill Labor government's appalling record on education. That is why they are not here. That is why they are not speaking. That is why they will not show their faces in this place during a matter of public importance.
I will come back to this after I explain why the Turnbull government's Quality Schools package is fairer, simpler and more sustainable than the 27 separate deals that Labor struck whilst last in government. Our policy is yet another example of the Turnbull government cleaning up yet another Labor mess. Under the coalition, funding for schools will grow from $17.5 billion in 2017 to a record of $30.6 billion in 2027. Our commitment of $242 billion from 2018 to 2027 means that in just 10 years the Commonwealth will be consistently and fairly funding each and every school in the nation. The Turnbull government is a true friend of the schooling sector. We are the party that sticks by hardworking Australians with school-aged children.
I would like to congratulate my South Australian colleague the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, for the monumental effort he has undertaken to see the education system fixed. Of course, as a South Australian Minister Birmingham knows how bad the situation was in South Australia. The deal that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard struck with her equally incompetent counterpart, South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill, was the worst in the nation. Considering that Ms Gillard was born and raised in South Australia, that really does make it worse in my estimation. Not only did South Australia receive less funding over the forward estimates than it should have, but most of the Gonski money from my home state was backloaded into the unfunded years 5 and 6, outside the funding projections. The Labor Party in South Australia, both state and federal, should hang their heads in shame for what they did to our schools.
But do not take it from me; take it from Mr Michael Honey, Principal of Nazareth Catholic College in Adelaide, who said—last week, I think it was—on radio:
… we've been gutted … of funding in South Australia, the lowest funded sectors in Australia …
… … …
… we're looking at a shortfall … of some $200 million per annum at the moment. … this is the deal that was done between Jay and Julia and is still in force today.
That is why there are no Labor members opposite in this chamber—because Labor completely did a raw deal for schools in South Australia.
Well, no longer. We are fixing Labor's mess, as I said, and we are proud to be doing so. In my electorate of Boothby, for example, we are going to see increases to every Catholic, independent and government school in terms of funding. Marion Primary School, a two-minute walk from my office, by 2027 will have received an extra $1.3 million in funding. Warradale Primary School, just down the road, will have received an extra $3.1 million by 2027. Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, where my great-grandmother and my grandmother both taught, will have an extra $4.4 million in funding by 2027. And my brother and sister, who are both teachers in the state school system, and my sister-in-law and brother-in-law will also be teachers who benefit from the Turnbull government's increase in funding.
But the school that I really want to mention is Suneden Special School in my electorate. They have just celebrated their 50th anniversary. Principal Anne Martin and her wonderful teachers do the most incredible work to look after some of our children who are most in need. They are going to see their funding increased from $20,000 per student in 2017 to $54,599 by 2027. This is true needs based funding.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:12): With all due respect, the member would not know what true needs based funding is if it hit her in the head. We went through this last time the member for Boothby got up, and we had to point out how much schools in her electorate were going to be worse off. The member for Grey—through you, Deputy Speaker—and the member for Durack say that this is great news for your electorates, when you know how much in need your electorates are. The schools in your electorates deserve better than you are giving them. You said to the Australian people and to people in your electorates that you were going to do one thing, and then you did not. You just totally backflipped.
An honourable member: Not a dollar difference!
Mr GOSLING: 'Not a dollar difference' is what you said, but you did not deliver that.
I am the member for Solomon, in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, with great cities like Palmerston. When we look at the Northern Territory we can see that there is lots of need. As a father I obviously want the very best for my children, as all Australian parents do. But unfortunately what we are being served up is not the best for our kids or our schools. You know it is true.
I guess quality education for our kids across Australia under the model that we came up with in the initial Gonski plan meant that, whether you lived in Palmerston in the Northern Territory or Peppimenarti, in the NT, or Point Piper, you had the opportunity to get a great education. Under these $22 billion of cuts—and you can say it all you want—the system that we put in and that we projected over the forward estimates is changed by your side of politics, and there is $22 billion less, which equates to $240 million less for the schools in the Territory. That is a cut. That is less funding going to our schools, and that is simply not acceptable.
I have been talking with the Catholic system, and they are obviously very disappointed. In the Northern Territory, the Catholic education system has been educating Territory kids for over 100 years. In our Bishop Hurley's words, the Catholic schools in the Northern Territory are part of the community. They are not apart from it; they are part of the community.
But you have singled them out with no consultation and changed the formula by which support is given to children with special needs. You have no idea about children growing up in the Territory—some of the communities, some of the special needs cases that we have. For the Catholic system, without any consultation, you have changed the formula so that they are disadvantaged when it comes to kids with special needs getting support. It is atrocious, and the same thing is happening in other jurisdictions like those some members opposite claim to represent.
You are vandalising the future of our country and our kids. I think back to the Territory school that I visited about 10 years ago in a little Aboriginal community called Umbakumba. It was a primary school. I wonder what opportunities those kids have had. Did they have that spark from a teacher or an assistant teacher? I think about the kids with FASD. I think about those kids with not that many opportunities to go on with in life. You are disadvantaging the schools and the school systems that are trying to lift up the horizons of those kids so that they can fully participate in our great country. It is really important to lift up those kids' horizons, and it is simply not going to happen with these cuts to the education budget—the budget that they would have had had we continued with those initial Gonski plans.
The damage that is going to be done will be particularly keenly felt in the Territory, and that is why I am very pleased to be able to represent the parents, the teachers, the principals and the school councils of the Territory who really thought that you said you were going to do something different from this. They really thought that you were going to be good to your words. There has been a lack of consultation and faulty planning, and the children of the Territory will suffer. They deserve better.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Before I call the member for O'Connor, I might ask the member for Solomon if he might look at the Hansard of his speech and realise that through that speech he accused me of doing all sorts of things. He needs to address the debate through the chair but not say directly to the other side the term 'you'. When you say 'you', you are referring to the person in the chair.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (16:17): Firstly, to those opposite I say it is good to see some Western Australian members here today: the member for Burt and the member for Brand. I give them great credit for staying here and listening to our point of view and the Western Australian point of view which I and my colleague the member for Durack are about to put.
I go back to what the government is proposing and what we are achieving here: an overall spend of $242 billion on schooling by the Commonwealth over the next 10 years. That is real money in the budget, in the forward estimates and with a plan beyond the forward estimates. That is not what we had when we came to government in 2013. We had a fantasy. When I play monopoly with my kids, I have got to explain to them—particularly the younger ones—that it is not real money. That is what those on the other side need to understand about the original Gonski plan. It was not real money. It was a fantasy.
What the government has done here—and the Minister for Education, Senator Birmingham, has done an outstanding job—is come up with a plan that implements equality across all education sectors and does it with real money. That is the first point that I want to stress here. Now we can talk about what is happening Australia-wide. It is an average increase in funding of 4.1 per cent per student. But what is it for WA, Member for Burt? It is 5.2 per cent. So that is an increase for WA. I am going to be very interested, when we get to the vote, to see whether the Western Australian members in this place on the other side are prepared to vote against a significant increase in funding for Western Australia.
In my electorate of O'Connor—one of those regional electorates that the member for Solomon was talking about—we get a 6.2 per cent increase across all sectors over the period to 2027. Six point two per cent is a significant increase in funding for all school sectors across my electorate. I am particularly pleased to see that the government sector picks up 7.7 per cent—that is in the government school sector. That is a very solid increase in funding for those schools. They often operate in remote areas in difficult conditions and where it is difficult to attract teachers to inland regional areas. I want to give a shout-out to those wonderful schools in my electorate.
In 2016, in the league table—I know that not everyone is a fan of the league tables, but they do give an indication of how individual schools are performing—we had in the top 50 Eastern Goldfields College in Kalgoorlie, Great Southern Grammar in Albany and John Paul College in Kalgoorlie. Two schools from my colleague from Durack's old home town—and indeed I think that John Paul College was formed out of Prendiville College, where the member for Durack went to school. In 2015 the Mount Barker Community College, the Western Australian College of Agriculture Denmark, Esperance Senior High School, Kearnan College in Manjimup and St Joseph's College in Albany all made the top 50. These are fantastic results, given that there are another 16 electorates around Western Australia. That would be an average of three to four schools per electorate in that top cohort—and in 2015 we had five. In 2014, we had Albany Senior High School, Manjimup Senior High School and Eastern Goldfields College all score extremely well in the group.
We have heard that this policy is friendless from those opposite today. I want to read a few quotes. We have already heard from David Gonski. On this side we all give a Gonski, and it would appear that those on the other side no longer give a Gonski. I want quote from Dennis Yarrington from the Australian Primary Principals Association. These are government schools, who would generally not necessarily be all that friendly to a coalition government, but Dennis Yarrington said:
Common funding arrangements across the country will see greater transparency and give principals confidence that what they receive in school funding is fair and equitable.
What more can you say? That is the whole purpose of this funding model. It is good for Western Australia and I await seeing those opposite from Western Australia voting with us for a better deal for WA.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate has concluded.
BILLS
Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
COMMITTEES
Treaties Committee
Report
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (16:23): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports: Report 169—Future Submarine Program—France; Classified information exchange—France, which incorporates a dissenting report, and Report 170—Social Security Agreement—New Zealand; Nuclear Research Cooperation Agreement; Loan Agreement—International Monetary Fund; Harmonization of wheeled vehicles—Revision, which incorporates another dissenting report—there is a trend.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ROBERT: by leave—Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 169, which contains the committee's review of two agreements with the French republic. The first agreement is a framework agreement to support the Future Submarine Program. The second agreement is an upgrade to an existing agreement from 1985 to enable the exchange and protection of classified information. The report was tabled out of session in April.
The framework agreement for the Future Submarine Program has five general objectives. First and foremost, the agreement provides for the transfer, ownership and use of French-owned technology and information to Australia.
Secondly, the agreement establishes obligations on France to ensure Australia's sovereign operation of the Future Submarine and security of the supply of information and equipment.
Thirdly, the agreement provides for maximum local industry engagement.
The fourth and fifth objectives of the agreement provide for the joint development of research and technology; and a governance and performance framework for the program.
The committee supports the framework agreement, but we note that it is merely the first step of many in ensuring Australia's national interests in the Future Submarine Program are not only protected but maximised.
The committee's review raised two main issues. Firstly, we must ensure that costly and critical mistakes in previous Defence acquisitions are not repeated. The agreement provides a solid starting point, but the committee recommends that the Department of Defence ensure that all the lessons from the build of the Collins class submarine are learnt.
Most importantly, this includes making sure that the intellectual property of the Future Submarine is stored, managed, maintained and constantly upgraded to absolutely guarantee Australia is always able to operate, maintain and sustain the next generation submarine. This intellectual property needs to be stored somewhere separately and externally to the general government department. It needs to be readily accessible, always available and always updated.
The committee also has requested the department to report back to the committee in the winter sittings of 2018 on its progress in obtaining and managing the necessary intellectual property, and the committee expects the Department of Defence to have an answer to all of these issues.
The second issue is the French obligation to maximise local Australian industry engagement in the Future Submarine Program. It is good to see my good friend the member for Boothby, from South Australia, here supporting such an investment in the great state of South Australia.
As the largest Defence acquisition in Australia's history, the Future Submarine Program presents great opportunities for local businesses not just in South Australia but right across the country.
Businesses will also be able to leverage opportunities within the wider global industry supply chain. Australians are great innovators—some of the best innovators in the world. Innovation in this program should readily be able to be applied right throughout DCNS's global supply chain.
The committee notes that 'maximising' local industry will need effective implementation of the contractual and other arrangements that will sit underneath this treaty. Therefore, the committee recommends that the government ensure that all detailed agreements and arrangements allow Australian companies to bid for work in all phases of the program on a preferred basis, all things being equal. I make no apologies for being Australian first when it comes to jobs, growth and Australian businesses. To ensure local industry involvement is maximised, the committee also requests that the department report back to the committee on the contractual and other arrangements that have secured operations for Australian industries.
Noting these recommendations, the committee recommends the parliament proceed with binding treaty action.
Report 169 also deals with Australia's bilateral agreement with France for the exchange and protection of classified information.
The agreement seeks to strengthen existing arrangements between Australia and France for the exchange of such information.
Although the agreement is a standalone treaty action, it was tailored at the same time as the framework agreement for the Future Submarine Program. Indeed, the agreement will support the Future Submarine Program throughout all stages of construction and sustainment.
The agreement is far more comprehensive and prescriptive than its 1985 predecessor. It has four key features.
Firstly, it requires parties to protect classified information to a standard at least equivalent to the protection afforded domestically.
Secondly, it sets out how classified information can be transferred between parties.
Thirdly, it enables Australia and France to mutually recognise security clearances of government officials and contractors.
And finally, it regulates how each party enters into or authorises classified contracts in the territory of the other party.
As with previous agreements of this kind, the committee relied on assurances from government that the classifications and security clearance processes are equivalent. The committee did not receive detailed evidence to verify these equivalencies and has therefore not formed a specific view on the matter and simply relies on the government's assurances in this regard.
The committee does regularly review treaty actions of this kind, however, and considers such treaty actions as generally noncontroversial. However, through the course of its inquiry, the committee was alerted to a number of matters which have been included in this report.
Chief amongst these are the timeliness, method and integrity of personnel security clearances. The committee expresses concern about delays in obtaining security clearances that have—in the past—hindered Australian businesses in bidding for Australian defence work. There have also been problems in the limited scope of sponsorship to obtain a necessary Australian security clearance.
In order to be an effective element in maintaining confidentiality of information, personnel security processes must be sufficiently thorough. I think we all agree with that. The committee notes in its report that personnel security clearances should be continually assessed, and based on information received across organisations and jurisdictions.
The committee therefore recommends that the government bring forward, as a matter of urgency, its work program to connect state and federal law enforcement and judicial information systems and bodies with the personnel security clearance systems.
Noting this recommendation, the committee recommends that binding treaty action be proceeded with.
I also rise to present the committee's Report 170, which contains the committee's review of four separate treaty actions:
a renewed social security agreement with New Zealand;
an agreement to obtain nuclear research cooperation in the Asia-Pacific;
a renewed loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund; and
revisions to an existing agreement that harmonises regulations for the safety of vehicles and their respective parts.
The revised social security agreement with New Zealand provides joint responsibility for the payment of social security benefits for people that have lived between Australia and New Zealand.
Australia has had a bilateral social security agreement with New Zealand since the Second World War, indeed 1944.
The revisions to the existing agreement better align the eligibility and provision of social security payments to the domestic legislation in both countries.
The committee's report also reviews the regional cooperative agreement on nuclear science and technology. The proposed agreement updates an existing one from 1985. That existing agreement facilitates Australia's cooperation with 21 countries in the Asia-Pacific on nuclear research technology and medical physics.
The committee's report documents recent examples where Australian experts have had considerable involvement in projects with their counterparts in the region.
The third treaty reviewed by the committee is a bilateral loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The agreement renews Australia's existing commitment to loan the IMF $8.3 billion in certain circumstances.
The committee concludes that the agreement is in Australia's national interest as it ensures the IMF is sufficiently equipped to respond to any future international economic instability. The agreement is simply renewing an existing agreement put in place by the previous Labor government.
Finally, the report examines revisions to the agreement on the harmonisation of United Nations wheeled vehicle standards.
This agreement provides for the development of standardised regulations that increase vehicle safety. Standardising those regulations will reduce barriers to international trade of motor vehicles.
The committee supports the four treaty actions in Report 170 and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the two reports to the House.
Mr ROBERT: I move:
That the House take note of Report 169: Future Submarine Program—France, Classified Information Exchange—France.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (16:33): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Standing Committee on Economics
Report
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:33): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Review of the four major banks (second report),together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
Mr COLEMAN: The second report into Australia's four major banks follows the publication of the committee's first report on 24 November last year. It draws on the March 2017 public hearings held by the committee with the chief executives of the four major banks. The March public hearings provided the committee with an opportunity to scrutinise the banks over their response to the initial 10 recommendations of the committee's November report. The committee also scrutinised the banks on the Carnell report's recommendation on the use of non-monetary default clauses in small business loans.
The committee's second round of hearings has confirmed its view that the recommendations of the first report should be implemented in order to improve the Australian banking sector for the benefit of customers. While the committee is open to some modest variations to the recommendations, it affirms the substance of each of them. I would now like to turn to a number of the recommendations.
Recommendation 1 of the first report proposed the establishment of a one-stop shop where consumers can access redress when they are wronged by a bank. The committee retains its view that one dispute-resolution body should be established to provide straightforward redress for consumers. It is highly preferable to have one body dealing with these matters rather than two or more, as is the case at the moment. The committee believes that the Ramsay review should determine the precise administrative structure of this body—the key point is that it should be a one-stop shop.
Recommendation 2 of the first report calls for a new public-reporting regime to be put in place to hold senior executives much more accountable. Executive accountability is a critical issue and the reality is that banking executives have not been held sufficiently accountable to date. The fact that no senior executive has been terminated for any of the breaches of customer faith that we have seen in recent years is an indictment of the sector. This must be rectified through the establishment of a rigorous executive accountability regime.
Recommendation 3 of the first report proposed that a regulatory team be established to make recommendations on improving competition in the banking sector to the Treasurer every six months. The ANZ agreed with recommendation 3 and noted that 'analysis from a government agency would help demonstrate the nature and level of competition.' The other banks opposed this recommendation, for reasons the committee does not find persuasive. At the moment, there is a significant gap, in that no regulator is charged with the systemic investigation of competition in the banking sector on a day-to-day basis. That should change, and our recommendation would do that. We do need a permanent team focused on systemic competition issues in banking, and we recommend that to the government.
Recommendations 4 and 5 of the first report were all about empowering consumers. Recommendation 4, in particular, proposes that financial services institutions be required to open up access to consumer data by July of next year. What that means is that transaction and other data which is currently held by the banks could with the consent of the customer be provided to competitors of those banks. That is a good thing because it means that competitors of the big four banks will have the opportunity to better understand the nature of that particular customer and make them better offers, increasing competition in the sector. The key point is that that means that an asset which is currently proprietary to the banks—namely, that data—would become non-proprietary, not owned by the banks, in the future. What that means is that the banks are conflicted. When the banks say that they support the opening of that data, that is interesting in theory, but what must occur is that the process of opening up data and the rules around it must be independent of the banks. It should not be what is sometimes described as an industry led model. It should be led by an independent body. This has the potential to be a very substantial economic reform for Australia, because it is taking, in a sense, a latent asset that is sitting within the banks at the moment—namely, a large volume of financial services data—and with the consent of customers putting that into the marketplace so that other offers and deals can be offered. That is very important. The UK is going down this path. We should too.
Another important recommendation relates to barriers to setting up a bank. One of the most striking pieces of information to come out of this inquiry, for me, was the number of new banking licences that had been issued in Australia in the last 10 years for new start-up entities—not credit unions converting into banks but actual new entities. In the last 10 years, the total number of new licences issued is one. There has been one new licence for a bank in Australia in the last 10 years for a local start-up entity. That is reflective of what is, in the community's view, a lack of competition. There are certain rules around the establishment of banks at the moment. One of them is that no person can own more than 15 per cent of an entity that has a banking licence. Another is that a new entity has to have $50 million in the bank before it can loan even one dollar. There are a range of other restrictive rules. We would like to see changes to those rules, to stimulate the formation of new banks in the banking sector. We still have a situation where the big four have about 85 or 90 per cent of the banking market. That is highly concentrated and, given that there is about $450 billion of enterprise value in just those four entities, it seems to the committee that there should be a much greater flourishing of competition. Where regulation stops competition, as it currently does in relation to getting a banking licence, it should be changed, not to in any way risk the important prudential rules in relation to holding a banking license but to get rid of, frankly, unnecessary rules which just have the impact of suppressing competition. That should be changed. The UK has also gone down this path. There have been significant numbers of new banking licences in recent years in the UK and we should adopt something similar here.
Another issue that the committee focused on in the second round of hearings was the Carnell inquiry's recommendation in relation to what is known as non-monetary default. Non-monetary default is basically where you as the borrower have made all your payments to the bank on time—you have done the right thing and paid in full—but, nonetheless, the bank defaults your loan for reasons that are usually beyond your control. You have made all of your payments on time and in full, but, nonetheless, the bank finds you to be in default. For small businesses, this is obviously a very unacceptable and galling situation when they have done the right thing but are still found to be in default. Kate Carnell in her inquiry recommended that this process be stopped for loans of less than $5 million, which would cover about 98 per cent of all small-business loans. The committee, in reviewing this issue and in pressing the bank executives on it, did not find their arguments about why these non-default clauses were necessary persuasive, and the committee recommends that non-monetary default clauses be abolished for loans to small business. If the banks do not do that of their own accord by 1 July this year, our view is that the government should act in that area.
The committee's first report made several important recommendations. The second round of hearings has affirmed the broad thrust of those recommendations. We believe these recommendations should be implemented and we look forward to the government's response.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:42): by leave—This is the Standing Committee on Economics' second report of the inquiry into the big four banks. After the first hearing, the Labor members concluded that it was clearer now more than ever that the need for a broader inquiry, beyond the economics committee, remains. The only way to achieve any form of justice for victims of banks and the only way to truly demonstrate what is occurring behind the glossy bank branches and the practices that drive the unethical behaviour in the banking industry is to hold a royal commission. The second hearing involving the bank CEOs allowed each member of the committee, again, just 20 minutes to ask questions, and this is grossly inadequate.
Despite the relatively short time frame between the two House Economics Committee hearings, the banking scandals keep on coming. A collection of the headlines associated with the many scandals that have been occurring in this industry are listed in the Labor members' dissenting report, and they make for sobering reading—from 'NAB accidentally sends 60,000 overseas customers' banking details to wrong email', to 'CBA and NAB admit impropriety in foreign exchange trading'. How about 'Former Westpac banker David St Pierre jailed over $4 million fraud'? The list grows and grows. The structure and culture of the big four banks still promote poor customer outcomes, and this looks unlikely to change without a royal commission exposing many of these issues.
The Sedgwick review's terms of reference, which were set by the banks, focused on pay arrangements for the lower three tiers of retail banking jobs and meant that the Australian Bankers' Association review into retail banking remuneration was prevented from properly scrutinising middle and senior executive pay and bonuses. When the banks were questioned about making their submissions to the Sedgwick review they were very cagey. They initially tried to claim confidentiality in respect of those submissions. Eventually there was some agreement from the banks to provide those submissions but only on an in-confidence basis, and they were with information redacted. However, while some such information has been provided to the committee for review, it was not possible to review all such information prior to the tabling of this report in the parliament. As such, information was provided on a confidential basis, to be reviewed in person only after the parliament last adjourned. The parliament adjourned and then this information was supplied by the banks. It was supplied on the basis that it could not be emailed to committee members and it could not be sent to committee members. Committee members had to come to Canberra to view that confidential information to ensure that it was not taken out of the parliament.
Naturally, none of the committee members on the Labor side wasted taxpayers' dollars in simply flying to Canberra to spend a couple of hours reading documents. The actions of the government members of the committee, in requiring the tabling of this report before the resumption of parliament in May, means that such information may not be reviewed or reported on until late 2017 at the earliest, and is completely antithetical to the purpose of this inquiry, thereby further demonstrating the government's lack of resolve for any proper scrutiny of the banks.
It is notable that the government members of the committee continue to hold to the recommendation for the creation of a banking tribunal. We understand, based on leaks around the budget, that this is going to be confirmed tonight. Some members of the government have many misgivings about this. We will wait and see the details, but if it is simply going to replace FOS and the other tribunals with what will become a legalistic tribunal that locks applicants and customers out of it, then it will not get Labor's support.
As the Labor members recommended after the first hearings, we again urge the government to take responsibility. Stop defending the banks, stop running interference for the banks and stop protecting the banks and doing all you can to avoid a royal commission and the proper scrutiny into this industry that a transparent investigation in the form of a royal commission would achieve. A royal commission into the financial services industry should examine how widespread are the instances of illegal and unethical behaviour within financial services institutions; how Australia's financial services institutions treat their duty of care to their customers; how the culture, ethical standards and business structures of these financial institutions affect their behaviour and their approach to their customers; and whether Australia's regulators are really equipped to identify and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour—one would have to question that, given the number of scandals that have occurred in this industry over the last decade. It should look also at international experiences and how other jurisdictions have dealt with some of the systemic problems in banking, particularly those in the wake of the global financial crisis. Unfortunately, the scandals, rip-offs and scenarios that have played out in the Australian banking industry over the course of the last decade are not peculiar to Australia. We have seen instances in the United Kingdom, with the collapse of banks, with customers being ripped off; the Wells Fargo fiasco in the United States; and, of course, instances in many other European nations.
The structure and culture of the big banks continue to promote poor customer outcomes and look unlikely to change without a royal commission exposing these issues. With the Turnbull government running protection, the true extent of the banks' shonky practices will never see the light of day. The only way to achieve any form of justice for victims of the banks, and the only way to truly shine a light on the practices that drive unethical behaviour in the banking industry, is to hold a royal commission into the banks.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:49): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:49): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:50): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report4 of 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—In accordance with the committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 the committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
A key purpose of the scrutiny report is to provide parliament with credible technical analysis about the human rights implications of legislation. The report is therefore a technical examination and does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures.
The committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation. It is served by an external legal adviser to the committee and secretariat staff.
Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports. Like all parliamentarians, committee members are free to engage in debates over the policy merits of legislation according to the dictates of party, conscience, belief or outlook.
Scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation.
Eighteen new bills are assessed in this scrutiny report as not raising human rights concerns.
The committee is also seeking further information in relation to seven bills and legislative instruments. Such correspondence with relevant ministers, legislation proponents and officials explores questions of human rights compatibility through a dialogue model. The committee needs to request additional information where human rights matters have not been adequately addressed in the statement of compatibility.
This report contains many positive examples of constructive engagement with the committee's dialogue process. In relation to eight bills and instruments, the committee received responses from the relevant minister or legislation proponent which allowed it to conclude that the legislation was likely to be compatible with human rights.
While this process led to constructive outcomes, the additional steps would be avoided if this type of information was included in the statement of compatibility itself.
Statements of compatibility are a critical tool for the committee, parliament more broadly and other interested persons. A comprehensive statement of compatibility that is considered and evidence-based may also permit an initial assessment that a measure constitutes a permissible limitation without the need for further correspondence.
For the benefit of those charged with the task of preparing statements of compatibility, I would emphasise the importance of clearly setting out potential limitations. The concept of a limitation is commonplace in human rights analysis: a limitation is acceptable in many circumstances, but it requires explanation as to whether it is permissible. Where a measure may limit human rights the statement of compatibility should set out the legitimate objective of the measure, how it is rationally connected to—which is to say it will be effective to achieve—that objective, and explain whether the limitation is proportionate to that objective. The statement should also set out any safeguards that will be applied to ensure that any limitations on human rights are implemented in the least rights-restrictive form.
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 4 of 2017 to the House.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (16:54): I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It is a bill that is overdue. It is a bill that is deficient, but at least it is aimed in the right direction.
Before I go to the matter itself I would like to move an amendment:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that although the government pretends through the bill to care about vulnerable workers, those workers who earn penalty rates are also vulnerable as a result of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates, a decision which the government supports; and
(2) calls on the government to:
(a) abandon its support of the Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(b) legislate to prevent the Fair Work Commission decision from taking effect, in order to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut”.
Labor is pleased to finally have the chance to speak on this bill. We have been calling for this government to act to protect vulnerable workers for years, with no joy. This bill goes some way to dealing with some of the exploitation issues occurring across our economy, and we support its passage through the parliament because something, quite frankly, is better than nothing. The reality is that this Abbott-Turnbull government has had to be dragged to the table to bring forward any measures to address exploitation of vulnerable workers. And now that they have done so, they have brought forward a bill that falls short of what is required.
The bill falls significantly short of Labor's suite of policy and legislative reforms that we first announced 12 months ago—well before this government even turned its mind to protecting workers, so caught up has it been in its ideological crusade against workers and their unions. The measures in this bill simply do not address the breadth of worker exploitation that we have seen reach rampant proportions under the current government. This bill does nothing in relation to a range of policies which Labor took to the last election directed towards combating sham contracting, licensing labour-hire companies; shutting down the practice of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities; reforming the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers; criminalising employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers; or making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies.
As we can see, there are deficiencies with this bill in Labor's view and there is another gaping hole in this legislation. What is abundantly clear is that one group of vulnerable workers which the Turnbull government has absolutely no interest in protecting is of course people who rely on penalty rates, who are some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. This is at a time when we are seeing the lowest wage growth in a generation. The idea that the Prime Minister and, tonight, the Treasurer can talk about fairness in one breath and at the same time allow for a decision by the commission to cut the penalty rates—to cut the real income—for some of the lowest-paid workers in this country is a disgrace, and the government needs to reconsider its position.
We would say that he has done nothing to support these workers, and he chooses not to involve himself in this matter. Even though he chose to intervene to stop truck drivers' wages going up, he will not intervene to stop hospitality and retail workers' wages going down. So he has already shown an inclination, when it suits him and when it suits the government, to use the parliament to intervene; to use, by way of the parliament, laws to prevent benefits to workers. And now he sits on his hands and says that he cannot do anything because he must recognise and respect the decision of the independent umpire. Well, that was not his view when it came to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, as we all know. He has thrown his support behind cuts to penalty rates and he will wear that decision.
It is true to say that the Prime Minister really does not seem to have any empathy for these workers. He does not seem to be able to understand the consequences of the decision of the commission and what it may mean for them. I understand that he has not had that lived experience. He is a wealthy man, and he was a wealthy man in his 20s, a multimillionaire, so many years ago. Yes, he has made a lot of money, and good luck to him. He is good at making money for himself, but he started with a lot of money, so he has never really understood the sorts of challenges that people are going to confront as a result of the cuts to real income, to real wages. That is an unfortunate thing, but he could listen. He could listen. He could actually decide to talk to these workers.
We know he spends a lot of his time in boardrooms talking to big business and talking to bank CEOs and allaying their fears about any royal commission that might be contemplated by people other than the government, but he has not sought on one occasion to meet with workers who will be affected by this decision—not once. I do not expect him to understand through his own experience the impact of this decision, but I thought that, if he were a leader of the nation, if he were genuinely leading our nation and representing our citizens, he would actually have informed himself by listening to the stories of these workers and what will happen if this continues, if this commission decision is implemented.
There are still opportunities now. The date for the first cut for those wages and for those workers is 1 July. There has been no order made by the commission. There is plenty of time. We have five sitting weeks before 1 July in this place. There are three sitting weeks for the Senate. It can be resolved. You might recall, Deputy Speaker, that the Senate has already resolved to support the opposition's private member's bill, and indeed it passed the Senate in the last sitting. All it would take now is for this place to do the same, for Liberal members of parliament to put away their prejudices and their antipathy for workers and vote for the private member's bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. That would be a good start, particularly at a time when, as I said, wage growth in most parts of the labour market is going backwards in real terms. There is a wage recession for many workers, and they are struggling to make ends meet. Here is an opportunity.
That is the reason why we moved the amendment to the second reading of this bill, notwithstanding that we support the tenor of the bill. We support its direction. It is deficient, but it means well. We are going to seek to make further amendments to the bill—some substantial amendments—in the Senate. We also say by way of this second reading amendment that the government should contemplate changing its position. Never mind saving face, change your position, admit that you are wrong and support the opposition to prevent what is going to be a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of Australians and their families.
This bill itself, as I said, has some deficiencies. We believe there should be further provisions that go to a whole range of other areas where people have been unfairly treated, where they have been underpaid and where there has been an intention to underpay, in particular. That is why I outlined the whole host of areas that we could be considering as well. For example, we think that the government should seriously consider the allegations and the disgraceful treatment of workers by some of the most well-known companies, who, in the main, probably do the right thing but on occasion let themselves down and let down their workforce.
Subcontractors engaged by Myer employing cleaners on sham contracts—under which workers were paid below-award wages, were denied penalty rates and superannuation and were working without occupational health and safety protections—are not going to be in any way regulated by the nature of this legislation. Yes, there might be some response to 7-Eleven, the outrageous large-scale form of exploitation, but this bill will not cover the conduct of Myer in relation to its subcontractors in the example I have just mentioned.
We say that 7-Eleven stores were operating a business model based on methodical, systematic exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers that included gross underpayment of wages, doctoring of pay records designed to conceal unlawful conduct, and workers subjected to threats of deportation and physical intimidation that has no place in a civilised society like ours. The allegations and claims against that company are remarkable in their nature and, indeed, in the scale of the problem.
Pizza Hut delivery drivers were getting paid as little as $6 an hour under rampant sham contracting arrangements that defy not only the law but any sense of decency. Supply chain arrangements adopted by the Baiada Group in its poultry-processing plants relied on gross exploitation of temporary workers, who were forced to work dangerously long hours for far less than the minimum wage and, to add insult to injury, were housed in overcrowded, substandard accommodation that they were compelled to accept.
This is just the tip of a very large iceberg, in the view of Labor. This year we have heard other allegations. At Caltex, staff were working night shifts for $13 an hour, half the legal rate, and not receiving tax returns, and there was widespread underpayment of staff across outlets. At Domino's, claims have been made of franchisees selling visas to prospective overseas workers and of systemic underpayment of workers.
While broadly supportive of the measures contained in this bill, we are always wary of this government's ability to draft legislation which actually does what the government says it does and which does not have unintended consequences flowing from the drafting. The Senate Education and Employment Committee inquiry into this bill confirmed that we are right to be wary. For example, this bill will prohibit the practice of employers demanding unreasonable payments from their workers—for example, demanding that a proportion of their employees' wages be paid back in cash. Prohibiting that is a sensible thing to do, but Labor is concerned that the provisions containing this prohibition will not capture situations where employers in Australia essentially sell sponsorship of working visas to people before they enter Australia, as is alleged to have occurred at one of Domino's franchisees, for example. The prohibition on demanding unreasonable payments from employees should extend to prospective employees.
Many stakeholders have raised concerns that the provisions of the bill which give the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to compel people to answer questions do not contain procedural protections which might have been expected to be included in such a regime. In particular, this bill falls short of the procedural protections that apply to the ABCC compulsory questioning power. The ABCC must apply to the AAT for notice to compel a person to attend for compulsory questioning. The AAT must be satisfied, amongst other things, that the ABCC has exhausted all other ways of obtaining the information. Further, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has a legislative review and reporting role. It is no small thing to give a government agency the power to compel citizens to answer questions, removing the right to silence, and we must be vigilant to ensure that these powers are proportionate and that appropriate safeguards on their exercise are in place. We are concerned about this provision. We understand its intent: it is to ensure the agency has teeth to get to the bottom of systemic corruption and exploitation of workers. We are concerned about how it might expose workers in these circumstances, and we need to have better oversight and better protection.
I understand about giving agencies teeth in order to get to the bottom of some of this awful, murky conduct. In many instances, as we know, these workers are very vulnerable and are too frightened to come forward and speak to their local politician or to ring the police. In many instances, that is why employers prey on people from overseas who are on temporary work visas. Most employers do the right thing, but this is quite systemic and widespread. Once you have this happening in our economy, in our labour market and in workplaces across the country at this scale, it places enormous pressure on competitors who are doing the right thing to start finding ways to cut corners too. This is the manifestation of the mantra 'the race to the bottom', where one competitor gets an advantage from acting unlawfully, putting enormous pressure on wages and labour costs even for employers who want to do the right thing. I believe most employers want to do the right thing, but they are under enormous pressure once this starts taking hold. From the scale of what we have seen in the media, there are some journalists who are certainly worth their salt and are worth their weight in gold—not all of them, that is for sure—but quite a few journalists are. Adele Ferguson from Fairfax is a remarkable journalist uncovering systemic corruption. If it was not for the role of that newspaper and that journalist, who knows how much longer that corruption would have continued on.
I do not see the government looking to find the problems that beset workers in our workplaces. I do not see the effort by the government. I see some good work by the agency, the Fair Work Ombudsman, and I note that, but I think it needs to be better resourced. We need better laws to prosecute employers. There need to be better ways of sanctioning this conduct, and whilst this bill goes some way to doing that, it does not go far enough.
I refer to the compulsory power. As I said, there needs to be greater oversight. We will obviously seek to move amendments there. I also want to make the point that stakeholders have made strong arguments for placing the same procedural protections on the Fair Work Ombudsman powers as exist for the ABCC, just to return to that provision. There are comparable arrangements with other agencies. The very least the government can do is entertain that amendment, because it is critical that we have oversight for very vulnerable people. Even though I know the power is there to target rogue, unlawful employers, not the workers, I think we have to be very careful here. We support the recommendation to have that oversight in place.
Unfortunately, for vulnerable workers in Australia, even where the government has chosen to follow Labor reforms, it falls short of the response required to really combat the heart of bad behaviour. For example, this bill makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries, where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. This, in our view, is a significant step short of Labor's position at the last election, which was that the onus of proof should be reversed so that if there are contraventions to workplace laws by franchisors, they are required to establish that they did not know or could not have reasonably known about the contravention. We believe that is the only way we are going to capture this conduct. This is stronger than the test in this bill, which places an evidential but not legal burden on franchisors.
It should be the case that where a worker makes a claim for unpaid wages from an employer who has failed to keep proper employment records, that employer should have to prove that they paid the worker what he or she was owed, not the other way around. Therefore, we need to do something in relation to that matter. At the moment, it is too hard, as has been borne out by many examples, for vulnerable workers to prove that they have been underpaid where the employer fails or refuses to provide pay slips. This is a significant imbalance of power, which should be addressed by placing the onus on an employer who has breached the act by failing to keep proper records to prove that they paid the worker what they were entitled to under the award or agreement in place.
Another significant concern with this bill is that it applies to the franchise model and holding company situation only. Also, the definition of 'franchisor' requires that the person:
… have a significant degree of influence or control over the relevant franchisee’s affairs.
According to the explanatory memorandum:
New paragraph 558A(2)(b) narrows the scope of the new provisions to those franchisors which exercise a significant degree of influence or control over the franchisee entity’s affairs. This recognises that there are a wide range of franchise models, and the extended responsibilities in Division 4A should only apply to those who have a significant degree of involvement in their franchisees’ affairs.
We are concerned that, as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Franchise Council of Australia have said in evidence to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, the narrow focus on the franchisor-franchisee and holding company relationships will be an incentive for companies to move out of those models and into other commercial relationships which are not covered by this provision, or to arrange their relationships so that they are using a franchise model which allows them to argue that they do not have a significant degree of influence or control. We cannot allow loopholes like this where people can avoid their obligations. We need effective legislation, significant teeth and better resources at agency level. We need to make sure that the provisions are broad enough to cover the field and not so narrow as to be avoided through finding loopholes, restructuring companies, changing relationships and avoiding the definition that is currently narrowly constructed in the provisions of this bill.
The Franchise Council of Australia claim:
No evidence provided makes the case for singling out franchising when Fair Work compliance concerns are an economy-wide issue.
I do not agree with the Franchise Council of Australia on all matters; I probably do not even agree with them on the substance of this bill. I note the chair is a former cabinet minister and the former member for Dunkley, a fellow cricketer of mine, Bruce Billson. I spoke with him about these matters. Where he and the Franchise Council of Australia are right is that it should not just apply to their members. That is what he is saying. He is saying: 'If we have got a problem we know it's not just under the franchising model. If there are to be new laws in place, why would it be that only franchisors and franchisees are singled out?' Again, it is not sufficient for the government to argue that all we need do is enact this legislation, and somehow it is going to crack down on the corruption and exploitation that is occurring in too many workplaces in this country. The Franchise Council of Australia see this as an argument for removing the new offence from the bill. We disagree. It is an argument in support of Labor's proposition that that liability needs to be imposed more widely. But the FCA make a good point: why just them? They say: 'Why just us? Why have it at all?' We say: 'Why just them? Let's make sure it applies to all arrangements where there has been evidence of gross exploitation of workers in this country.'
The Asia-Pacific Centre for Franchising Excellence, at Griffith University, submitted to the Senate inquiry. This is a long quote, but I think it is worth putting into the Hansard:
Franchising should not be singled out. The proposed amendments appear to have evolved as a reaction to recent media involving the underpayment of employees by franchisees in some high-profile franchise brands. However, it is disingenuous and patently unfair to target franchise organisations as the problem has also been observed in non-franchise organisations such as Coles and Woolworths. Indeed, the George Calombaris restaurant group has admitted underpaying more than 160 current and former employees a total of $2.6 million. As this is a universal problem the franchising sector should not be singled out.
Quite right. That submission to the Senate inquiry absolutely picks up the problem with the construction of this bill. It is too narrow by half. It is too narrow even in how it applies to franchising and too narrow in that it only applies to franchising, given the many manifestations of exploitation that are occurring in the labour market.
Do the government want to be taken seriously? In the four years they have been in government—and they have been elected again just recently—I think it is fair to say that this would be the first time there is proposed legislation that at least ostensibly is seeking to look after workers. All other pieces of legislation in my portfolio have been about attacking unions and attacking workers, in my view. This is the first occasion when I can say that at least they are putting up some sort of limp effort. But if they want to be taken seriously—if the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment want to be able to say genuinely that they are concerned about what is happening to thousands and thousands of workers—they need to make sure this legislation is sufficient to tackle the problem everywhere that we have already seen gross exploitation of workers, not just in one part of our economy.
We are concerned that the government has to consider the amendments we will move, which I have foreshadowed publicly. Our policies, of course, go to these matters. I mentioned earlier in my contribution to this debate that it does not touch on a whole range of other things. I am not suggesting that this bill needs to deal with every matter that is currently a problem within the labour market. But certainly, when it comes to conduct of employers and in particular the intentional systemic underpayment of workers, it is wrong to have a piece of legislation that confines itself in this manner.
We need the government to reconsider its position. If the government wants to be taken seriously, if it wants workers to believe that for the first time in its four years of existence it wants to redress the unfairness that is occurring in the labour market, then it needs to amend the bill, as advised by Labor. We will be seeking the crossbench support in the Senate, and we will also be engaging with the government. We think we can improve this bill. And if the minister and the Prime Minister are serious about tackling this issue, as they say they are, and rhetorically say they are, then they need to seriously contemplate the changes that we would make to make this bill more effective, make it broader in its application and make sure that people cannot just game it and avoid the consequences of bad conduct in workplaces. It is up to the government to contemplate that.
I will finish where I started in relation to the second reading amendment I moved to this bill. It is a nonsense for the minister, the Prime Minister or any member of this government to argue they are serious about tackling problems that beset workers in this country. On one occasion they refused to support a private member's bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition to effectively stop the decision that was handed down by the Fair Work Commission in relation to penalty rates. If they do not support that private member's bill, then whatever else they do in this place, including with this bill, is going to be seen as a joke. If they do not understand the effect the decision of the Fair Work Commission will have on hundreds of thousands of workers and their families from 1 July onwards, well then they are not connected to the real world. They are so out of touch if they cannot understand that the government needs to join Labor, for once, and support workers in this country and do what they have done before: intervene on an independent umpire's decision, but on this occasion rather than stop wages going up, stop them going down.
We are going to have pharmacy workers who will lose $77 in earnings on Sundays. We are going to have retail workers whose difference in paying the rent or the mortgage is $50, and they are going to lose that out of their pay—no compensation. Meanwhile, prices are going up and, as we know, wage growth generally is very, very low. This is an opportunity. It is not just about this legislation; it is about the other piece of legislation proposed in this place that the government should be considering. That is why I moved an amendment to allow a debate on that matter. It would be ridiculous, it would be absurd for us to debate this bill without having any regard to what is going on in relation to the penalty rates decision of the commission, and the government's callous disregard for the effects that will have on workers in this country.
We support the tenor of this bill, but it is deficient. It is too narrow. It is going to mean it is going to be very hard to prosecute employers doing the wrong thing. They must consider the amendments that we will put to them, and I am foreshadowing that now. We will move those amendments in the Senate, and we hope to get a lot of support from the crossbench, who, again, rhetorically say they are concerned about widespread exploitation. If they are, then I think we will be able to get a pretty strong set of laws. I will commend the government if they support our amendment. I will commend the government and I will say something I have never said in this place: I will say they have done something for workers. I will say that at this dispatch box if that were to happen. I hope it does happen for those workers, but, if it does not, I will make sure the government wears that decision from now on and right up to the election.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Butler: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to, and I call the honourable member for Fairfax.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (17:25): All talk and no action. The member for Gorton, the first speaker from the opposition, has again reinforced that that is the general predisposition of the opposition: all talk and no action.
We saw from the former speaker that he started his delivery with a personal attack against the Prime Minister for being a self-made man, believing that somehow the Prime Minister, through his own endeavours and his own enterprise in the real world economy, is ineligible to be leading the country in making decisions on economic matters. This is despite the fact that the former member himself and most of his colleagues are all unionists. They will kick and scream if there is any suggestion that the unions they represent, in particular the CFMEU that has caused nothing but disruption across workplaces in Australia, are challenged. It is also a pity that the member for Gorton has decided to suggest that, in going further, this bill should be looking at improving the resourcing of the ombudsman's office. This is an opposition that when in government stripped the budget of the ombudsman's office by 17 per cent. That is equivalent to 200 people. And now they have the gall to suggest that not only should this bill be going further but—wait—we should be providing further resources to the ombudsman's office. At the end of the day, this is all talk but no action. The only reason, I suggest, that the opposition wish to make further changes to this bill is so that they can kick the can down that time-honoured road and never deal with the issue, because it is only the coalition that is protecting workers. It is clearly not very Labor with their proud traditions, and it is certainly not very Australian.
This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, is wonderfully Australian. It is all about protecting the little guy who cannot stand up for himself to be sure that he or she does not get ripped off. What could be more Australian than that? What is a little unusual, however, is that most of the beneficiaries of this bill—which aims to curtail the exploitation of workers, especially in relation to employers cheating them on wages—will not even be Australians. The Fair Work Ombudsman has made very clear that the vast majority of complaints about this sort of underpaying behaviour by employers involves overseas workers who are in our country as visitors on various forms of short-term visas. The beneficiaries of the crackdown on this practice through this bill will be backpackers from all corners of the world, here on working holidays, whose rights have been abused. It will also be skilled workers here on temporary visas. Many will be drawn from the legions of foreign students here for an education, working nights to help pay for their fees and rent, while their decision to study in Australia, in turn, collectively boosts the economy by billions.
It is a sad fact that some Australian employers, far too many in fact, are taking advantage of these people. They take advantage, in many instances, of the fact that some vulnerable workers do not have highly-developed English language skills. Some may not even have proficiency in our language at all, let alone any familiarity with our laws or institutions. They take advantage of the fact that they are mostly young and inexperienced in relation to their rights in our workplaces or in relation to any workplace.
Some employers take advantage of the fact that many of these visitors, and also the new permanent arrivals similarly targeted by such wage scams, have no tradition of modern workplace relations in their former countries, where workers' rights are perhaps either inadequate or non-existent. Such employers take advantage of the fact that exploited employees, so desperate for a job or so concerned about maintaining their visas, will be uncomplaining. That is a point the Fair Work Ombudsman highlights. The ombudsman's office struggles to get cooperation from many victims, because they are fearful of reprisals.
This sort of behaviour is un-Australian. Treating people like this, whether they are Australians or short-term visitors to our country, is not the Australian way, and that is what makes this bill very Australian. The Aussie fair go, especially in relation to rights at work, is a core Australian value, and not just as a birthright. We will protect it and enhance it even when the main beneficiaries may not be Australians, because that is who we are as a people and as a nation.
The scale of the problem became apparent from the point where the 457 visa program really took off during the mining boom, which roughly coincided with the huge increase in foreign student numbers as our tertiary sector became one of the biggest suppliers of education services worldwide, with great benefit to our economy. There was also a simultaneous increased reliance on backpacker labour in the horticulture sector as Australians deserted such work. Over the last decade, these circumstances combined to generate a significant increase in temporary foreign labour in the economy, and the problem of the treatment of some of these people by unscrupulous employers was becoming apparent. The well-known, infamous exploitation of workers by 7-Eleven franchisees, with inadequate attention from headquarters, came to most people's attention when there was a series of media reports in the Fairfax media and on the ABC in 2013, but the Fair Work Ombudsman and its predecessor had been trying to act on concerns around the behaviour of that particular franchise since 2008. To many people, the seemingly systemic abuse of mainly foreign workers by 7-Eleven franchisees, and some of the well-publicised exploitation of 457 visa holders in the horticultural sector, will have been their biggest exposure to this sort of practice, but you only have to go to the Fair Work Ombudsman's website to see that the problem is, sadly, far more widespread and is deserving of the sort of response that this bill represents, which was a coalition policy taken to the last election.
Of the matters before the ombudsman that have been the subject of public comment so far in calendar year 2017, the vast majority involve wage exploitation of workers who were, or indeed are, in this country as visitors. They have involved breaches by employers across many areas of the economy. For example, the ombudsman commenced legal action in March 2017 against the owner of a Japanese restaurant on the Gold Coast who paid foreign workers as little as $8 an hour and used false records to suggest he was paying higher rates. A supermarket trolley collection operation in Bendigo is facing court for exploiting two recent immigrants from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The operator of a childcare centre in Melbourne, at Glen Waverley, is facing court action for a repeat offence of having cheated workers out of thousands of dollars. A supermarket operator in Melbourne is going to court for the underpayment of wages, despite the fact that he had previously been put on notice by the ombudsman about his obligation to pay staff properly and keep appropriate records. A Western Sydney homeware retailer was fined after paying a Chinese employee $12 an hour. The list goes on, detailing rip-offs involving every sort of business from nail care salons to retailers of mobile phone accessories to bus operators, migrant agencies, car windscreen repairers and cleaning companies from all across the country.
It is not difficult to work out why it is that most of the victims of this sort of behaviour, and indeed many of the perpetrators, are either not Australian citizens or have only recently become Australians. Australians, as a generalisation, are a pretty forthright mob: we are not easily fooled, we are not easily intimidated and typically we are not afraid to speak up when we believe that we have been wronged. Employers, even those who might consider standover tactics or other forms of skulduggery to cheat workers, will often back off in the knowledge that intimidation is not likely to work for very long, if at all, with most Australians. Australians, typically, just will not put up with it. Over the decades, that attitude has led to a body of law based on those ideals, and generally the rule of law stands up pretty well in this country in workplaces—give or take rogue outfits like the CFMEU or the occasional Marxist-style ramblings of people like the current head of the ACTU. Most Aussies know that. They appreciate that and they would not have any other way, but if the victim is a visitor or a recent arrival, for whom the job is crucial and who may well be operating from a position of very little, possibly even zero, knowledge of their rights in an Australian workplace, then exploitation is made easier. It is made even easier if employers themselves are unfamiliar with the Australian way, yet know their victims' weaknesses all too well. The coalition is determined to stamp out this practice.
This bill includes a range of measures that will enable the Fair Work Ombudsman to crack down more rigorously on unscrupulous employers, who will face significantly enhanced fines for transgressions against vulnerable workers. There is a view among many employers who have already been caught out and dealt with that the price of the current penalty regime is so low that it can be absorbed as a simple cost of doing business. The fact that a number of employers are repeat offenders gives credence to this. The maximum civil penalty for a serious transgression by an individual leaps to $108,000 and for bodies corporate to $540,000—over half a million dollars. That will get rogue employers' attention. That will definitely get their attention. You cannot regard penalties at that level as a viable cost of doing business.
The second leg of the disincentives for unscrupulous employers in this bill is to make sure that franchisors, and not franchisees, are held more accountable—not just franchisees, but also the franchisors. They will become liable for underpayment of wages in those instances where they exercise significant control over their franchisees or subsidiaries: if they turn a blind eye or if they are themselves complicit. Going further still, franchisors will also be held accountable under this bill if they reasonably should have known about a breach. So simply saying, 'We did not know' will no longer cut it.
The third leg of the measures in the bill go to strengthening the Fair Work Ombudsman's evidence-gathering powers to put it on a level with agencies like ASIC and the ACCC. People will be compelled to provide information and to answer questions. Currently, it is too easy for them to brush off the Fair Work Ombudsman. This will no longer be the case if this bill is passed. These measures are on top of the fact that the coalition, fulfilling another election commitment on this issue, has already restored some $20.1 million to the Fair Work Ombudsman's budget to enable the agency to restore its strength and take the fight up to dishonest employers, after Labor had stripped it of nearly 200 staff, cutting its budget by 17 per cent, as I mentioned earlier. It is ironic, to say the least, that it was the current Leader of the Labor Party who oversaw those cuts. He was the responsible minister when Labor cut the staff of the Fair Work Ombudsman from 900 in 2009-10 to 723 in 2013. He was the responsible minister when the ombudsman's budget shrank by 17 per cent, from $150 million to $124 million. And so it is left to the coalition to legislate, through a bill such as this, to restore the rights of workers and give them a fair go.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:40): I rise to speak in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. These amendments seek to protect vulnerable workers from unscrupulous employers exploiting them for a fair day's work. We are going to support this legislation through the House, but, as is so often the case with this government, it is half-baked and half-thought-out and simply not good enough.
The exploitation of workers has been widely reported. A key example of that is the widespread, coordinated and systemic exploitation of workers outlined in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report A national disgrace: The exploitation of temporary work visa holders in March 2016. It is no secret that within Australia there are employers who are deliberately and systemically denying Australian and migrant workers their rights and freedoms and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. These actions are disgraceful but have wider impact. They undercut the overwhelming majority of good employers, who want to do the right thing, they undermine the integrity of the workplace relations system, they distort the labour market and they undermine the principles of fair competition that underpin our successful free-enterprise economy.
We witnessed this when numerous 7-Eleven stores operated while systemically exploiting vulnerable overseas workers. This included the gross underpayment of wages, doctoring of pay records, concealing unlawful conduct, physical intimidation and subjecting workers to threats of deportation. I received a letter from 7-Eleven chief executive Angus McKay on 28 February 2017 outlining the remediation and reform journey the company have undertaken. I encourage him to do even more. They have paid back tens of millions of dollars to over 2,000 underpaid employees, but I encourage them to scrutinise their business practices more and outline a reform agenda which is even more widespread and systemic than we have seen them undertake in the past. The shameful actions of these franchises should never have reached the point of widespread exploitation. We must restore vigilance to restore the community's faith in businesses generally, and examples like 7-Eleven should never happen again. The unfair, unlawful and unjust practices witnessed have no place in Australian society. This pool of evidence is only the tip of the iceberg, and we saw the most recent Fair Work Ombudsman report, which outlined systemic exploitation of vulnerable people in workplaces across Australia, particularly visa holders. Our industrial and workplace protections must focus on ensuring that vulnerable workers have the utmost protections, that they are not taken advantage of and that employers who exploit these workers are called and held to account.
As has become the custom of this government, the Turnbull government, this legislation is a very, very long time coming and, unfortunately, does not go far enough to protect vulnerable workers. Once again, we see an attempt to grab a headline but limited substance from the Turnbull government to back it up. This government has fallen well short of the standard that Labor set to safeguard vulnerable people against exploitation in the workplace prior to, during and after the federal election. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill brings about the commitments the Turnbull government only made because Labor was leading the way with important, necessary and long-overdue measures to stop the exploitation of vulnerable workers by employers. This government bill is playing catch-up to Labor's policy. Labor is relieved to see the government following its example, but these actions are woefully deficient and fall significantly short of the suite of legislative reforms and measures which this government should be introducing to address the breadth of worker exploitation in this country. This bill does nothing in relation to sham contracting, nothing in relation to phoenixing to avoid wages liabilities, nothing in relation to reforms to the Fair Work Act to strengthen protection for workers and nothing to make it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies—reforms which I encourage the government to undertake.
Protecting vulnerable workers has always been a priority for Labor, but not the coalition. It is not a priority for those opposite, and the fact that it has taken them so many months since the last election to introduce legislation and that we are only debating it today is evidence of a half-hearted attempt by the Turnbull government. On this side of the chamber, we will not abandon those workers. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with these workers, fighting the good fight to make sure that they have a fair go, a fair pay and a safe workplace.
Vulnerable workers come in many different forms. SafeWork NSW identifies vulnerable workers as including young people, new workers, apprentices, trainees, contractors, workers with low literacy skills or from migrant and culturally and linguistically diverse community backgrounds, workers with a disability and newly expectant mums. Commonly, these are the workers who are vulnerable and exploited by unscrupulous employers. The Turnbull government's recent actions have proved the government has little interest in protecting these people who rely on penalty rates. These are the people who sacrifice their weekends for the workplace to provide for their families. They do it to ease the economic burden in their households and to make ends meet.
If the Turnbull government genuinely cared about Australian families and their economic security—and we will see about that tonight—the economy generally, these young people in particular and the vulnerable workers I mentioned before, they would not allow their penalty rates to be ruthlessly cut. Only Labor is committed to protecting the 700,000 of Australia's lowest-paid workers by stopping these cuts to penalty rates. The government should be supporting Labor's bill to protect penalty rates.
The bill before the House has some good things, and we will support it accordingly. The bill amends the Fair Work Act to increase penalties for serious contraventions, which are described as conduct that is:
… deliberate and part of a systemic pattern of conduct …
relating to prescribed workplace laws. It will increase penalties—and we applaud that—for employers' record-keeping failures, with new maximum penalties extending to false or misleading employee records or pay slips, where the contravening employer knows the documents to be false or misleading. It is a good reform. There is a new provision that ensures franchisors and holding companies are responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the contravention and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it—an objective test that has been upheld by courts for a very long time. These new responsibilities will only apply where franchisors and holding companies have significant degrees of influence or control over their business networks, and a franchisor or holding company may raise a defence of taking reasonable steps to prevent the contravention.
The bill also expressly prohibits employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments. This should prevent employers from demanding a portion of their wages to be paid back in cash, like we saw in the Four Corners and Fairfax stories covering the experience of exploited 7-Eleven workers. Importantly, the bill gives the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to ask questions and to expect compulsory answers in relation to investigations concerning a breach of the Fair Work Act, where failure to answer questions may arise and cause civil liability. And we welcome the increase in penalties for serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act, as well as the increase in penalties for record-keeping failures by employers. These penalties are there to act as a deterrent—to modify behaviour, as it were.
We have seen these instances time and time again, from big businesses to small businesses, across the country. Commenting on this particular bill, the Australian Council of Trade Unions said:
What is clear from these recent wage scandals is that business size is not a guarantee against widespread breaches of workplace laws, neither is commercial success, nor is being a common household name present on many high streets.
We have seen exploitation across a whole range of areas—for example, exploitation in Albury recently involved a penalty of more than half a million dollars, the result of legal action against a cuisine company by the Fair Work Ombudsman for exploitation of five workers coerced into paying portions of their wages under threat of violence, dismissal and withdrawal of support for visas. It is unconscionable that employers should threaten a person's place in this country. The Fair Work Ombudsman is setting penalties and has said they send a clear message to employers exploiting their workers, saying:
These record penalties are a big blow in the fight to stamp out deliberate exploitation of overseas workers in Australia.
Regrettably, some businesses will still attempt to negate the law.
We support the role of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the efforts that have been made to address the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable workers, and we do not accept the criticism of those opposite in relation to our stewardship of the Fair Work Ombudsman when we were in government. We reject that. The ombudsman acts as a single point of contact for advice and information on Australia's workplace relations system. The Fair Work Ombudsman monitors compliance and inquires into and investigates any practice or act which is contrary to workplace laws, awards and agreements. It also has the capacity to litigate. The Fair Work Ombudsman has said in relation to this bill:
Stronger powers … would ensure that unscrupulous operators that habitually ignore our requests and hinder our investigations are held to account; higher penalties would more effectively deter intentional wrong-doing and incentivise employers who are unsure of their obligations to check they are doing the right thing.
In 2015-16 alone, the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered $27.3 million for 11,518 workers who were exploited. These workers deserve protection, not exploitation. They deserve the pay that is rightfully theirs. We will target these issues and we will continue to support the work done by so many organisations, such as workers' representatives like United Voice and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which told the ABC that text messages being exchanged between the employer and 7-Eleven workers demonstrate that the cashback scheme is still alive and kicking amongst businesses. We have taken the view that we should continue the fight in relation to these issues.
An appropriate comment was made in a submission the Uniting Church in Australia made to the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It said:
Theft of wages can cause more harm to a person compared to other more minor forms of theft that are treated as criminal matters.
That is very apt. I commend the Uniting Church for making that point. It is a very appropriate point to make. The ACTU stated in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry into this bill:
There is fear amongst many temporary visa holders about the precarious visa status and the potential for deportation over minor, inadvertent or coerced breaches of their visa conditions.
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia said:
Lack of knowledge about the Australian workplace relations scheme, including their workplace rights and entitlements, lack of support networks, social isolation, and language barriers all contribute to this vulnerability.
As shadow minister for immigration and border protection, I am well aware of the important role the Fair Work Ombudsman plays in protecting from exploitation vulnerable migrant workers on visas. The number of disputes involving visa holders resolved by the Fair Work Ombudsman has increased from about five per cent of dispute forms lodged in 2011-12 to 13 per cent in 2015-16, despite visa workers accounting for only seven per cent of the total Australian workforce.
There is a case for change. There have been instances in relation to Myer and to Pizza Hut, to supply chain arrangements in relation to groups involved in poultry processing plants. There have been allegations made in relation to Coffee Club, Caltex, Outback Steakhouse and so many others, including Domino's. We have introduced a private member's bill that would protect workers. We have talked about the idea of protecting penalty rates and protecting workers generally. We call on the government to take up Labor's approach. Labor's bill has a more comprehensive approach to the protection of workers. The government needs to get rid of its half baked, almost laissez faire attitude to this area of work and get on with the job of protecting workers. Ours is a far more comprehensive approach. The government should be addressing issues of sham contracting and phoenixing. We propose strengthening the powers of the courts to make orders requiring directors of phoenixed companies to pay unpaid wages and employee entitlements. The government needs to make sure that the Fair Work Act applies to all workers. The bill we have introduced makes it clear that the Fair Work Act applies to all workers, regardless of their immigration status, and requires the Fair Work Ombudsman to take further steps to inform employees of their rights. We want to make directors of companies responsible. We will criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats, including the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers. We led the way during the 2016 election campaign, enhancing a comprehensive packaging, and we are calling on the government to pick these reforms up.
We want a bipartisan approach in this area. We are prepared to support this legislation, but the government must do much more. We call on them to adopt Labor's reforms—not a half-baked attempt but the entire suite of Labor's reforms—to protect vulnerable workers in this country. In addition to that, they can certainly take up Labor's protection of 700,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers, who on 1 July this year will lose $77 unless this government acts. We call on the government to act.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Mr HILL (Bruce) (17:56): I ask leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2017-18 and also for leave to present my statement.
Leave granted.
Mr HILL: This'll be a fascinating way to conclude before we suspend, no doubt!
Each year the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider draft budget estimates of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of parliament. I rise today to fulfil this requirement and make a statement on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these offices is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates.
With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee has been informed that the PBO is not seeking supplementation in the 2017-18 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has advised the committee that the PBO's estimated expenses for 2017-18 can be met from within the PBO's existing resources. The committee endorses the proposed 2017-18 budget for the PBO and commends the PBO for its high-quality work in support of parliamentarians and the public.
With regard to the Australian National Audit Office, the committee has been informed that the ANAO is not seeking supplementation in the 2017-18 budget. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that the ANAO's resources are adequate for 2017-18 and that he anticipates completing approximately 48 performance audits over the period. Enhanced performance information is a key focus of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The ANAO is continuing to develop its audit methodology in this area so as to be in a position to audit the annual performance statements of all Commonwealth entities. The committee endorses the proposed budget for the ANAO in 2017-18 and commends the ANAO for its high-quality work and continuing focus on the Commonwealth performance framework.
In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work programs and draft budget estimates of the PBO and ANAO. As independent authorities, the PBO and ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the parliament. The committee appreciates the efforts of both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General in maintaining strong working relationships with the parliament and in particular with this committee. They have made themselves available for regular briefings and provided invaluable advice to the committee on a variety of matters. The committee looks forward to continuing these productive relationships.
The committee also draws the parliament's attention to the fact that Mr Phil Bowen has announced his retirement as Parliamentary Budget Officer in July. The committee extends its appreciation for Mr Bowen's proficient and meticulous stewardship of the PBO in its first five years of operation and notes that the independent review of the PBO by Dr Ian Watt stated:
… in a short period of time, the PBO had developed into a well-regarded, credible, independent, non-partisan source of expertise on the budget cycle, fiscal policy and policy costings.
Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:30
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Morrison.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (19:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
For many years now, as our economy has gone through major changes, Australians have had to dig deep to keep our economy on the right track.
During this time we have consistently outperformed the top advanced economies in the world.
However, not all Australians have shared in this hard won growth. Many remain frustrated at not getting ahead.
This is especially true in areas where technological change, globalisation and the end of the mining investment boom has had a significant impact.
Small business owners have gone without to keep their businesses open. Australians have taken second jobs, where they can, so bills can be paid.
And it's been a fair while since most hardworking Australians have had a decent pay rise.
I know this has put real pressure on Australians and on their families. Terribly, this has meant some families have even broken apart.
I believe, though, that we are now moving towards the end of this difficult period.
The signs of an improving global economy are there to see.
There is clearly the potential for better days ahead.
But success cannot be taken for granted. We must be determined to secure our opportunities.
This Budget is about making the right choices to secure the better days ahead.
Our choices are based on the principles of fairness, security and opportunity.
We must choose to focus on growing our economy to secure more and better paying jobs.
We cannot succumb to the laziness that thinks growth will take care of itself.
We must choose to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on.
We cannot underestimate just how important these services are to people.
We must choose to tackle cost of living pressures for Australians and their families.
We cannot agree with those who say there is nothing that the Government can do.
And we must choose to ensure the Government lives within its means.
Because we cannot pass a burden and forsake our obligations to the next generation.
Mr Speaker, tonight I announce a fair and responsible path back to a balanced budget.
Having exhausted every opportunity to secure savings from our 2014–15 and 2015–16 Budgets, we have decided to reset the Budget by reversing these measures at a cost of $13 billion.
Despite this, I can confirm tonight that the Budget is projected to return to balance in 2020–21 and remain in surplus over the medium term.
The underlying cash balance will improve from a forecast deficit of $29.4 billion in 2017–18 to a projected surplus of $7.4 billion in 2020–21.
Growth in payments has been restricted to less than [2.0] per cent per year.
Since coming to Government we have arrested growth in our debt by more than two thirds.
Around three quarters of the increase in our debt since 2007-08 has been driven by welfare, health and education spending.
To respect future taxpayers, this everyday spending should be funded from the first dollar we receive in taxes, not funded by debt.
The Budget papers show, after you take into account the net operating balance, infrastructure grants, and non cash accounting provisions, the Government will no longer be borrowing to pay for our everyday expenses from 2018-19—just over one year away.
There is now a clear and growing consensus, Mr Speaker, that the global economic outlook is improving.
We have positioned Australia well to take advantage.
At home, we expect real growth to rebound to three percent over the next two years, after a temporary slowing this year, that takes into account Cyclone Debbie.
Household consumption, non-mining business investment and exports are expected to support growth.
Wage growth is expected to increase from around two per cent to above three per cent over the next four years.
Given commodity prices continue to be volatile, we have maintained our conservative assumptions.
Mr Speaker, in this Budget, we have chosen to grow our economy to support more and better paying jobs.
For the past year we have been delivering our national economic plan for jobs and growth.
The first phase of our enterprise tax plan is now law. Our export trade deals are bearing fruit, with additional access secured. And our investments in science and innovation and our defence industries are breaking ground.
Tonight we add to this plan.
And we start by backing in small business even further.
Small business owners are out there fighting for growth in their businesses every day. They deserve our respect and our support.
Backing up our recently legislated tax cuts, small businesses with a turnover up to $10 million will continue to be able to immediately write off expenditure up to $20,000 for a further year.
And we will take further action to reward States and Territories that cut red tape costs for small business with an innovation and incentive fund.
To support growth we choose to invest in building Australia, rail by rail, runway by runway and road by road.
We will establish the Western Sydney Airport Corporation to build and operate the new Western Sydney airport, creating 20,000 jobs by the early 2030s and 60,000 in the longer term.
We will inject up to $5.3 billion in equity over the next ten years into this company to get the job done.
Earth moving works will commence on the 1800-hectare site in the second half of next year and the Western Sydney Airport will be delivered in 2026.
The Snowy Mountains Scheme is the benchmark for nation building infrastructure.
The Prime Minister has announced our intention to further develop the Snowy Hydro with Snowy 2.0. Tonight we announce our intention to go further.
The Commonwealth is open to acquiring a larger share or indeed outright ownership of Snowy Hydro, from the NSW and Victorian State Governments, subject to some sensible conditions.
First of all, funds received by the States would need to be reinvested in priority infrastructure projects in their states.
Second, the Snowy Hydro's obligations under its water licence would be reaffirmed and we would commit to work together to expedite and streamline environmental and planning processes associated with Snowy 2.0, without compromising any standards or controls.
And third, Snowy Hydro would have to remain in public hands.
We have already begun discussions with NSW and invited similar discussions with Victoria.
Tonight, we announce we will deliver $75 billion in infrastructure funding and financing over the next ten years.
$844 million will be used to upgrade the Bruce Highway, including $530 million for works from the Pine Rivers to Caloundra section.
In Western Australia we are investing $1.6 billion in Commonwealth funds in infrastructure, including funding for better road access to the Fiona Stanley Hospital precinct.
In Victoria, we will make $1 billion available for regional rail and other infrastructure projects, including $30 million to develop a business case for a rail link to Tullamarine Airport. A new $500 million Victorian regional rail fund will include $100 million for the duplication of the Geelong-Waurn Ponds line.
In addition, the Turnbull Government will establish a $10 billion National Rail Programme to deliver rail projects that provide better connections for our cities and regions and create new opportunities to grow our economy.
Projects such as Adelink, Brisbane Metro, Tullamarine Rail link, Cross River Rail in Brisbane, and the Western Sydney Airport Rail link, all have the potential to be supported through this programme, subject to a proven business case.
It is important to invest in infrastructure, but we have to make the right choices on projects, as part of a broader economic growth strategy.
Our new Infrastructure and Projects Financing Agency will help us make those right choices, recruiting people with commercial experience to ensure we use taxpayers money wisely.
We must also choose to invest specifically for growth in our regions.
The Productivity Commission recently highlighted that some regional areas have been disconnected from our national growth.
So we will establish a $472 million Regional Growth Fund to back in the plans that regional communities are making to take control of their own economic future. This includes $200 million in funding to support a further round of the successful Building Better Regions programme.
In one of the biggest investments ever seen in regional Australia, the Government will fund the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project with $8.4 billion in equity to be provided to the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Construction on this 1,700 kilometre project will begin in 2017-18 and will support 16,000 jobs at the peak of construction. It will benefit not just Melbourne and Brisbane, but all the regions along its route.
Skilled migration has always played a significant role in driving our economic growth.
But it must be on our terms and we must skill more Australians to secure jobs.
Until now, employers have had to contribute 1 or 2 per cent of their payroll to training if they employ foreign workers. These requirements have proven difficult to police.
Accordingly, we are replacing these requirements with an annual foreign worker levy of $1,200 or $1,800 per worker per year on temporary work visas and a $3,000 or $5,000 one-off levy for those on a permanent skilled visa.
Over the next four years, $1.2 billion will be raised from this levy that will contribute directly to a new Commonwealth-State Skilling Australians Fund.
States and Territories will only be able to draw on this fund when they deliver on their commitments to train new apprentices.
Mr Speaker, in this Budget we have chosen to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on.
The first duty of a national Government is to keep Australians safe.
In 2020-21, we will meet our commitment to increase defence spending to two per cent of GDP, three years ahead of schedule.
We are supporting our 2,300 Defence force personnel serving overseas.
We are investing over $300 million to ensure the AFP can continue to lead the charge against terrorism, organised crime, child exploitation and other crimes.
And we will continue to ensure Operation Sovereign Borders has the resources needed to do its job.
I know that 'stopping the boats' was something many said could not be done. What others mocked as a slogan we turned into an outcome.
Every Australian understands the importance of Healthcare.
Tonight, we put to rest any doubts about Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
We are lifting the freeze on the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
We are also reversing the removal of the bulk billing incentive for diagnostic imaging and pathology services and the increase in the PBS co-payment and related changes.
The cost of reversing these measures is $2.2 billion over the next four years.
Tonight, I also announce we will legislate to guarantee Medicare and the PBS with a Medicare Guarantee Bill.
This new law will set up a Medicare Guarantee Fund to pay for all expenses on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Proceeds from the Medicare Levy will be paid into the fund.
An additional contribution from income tax revenue will also be paid into the Medicare Guarantee Fund to make up the difference.
The Bill will provide transparency about what it really costs to run Medicare and the PBS and a clear guarantee on how we pay for it.
$1.2 billion in new medicines will be made available, including for patients with chronic heart failure, funded by an agreement to decrease the cost of medicines for taxpayers.
The Commonwealth will increase hospitals funding by an additional $2.8 billion over four years.
Significantly, we will invest an additional $115 million in mental health, including funding for rural telehealth psychological services, mental health research and to prevent suicide.
We will also invest $1.4 billion in ground-breaking health research over the next four years, including $65.9 million this year, to help research into children's cancer.
All up, our commitments equate to a $10 billion re-investment in Australia's Healthcare over four years, including the $2.8 billion increase in hospital funding.
They are underpinned by cornerstone partnerships struck by the Health Minister with our doctors, specialists, pharmacists and the medicines sector.
And tonight we have chosen to close the funding gap for our National Disability Insurance Scheme once and for all.
The funding gap is currently $55.7 billion over the next ten years. We have previously sought to close this gap with budget savings that we have not been able to get through the Parliament.
To ensure the NDIS is fully funded we will legislate to increase the Medicare Levy by 0.5 percentage points in two years' time, when the extra bills start coming in.
This will also provide further time to explain to Australians what the NDIS will deliver.
Even if we are not impacted directly, this is all our responsibility.
Our decision to increase the Levy reflects the fact that all Australians have a role to play.
I also announce a commitment of $80 million for Australians with a mental illness such as severe depression, eating disorders, schizophrenia and post-natal depression resulting in a psychosocial disability, including those who had been at risk of losing their services during the transition to the NDIS.
The Turnbull Government will continue to invest record amounts in education.
After reversing proposed savings from the 2014-15 Budget, we will invest $18.6 billion in extra funding to educate our children in all schools over the next ten years.
Our schools funding package delivers a fairer and simpler way to meet our shared commitment to educate each and every child, in accordance with the Gonski needs based standard.
In addition to the funds provided by the GST to the States, we will meet 20 per cent of the needs-based funding for every student in our public school system and 80 per cent for students in non-government schools by 2027. Average funding increases for each student across all sectors will grow at an average of 4.1 per cent each year.
In Higher Education, we are launching a fairer system, with students asked to pay a bit more for their own education costs. However taxpayers will continue to subsidise more than half the cost of each student's higher education.
A 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend will be applied to universities for the next two years to ensure taxpayers and students get better value for their investments.
This Budget also delivers important increased support for veterans mental health, protections for children within the family justice system, victims of domestic violence, closing the gap for Indigenous Australians and creating the National Redress Scheme for victims of institutional child sexual abuse.
Mr Speaker, in this Budget we have chosen to place downward pressure on rising costs of living.
The Prime Minister's energy security plan provides reliable and affordable energy for Australians, coping with rising electricity prices.
He is securing access to our gas resources for domestic use. We have set aside around $90 million for this task in this budget.
He is ensuring energy consumers and businesses get a fairer deal, by funding the ACCC to investigate and police competition in retail electricity and gas markets.
The Prime Minister is working to improve energy regulation, with additional funding tonight to improve gas market efficiency and transparency.
He is investing in new generation, transmission and storage capacity. This includes Snowy 2.0, around $37 million to South Australia for new energy infrastructure and funding to prove up gas pipeline proposals to South Australia from Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
And more than $3 billion has already been provided to support new emissions technologies.
To support older Australians we are restoring the pensioner concession card to those impacted by the pension assets test change introduced earlier this year.
As a result, they will regain access to state and territory based concessions that were withdrawn after the change.
And we want customers and taxpayers to get a fairer deal from our banks.
For the system to be fairer, there needs to be greater competition and accountability _ Now.
In response to the Ramsay Review, we are establishing a simpler, more accessible and more affordable one-stop shop for Australians to resolve their disputes and obtain binding outcomes from the Banks and other financial institutions, to be known as the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.
A new Banking Executive Accountability Regime will be introduced, requiring all senior executives to be registered with APRA. If in breach, they can be deregistered and disqualified from holding executive positions, and be stripped of their significant bonuses.
Banks will also be held to account if they try and hide misconduct by executives with new mandatory reporting requirements.
If banks breach misconduct rules, they will also face bigger fines starting at $50 million for small banks and $200 million for large banks.
As recommended by the Coleman committee, a permanent team will be established within the ACCC to investigate competition in our banking and financial system.
The introduction of an open banking regime in 2018 will give customers greater access to their own data, empowering them to seek out better and cheaper services.
Tonight, I also announce a new six-basis-point levy on the big banks' liabilities, starting on July 1.
This represents an additional and fair contribution from our major banks, is similar to measures imposed in other advanced countries, and will even up the playing field for smaller banks.
The levy will only affect our five largest banks with assessed liabilities of $100 billion or more and does not apply to superannuation funds or insurance companies.
Importantly, customer deposits of less than $250,000 and additional capital requirements imposed on the banks by regulatory authorities are excluded from their assessed liabilities.
Unlike the previous bank deposit tax, this is specifically not a levy on pensioners and other ordinary deposit accounts, nor is it on home loans.
This measure will secure $6.2 billion over the Budget and forward estimates to support budget repair, including the reversal of significant budget savings measures.
We have also chosen to put downward pressure on rising housing costs
If a family or an individual has a roof over their head that they can rely on, then all of life's other challenges become more manageable.
Whether you are saving to buy a home, spending a high proportion of income on your rent, waiting for subsidised housing, or you're homeless, this is an important issue to you.
There are no silver bullets to make housing more affordable. But by adopting a comprehensive approach, by working together, by understanding the spectrum of housing needs, we can make a difference.
We will work with the States and Territories and local Governments to get more homes built, because prices are higher where demand is greater than supply.
The Commonwealth will replace the National Affordable Housing Agreement that provides $1.3 billion every year to the States and Territories, with a new set of agreements, with the same funding, requiring the States to deliver on housing supply targets and reform their planning systems.
We will also establish a $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility, based on a UK model, to fund 'micro' city deals that remove infrastructure impediments to developing new homes.
An online Commonwealth Land Bank will be established detailing sites that can be made available for residential development.
In Melbourne, land for a new suburb that could cater for 6,000 new homes will be unlocked just 10km from the CBD, by releasing surplus Defence land at Maribyrnong.
The Turnbull Government will also help deliver tens of thousands of new homes needed in Western Sydney as part of our Western Sydney city deal.
A new National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will be established by July 1 next year to provide long-term, low cost finance to support more affordable rental housing. States and Territories will also be encouraged to transfer stock to the community housing sector.
Other measures to address supply include: allowing Managed Investment Trusts to be used to develop and own affordable housing, providing investors in affordable housing with greater income certainty by enabling direct deduction of welfare payments from tenants, and increasing the capital gains tax discount to 60 per cent for investments in affordable housing.
These measures will also support State, Territory and local governments imposing inclusionary zoning requirements on new development sites and provide more vehicles for superannuation funds to invest in affordable housing.
And tonight I announce $375 million for a permanent extension of homelessness funding to the States, with a continued focus on supporting young people and victims of domestic violence.
On the demand side, for those who are trying to save to buy their first home, we will support them by providing a tax cut on their first home deposit savings.
First home buyers will be able to save for a deposit by salary sacrificing into their superannuation account over and above their compulsory superannuation contribution from July 1.
The First Home Super Savers Scheme will attract the tax advantages of superannuation. Contributions and earnings will be taxed at 15 per cent, rather than marginal rates, and withdrawals will be taxed at their marginal rate, less 30 percentage points.
Savers will not have to set up another account, they can just use their existing super account and decide how much of their income they want to put aside to save for their first home deposit.
Contributions will be limited to $30,000 per person in total and $15,000 per year.
Under this plan, most first home savers will be able accelerate their savings by at least 30 per cent.
We will encourage older Australians to free up housing stock, by enabling downsizers over the age of 65 to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into their superannuation fund from the proceeds of the sale of their principal home.
And on demand management, we will continue to prefer the scalpel to the chainsaw, to avoid a housing shock.
Mum and dad investors will continue to be able to use negative gearing, supporting the supply of rental housing and placing downward pressure on rents.
Our regulatory agencies, will continue to use the flexible and calibrated controls they have available.
And we will legislate to extend APRA's ability to apply controls to the non-ADI sector and explicitly allow them to differentiate the application of loan controls by location.
Even tougher rules on foreign investment in residential real estate will be introduced, removing the main residence capital gains tax exemption, and tightening compliance.
We will also apply an annual foreign investment levy of at least $5,000 on all future foreign investors who fail to either occupy or lease their property, for at least six months each year.
And we will restore the requirement that prevents developers from selling more than 50 per cent of new developments to foreign investors.
Together, these measures represent a comprehensive package that can make a difference.
Finally Mr Speaker, we have chosen to ensure the Government lives within its means.
We will continue our crackdown on multinationals not paying their fair share of tax.
The ATO has already raised $2.9 billion in tax liabilities this year against a group of just seven large multinational companies, and expects to raise more than $4 billion in total this financial year from large public companies and multinationals.
Tonight we are toughening the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law to extend the rules to structures involving foreign partnerships or trusts and clamping down on aggressive structuring using hybrids.
We will also be introducing new tax integrity measures as recommended by our Black Economy Taskforce.
We will continue the fight against serious financial and organised crime by providing the Australian Taxation Office with additional funding to chase and tax the crooks.
From 1 July 2017, the Government will improve the integrity of negative gearing by disallowing deductions for travel expenses and, for properties bought after today, the Government will also limit plant and equipment depreciation deductions to only those expenses directly incurred by the investors.
Together all of these measures are estimated to provide a gain to revenue of $2.1 billion over the forward estimates.
And we will continue to stop people trying to take an easy ride on our welfare system to protect it, most importantly, for those who need that safety net most.
The best way to get your welfare budget under control is to get Australians off welfare and into work. The best form of welfare is a job.
We will support young parents to get jobs by expanding the successful ParentsNext programme from 13,000 vulnerable young parents to 68,000 in more than 20 new locations, especially those with high Indigenous populations.
The programme supports young parents, mainly mothers, with child care, pre-employment training, financial literacy and numeracy skills and linking up with other education and training opportunities.
We are also strengthening mutual obligation requirements.
Those who do not meet their responsibilities and either fail to turn up to appointments or take on suitable work will face escalating financial penalties, ranging from reduced to cancelled payments.
We want to support job seekers affected by drug and alcohol abuse, but to protect taxpayers, it has to be a two-way street.
We will no longer accept, as an excuse from repeat offenders, that the reason they could not meet their mutual obligation requirements to turn up to interviews or to take suitable work was because they were either drunk or drug-affected.
In addition we will commence a modest drug testing trial for 5,000 new welfare recipients.
JobSeeker recipients who test positive would be placed on the Cashless Debit Card for their welfare payments and be subjected to further tests and possible referral for treatment.
Other welfare measures include: strengthening verification requirements for single parents seeking welfare, a crackdown on those attempting to collect multiple payments, stricter residency rules for new migrants to access Australian pensions, and denying welfare for a disability caused solely by their own substance abuse.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, this is a responsible Budget.
It sets out a credible and affordable plan, based on the principles of fairness, security and opportunity.
Above all this is an honest Budget.
It is honest about our challenges and opportunities.
It does not pretend to do things with money we do not have.
It does not indulge simplistic solutions to what we know are highly complex problems.
This is a Budget that makes the right choices for Australians who are working hard to secure the better days ahead for themselves and their families.
That is why this is a Budget and a plan that can be trusted and supported.
So to be clear, our plan is,
to grow our economy to create more and better paid jobs
to guarantee the essentials that Australians rely on,
to reduce cost of living pressures, and
to ensure, as always, that the government, this government, will always live within its means.
Once again Mr Speaker, I commend the Turnbull government's plan, this Budget and this Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
BUDGET
Documents
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (20:05): For the information of honourable members, I present the following documents in connection with the budget 2017-18:
Budget strategy and outlook 2017-18
Budget measures 2017-18
Federal Financial Relations 2017-18
Agency resourcing 2017-18.
Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Regional Australia—Driving Our Economy 2017-18
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (20:06): I present the following ministerial statement Regional Australia—driving our economy 2017-18. Details of the statements will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (20:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018, are the budget appropriation bills for this financial year. This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of over $15 billion. I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill.
First, the Department of Communications and the Arts will receive just over $9 billion. This will be used to provide NBN Co with a government loan on commercial terms to support the completion of the National Broadband Network.
Second, the Department of Defence will receive over $2 billion to enable the purchase of military equipment and the construction of support facilities as announced in the 2016 Defence white paper.
Third, the Department of Human Services will receive approximately $162 million, which includes just under $24 million in information and communications technology, capital investments to support veteran-centric reform measure.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (20:09): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 provides appropriations for 2017-2018 for the operations of the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund of just over $326 million. The Department of Parliamentary Services will receive just under $124 million to maintain the integrity and amenity of Parliament House. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (20:10): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 20:10
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Porter: to move:
That the following orders of the day, government business, be discharged:
Second reading—Resumption of debate:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2016;
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment) Bill 2016; and
Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016.
Mr Watts: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to the UNHCR, the number of displaced people fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is the highest since World War II, and includes around half a million refugees and asylum seekers in South East Asia;
(b) the increase in the number of people seeking asylum in recent years and the decrease in the number of third country resettlement places being offered in 2017 means that refugees face waiting more than a decade before they are able to safely restart their lives;
(c) during the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees and Migrants at the United Nations in New York City in 2016, the Canadian Government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Open Society Foundations launched a joint initiative to increase the private sponsorship of refugee resettlement around the world;
(d) since the late 1970s, the Canadian Government has facilitated the resettlement of more than 275,000 refugees through private sponsorship by individuals, community groups and private sector organisations; and
(e) the previous Australian Government initiated a community sponsorship program in Australia in 2012 and the current Australian Government committed to making this program permanent during the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees and Migrants; and
(2) calls on Australian governments, businesses and community organisations to explore ways to use private sponsorship to expand the resettlement of refugees in Australia through formal channels.
Ms Brodtmann: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Canberra was established to be the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support;
(b) more than 60 per cent of the Australian Public Service is located outside of Canberra, serving the needs of communities around Australia; and
(c) the proposed relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra to Armidale demonstrates the adverse impact of the Government’s ad hoc decentralisation decisions on the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and make the outcome of that analysis available to the public;
(b) agree that:
(i) decisions regarding decentralisation should only be made subject to an open and transparent public consultation process and take into account the outcome of a cost benefit analysis; and
(ii) any decentralisation of Government agencies is based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and does not come at the expense of the Canberra community and economy and effective and efficient government; and
(c) protect the Sir Robert Menzies vision of Canberra as the Commonwealth seat of Government, administration and policy support and a ‘worthy capital’ that Australians can admire and respect.
Ms McGowan: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Australian Public Service to support the use of telecommuting in regional areas, and for related purposes.
Mr T. R. Wilson: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Israel is a legitimate democratic state and ally of Australia;
(b) Australia remains committed to Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and continues to support a peaceful two-state resolution for the Israeli-Palestinian issue;
(c) Australia and Israel have a unique relationship supported by a commitment to the rights and liberty of their citizenry, the rule of law and a pluralist society underpinned by mutual respect;
(d) there is a concerning collapse of the traditional support among Australia’s political parties for the path to a peaceful agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestinians for a two-state solution; and
(e) the culture within the Australian Labor Party (ALP) regarding foreign policy is deteriorating, aided by high profile party figures who perpetrate enduring myths about the causes of instability in the Middle East; and
(2) calls on the ALP to:
(a) reject the empty symbolism within the politically correct interpretation of issues in the Middle East;
(b) condemn senior figures within it who have called for Australia, independent of any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, to formally recognise a Palestinian state.
Mr Hogan: to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the widespread devastation in Lismore caused by flooding associated with Cyclone Debbie;
(2) acknowledges the hard work of the state emergency services, rural fire services, police, fire brigades and Australian Defence Force and other emergency services in responding to the recent flooding and damage caused by Cyclone Debbie in numerous communities in Northern NSW and Queensland; and
(3) congratulates the Australian Government, in conjunction with the NSW and QLD governments, on their swift response to this event.
Ms Brodtmann: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the World Endometriosis Conference is held every three years, with this year’s conference being held in Vancouver, Canada on 17 to 20 May 2017;
(b) at this year’s conference, Australia will nominate to host the 15th World Endometriosis Conference to be held in 2023;
(c) one in ten Australian women have endometriosis, a disease in which the tissue that is similar to the lining of the womb grows outside it in other parts of the body;
(d) there is a lack of understanding in the Australian community about endometriosis and the impact it has on women’s lives;
(e) the disease can lead to extreme pain, infertility and other complications related to the bowel, periods, headaches and a variety of other symptoms around the body;
(f) there is a delay in diagnosing endometriosis of up to seven to ten years because the symptoms are variable; and
(g) University of Sydney research has shown that endometriosis costs Australia $7.7 billion each year—two thirds of this is in lost productivity and the rest is in direct healthcare costs; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) support Australia’s nomination to host the 15th World Endometriosis Conference to be held in 2023; and
(b) end the silence about endometriosis by raising awareness of the disease and its symptoms across Australia and promoting further research.
Ms Brodtmann: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the use of sexual violence in armed conflict is a war crime; and
(b) the use of sexual violence as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population is a crime against humanity;
(2) acknowledges that Islamic State:
(a) is perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity against minority Muslim groups, Christians, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria;
(b) has perpetrated acts of sexual violence amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity; and
(c) has dedicated infrastructure for the kidnap, trafficking and sale of sex slaves; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) investigate, prosecute and hold to account Australians who have committed crimes, according to domestic or international law, as members of lslamic State or other recognised international terrorist groups; and
(b) support international efforts to gather evidence, investigate and prosecute those responsible for international crimes perpetrated by Islamic State or other recognised international terrorist groups.
Ms Brodtmann: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 14 May 2017 marks the ninth anniversary of the imprisonment of seven Baha’i leaders in Iran;
(b) these five men and two women were incarcerated for attending the spiritual and social needs of the Baha’i community;
(c) the Baha’i community is Iran’s largest non-Muslim religious minority and is subject to a widespread, systemic campaign of persecution; and
(d) the House has previously condemned the persecution and treatment of Baha’is in Iran in 2012 and 2015; and
(2) calls for:
(a) the immediate release of the seven Baha’i leaders, along with other Baha’is who have been unjustly incarcerated for their beliefs; and
(b) an end to the discriminatory and unjust persecution of Baha’is in Iran.
Questions without notice: Additional answers
None.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Organ Transplant
(Question No. 634)
Mr Zappia to ask the Minister for Health, in writing, on 28 November 2016:
Does the Government keep records on the number of Australians who travel overseas for organ transplant procedures; if so, (a) how many Australians travelled overseas for such purposes in the calendar year (i) 2011, (ii) 2012, (iii) 2013, (iv) 2014, (v) 2015, and (vi) 2016 (to date), (b) to which countries did they travel, and (c) is Australian Government approval required when overseas travel is for organ transplant purposes.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
No. The Australian Government does not hold information on Australians who may travel overseas for organ transplantation.
The regulation and reporting of organ and tissue donation and transplantation is the responsibility of state and territory governments and the clinical community.
Citizenship
(Question No. 643)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
(1) Under what circumstances is a child born to an Australian citizen within Australia, required to provide additional evidence other than a birth certificate to be granted 'citizenship by birth'.(2) What types of evidence are considered acceptable by his department when assessing a child's claim for 'evidence of citizenship by birth'.(3) What factors within the scope of an application for 'evidence of citizenship by birth' triggers his department to question either parent's claim to parentage of the child.(4) On average per year, how many applications for 'evidence of citizenship by birth' rely on (a) DNA testing of, and (b) other evidence by, one or more parents to prove parental status.(5) In 2016, in how many cases did his department rely on DNA testing in order to finalise applications for 'evidence of citizenship by birth'.(6) In 2016, what proportion (as percentage) of applications was successful in claiming 'evidence of citizenship by birth' relying on evidence other than DNA testing.(7) What fair and reasonable grounds would he consider when assessing a child's claim for citizenship, if the child in question has the same parents as an older sibling who has previously undergone DNA testing to establish biological parentage as 'evidence of citizenship by birth'.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
Under section 12 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a person born in Australia is automatically an Australian citizen at birth if that person had a parent who was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time the person was born.
Only the Department of Immigration and Border Protection can make a finding as to whether a person met the relevant legislative requirements to become an Australian citizen.
In applications for evidence of Australian citizenship where supporting information is unreliable, the department may request additional evidence in order to make a finding. Additional information may include evidence that supports the nature of the relationship between the claimed parents at the time of conception and the person's birth, evidence that there was a parent / child relationship between the Australian citizen and person at the time of birth, evidence that the person was acknowledged socially and legally by the claimed parent at the time of birth and/or DNA evidence showing a biological link between the person and their claimed parent.
For the programme year 2016-17 up to 31 December 2016, less than 2% (548 cases) of the 27,433 applications decided for evidence of Australian citizenship were requested to provide DNA evidence in support of their application.
Applications for evidence of Australian citizenship are assessed individually on a case-by-case basis with all information made available to the department taken into consideration by a delegated decision maker.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(Question No. 645)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:
Did he, or his ministerial staff, meet with staff of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2016; if so, (a) on how many occasions, (b) with who, (c) what was the purpose of each meeting, (d) who initiated each meeting, and (e) was a record kept of each meeting; if so, can a copy of the record of each meeting be provided.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
This exact question was asked in the Senate on 14 December 2016 by Senator Carol Brown. An answer was provided. Please refer to response to Question No 254 tabled in January 2017.
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
(Question No. 646)
Mr Fitzgibbon to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:
(1) What was the forecast revenue from the recovery of costs by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13, (iv) 2013-14, (v) 2014-15, and (vi) 2015-16?
(2) What is the forecast revenue from the recovery of costs by the APVMA from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2016-17, (ii) 2017-18, (iii) 2018-19, and (iv) 2019-20?
(3) What was the actual revenue raised through cost recovery from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2016-17, (ii) 2017-18, (iii) 2018-19, and (iv) 2019-20?
(4) What was the budget appropriation for the APVMA in (a) 2016-17, (b) 2017-18, (c) 2018-19, and (d) 2019-20?
(5) What is the budget appropriation for the APVMA in the forward estimates?
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
1. What was the forecast revenue from the recovery of costs by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2011-12, (iii) 2012-13, (iv) 2013-14, (v) 2014-15, and (vi) 2015-16?
(a) 2010-11 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$3,645,000 |
$18,112,000 |
$3,959,000 |
|
|
|
(b) 2011-12 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$3,687,000 |
$20,026,000 |
$4,195,000 |
|
|
|
(c) 2012-13 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$3,416,000 |
$20,154,000 |
$4,452,000 |
|
|
|
(d) 2013-14 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$5,087,000 |
$17,059,000 |
$4,793,000 |
|
|
|
(e) 2014-15 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$5,554,000 |
$16,263,000 |
$4,703,000 |
|
|
|
(f) 2015-16 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$5,334,000 |
$16,702,000 |
$4,984,000 |
|
|
|
2. What is the forecast revenue from the recovery of costs by the APVMA from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2016-17, (ii) 2017-18, (iii) 2018-19, and (iv) 2019-20?
(a) 2016-17 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,154,000 |
$19,077,000 |
$5,539,000 |
|
|
|
(b) 2017-18 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,673,000 |
$20,687,000 |
$6,007,000 |
|
|
|
(c) 2018-19 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,785,000 |
$21,036,000 |
$6,107,000 |
|
|
|
(d) 2019-20. |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,902,000 |
$21,395,000 |
$6,212,000 |
|
|
|
3. What was the actual revenue raised through cost recovery from (a) application fees, (b) levies, and (c) annual fees, to maintain registrations in (i) 2016-17, (ii) 2017-18, (iii) 2018-19, and (iv) 2019-20?
Answer: For the years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 the actual revenue for cost recovery of applications fees, levies and annual fees to maintain registrations, is not available.
The following tables provide the forecasted figures for the years requested:
(a) 2016-17 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,154,000 |
$19,077,000 |
$5,539,000 |
|
|
|
(b) 2017-18 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,673,000 |
$20,687,000 |
$6,007,000 |
|
|
|
(c) 2018-19 |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,785,000 |
$21,036,000 |
$6,107,000 |
|
|
|
(d) 2019-20. |
|
|
Application fees |
Levies |
Annual fees |
$6,902,000 |
$21,395,000 |
$6,212,000 |
|
|
|
4. What is the budget appropriation for the APVMA in the following years?
(a) 2016-17 |
Budget appropriation |
$4,880,000 |
|
(b) 2017-18 |
Budget appropriation |
$5,625,000 |
|
(c) 2018-19 |
Budget appropriation |
$13,262,000 |
|
(d) 2019-20. |
Budget appropriation |
$3,746,000 |
|
5. What is the budget appropriation for the APVMA in the forward estimates?
(a) 2016-17 |
Budget appropriation forward estimates |
$4,880,000 |
|
(b) 2017-18 |
Budget appropriation forward estimates |
$5,625,000 |
|
(c) 2018-19 |
Budget appropriation forward estimates |
$13,262,000 |
|
(d) 2019-20. |
Budget appropriation forward estimates |
$3,746,000 |
|
Media Monitoring
(Question No. 647)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—
(1) Since 1 January 2016, (a) how many staff has his department employed in corporate affairs to (i) monitor media, or (ii) monitor media as part of their broader responsibilities, and (b) what is their current employment level.
(2) In the (a) 2015, and (b) 2016, calendar year, what was the total cost of monitoring media including (a) labour, (b) administration, and (c) that relating to the employment of contractors.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) (a) In the 2016 calendar year, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources employed one full-time equivalent (FTE) to undertake media monitoring activities, which made up approximately 50 per cent of their role.
(b) APS 5.
(2) (a) Fifty per cent of the APS 5 salary is approximately $40,000 making the 2015–16 total cost $231,960.56, consistent with previous years.
(b) Administration of the contract with iSentia Pty Ltd is included at (a).
(c) For iSentia costs for previous years, please see following table.
Financial Year |
iSentia costs (GST inc.) |
2015–16 |
$191 960.56 |
2014–15 |
$185 684.19 |
2013–14 |
$199 118.94 |
2012–13 |
$208 495.61 |
2011–12 |
$203 589.55 |
2010–11 |
$246 455.38 |
2009–10 |
$269 563.62 |
2008–09 |
$236 948.48 |
Media Interviews
(Question No. 648)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—How many media interviews has the Deputy Prime Minister given since 1 January 2016, and how many of these interviews were transcribed by (a) officers of, or (b) contractors engaged by, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
No record is kept of the number of interviews undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister.
(a) Nil.
(b) Nil.
Transcription
(Question No. 649)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—Since 1 January 2016, what sum has been spent on the engagement of contractors to record and transcribe radio and television interviews for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In 2016, $7458 was spent on these services.
Transcription
(Question No. 650)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—Since 1 January 2016, how many transcripts of his public statements (in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) on radio and television have been provided to the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministerial office, and were the transcripts recorded in response to a request or direction from him, or his office; if not, who initiated the transcription services.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
In 2016, 20 transcripts were provided at the request of the Deputy Prime Minister's office.
Media
(Question No. 651)
Mr Fitzgibbon To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—
(1) Who is responsible for (a) managing, and (b) posting media releases, speeches and transcripts to, the Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial website.
(2) Have all of the Deputy Prime Minister's speeches and interviews transcribed by and for the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, been posted on his ministerial website; if not, (a) how many speeches and transcripts have been withheld from his ministerial website, (b) who made that decision and, in each case, (c) what was the basis for that decision.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
(2) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet does not provide transcription services for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 660)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
(1) By classification, how many staff are employed at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS).(2) By state/territory, how many staff are employed at the AIS.(3) How many (a) ongoing, and (b) non-ongoing, staff are employed at the AIS.
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) (a division of the Australian Sports Commission) has a current workforce of 168.1 people (as at 31 January 2017).
ASC Classification |
31/01/2017 |
EXEC |
1 |
ASC8 |
4 |
ASC7 |
21.6 |
ASC6 |
65.8 |
ASC5 |
34.7 |
ASC4 |
25.27 |
ASC3 |
14.41 |
ASC2 |
1.32 |
ASC1 |
0 |
Total |
168.1 |
The AIS workforce is distributed as follows by state/territory:
State |
31/01/2017 |
ACT |
140.6 |
NSW |
2 |
QLD |
12.4 |
SA |
3.6 |
VIC |
1 |
WA |
2.5 |
OS |
6 |
Total |
168.1 |
Note: The six overseas employees are deployed to the European Training Centre in Gavirate, Italy.
The AIS currently employs 50.37 ongoing staff and 117.73 non-ongoing staff.
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 661)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
(1) By classification, what total number of staff worked at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in(a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13,(h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15, (j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).(2) By state/territory, what total number of staff worked at the AIS in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08,(c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13, (h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15,(j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).(3) How many (a) ongoing, and (b) non-ongoing, staff worked at the AIS in (i) 2006-07, (ii) 2007-08,(iii) 2008-09, (iv) 2009-10, (v) 2010-11, (vi) 2011-12, (vii) 2012-13, (viii) 2013-14, (ix) 2014-15,(x) 2015-16, and (xi) 2016-17 (to date).
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
In 2011 the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) introduced a new role classification system, which means that the classification levels are not consistent throughout the period requested.
Also, the current Human Resource system AURION was introduced to the ASC in 2007 which results in some inconsistencies in reporting. Data is therefore presented from
31 October 2007 for the 2006/2007 period. By classification, the numbers of staff who have worked in the AIS (a division of the Australian Sports Commission) since 2007, up to the current workforce numbers as at 31 January 2017, are represented in the table below:
ASC Classification |
31/10/ 2007 |
30/06/ 2008 |
30/06/ 2009 |
30/06/ 2010 |
30/06/ 2011 |
30/06/ 2012 |
30/06/ 2013 |
30/06/ 2014 |
30/06/ 2015 |
30/06/ 2016 |
31/01/ 2017 |
EXEC |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
ASC8 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
ASC7 |
|
|
|
|
11 |
10 |
19 |
19.6 |
18.6 |
22.6 |
21.6 |
ASC6 |
|
|
|
|
48.14 |
50.34 |
52.03 |
53.78 |
64.48 |
68.19 |
65.8 |
ASC5 |
|
|
|
|
34.33 |
36.7 |
30.8 |
22.22 |
25.9 |
32.7 |
34.7 |
ASC4 |
|
|
|
|
47.99 |
43 |
46.73 |
37.07 |
30 |
22.5 |
25.27 |
ASC3 |
|
|
|
|
11.07 |
18.74 |
17.54 |
9.67 |
16.03 |
15.91 |
14.41 |
ASC2 |
|
|
|
|
9.47 |
3.2 |
3.09 |
1.53 |
0.8 |
1.5 |
1.32 |
ASC1 |
|
|
|
|
4.33 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
COACH |
|
|
|
|
43.59 |
40.93 |
29.93 |
|
|
|
|
SO1 |
110.5 |
7.28 |
6.73 |
7.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO2 |
51 |
30.2 |
25.34 |
29.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO3 |
30.7 |
52.8 |
50.59 |
50.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SO4 |
8.28 |
114.93 |
122.12 |
113.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
201.48 |
206.21 |
205.78 |
201.89 |
214.92 |
209.71 |
205.92 |
150.87 |
162.81 |
168.4 |
168.1 |
During the period 2006/2007 through to 2017, the distribution of AIS staff by state/territory has been as follows:
State |
31/10/ 2007 |
30/06/ 2008 |
30/06/ 2009 |
30/06/ 2010 |
30/06/ 2011 |
30/06/ 2012 |
30/06/ 2013 |
30/06/ 2014 |
30/06/ 2015 |
30/06/ 2016 |
31/01/ 2017 |
ACT |
173.22 |
176.31 |
169.38 |
157.53 |
171.96 |
167.24 |
170.45 |
130.37 |
134.22 |
137.9 |
140.6 |
NSW |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3.6 |
6.2 |
6 |
3.7 |
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
QLD |
7.26 |
8.26 |
12.26 |
16.26 |
14.26 |
15.97 |
9.67 |
8 |
14.49 |
12.4 |
12.4 |
SA |
11 |
11 |
13 |
12 |
11 |
11 |
10.6 |
2.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
3.6 |
VIC |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
WA |
2 |
2 |
3.5 |
5.5 |
6.5 |
5.5 |
5.5 |
2.9 |
2.5 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
OS |
3 |
2.64 |
2.64 |
4 |
|
|
4 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
Total |
201.48 |
206.21 |
205.78 |
201.89 |
214.92 |
209.71 |
205.92 |
150.87 |
162.81 |
168.4 |
168.1 |
The composition of the AIS workforce over the same period has included both ongoing and non-ongoing employees. The table below shows the workforce of the AIS by employment type during the period:
Employment Type |
31/10/ 2007 |
30/06/ 2008 |
30/06/ 2009 |
30/06/ 2010 |
30/06/ 2011 |
30/06/ 2012 |
30/06/ 2013 |
30/06/ 2014 |
30/06/ 2015 |
30/06/ 2016 |
31/01/ 2017 |
Ongoing |
90.02 |
87.51 |
86.77 |
79.4 |
80.87 |
75.57 |
77.14 |
55.5 |
55.33 |
52.5 |
50.37 |
Non-ongoing |
111.46 |
118.7 |
119.01 |
122.49 |
134.05 |
134.14 |
128.78 |
95.37 |
107.48 |
115.9 |
117.73 |
Total |
201.48 |
206.21 |
205.78 |
201.89 |
214.92 |
209.71 |
205.92 |
150.87 |
162.81 |
168.4 |
168.1 |
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 662)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
What job losses and relocations are anticipated at the Australian Institute of Sport campus at Bruce as a result of the Australia's Winning Edge strategy?
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
All job reductions and relocations associated with the Australia's Winning Edge strategy were implemented in 2013 and 2014.
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 663)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
How many athletes are currently directly supported by the Australian Institute of Sport?
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) direct support for athletes is delivered in different ways. In 2015/16:
Whilst 755 athletes were identified for financial support through the AIS dAIS program, due to means testing and a small number of declined offers, a total of 721 athletes received direct financial support to assist them to meet their daily training and competition requirements. The dAIS program for 2016/17 is currently being implemented.
2,299 athletes are currently registered with myAISplaybook that provides support and guidance for athletes through direct access to information, resources and online education to increase their awareness of contemporary issue athletes face as they progress the high performance pathway.
769 athletes receive direct sport science and sport medicine services from AIS practitioners. These athletes are either Centre of Excellence athletes or athletes identified by their respective sport to receive servicing through a contractual arrangement with the AIS.
140 athletes are currently based at the AIS Canberra campus as their daily training environment accessing facilities and services as part of their respective National Sporting Organisation Centre of Excellence.
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 664)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
How many athletes were in residence at the Australian Institute of Sport in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13, (h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15, (j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The number of Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) scholarship athletes in Canberra residential scholarship programs is listed below, noting that athletes resided both on and off the campus.
2007 |
237 |
2008 |
156 |
2009 |
176 |
2010 |
171 |
2011 |
156 |
2012 |
144 |
The number of athletes based at National Sporting Organisation Centres of Excellence located at AIS Canberra campus under Australia's Winning Edgeis listed below, noting that athletes reside both on and off the campus.
2013 |
117 |
2014 |
138 |
2015 |
146 |
2016 |
140 |
2017 |
140* |
*2017 numbers are yet to be finalised as many sports are in the process of implementing their post-Rio high performance programs that include basing athletes at the AIS Canberra campus.
Australian Institute of Sport
(Question No. 665)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
(1) How many visits/tours were made to the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in
(a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13, (h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15, (j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).(2) By group type, how many visits/tours were made to the AIS in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13, (h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15, (j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).(3) By state/territory, how many visits/tours were made to the AIS in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08, (c) 2008-09, (d) 2009-10, (e) 2010-11, (f) 2011-12, (g) 2012-13, (h) 2013-14, (i) 2014-15, (j) 2015-16, and (k) 2016-17 (to date).
Mr Hunt: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Tours made to the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS), by group type:
Year |
Group Tour Attendees |
Public Tour Attendees |
Total Attendees |
2006-07 |
101,600 |
22,300 |
123,900 |
2007-08 |
100,400 |
20,400 |
120,800 |
2008-09 |
111,400 |
19,400 |
130,800 |
2009-10 |
107,500 |
17,000 |
124,500 |
2010-11 |
106,100 |
13,200 |
119,300 |
2011-12 |
106,500 |
11,800 |
118,300 |
2012-13 |
104,800 |
10,300 |
115,100 |
2013-14 |
98,300 |
9,400 |
107,700 |
2014-15 |
105,400 |
9,200 |
114,600 |
2015-16 |
102,400 |
11,300 |
113,700 |
2016-17 (to 31/1/17) |
62,400 |
7,700 |
70,100 |
Group Tour Attendees relates to those undertaking an AIS Tour as part of an organised group such as a school group, sporting club or community group. The Tours booking and reporting system does not provide further breakdown of the group types. Public Tour Attendees relates to free independent travellers undertaking an AIS Tour.
Tours by state / territory
State / Territory |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 (to 31/1/17) |
ACT |
4,800 |
2,500 |
1,700 |
2,600 |
1,800 |
New South Wales |
66,600 |
55,700 |
62,700 |
60,600 |
39,600 |
Northern Territory |
700 |
400 |
300 |
300 |
400 |
Queensland |
13,400 |
16,700 |
18,600 |
15,700 |
12,000 |
South Australia |
4,800 |
5,100 |
5,200 |
6,900 |
3,400 |
Tasmania |
1,200 |
1,400 |
1,600 |
1,600 |
1,200 |
Victoria |
17,700 |
19,000 |
19,100 |
20,200 |
7,900 |
Western Australia |
4,800 |
5,300 |
5,000 |
5,200 |
3,700 |
International |
1,100 |
1,600 |
400 |
600 |
100 |
Total |
115,100 |
107,700 |
114,600 |
113,700 |
70,100 |
The number of tour attendees by state / territory is only available from 2012-13.
Deeming rates
(Question No. 667)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 7 February 2017:
(1) Why do deeming rates range between 1.75 and 3.25 per cent, while the Reserve Bank of Australia interest rate is 1.5 per cent, and the average interest paid in most financial institutions is currently even lower.(2) How often are deeming rates reviewed and adjusted according to fluctuations in real interest rates.(3) When will he next review deeming rates.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Currently a deeming rate of 1.75 per cent applies to:
the first $49,200 of a single recipient's total financial investments;
the first $81,600 of a pensioner couple's total financial investments;
the first $40,800 of total financial investments for each member of an allowee couple.
A deeming rate of 3.25 per cent applies to financial investments above these amounts.
The lower deeming rate reflects that many recipients will generally choose to have some savings in investments with high accessibility and safety, but which tend to provide relatively low returns. As a recipient's savings increase, they can be expected to have a more diverse portfolio of investments earning higher returns. The higher deeming rate reflects that recipients with higher amounts of savings can seek higher returns on some of their savings, either by accepting relatively lower accessibility or by accepting some more risk.
While interest earned on savings accounts and term deposits is considered when setting deeming rates, the deeming rates are set with regard to the returns available in the market from a variety of financial investments that includes deposit accounts and term deposits, shares and managed investments.
Although returns can be influenced by the Reserve Bank of Australia's official cash rate, there is not a direct relationship between the cash rate and returns offered for various financial investments. The official cash rate is therefore only one of a number of factors that are considered when setting the deeming rates.
(2-3) I continue to review the deeming rates on an on-going basis to ensure the deeming rates reflect the returns available in the market. Changes to the deeming rates are usually made either in March or September, in conjunction with pension indexation, so there are fewer changes to payments for recipients.
Dairy Industry
(Question No. 669)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 6 February 2017:
(1) In respect of the Dairy Support Package announced by the Government in May 2016,
(a) how many dairy farming businesses have received Farm Household Allowance (FHA),
(b) how many applications for support, by electorate, have been
(i) received,
(ii) processed, and
(iii) rejected,
(c) what is the total funding provided to dairy farming businesses via the FHA since May 2016, and
(d) what was the estimated budget expenditure for the FHA over this period.
(2) In respect of FHA applications,
(a) what is the average timeframe for resolution,
(b) what is the average number of exchanges (phone, electronic or face to face) between the applicant and the Minister's department before an application is resolved,
(c) what percentage of applications take longer than 8 weeks to process, and what is the primary reason for delay,
(d) what are the key performance indicators for the department in processing applications, and
(e) what actions have been taken to address delays in processing.
(3) What support is on offer to those FHA applicants deemed ineligible for assistance.
(4) Was a regional Australia impact statement completed for the FHA, if so, what were the findings.
(5) Following the dairy roundtable discussions held in late 2016, what actions has the department taken, or planned, to
(a) address processing delays, and
(b) support dairy farming businesses in need, and if no action has been taken, why not.
(6) In respect of Mobile Service Centres,
(a) how many dairy farming businesses have taken advantage of the centres, and
(b) is it possible to resolve an application for FHA with a single visit to a centre, and if so, how many have been resolved in this way.
Mr Tudge: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) In respect of the Dairy Support Package announced by the Government in May 2016,
(a) how many dairy farming businesses have received Farm Household Allowance (FHA),
˗ Between 25 May 2016 and 6 February 2017, the Department of Human Services (the Department) granted 554 claims where the claimant had identified 'dairy' as part of their farm type.
(b) how many applications for support, by electorate, have been (i) received, (ii) processed, and (iii) rejected,
˗ The Department is not able to provide this data by electorate however, information at the state level is provided below:
FHA claims with farming type 'dairy' received, processed and rejected between 25 May 2016 to 6 February 2017
State |
Claims received |
Claims Finalised |
Claims rejected |
NSW |
53 |
45 |
22 |
NT |
2 |
1 |
- |
QLD |
12 |
10 |
2 |
SA |
36 |
26 |
10 |
TAS |
34 |
31 |
10 |
VIC |
900 |
714 |
230 |
WA |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Total |
1,039 |
829 |
275 |
Data notes:
˗ 'Claims received' includes all claims received. Claims that are subsequently withdrawn or deemed to be not required are counted. It is for this reason that claims received will not align with claims finalised.
˗ 'Claims finalised' is based on claims that result in a granted or rejected outcome. 'Claims rejected' are a subset of 'Claims finalised'.
(c) what is the total funding provided to dairy farming businesses via the FHA since May 2016,
˗ FHA payments are made to individuals rather than businesses and the structure of farming businesses could mean that a number of individual FHA recipients may have a part share in one single dairy farming business. As a result, the Department is unable to identify the funding provided to dairy farming businesses through FHA.
(d) what was the estimated budget expenditure for the FHA over this period.
˗ In 2015-16, the Department paid $57.4 million in Farm Household Allowance payments.
Source: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Services,
2015-16 Annual Report, Appendix 1 (page 4)
(2) In respect of FHA applications, (a) what is the average timeframe for resolution, (c) what percentage of applications take longer than 8 weeks to process, and what is the primary reason for delay,
The most frequent reason for delays in FHA claims processing is the time taken for a claimant to provide the information required to assess a claimant's eligibility and the applicable rate of payment in accordance with the relevant legislation.
|
Claims Finalised |
Finalised Within 56 days |
Average days to process |
1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 |
2,061 |
41.00% |
80.29 |
Data notes:
˗ This data includes some claims that may have had more than one finalisation, such as a claim that was reopened after a review. Timeliness calculations for these claims is based from the date the claim was originally received by the Department and not when the claim was reopened for reassessment.
˗ Claims timeliness is based on both standard and complex claims. Complex claims require an additional assessment of income and asset arrangements and take longer than a standard claim as a result.
(b) what is the average number of exchanges (phone, electronic or face to face) between the applicant and the Minister ' s department before an application is resolved,
˗ The Department does not collect the information required to respond to this question.
(d) what are the key performance indicators for the department in processing applications
The key performance indicator for FHA claims processing is to process 80 per cent of claims that do not require a complex assessment within 28 days, and 80 per cent of claims that do require a complex assessment within 42 days. This key performance indicator has been in place with the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources since late 2014.
(e) what actions have been taken to address delays in processing.
˗ Since the roundtable meetings, the Department has progressed a range of activities in response to the feedback received by recipients and the community. This includes both refinements to the delivery of services for the FHA programme, and supporting changes to the policy settings underpinning the FHA.
˗ A consistent feature of feedback received has related to the alignment of FHA policy and delivery with farmer and community expectation.
˗ The policy intent of the programme has been to deliver an income support programme for farmers that is aligned to Newstart and Youth Allowance. Taking this into account, along with the feedback from the roundtable meetings, the Department has further reviewed ways of reducing the time taken to process FHA claims. This built on earlier work on streamlining FHA processes that was undertaken to manage the significantly increased demand presented by the dairy industry downturn.
˗ The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 (Amendment Bill)is currently before the Parliament. The Amendment Bill consolidates provisions made in subordinate legislation including the removal of the Liquid Assets and Ordinary Waiting Periods and clarifying the definition of farm assets.
˗ Key progress made by the Department regarding the delivery of services for FHA includes:
delivery of a claiming FHA information sheet and checklist to support claimants;
commencing a pilot for new FHA claims processing on 30 January 2017 which provides enhanced communications including increasing outbound telephone contact with all claimants and additional continuity for claimants claiming the FHA. The Department is confident that the pilot will deliver its intended improvements to claims processing timeframes and provide increased support to claimants through quality contact with the people assessing their claim;
implementation of the Farm Household Support (Non-farm Assets) Minister's Rule 2016, including finalising a large number of claims that were on hold pending direction on the treatment of water assets;
finalisation of activities on the 23 claimant cases from the dairy round table meetings. Of these, 21 were closed in December 2016 and two remained open into 2017 as the claimants had not provided the information required to allow their claim to be assessed, despite multiple contacts. The highest number of claimant cases related to enquiries on the status of a claim, queries regarding the treatment of water assets, requests for a call back from the Department to a claimant and general questions on eligibility;
updates to staff reference material regarding key areas of feedback from the roundtables, including eligibility for non-permanent residents;
staff communications on key areas of feedback from the roundtable meetings;
continued focus on the performance of the Farmer Assistance Hotline. The average speed of answer for the week commencing 30 January 2017 was 3:57 minutes across 508 calls answered;
continued focus on processing FHA claims on hand, including reviews of previously finalised claims following receipt of additional information from claimants;
review of general programme and website materials to ensure that communications are clear and accessible to claimants;
progression of work with the Agriculture and the Rural Financial Counselling Service to identify new and improved ways to support claimants in applying for FHA, and making the most of the services and support available once payment
is granted through the Financial Improvement Agreement to assist them in transitioning from FHA.
(3) What support is on offer to those FHA applicants deemed ineligible for assistance,
˗ The Department delivers a range of services including income support payments such as Newstart and Youth Allowance, Age Pension, Health Care Cards and health programmes such as Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Eligibility for these payments and services varies but is linked to residency requirements. The services available to each claimant need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and may require income and assets tests.
(4) Was a regional Australia impact statement completed for the FHA, if so, what were the findings.
˗ This is a matter for the policy agency, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, to respond to.
(5) Following the dairy roundtable discussions held in late 2016, what actions has the department taken, or planned, to
(a) address processing delays,
˗ Please refer to the answer to question 2 (e) above.
(b) support dairy farming businesses in need, and if no action has been taken, why not.
˗ Please refer to the answer to question 2 (e) above.
(6) In respect of Mobile Service Centres, (a) how many dairy farming businesses have taken advantage of the centres,
˗ In May and June 2016, the Department's Mobile Service Centres visited 50 dairy farming communities and serviced 1,141 claimants. The busiest single visit was to Cobram in Victoria on 8 June 2016 where 89 claimants were seen.
˗ In addition to the normal Mobile Service Centre crew, the dairy response crews included a Farm Household Case Officer, a Financial Information Services Officer and a state based Rural Financial Counsellor. The normal service centre crew consists of a Manager, Driver, two Service Officers, a Social Worker and an Australian Taxation Office staff member.
˗ Each week's visits were posted on the Department's Facebook page with a link to the itinerary on the Department's website.
˗ Since this time, the Mobile Service Centres have continued to visit rural and remote locations across Australia, including areas that include dairy farms.
˗ The Department does not record the business affairs of claimants who visit the Mobile Service Centres.
(b) is it possible to resolve an application for FHA with a single visit to a centre, and if so, how many have been resolved in this way.
˗ No, it is not possible to finalise an application with a single visit to a Service Centre.
˗ Whilst correspondence/information supporting a claim can be lodged at a Centrelink Agent, Mobile or Service Centre, the information is scanned and allocated to a dedicated processing team who are skilled in understanding the complexities of assessing FHA applications, including legislative requirements and complex farm business structures.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Treasurer's travel
(Question No. 671)
Mr Keogh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7 February 2017:
In respect of the Treasurer's travel to the United Kingdom and Europe to meet with counterparts in January 2017, what is the itemised breakdown of costs borne by the Minister's department, including but not limited to, (a) the cost and names of any restaurants visited and menu details, (b) the cost and type of functions for the Treasurer hosted by the Australian High Commission and/or Ambassador and guests attending, (c) the cost and names of any hotels, (d) the cost and car model/make of any private transport used, including trip details, and (e) the cost and type of any incidentals.
Ms Julie Bishop: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
Treasurer's travel to the United Kingdom
a) No restaurant costs were paid for by DFAT.
b) The High Commissioner in London hosted a dinner for the Treasurer to facilitate engagement on the state of the economy of the U.K. and the business conditions in the U.K. and Europe. 17 guests attended this dinner at his residence on 23 January 2017. Costs were AUD 734.32 (GBP 451.83) covering event staff costs of $361.61 and food/drink costs of $372.71. Guests attending were from the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK, JP Morgan, Macquarie Bank, HSBC, Coutts Bank, Institute of Fiscal Studies, Barclays Bank, BHP Billiton, BP, HM Treasury. Australian officials attending were the Treasurer, the Treasurer's Chief of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and Minister-Counsellor (Treasury) of the High Commission, London.
c) No hotel costs were paid for by DFAT.
d) No private car hire was paid for by DFAT. Post (DFAT) fleet vehicles were used for arrival and departure.
e) No incidental costs were paid for by DFAT.
Treasurer's travel to Germany
a) No restaurant costs were paid for by DFAT.
b) No functions were hosted by the Australian Embassy, Berlin.
c) The Ambassador and two embassy staff stayed one night on 25 January at Villa Kennedy at room rates of AUD 350 (EUR 225). The Ambassador's driver also stayed at an airport hotel (Hilton Garden Inn Frankfurt Airport) on 24 January at a cost of AUD 319 (EUR 204). Total accommodation cost AUD 1370 (EUR879).
d) No private car hire was paid for by DFAT. The Ambassador's vehicle was used for the visit.
e) No incidental costs were paid for by DFAT.
Bacon Factory
(Question No. 673)
Mr Keogh To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources—In respect of the $21,945 contract awarded to Bacon Factory (CN3399573) for filming and production of six videos, (a) what was the purpose of the videos, (b) where were the videos published or broadcast, (c) what policy area did the videos relate to, and (d) does the Department have metrics of how many times the videos have been viewed and, if so, can the Minister provide them.
Mr Joyce: The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) The Department of Agriculture of Water Resources engaged Bacon Factory Films to provide video production and filming services to support the department's Reconciliation Action Plan 2017–19.
The videos support the ongoing conversation on reconciliation within the department by highlighting the achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, particularly those working on biosecurity across northern Australia, and sharing views on our commitment to reconciliation.
Bacon Factory Films is an Aboriginal-owned film production company and a registered supplier with Supply Nation.
(b) The six short videos were delivered by Bacon Factory Films throughout March 2017. Three of the videos were shown during the launch of the department's Reconciliation Action Plan and subsequently published on the department's intranet and website. The remaining three videos will be used throughout 2017 to align with reconciliation activities and events.
(c) The videos support the department's Diversity Strategy 2016–18 and Reconciliation Action Plan 2017–19.
(d) During the launch of the Reconciliation Action Plan on 3 March 2017, approximately 400 departmental staff and guests viewed the videos. As at 23 March 2017, the videos have been viewed 418 times internally, and 57 times through the department's website.
Regional Australia impact statement
(Question No. 675)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 7 February 2017:
(1) How many of the measures in the 2016-17 Budget (a) required a regional Australia impact statement to be completed, and (b) were exempt from completion of a regional Australia impact statement.
(2) Can the Minister provide a list of measures for each Budget and Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook for (a) 2013-14, (b) 2014-15, (c) 2015-16 and (d) 2016-17, including (i) the measure title, (ii) the budget impact, and (iii) whether a regional Australia impact statement was completed.
Mr Chester: The Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The number of measures for which a Regional Australia Impact Statement was prepared and the number of exemptions are not tracked. Regional Australia Impact Statements are an important part of the Australian Government's decision-making process and are prepared for all decisions with a significant impact on regional Australia. The guidelines for preparing a statement are available at www.infrastructure.gov.au.
(2) The measures for which a Regional Australia Impact Statement was prepared are not tracked. Details of initiatives that involve a significant investment in rural and regional Australia are outlined in the Government's Regional Ministerial Budget Statement Investing in Regional Growth– 2016-2017, released on 3 May 2016. Previous Regional Ministerial Budget Statements are available at www.infrastructure.gov.au.
Sydney-Melbourne rail corridor: Ballast Rehabilitation Program
(Question No. 676)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 9 February 2017:
(1) In respect of the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) advice that the Ballast Rehabilitation Program (BRP) project on the Sydney-Melbourne rail corridor would be completed by December 2016 and that the majority of works would completed by March 2016, at what point will a regular maintenance schedule be adopted to ensure that train services operate to the same level of reliability and performance as experienced on the remainder of the network.
(2) Are passenger train services currently operating to the same standard as the remainder of the network.
(3) Has the BRP program and subsequent maintenance program resulted in track conditions suitable for supporting passenger rail at 130 km/h.
(4) What review processes are in place to ensure the ongoing maintenance program is sufficient to provide service levels able to absorb changes in track condition due to (a) mud holes, (b) variable weather conditions, and (c) increased freight volumes.
(5) Noting the 44-year licence between ARTC and V/Line and the potential changes in social, environmental and economic requirements over this period, what arrangements are in place for (a) regular and scheduled reviews, and (b) consultation across jurisdictions to ensure the conditions are reflective of current and future needs.
Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) An enhanced annual maintenance program is now in place following the completion of the Ballast Rehabilitation Program in December 2015.
(2) The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) reports on its website that under its lease agreement with the Victorian Government all lease Key Performance Indicator targets, for the first half of 2016-17, were met across ARTC's interstate rail network in Victoria, including the track capability targets available for passenger train services.
(3) The track condition on the Victorian North East rail line is suitable for the NSW TrainLink XPT passenger trains to operate at a maximum speed of up to 130 kilometres per hour on sections of the line. V/Line rolling stock used on the Victorian North East rail line is only able to operate to a maximum speed of up to 115 kilometres per hour due to the limitation of the rolling stock.
(4) ARTC undertakes a monthly review of track performance across the interstate rail network and adjusts maintenance needs when and where required.
(5) ARTC has advised that it continues to meet (and is well within) all of its commercial lease obligations with the Victorian Government. Should the Victorian Government wish to review the terms of the lease, it would need to negotiate this on a commercial basis with ARTC.
For your information, ARTC has published the Victorian lease, together with the two most recent performance reports, on the company's website. The lease and the performance reports can be found at www.artc.com.au/about/reports/victorian-lease/.
Government Contractors
(Question No. 677)
Ms Keay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, in writing, on 9 February 2017:
What proportion, number and percentage of Government contract holders for the delivery of employment services, across all sections of 'Employment Services' in: (a) Australia, (b) Tasmania, and (c) the Division of Braddon, are registered small businesses.
Mr Pyne: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of Employment (the Department) has 149 contracts with 108 organisations delivering jobactive (including jobactive Services, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, Harvest Labour Services and National Harvest Labour Information Service), jobactive (Norfolk Island) services, ParentsNext, Transition to Work, and Work for the Dole Coordinator services. These contracts were awarded following competitive tendering processes.
Using the ATO definition of a small business (less than $2 million in turnover) and financial statements for 2015-2016, 14 out of 108 organisations (or 13%) contracted to deliver services across Australiaare small businesses.
No small businesses are contracted to deliver the above services in Tasmania and the Division of Braddon.
Macedon Ranges Sports Hub project
Kyneton Showgrounds
(Question No. 678)
Ms Chesters asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 9 February 2017:
(1) In respect of the Government's 2016 election commitment to provide $100,000 to the Macedon Ranges Sports Hub project for the planning, business case and feasibility study, has this money been provided to the Macedon Ranges Shire Council.
(2) In respect of the Government's 2016 election commitment to provide $250,000 for the upgrade of change room facilities at the Kyneton Showgrounds, (a) from which funding program will these funds be provided, and (b) has this money been provided to the organisation.
Mr Chester: The Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The Australian Government is working directly with proponents to deliver all election commitments.
(2) (a) Community Development Grants Programme.
(b) The Australian Government is working directly with proponents to deliver all election commitments.
Citizenship Applications
(Question No. 680)
Mr Hill: asked the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in writing, on 15 February 2017:
(1) In respect of the information revealed in BMF16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1530 that there are more than 10,000 citizenship applications which require 'thorough analysis', what strategies does his department have in place to deal with this backlog, given that his department advised the Federal Court of Australia that there are only 12 suitably qualified staff to undertake the processing of such applications.
(2) Does he have any plans to amend the standard processing time for citizenship applications from 80 days, as currently advertised on his department's website, to better inform the community of what to expect.
(3) Does his department provide advice to communities who have been regularly experiencing longer than advertised delays regarding their citizenship application; if so, what advice has been provided to Melbourne's Hazara Afghani community.
Mr Dutton: The answer to the honourable member's question is:
The Department is experiencing an unprecedented high demand for Australian citizenship, including applications from people who came to Australia as Illegal Maritime Arrivals under the previous Government without official identity documents.
The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 prohibits the Minister from approving a person as an Australian citizen unless satisfied of the identity of the applicant.
The Department has approximately 210 staff allocated to process citizenship by conferral applications and is prioritising the resolution of complex cases requiring thorough analysis.
Substantial identity training has been provided to officers, focussed on clear guidance on identity assessment for applications. An updated citizenship training course, which includes identity and character assessment, has also been provided to officers to enhance their skills to undertake complex identity assessments.
Additional Caseload Assurance Officers (CAOs) have been allocated to support and assess complex applications with higher identity risks. CAOs liaise with specialist identity analysts within the Department to conduct complex identity assessments and interviews of clients.
Referral mechanisms have been developed to refer cases to specialist areas including document examination, enterprise integrity and offshore posts.
Enhanced methodology for conducting client interviews focussed on identity and integrity has been implemented.
As service standards are contained as Key Performance Targets in the Portfolio Budget Statement, the Department will continue to report against them publicly until the end of this programme year.
Over the past nine months the Department has engaged and provided advice to 12 Hazara and Afghan communities across Australia about citizenship processing.
In Victoria, the Department has engaged with the following Hazara communities:
The Victorian Afghan Association Network (VAAN), Association of Hazaras of Victoria, Hazara Australia Community Association of Victoria
The Victorian Afghan Association Network (VAAN) (a relatively new umbrella organisation representing nine Hazara organisations)
The following advice has been provided to the above communities:
The Department is experiencing an unprecedented high demand for Australian citizenship and at the same time is receiving large numbers of applications from people who do not have official identity documentation from their country of origin which requires further comprehensive checks to be undertaken. This detailed level of assessment takes additional time.
There is a community expectation that only persons who are entitled to citizenship become Australian citizens; it is a privilege rather than a right.
Regardless of how and when people arrived in Australia, all applicants for Australian citizenship must meet the legislative criteria of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
There is no separate Government policy regarding citizenship applications by Illegal Maritime Arrivals.
The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 prohibits the Minister from approving a person as an Australian citizen unless satisfied of the identity of a person.
For most applicants, the process of applying for Australian citizenship is only finalised once the applicant attends a citizenship ceremony and makes the Pledge of Commitment before an authorised presiding officer. This is the final, legal step in becoming an Australian citizen.
All applicants, including those who have received an approval letter relating to their application for Australian citizenship, are subject to ongoing assessment should further information become available. In these circumstances an applicant will not be allocated to a Citizenship ceremony or, if they have, they may be advised that they cannot attend the ceremony.
What applicants can do to assist the Department in processing their application in a timely manner.
Pensioners
(Question No. 683)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 15 February 2017:
(1) What total number of pensioners have been affected by the new asset test for the age pension that came into effect on 1 January 2017.(2) How many age pensions have (a) been reduced, (b) increased, and (c) remained unchanged, as a result of the new asset test. (3) How many age pensioners have entirely lost their age pension or part pension, as a result of the new asset test.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) 519,039 social security pensioners. This includes pensioners whose payments were increased, reduced or cancelled.(2) (a) 259,143
(b) 149,521
(c) 2,066,364
(3) 86,569
These figures do not include impacts on Department of Veterans' Affairs pensioners.
Building Better Regions Fund
(Question No. 685)
Ms Templeman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, in writing, on 16 February 2017:
(1) What criteria were used to determine the areas eligible for the Building Better Regions Fund (BBRF).
(2) Did the Minister, or the Minister's office, specifically exclude or select any area for eligibility for the BBRF;
(3) Specifically, why are the localities of (a) Medlow Bath, (b) Katoomba, (c) Leura, (d) Wentworth Falls, (e) Lawson, (f) Linden, (g) Springwood, and (h) Winmalee, excluded in the Blue Mountains local government area, and the localities of (i) Richmond, (j) Windsor, (k) Bligh Park, (l) Kurrajong, (m) Glossodia, (n) Ebenezer, (o) Sackville, (p) Wilberforce, (q) Pitt Town, (r) Oakville, (s) Tennyson, (t) Colo, (u) Kurrajong Hills, and (v) East Kurrajong, in the Hawkesbury local government area.
(4) Why were other areas, for instance Gosford, that are classified as 'Major Cities of Australia', eligible for the BBRF and not the aforementioned localities in the electoral division of Macquarie.
Mr Chester: The Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) The areas excluded under the Building Better Regions Fund are the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Significant Urban Areas of the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra.
(2) No.
(3) They are located in the Significant Urban Area of the city of Sydney, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
(4) Gosford is not classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as part of the Sydney Significant Urban Area.
Mobile Black Spot Program
(Question No. 695)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 21 March 2017:
What is the Government's long term plan for addressing the remaining mobile black spots, specifically (a) has a policy paper been prepared on the future options; if so, will the Minister present this paper, and (b) is the Government considering Rounds 4 and 5 of the Mobile Black Spots Program.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
The Government's Mobile Black Spot Program is addressing thousands of black spot across regional and remote Australia. The Government has committed $220 million and is leveraging
co-investment from State and Territory governments, local community groups and the mobile carriers for a total funding pool of almost $600 million. The program is delivering 765 new and upgraded mobile base stations.
Given Australia's large land mass of nearly eight million square kilometres of mountains, valleys and deserts, it is unlikely that it will ever be entirely covered by traditional mobile phone coverage. Though the Government can offer incentives through the Mobile Black Spot Program, it cannot compel companies to build infrastructure in areas where it is not commercially viable to do so.
No policy paper has been prepared on future options for the Mobile Black Spot Program and no announcements have been made regarding future rounds of the program.
Mobile Black Spots Program
(Question No. 698)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
How has the process for Round 3 of the Mobile Black Spots Program addressed the recommendations of the performance audit report 'Award of Funding under the Mobile Black Spot Programme' (Australian National Audit Office, Report No. 10 of 2016-2017, 1 September 2016) to ensure a competitive, merit-based grants program.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:
The Government is currently developing the guidelines which will outline the application and assessment process for funding. The Australian National Audit Office's report The Award of Funding under the Mobile Black Spot Programme is being considered in the development of the guidelines.
Mobile Black Spot Program
(Question No. 700)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 20 March 2017
Was a Regional Australia Impact Statement completed for Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the Mobile Black Spots Program.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
The regional impacts were considered for all three rounds of the program.
Centrelink Debt Recovery
(Question No. 707)
Ms McGowan asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 20 March 2017:
In respect of the Centrelink debt recovery program, (a) given affected people would have paid tax on their total earnings including the Centrelink payments which are the subject of the Centrelink debt recovery actions, is there scope for amending tax returns that are more than two years old, and (b) having been taxed already on the higher figure (that includes these alleged Centrelink over payments), how can affected people have their tax liabilities reassessed in light of any repayments made to Centrelink.
Mr Tudge: - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Questions about the capacity for individuals to have their previous tax returns amended or to have their tax liabilities reassessed should be directed to the Australian Taxation Office.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
(Question No. 711)
Mr Katter asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 22 March 2017:
Given that the Government is reducing or removing benefits to some Australians to secure the financial future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, why is it exacerbating this financial black hole by seeking to take over responsibility for the transport of children with a disability, when proven, effective, efficient and quality state-operated transport systems have existed for decades.
Mr Porter: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
All governments have agreed, through the Council of Australian Governments' endorsed Principles to Determine the Responsibility of the NDIS and other service systems, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the most appropriate system to fund reasonable and necessary transport supports for all eligible participants who cannot travel independently or use public transport due to their disability. This includes transport supports for children to attend school.
The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) is currently working to determine how specialist school transport services for students who are NDIS participants will be provided once the transition to the NDIS across Australia is complete. The Productivity Commission is currently conducting a review of NDIS costs, scheduled to report in September 2017, which may give consideration to costs associated with transport supports.