I present report No. 9 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members’ business on Monday 27 March 2017. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 21 March 2017.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 27 March 2017, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES:
Safe keeping Inquiry into the biosecurity of Australian honey bees
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am
Speech time limits—
Mr R. J. Wilson—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION:
Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, Natadola, Fiji
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.25 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Banking Act 1959, and for related purposes. (Banking Amendment (Establishing an Effective Code of Conduct) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR KATTER : To present a Bill for an Act to establish a People of Australia's Commission of Inquiry into banking and financial services in Australia, and for related purposes. (People of Australia's Commission of Inquiry (Banking and Financial Services) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 20 March 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
Orders of the day
1 Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from20March2017).
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members speaking—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices - continued
3 MR ENTSCH: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, and marks the anniversary of German Nobel Laureate DrRobert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis;
(b) tuberculosis is contagious and airborne, ranking as the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious agent;
(c) in 2015, 1.8 million people died from tuberculosis worldwide and 10.4 million people became sick with the disease, with over 60 per cent of cases occurring in countries in our region;
(d) Papua New Guinea (PNG) has one of the highest rates of tuberculosis infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 33,000 total cases including 2,000 drug-resistant cases, in 2015; and
(e) tuberculosis is:
(i) the leading cause of death among HIV positive people—HIV weakens the immune system and in combination with tuberculosis is lethal, each contributing to the other's progress; and
(ii) tuberculosis is considered a preventable and treatable disease, however many current treatment tools—drugs, diagnostics and vaccines—are outdated and ineffective;
(2) recognises:
(a) the impact of the increased support by Australia to combat tuberculosis in PNG, and the need for continued support for prevention and treatment, as well as development of new tools and strategies to combat tuberculosis, consistent with the World Health Organisation's 'The End TB Strategy';
(b) current Australian Government funding of health and medical research is helping to bring new medicines and diagnostic tests to market for tuberculosis and other neglected diseases; and
(c) the ongoing support for research and development of new simple and affordable treatment tools for tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is essential if the goals of the End TB Strategy are to be met;
(3) acknowledges the work of Australia's partners in fighting tuberculosis, including the Burnet Institute and Global Fund, in partnership with the Government of PNG and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre's 'Treaty Village Resilience Project' in building capacity in villages of the Western Province, to deliver platforms for the delivery of improved health services including tuberculosis prevention and treatment; and
(4) calls on the Australian Government to provide continued funding for tuberculosis prevention and treatment in PNG, and continued funding for the development of improved diagnostics and medications to combat tuberculosis, beyond 2017.
(Notice given 20 March 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR PERRETT : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia has had a policy on multiculturalism since 1973; and
(b) Australia's multicultural policy demonstrates our shared values and cultural traditions and complements our national characteristics of equality and a fair go for all;
(2) recognises that:
(a) our diversity:
(i) makes us a richer, more vibrant and creative country; and
(ii) brings economic and social benefits and gives us a competitive edge in a globalised world;
(b) multiculturalism:
(i) is in our best interest and speaks to fairness and inclusion; and
(ii) enhances respect and support for cultural, religious and linguistic diversity;
(c) we are committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society where everyone can participate in the opportunities our country offers;
(d) promoting understanding and acceptance is important;
(e) racism is harmful to individuals and to the community; and
(f) racist behaviour should not be tolerated in a civil society; and
(3) calls on the Government to reaffirm its commitment to Australia's culturally diverse and socially cohesive society and to condemn those who are actively seeking to incite division.
(Notice given 2 March 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Perrett—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS M. L. LANDRY : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian Government is committed to providing water infrastructure to increase agricultural production and irrigation potential across Australia;
(b) the Australian Government has committed funding to the following projects, which are examples of how the Coalition is serious about jobs and growth in this country, promising:
(i) $130 million to cover 50 per cent of the cost of building Rookwood Weir, near Rockhampton, with a further $2 million to ensure that the Queensland Government can complete the final business case required for Rookwood to proceed;
(ii) $225,000 to secure water infrastructure for Clermont and Theresa Greek Dam in Queensland; and
(iii) $3 million towards a feasibility study for Urannah Dam near Mackay in Queensland, benefiting an area from Eungella to Collinsville and the northern tropics;
(2) notes the failure of Federal Labor and Queensland Labor to financially commit to projects such as Rookwood Weir; and
(3) commends the Australian Government for recognising the potential of Australia by investing in water infrastructure.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms M. L. Landry—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS LAMB : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are over 90,000 people employed in the accommodation sector of the hospitality industry and many of these are women;
(b) full time workers will have their take home pay cut because of the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for the hospitality award;
(c) the base wage for a Level 1 guest service worker is less than $700 a week;
(d) the cut to Sunday penalty rates for these workers is $4.55 an hour, which is more than a fortnight's pay per year; and
(e) those affected are among our most industrially powerless workers in the economy and they have been made poorer;
(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and
(3) calls on:
(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and
(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Lamb—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR EVANS: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the last two budgets demonstrate the Government's achievements in supporting small businesses;
(2) notes that the Government has delivered:
(a) a Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan to reduce the tax rate to 27.5 per cent, commencing on 1 July 2016, with the tax rate to progressively reduce to 25 per cent by 1 July 2026, noting that the lower rate will apply to businesses with annual turnover of less than $10 million from 1 July 2016;
(b) an immediate tax deduction for small businesses when purchasing assets up to $20,000;
(c) a more than $4.8 billion reduction in red tape and compliance costs for business;
(d) simplified business activity statement reporting requirements to reduce compliance costs for small business;
(e) improved access to digital services for small businesses through the rollout and pilot of the Single Touch Payroll system; and
(f) an extension of the unfair contract term provisions to create a level playing field for small businesses when entering standard form contracts;
(3) acknowledges the Government's efforts to boost innovation, open markets and grow businesses through:
(a) delivering the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda, which includes key measures to promote a dynamic culture of entrepreneurship, changes to insolvency reform and access to finance;
(b) signing new trade agreements with Korea, Japan, China and Singapore and committing resources to help small and medium businesses access new export opportunities;
(c) creating an advocate for small business with the appointment of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman in March 2016;
(d) strengthening our competition laws to protect small businesses against anticompetitive behaviour and the misuse of market power;
(e) helping small businesses gain greater access to finance through innovative solutions and diverse funding options with the release of the Fintech statement; and
(f) making it easier for small businesses to access Commonwealth procurement opportunities; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue to pursue cutting red tape and compliance costs while implementing a rigorous policy agenda which supports Australian small businesses.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Evans—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices - continued
5 DR LEIGH: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Global Gag Rule (GGR), as implemented by the United States, will prove detrimental to millions of women and girls around the world;
(b) the GGR has expanded to an unprecedented degree, applying to 15 times more funding as a consequence of its extension into all global health funding, which will result in roughly $9.5 billion dollars in global health funding being affected;
(c) the GGR will result in the targeting of some of the most effective health organisations in the world, operating in 60 low and middle income countries;
(d) a study by researchers at Stanford University found that after the GGR came into effect in 2001, the abortion rate increased sharply in sub-Saharan African countries that had been dependent on such funding;
(e) the funding cuts will likely prevent many global health organisations from offering HIV prevention and treatment services, maternal health care and even Zika virus prevention; and
(f) it is possible that as many as 21,700 maternal deaths could occur in the next four years as a consequence of this executive order, which is in addition to 6.5 million unintended pregnancies and 2.1 million unsafe abortions from 2017 to 2020, according to Marie Stopes International;
(2) notes that:
(a) when Labor was in government, overseas development assistance increased from 0.28 per cent of Gross National Income in 2007-08 to 0.37 per cent in 2013-14, and was on track to reach 0.50 per cent in 2017-18; and
(b) under the Coalition, development assistance is now just 0.23 per cent of national income, the lowest level since comparable records began in the 1970s, and well below the OECD average of 0.30 per cent; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to join the Dutch, Belgian, Swedish and Canadian governments in filling the gap in development assistance funding left by the United States Government's imposition of the GGR.
(Notice given 16 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Leigh—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR CREWTHER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Victorian Labor Government was elected on 29 November 2014 and the Premier was sworn in on 4 December 2014;
(b) the Premier:
(i) in his election platform stated: 'More young people are turning to a life of crime. Crime has increased every year. Courts and prison systems are under huge pressure'; and
(ii) took only one promise to that election in regards to law and order—$148.6 million to free up some of the 400 officers who supervise prisoners in holding cells;
(c) since being elected, the Victorian Government has seen prison riots, millions of dollars in damage to prison facilities, and a total loss of control over the justice system;
(d) when the Premier was elected, the crime rate was 7,869 offences per 100,000 Victorians, and Victoria's crime rate two years later is now 8,975 offences per 100,000 Victorians;
(e) between October 2015 and September 2016 this crime rate includes 12.6 per cent more assaults, 21.5 per cent more robberies, 13.7 per cent more burglaries and break and enters, 17.5 per cent more thefts, and 75.3 per cent more justice procedures;
(f) the Victorian Government is unable to control the criminals in prison let alone the criminals on the streets of Victoria; and
(g) under the Victorian Government, Victorians are just less safe;
(2) further notes that the Australian Government supports the fight against crime in Victoria more broadly and specifically in the electoral division of Dunkley through measures such as $925,150 from the Safer Streets Programme (SSP);
(3) calls on:
(a) the Federal Opposition to support measures that allow the Government to achieve savings to ensure even more funding for programmes like the SSP; and
(b) Members of the Victorian Parliament to ensure that Victoria has stronger policies on law and order including less bail and more jail for criminals who would pose a risk to the community; and
(4) condemns the Victorian Government for a lack of action on law and order and failing to protect Victorians.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Crewther—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MS SHARKIE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the first Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs was appointed by the Fraser Government in 1978;
(b) subsequent Labor and Coalition Australian Governments have appointed Ministers with a portfolio concerned with youth, and the Howard Government had three different Ministers who held the youth affairs portfolio;
(c) in 2013 the Abbott Government abolished the youth portfolio;
(d) in May 2014, the Government advised it was planning a 'focused and targeted approach' to consult with young people, yet this year is likely to have the last National Youth Week with no funding in the forward estimates;
(e) the Deloitte 2017 Millennial Survey suggests that young people struggle to engage with major political parties—not having a Youth Minister acts as a clear signal that engagement with young people is not a priority for this Government; and
(f) Australia's youth unemployment and underemployment are an increasingly systemic concern, with the current youth unemployment rate sitting at 13.3 per cent and the youth underemployment rate sitting at 18.3 per cent; and
(2) calls on the Government to appoint a Minister for Young People, sitting within the Cabinet, having a particular focus on youth engagement, youth employment and transition to work.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Sharkie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MR TED O'BRIEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that a simple resolution is currently before the United States Senate in the name of Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland and 13 other United States Senators reaffirming a strong commitment to the United States-Australia alliance relationship;
(2) reaffirms the strong alliance relationship between Australia and the United States;
(3) supports continued diplomatic, military and economic cooperation between the Australia and the United States; and
(4) reaffirms the importance of a United States-Australia relationship based on mutual respect befitting a close and longstanding alliance partner crucial to the preservation of Australia's national interests in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ted O'Brien—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
9 MS L. M. CHESTERS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Hazelwood power station is scheduled to close on 26 March 2017;
(b) its closure will affect 750 direct jobs in Gippsland;
(c) unemployment is already at 8.1 per cent in the Latrobe Valley;
(d) the Victorian Government has created a $266 million transition package for workers affected by the Hazelwood closure; and
(e) the Australian Government has only contributed $43 million to this transition package;
(2) acknowledges that government plays an important role in creating policy settings to attract new investment and jobs, both in the Latrobe Valley and across regional Australia in general;
(3) condemns the Australian Government's:
(a) inaction in not meeting with affected workers; and
(b) failure to act in setting policies that give business the confidence to invest and create jobs; and
(4) calls on Australian Government Ministers to meet with affected workers and their unions and to start investing in industry and jobs across regional Australia in the upcoming federal budget.
(Notice given 21 March 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms L. M. Chesters—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
10 MR GOODENOUGH : To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that while Australia has some of the strongest firearm controls in the world, illicit firearms continue to remain a threat to community safety;
(2) acknowledges that the Government has:
(a) introduced legislation which doubles the maximum penalties for firearms trafficking offences, including mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment;
(b) invested:
(i) $88 million to increase screening and examination of international mail, air and sea cargo to detect illicit firearms and firearms parts at our borders; and
(ii) $116 million in the National Anti-Gangs Squad which has been successful in getting illegal guns off our streets; and
(c) provided an additional $25.4 million to fund the expansion of the Australian Federal Police's (AFP's) National Forensics Rapid Lab to enhance the AFP's capacity to detect and seize illegal firearms and target the criminal syndicates that peddle them;
(3) notes that the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens have opposed mandatory minimum sentences for illegal firearms trafficking; and
(4) calls on Members to support tougher sentences for illegal firearms trafficking, including the need for mandatory minimum sentences.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Goodenough—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 3 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
The Leader of the Opposition?
I seek leave to move the following motion—
Mr Speaker, I was on my feet.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat for a second. The Leader of the House was seeking the call, and the Leader of the Opposition was seeking the call at the same time. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has a suspension motion. We can play this one of two ways: I can sit the Leader of the Opposition down and hear from the Leader of the House, but it may well be that this wastes a bit of time, because the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to move a motion and the Leader of the House is entitled to move a motion. The Leader of the House had been on his feet, but as Leader of the Opposition had jumped I called him. We can proceed with that—
You are the Speaker; you have to decide. I was on my feet.
You were on your feet first. I am going to ask the Leader of the House to resume his seat—in the interests of moving through with business, that will be better for the convenience of the House. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has confirmed that his laws to water down protections against racist hate speech will be introduced into the Senate instead of the House of Representatives;
(b) this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to be able to claim to the extreme elements in his party room that his Government is taking action on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act while hoping MPs in this Chamber can avoid having to vote on the issue; and
(c) Members of Parliament should not say one thing in Canberra but another thing to the voters in their electorates;
(2) resolves to deal with this issue today;
(3) affirms there should be no weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act by giving licence to racist hate speech; and
(4) therefore, resolves to retain section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the Prime Minister has confirmed that his laws to water down protections against racist hate speech will be introduced into the Senate instead of the House of Representatives;
(b) this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to be able to claim to the extreme elements in his party room that his Government is taking action on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act while hoping MPs in this Chamber can avoid having to vote on the issue; and
(c) Members of Parliament should not say one thing in Canberra but another thing to the voters in their electorates;
(2) resolves to deal with this issue today;
(3) affirms there should be no weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act by giving licence to racist hate speech; and
(4) therefore, resolves to retain section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form.
This is classic member for Wentworth—not even willing to give the people—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. In the few moments time every member has to vote—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 30, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
What an absolute farce this government has been from day dot when it comes to dealing with child care for that culminates in us being here today after they wasted two years. For two years they have argued that we could not possibly be having this debate about childcare changes in this chamber until they were linked to the cruel cuts which they have been pursuing. For two years they have left every Australian family using our childcare system—every child and every parent who has not been able to return to the workforce because of inadequate childcare assistance—in the lurch. It was all because the now Treasurer had the bright idea that he would come up with these reforms but they could only be progressed if they were linked to cruel cuts that robbed other Australian families.
After two years of total inaction—after two years of letting down the system and of letting down families—finally today we see, at the last minute, that the government have now rolled over and reverted to their old version of the bill so that we can finally have the debate in this House about the childcare reforms that were put forward in the last Abbott government budget. That is how ridiculous this government have become when it comes to the Australian childcare changes. But, we should be relieved. At least finally this parliament can have a discussion about the Australian childcare system, about what is required and about why it is that the reforms put forward by the Turnbull government—first put forward by the Abbott government—remain entirely inadequate to deal with the challenges that the Australian childcare system faces. That is because, whilst after two years they may have finally dropped the link to their cruel cuts, they still have not fixed the fundamental flaws which remain in this package.
When the government first announced this package, the entire sector—Labor, early childhood experts and Australian parents—pointed out that there were some fundamental flaws in the reforms that needed to be fixed. When the Senate inquired into this bill not once, not twice but three times, they reported back on the fundamental flaws which were in this bill which would see vulnerable and disadvantaged Australian children going backwards in terms of access to critically important early childhood education in this country. Yet today, after two years of total inaction, we finally have this debate and the government still has not fixed the fundamental flaws in this bill.
Let us just place it very clearly on the record: Labor absolutely stands for improving the Australian childcare system. We stand for improving assistance to Australian families and, perhaps most importantly, we stand for ensuring that Australian children have access to the quality early childhood education which we know that they need and deserve. However, we will not support a package which will see some of the most disadvantaged children go backwards when it comes to access to early childhood education. In the government's reforms, they have many measures which we would support. We would support simplifying the system. We would support measures to try and limit the inflationary nature of childcare fees. We would support ways of offering better assistance to children with disabilities. We would support a range of elements in this bill, but, again, we call on the government to fix the fundamental flaws which I will now outline for the House.
At the moment in Australia, every child has access to two days of subsidised early childhood education. We know that the majority of Australian childcare centres currently bill on 12-hour days. Every Australian child has access to 24 hours of early childhood education and care per week. Under this proposal put forward by the government, that 24 hours is cut to 12 hours. What that means is that some of those children coming from very disadvantaged families and some of those children who might come from unsafe environments at home are currently spending two days a week in a safe, secure environment where they have access to quality early childhood education. But this government, despite the fact that they want to spend over $1½ billion additionally, want to see those children go backwards in terms of their assistance, and Labor will stand up and fight for these children.
The government will say that this is about workforce participation and that this is about parents and the decisions that they make, and we will absolutely stand up and fight for ways that we can improve and increase particularly women's workforce participation. But I will tell you what Labor will not do: Labor will not punish vulnerable children for the decisions that their parents make, and, ultimately, that is what this bill will do. This bill will ensure that some of those children who may come from dysfunctional families—dysfunctional backgrounds—are denied access to early childhood education, when all of the research in fact suggests that early childhood education is one of the most effective ways of breaking the cycle of disadvantage. We know that the changes to the activity test in this bill will have a devastating effect on far too many Australian children, and, again, we call on the government to fix these flaws.
I do understand that the government does not always take Labor's word for the problems within their policies, so I am now going to quote, for the government, some of the other experts who have pointed out the flaws with this. Mr Bernie Nott, from the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, told the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee recently:
The evidence is clear that children benefit from access to high-quality early learning, particularly from two days per week, as articulated in the evidence brief tabled with our submission.
… … …
However, we fear that the childcare proposal currently before the Senate will cut access to early learning in half or, worse still, to zero for some families earning less than $65,000 per year. Children from up to 100,000 low-income families could be worse off as a result. We therefore recommend that the package is modified to ensure all children have access to at least two days of early learning.
Labor agree. We also agree with Dr Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Service, who also stated to the recent inquiry on the bill:
Our concerns about the childcare bill are directly associated with what we believe and what the experts have also confirmed will be the effect of this, which is that we will move away from enabling access to early childhood education and care of a minimum of two days per week, which is considered to be the minimum that should be available to children …
We know that Mr Paul Mondo, the President of the Australian Childcare Alliance, stated:
From our perspective, we have come to this minimum requirement of 15 hours as one of the ways of trying to ensure that that service provision is over the two days.
And, of course, Sam Page stated:
If you are on contract work or you take short-term work or you are in a casual labour market, you are going to really struggle to meet that activity test all the time. So, where we have identified improvements to the package, it is to try to stabilise participation for those children.
We know that there is a very, very long list of not just Labor, not just childcare providers, not just early childhood experts, not just academics, not just Australian charities and not just Australian parents but a broad cross-section of people who have been absolutely unanimous in their view that the changes to the activity test which are proposed in the bill that is currently before the parliament are unacceptable and would do untold damage to Australian children who are vulnerable and who deserve this parliament's support. So Labor will oppose these changes before the parliament today until we see this, as one of the fundamental flaws in the bill, amended and fixed by the government.
We know that this is a position that has been advocated by the Australian Childcare Alliance, Early Childhood Australia, the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, Family Day Care Australia, the Early Learning Association Australia, the Creche and Kindergarten Association, UnitingCare Australia, Mission Australia, Anglicare Australia, the Benevolent Society, Social Ventures Australia, United Voice, the Parenthood, Affinity Education Group, Goodstart Early Learning, KU Children's Services, Early Childhood Management Services, SDN Children's Services, Bestchance Family Child Care and the list goes on and on.
Despite the fact that the government have had more than two years, they have still not done a single thing to address this fundamental flaw. Today, like yesterday and the week before and the week before that and the months before that, I stand here to urge the government to fix the flawed activity test in this legislation so that the parliament can get on with the job of trying to assist Australian families.
Vulnerable Australian children should not have their access cut at a time when the government is throwing millions and millions of additional dollars at the childcare system. It would be simply immoral for us to just stand here while the government say: 'We want to put a few extra dollars into the pockets of middle-income Australian families and we are not going to worry about those poor kids. We are not going to worry about those children who actually have the most to gain from quality access to early childhood education.' Labor will stand up and we will fight for those children and we will fight for those families.
We know that analysis by the ANU shows that these childcare changes will leave one in three families worse off—330,000 families will be worse off and 126,000 will be no better off. Over 71,000 families with an income level below $65,000 will be worse off.
Something that is really important for this parliament to note is that in recent decades the way that we have used this whole sector has changed. There was a time when this sector was set up that it was largely seen as a babysitting service so that parents could return to work. That is no longer the primary aim of Australian early childhood education and care. Both sides of the House have now been convinced that the evidence is overwhelming about the importance of investing in early childhood education for all Australian children regardless of the decisions that their parents make. We know that 90 per cent of brain development occurs in the first five years of a child's life. We now have not just international evidence but Australian evidence that shows that those children who have access to quality early childhood education go on and prosper. They have improved educational outcomes. They have improved health outcomes. They have improved social outcomes. They are less likely to end up in the juvenile justice system. The list of benefits goes on and on.
The Australian example itself shows that those children who have access to quality early childhood education in the year before school are already scoring higher in their year 3 NAPLAN results. This is what we are talking about. We are actually talking about one of the smartest investments that government can make in ensuring that children have more opportunities than their parents and grandparents had before them. But also, if we just want to look at this in terms of dollars and cents, this is one of the smartest investments that governments can make in boosting our future economic growth, in cutting down on our future welfare bills and in ensuring our future job growth and employment prospects.
So we stand here today once again saying, 'We want the government to fix this bill.' It is not Labor's intention to try to be obstructionist when it comes to improving the childcare system. We do not for one second stand in this parliament and say, 'We think the system is perfect and we don't think that anything more needs to be done.' That is just not the case. But what we do say is that we cannot with our eyes open support changes which will send vulnerable children's access to early childhood education backwards. We need the parliament to do better than that. We need to the parliament to be better than that. We need to stand up for those children who are absolutely relying on us to ensure that, for at least two days a week, they have a safe, secure and educational environment that they get to spend their time in. That is one of the bottom lines for Labor in this debate.
Unfortunately, that is not the only flaw in this government proposal. We also know that as part of this package the government is proposing that they end the funding to the budget based funded childcare services. Just for those who may not be up with all of the abbreviations and acronyms that operate within government, the BBFs are services which were set up decades ago in communities—often in remote Indigenous communities but also in other communities where the system simply would not work, where the market was just not viable and where parents were perhaps just not able to pay fees and children would not have had access to this environment unless the government stepped in and funded them directly. That is why for decades now the government has directly funded budget based funded services.
Having visited some of these services firsthand, I can tell you that some of them are not that flash. Some of them might be little more than a tin shed in a remote community. But they are a place where children will be safe, where they will have access to healthy food and where they will have access to early childhood education. Some of them are actually much more advanced and are really operating successfully. But we know that the government cannot just walk away from these services.
As part of this proposal the government said: 'Oh, no, it's okay. We'll transition all of those services into the mainstream.' The parents accessing those services will be able to pay fees and receive childcare assistance from the government, just like any other parents in Australia. But we know that, for many of the services, it is just not going to work. That will not be viable, and they will close down as a result of that. Evidence of this has been presented time and time again. Yet, the government remains locked into the position of, 'It's not a problem; there's nothing to see here.' More recently they have said, 'If there are problems, we'll fix them up later. But just trust us and pass this legislation.'
Labor stands here today to say that it is not good enough for the parliament to stand up once a year and talk about closing the gap. It is not good enough for us to stand up and talk about how we are faring, but not to consider, in every piece of legislation, the impact that this legislation is going to have on the gap. We know that access to quality early childhood education is one of the most important investments that we can be making to close the gap. The government cannot just turn their back on Budget Based Funded services, and Labor will not turn our back on the Indigenous children who are relying on us to stand up and fight for them in this proposal.
We also know that it is not just Indigenous children who are at risk as a result of some of the proposals in here. In fact, we have heard that there are a number of regional services whose funding is also in jeopardy and who are also in danger of being shut down, particularly mobile services. Members from regional communities will be familiar with the services that travel from one community to another, ensuring that those families have access for at least a day or two to early childhood education. They get on the road, pack up and drive to the next community, and offer some relief and important childcare expertise. Clearly, these services are not funded in the same way that we fund the service around the neighbourhood corner, and they cannot be. It is just not a viable option. But that is what the government is currently proposing. The government is currently proposing, 'We'll just transition them into the mainstream. They'll be fine; if there's a problem, we'll deal with it later.' Well, regional families deserve better than that.
Anne Bowler, the chair of the National Association of Mobile Services, said:
The funding reform proposal will no doubt ensure the closure of up to 90 per cent of the current BBF mobile children's services across rural and remote communities in Australia.
This is evidence that has been presented before this parliament—to Senate inquiries—and that every member opposite has just chosen to ignore. This is the chair of the National Association of Mobile Services saying 90 per cent of those services, which are vitally important for regional families and regional children, will close. But we have not heard a peep out of the National Party about this. We have not heard a peep out of the Liberal Party about this. Nobody seems to care about these children and these parents, except people who sit on this side of the House and, I should be clear, on the crossbench. We know that the member for Indi has taken up this cause herself and has been arguing for them. This is a flaw. The government needs to guarantee that it will not just let these services close their doors and that, before we support this proposal, it will come up with a real assurance for the parliament that it will stand up for regional mobile services as it will for the Indigenous BBFs.
I spoke about the impact on the Indigenous BBF services under this proposal, but I want to turn to what some of the experts have said about this. Professor Fiona Stanley—of course, a former Australian of the Year—has said of the move to transition these Indigenous BBF services into the so-called mainstream:
It will fail. Every service that I can actually think of in the children's area that is mainstreamed after Aboriginal control, fails. And it fails because the services that these Aboriginal-controlled people are providing, provide a whole range of other things that are very protective and culturally important for Aboriginal children and their families.
SNAICC, the peak body that advocates for Indigenous children, has said:
It is like putting a square peg in a round hole, trying to jam it in and make sure it fits. We know that it is not going to, because we are going to have splinters everywhere. What is going to happen to our services? In 2018 they will have to close their doors.
That is what the experts are saying about that. We have talked about what some of the experts are saying about the activity test and we have talked about how all of the experts and early childhood stakeholders have come together, agreed and urged the government to fix the flaws in this package so that we can get on with delivering childcare relief.
Labor reiterates those calls today. We say it is totally unacceptable that, after two years of inaction, we still have this same proposal before the house today. We say that we cannot support this proposal in its current form and that we need these flaws to be fixed. But we also say that this bill is going to go to the Senate and we would suggest—from the way that the government have sat back and put their feet on the table when it comes to childcare reforms since they announced them in Tony Abbott's last budget, but now, all of a sudden, there is an urgency to this debate coming on this morning—that this is going to be dealt with fairly quickly. So we say to the government that, when this legislation goes to the Senate, we are absolutely willing to sit down and negotiate with the government on ways that we can fix these flaws and come up with outcomes that will assist Australian families. But what we are not going to do is just sign up and go in with our eyes open about what some of the impacts of these terrible pieces of policy will be.
There are a number of other flaws in this package. Personally, I am deeply disappointed. When we know how important it is that we have high-quality early childhood education, and we have gone through the fights and it has been settled that the National Quality Agenda is important and needs to be permanent, it is totally unthinkable that the government would cut professional development for our early childhood workforce. For the life of me, I do not understand how this government justifies cutting professional development for our early childhood educators by saying, 'That's all been done now.'
We have a crisis in our workforce when it comes to early childhood education. We have a crisis which is caused not only by unacceptably low wages but it is also caused by the fact that this is a workforce that has not been valued and shown the respect it deserves. We should be investing in this workforce and we should be ensuring ongoing professional development so that everybody is equipped with the all of the latest tools to get the best out of each and every child.
Since this package was first announced, my personal situation has changed markedly; in fact, I was very pregnant when this package was first announced. I now see firsthand the benefits of my child accessing early childhood education and I see firsthand the benefits of him being in the care of qualified professional early childhood educators who actually know exactly what they are doing in educating, in teaching, in caring. And we should not walk away from that. Professional development is really important and it is deeply disappointing that this government is looking to invest more money in child care but is entirely cutting professional development for our educators altogether. That is deeply disappointing. As I said, if the government fixed the flaws, some of which I have outlined here today, then Labor would get on board and support this package. But there are a few things that we would not do. We would not, as the government seems to be saying, suggest that this is some kind of a silver bullet—that all of a sudden the early childhood education and care sector is going to be fixed because of this reform package. That is just not true.
There are so many things that this package does not do. It does not, as I mentioned, do anything when it comes to workforce strategy, when it comes to supporting our early childhood educators, when it comes to professional development. But it also does absolutely nothing when it comes to issues like waiting lists. If you talk to Australian parents, yes, affordability is a very big issue for a large number of Australian parents but there are also Australian parents who cannot even yet grapple with the issues of affordability because they cannot find a place to begin with. These are the Australian parents who are being placed on waiting lists where they stay for one, for two, for sometimes three years—that is, three years that they are unable to return to the workforce, three years that they are unable to find a place locally for their child. Yet this package, which I have heard the Prime Minister and the minister say is the most important reform when it comes to child care in decades, does absolutely nothing to address the issue of waiting lists.
This package does absolutely nothing to outline the long-term position that we need to be working towards when it comes to early childhood education and care. Labor believes that we cannot just continue tinkering around with a decades-old system which was designed for a different purpose than what we use it for today. We invest a huge amount of taxpayer dollars in the Australian child care system, and rightly so. We know that if those dollars are well directed, it is an incredibly smart investment. But it is time that we had a broader debate about whether this is actually a system which is delivering for Australian families, whether it is a system that is delivering for Australian children and whether it is system that is delivering for Australian taxpayers. I think that if we really ask those questions, the answer to every one of them would be 'no'. That is the debate that this parliament should be having: what is Australia's vision for quality early childhood education into the future, and how do we go about getting on the pathway to delivering that? There has been a lack of vision in this debate. It is a debate that has gone on for years and years with no action but it has also put itself up as the answer to all of Australia's childcare problems and it just is not that.
So Labor will oppose the measures currently before the parliament in their current form but we again reiterate: we are up for the job of sitting down are working with the government to fix some of the flaws in this package. We want to see a package go through the parliament which can offer some greater assistance for Australian families. We want to see Australian children better supported. We want to see this sector and this workforce supported by this parliament but we think that this bill in its current form falls short. We will negotiate with the government and we hope that we will get to a point that the parliament can pass these measures knowing that they will add some improvements to the current system.
But we do not for a second suggest that what the government is offering in these reforms is the answer to Australia's childcare problems. We do not pretend for a second that the job is done. The government might like to pat themselves on the back and think that that is the case. Labor will keep working because we actually know that Australian children, that Australian businesses, that Australian parents, that the Australian economy and the Australian education system rely upon Labor to continue to be the leaders when it comes to Australia's childcare system, to be the leaders when it comes to quality early childhood education and care. It is something that we have proudly done not just for years but for decades.
Labor have always led the way and we will continue to lead the way by looking at the big picture, by looking at the longer term and by looking beyond the very narrow scope that the government have taken when it comes to their solution of fiddling around with payment systems a little bit more. This falls short in its current form, but we hope that the government will get it to a point where childcare improvements can be delivered for Australian families, and Labor are up to the job of working to ensure that that is the case.
It is really disappointing to be standing and speaking about a piece of legislation, the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, that is such a lost opportunity, and that is why we cannot support it in its current form. I acknowledge my shadow minister and her sincere offer to work with the government to fix some of the flaws in this legislation. It is hard to support a piece of legislation that is going to leave one in three families worse off, particularly when we are talking about families of below school-aged children.
It is interesting to be standing here not as someone who has children in child care. I have children in their 20s so this takes me back to several of decades ago. I think it is worth noting every mum, every dad asks themselves deep questions about child care: is it the right thing to do? What kind of child care is right?
I think child care means different things for different families, and unfortunately this bill does not address the needs of a variety of families.
Let me talk a bit about what child care means to me. We call it child care, yet it is early education. We know now—the research tells us—the amazing development that happens in the brain between zero and five years of age. We know that this is when children have exponential growth, if it is fostered and if children's brains are allowed to flourish in a supportive and safe environment. We know that that will have benefits going forward for decades and decades, for their whole lives. In fact, that means that there are benefits for society. So it seems very short-sighted to me to introduce legislation that is going to make it harder for the most-disadvantaged children to get the supportive, educative preschool environment that we know would deliver enormous benefits.
When I look at the issues being raised here, with one in three families worse off, one issue is that those impacted by the activity test will find it really difficult to access early child care. We have talked about the number of hours that children will be entitled to. It is currently 24 hours. That gives some families a respite from the challenges of raising a child in an already difficult environment. It is also giving children a respite from families. This has been looked at by the Productivity Commission. They acknowledged that children at risk of abuse and neglect benefit the most from high-quality early childhood education to improve their life chances, yet it looks like this same group of children will be most disadvantaged by this legislation.
We know that many children and families face really complex problems with lots of interconnected causes, but all the research tells us that, if children can attend a high-quality, integrated early childhood education and care service, that allows them access to a range of services. It can improve children's cognitive development and learning in the short- and long-term. It is very short-sighted to deny families and children that opportunity, when an investment at this stage can forestall further investments and greater investments many years down the track.
In my own family's experience, it was thanks to quality early child care that my son's speech impediment was picked up. My son is now 22, and he travels the world performing on stage as a musician. He lives a life that many 22-year-olds would dream of, but he does not do it with a speech impediment, and that is thanks to his quality childhood teacher at preschool picking up that he was not pronouncing some of his consonants properly. It is really well known that children who have speech impediments have a much higher likelihood of ending up in the juvenile justice system. The research is in; the University of Sydney has done a lot of work in this area. Knowing that we as parents had quality child care gave me enormous confidence. Something that could have impeded his transition to school, his confidence at school and, therefore, his ability to really thrive at school may not have been picked up without that. It is wonderful to know that quality child care can do that. But it is so disheartening to see that, in this legislation, we are going to make it so much harder for all families to access that sort of support.
Spending money on early childhood actually has a significant boost to the bottom line as well, with the research showing economic returns from early childhood investment of up to $16 for every dollar invested. That is a 16-fold return—$16 for every dollar. It is a massive return on investment. The highest return that you get is for vulnerable children, yet here we are with a piece of legislation that, because of the access test and the activity test, is going to make it harder for those children to access it. What is more, there does not seem to be any additional safety net put in place to prevent disadvantaged families from slipping through. So that is one problem I have with this legislation.
The other area that concerns me is workforce participation. We hear a lot from those on the other side about self-employment and people running small businesses. It is no surprise that many mums now work from home, run their own businesses and are self-employed. That does not always equate to a steady, even income. Women choose to do that because it is the only way they can juggle family responsibilities. If you think of my electorate on the outskirts of Sydney, where it is a two-hour commute to and from the city each way, you can see why mums would choose to try to establish themselves and work from home; often that means self-employment.
This legislation has a workforce participation test that is going to make things even harder for those people. If you do not have a steady income, it is going to be really hard to justify what you are doing on a regular basis. Anybody who works for themselves—the other side seem to think they have the exclusive right on this; if that is the case, they should know this—knows that it is not always the same amount of work every week. It ebbs and it flows. So it seems strange to me to put into legislation something that makes it even harder for people with casual work or who are self-employed—those sorts of precarious work situations—to access something that actually helps them do that work. Is there not some irony in this? It is one of those catch 22s that we see all too often in ill-thought-through legislation from those opposite.
Let us also talk about the amount of access to early childhood education. I want to touch on this in particular. The minimum number of hours are being cut from 24 hours to 12 hours. For some people, 12 hours will provide only one day of early education, and we know that, as a minimum, it needs to be two days. In spite of spending an additional $1½ billion dollars, we are actually going to see kids going backwards. That is why this is such a lost opportunity.
It is not just me saying this, speaking as a mum who has agonised about the sort of early care that her children would have. Like many mums and working mums who had to make decisions, I have been through a range of child care, from family day care to long day care to preschool to parent-run preschools—the whole gamut of things. With two children you try lots of things to try to get the right combination. This family assistance legislation should be assisting families as they make those really difficult decisions. It is such a shame that it has taken several years to get to this point and be left with such a lacklustre solution, which is not a solution at all for one in three families.
Let's look at the other people who are saying this if you do not want to take our word on it. The organisations that have called on government to make sure that vulnerable and disadvantaged children continue to have access to at least two days a week of early education include the Australian Childcare Alliance, Early Childhood Australia, the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, Family Day Care Australia, the Early Learning Association of Australia, the Creche and Kindergarten Association, UnitingCare Australia, Mission Australia, Anglicare Australia, Gowrie Australia, the Benevolent Society, Social Ventures Australia, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, United Voice and The Parenthood. You might say, 'Oh well, you'd expect those organisations to say that sort of thing.' Let's look at the providers who also think that it is vital for the educational outcomes of the children they care for—the ones they are preparing for an easy transition to school; the ones we do not want to see fail in kindergarten and their first year of school when it would cost so much more of taxpayer dollars to uplift them to the same standards. Of course, thanks to the failure of the other side to support Gonski, the kids who are now entering child care will not have the benefits of Gonski.
The providers who see that there needs to be more than 12 hours of child care include the Affinity Education Group, Goodstart Early Learning, KU Children's Services, Early Childhood Management Services, SDN Children's Services, and Bestchance Child Family Care. In my electorate we have providers from a range of the organisations that are providing child care in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains to children who absolutely deserve to get the best possible education. What is more, their families deserve to have the support they need so that they can either continue working or know that their child is having the benefit of a safe and secure environment. It is not just those families who benefit from it; the whole society will benefit from knowing that we have done the best by our children.
This is not something that will affect me as a parent. My children are beyond that, but it will affect me and many others as grandparents. If you fail to properly support families to pay for quality child care, you are forcing them to fall back on other supports. Of course, we know grandparents are the ones who are picking up a lot of the slack in this area, not necessarily because it is absolutely their first choice. Most grandparents tell me they love looking after their grandchildren from time to time or a day or two a week. Most of them, though, say they do not necessarily want to be the full-time carer for a grandchild. That is not what they planned in life. My mother has played a huge role in helping to raise and care for my children and she still does that for my niece and nephew, who are only in primary school, but as legislators we cannot shift the burden to that part of society as we seem to do so often, saying, 'The government's saying there's not enough money to do more than this. Let's just make the community pay it.' The community is pulling its weight in so many ways. From what I see, the majority of the community is what the other side would call 'the lifters'. They are pulling their weight, they are volunteering, they are looking after grandkids and they are contributing to society in a range of ways. Any flaw in this policy is only going to put a greater burden on that age group. I have to say that I am not sure my children would love having me as the carer for their children. Perhaps in the interests of my children's sanity, we should relook at this package.
This side of the House is very happy to try to fix these flaws. It is not too late. It is not too late to take a principled decision and say, 'You know what, the youngest part of our society is actually a great place to invest, supporting the educational outcomes for the youngest children in our society so that they have easier transitions into primary school and mothers feel less guilt about going to work.' This place knows all too well the pressures of working parents and how important it is to know that, when you are working—I do not think it matters whether you are male or female—your children are being cared for and educated in the best possible place. Sadly, this legislation does not help achieve that. I urge the government to think again on this. It is one thing to split the bill, but it is another to go forward with such a flawed piece of legislation.
I rise to make a contribution and to support the member for Adelaide, followed by the member for Macquarie, on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill, both of whom, like me, are parents. Make no mistake, the revised bill has the sole purpose of stripping money from those who can least afford it. It attacks low-income families again and it attacks single parents, Indigenous families and our most important people, the young people of this country. The government is absolutely shameless. Only a few short days ago, thousands of low-paid workers across Australia were told they would be losing their Sunday penalty rates, resulting in a significant cut to their take-home pay, and here the Liberals are again making a decision that goes after the little guys. Here they are talking about cutting payments and leaving 1.5 million Australian families worse off. Here they are, just weeks after the shameful Closing the gap report was handed down, talking about cutting Indigenous childcare and early learning programs. They have not yet been able to point out or to explain how pushing 300 Indigenous and mobile providers into mainstream funding arrangements will work, and they have not been able to guarantee that these services will not be forced to close. This is two-thirds of our Indigenous early education centres.
There is nothing agile or innovative about this agenda; there are just cuts to programs that were designed to assist those who most need it. There is no progress to be made or advancement for a fairer society; there are just plain old cuts to those, again, who can least afford it. No wonder the people of Australia think so little of the people in here, particularly of those in the government. The constant need to rip away services from those struggling people in our communities is deeply offensive. It illustrates perfectly the priorities of this Liberal government.
In fact, the following groups, which were mentioned by the member for Macquarie, have said just how bad it is. You have representative organisations including the Australian Childcare Alliance, Early Childhood Australia, Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, Family Day Care Australia, Early Learning Association Australia, Creche and Kindergarten Association, UnitingCare Australia, Mission Australia, Anglicare Australia, Gowrie Australia, The Benevolent Society, Social Ventures, Brotherhood of St Laurence, United Voice and The Parenthood. These are groups attached to the area that we are speaking on—early childhood. They are the representative bodies. I would refer to them as the experts; I would definitely not refer to the government in here as the experts in this field.
If hearing from the experts were not enough for this government, we then flick over to the providers, whom again, the member for Macquarie already mentioned. We have the Affinity Education Group, Goodstart Early Learning, KU Children's Services, Early Childhood Management Services, SDN Children's Services and bestchance Child Family Care. I make a rule when I have a decision to make: I consult widely and I usually defer to the experts. So I am quite confused as to why the government would not listen to those people who are experts in this, rather than being obsessed by a budget bottom line and wanting to give $50 billion to corporations and to take money away from those who can least afford it.
Despite being warned about the serious flaws in their childcare changes for years, they have not done anything to fix them. The ANU says that the childcare changes will leave one in three families worse off, 330,000 families worse off and 26,000 no better off. That is almost half of all families—550,000 in total—that will be worse off or no better off. Seventy-one thousand families with an income below $65,000 will be worse off. The harsh activity test will leave children in 150,000 families worse off. Where do the government think that these families are? Do they think they are some kind of mythical creatures—unicorns, maybe, prancing around the bank of a river somewhere? These people actually exist; these people are our future. They are the young people in this country that we, as the leaders of this country, should be stepping up to support.
We are going to hear Mr Turnbull. He will say this is about reforming—
I remind the member for Lindsay to refer to members by their proper titles, please.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We will hear the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, say that this bill is about reforming the childcare system so to make it easier to work and so people can afford child care. What he will not tell you is at least one in three families will be worse off. That is one in three. Go down to the local shops and choose, out of all the families that you see passing you, which one out of three you are going make worse off.
Under the new activity test, 150,000 families will be worse off. Most of those families will obviously come from low socio-economic backgrounds and some of the most disadvantaged parts of Australia—some of whom I have the very great privilege of representing in this place. The government want to take the activity test from two days access to just one day. These rules will make it more difficult to secure child care for children whose parents are part-time or casual workers, meaning that many working mums and dads who need more childcare assistance at the moment will actually end up with less. The 300 Budget Based Funded childcare programs, which service mainly rural, remote and Indigenous communities, are facing the axe. More than half of families accessing these services will face an increase in their fees of $4.40 per hour. That might not seem a lot to those on the government benches, but, when you add it up over multiple hours and often multiple children, it is a lot. The increase in fees across the course of just one day can be the difference between having food on the table at the end of the week or not.
I mentioned penalty rates before; I am going to come back to it now. For a family that are already facing a $77-a-week pay cut out of their weekly pay packet—their take-home pay—the government want them to now spend more money on child care. This will be the impact of the changes, and I think that, sadly, too few people on the government side of this chamber are willing to face up to that reality. Clearly, not enough people around the decision-making table truly understand how these increased costs will hurt families. That assumes that their childcare centre is even able to remain open. Modelling by Deloitte Access Economics shows that two-thirds of early childhood education services will have their funding cut and many will have to close their doors. When the Closing the gap report was handed down, we saw a Prime Minister talk the talk. Now, he is walking away from the very people that he stood in this chamber saying that he supported.
The experts have warned of the consequences. The deputy chairperson of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care has said:
These changes will diminish our kids' potential to make a smooth transition to school, compounding the likelihood of intergenerational disempowerment and unemployment. Children will fall behind before they have even started … and suffer greater risks of removal into out-of-home care.
I am not an expert on the Closing the gap report, but I have read it. If the government bothered to read what was contained in that, those things that SNAICC is saying are going to affect our young children are some of those targets that we seek to improve for our Indigenous communities. The government claim to take seriously the issues of Closing the Gap, but they do not take seriously a plan to close that gap. It is absolutely unbelievable. False sincerity is one thing, but the people in this country are slowly starting to wake up to this very poor excuse of a government.
My message to the Prime Minister is clear: hands off low-income families, early childhood education and our Indigenous early childhood educations services. You cannot make all these cuts and think young kids will not be affected. You cannot slash the payments and the support and think you will not put serious pressure on parents who are doing it as tough as they are, especially when we cut the take-home pay by up to $77. These are real people, who are in pain, which this government is very well inflicting on them.
The legacy of 1.5 million families being worse off as a result of this decision is not one I would be proud of in government. In the interests of these Australian families I call on the government to reconsider, because the families are already doing it tough. They are trying hard and are struggling to get by and they do not deserve the callous cuts that will only make it harder for them. In fact, the Prime Minister has no legacy to leave behind, as was evidenced yesterday by his lack of an answer in question time. He could not point to his greatest achievement. He was offered the opportunity a couple of times to provide an answer, and I think on a TV program over the weekend. I am happy to assist the Prime Minister, because I would like to be helpful where I can. His greatest achievement, to him—and I will spell it out very slowly—is to buy his way into this place and cling to power by the skin of his teeth, not by providing leadership on the things that matter to working Australians. There are no prizes for guessing: most ordinary Australians are not obsessed with the 18C legislation changes and they are not obsessed with mentioning Bill Shorten, Labor and the unions 150,000 times, like we see on the other side in this place every single day. They are concerned with things like cuts to child care and access.
The Prime Minister and his Liberal team want to reduce the amount of time for which children can have access to child care. That absolutely is not an achievement. When we talk about child care it is very important to remember what this actually is. Yes, it is a service to which mum and dad can drop their kids off in the morning, then go to work, earn a day's pay and then come home at the end of the day. But speaking as an early child care educator and someone who has studied primary school education, the years 0 to 7 are the most critical years for development and children. The neuroplasticity of the brain is still developing and they are still forming pathways through their brains through those connections. So early-childhood education is incredibly important for kids because it actually enables them to be educated, to have peer-to-peer mentoring with their playmates, they learn through experimentation and they learn from quality childcare educators. That is something this government just does not see the value in.
We are always asked by those on the opposite side want our plans are. They are so obsessed by us they want to know what we would do in this situation, because they actually do not have a plan their own. We will stand up for the children of this country and do whatever we can to make sure that this government does not reduce the time they can spend on getting an early education. I do not know how the Liberal members, by cutting access for families, expect us as a nation to have improved educational outcomes. I understand that they have an ideological obsession with attacking low-income families, but in a practical sense how do they actually see this working? Cutting access to early-childhood education, or child care as we are calling it in here, is actually going to disadvantage us as a nation, when we are trying to educate these children for the future.
We have a social safety net in this country for the most vulnerable families, because we value everybody getting a fair go. We know that when our neighbour and our neighbour's kids are looked after and doing well the rest of us are looked after and are doing well. What does it say for us as leaders in here if we are not supporting low-income families and those who most need access to child care, by cutting it away. We have recognised for a long time that these kinds of measures keep kids away from crime, keep local economies afloat and give dignity to all Australians, which is actually a human right. So, educating our young people is important, and it is important to every single Australian.
The government seems to forget that, so I am quite happy to speak on this today and provide a very timely reminder for them. In the end, the people they are going to cut this from will suffer, and the communities around them will suffer the most. It is something this government ought to remember but they seem to ignore it quite casually here on a daily basis. Their cruel cuts are unending and I believe there is absolutely no shame. So, here we are again, defending our lowest paid most vulnerable families and children. This government is desperate to cut money in any way they can from people who are already disadvantaged, and the community is waking up to their agenda. They still want to press on with this idea of $50 billion for big business, which has been proven this week to add $4 billion of debt in interest to the bottom line.
On the childcare package, the desperate attempt to link the dud policy with the vicious cuts has been called out for what it is, even though they have decoupled it now. As a mother I have accessed preschool and child care and my children's lives have been enriched by that experience. The Turnbull Liberals are holding Australian families to ransom. It is an attack on low-income families, who are actually doing their best to build a better life for themselves. As a member of this House I would not seek to do that to any child in this country, whether their family and $65,000 a year for $165,000 a year. I expect that this government would have some decency and ensure that our most vulnerable Australians are not going to be left behind.
I am so disappointed to be here today, because we have missed an opportunity to provide services that meet the needs for rural and regional Australia. I have to say that the politicking with this policy, connecting core funding responsibilities of child care to welfare cuts, splitting the bills in the Senate, and then the reintroduction, is even more disappointing. To me it is a clear sign that someone in the system, someone in the government, is missing the point.
While I commit to continue to work with the government and with departmental staff and service providers, people like Ann Bowler and Rod Wangman, they will continue to do the services in our community and we will make the best of this. But what it clearly shows is that there is no overarching policy for rural and regional Australia about how we should be treated. As a result, we are working backwards and playing catch-up. We are trying to fit policy to the needs of particular communities and we are failing.
In addressing the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 today, I specifically would like to call Senator Birmingham into the House. Today, Senator Birmingham had a letter published in my local paper, the Wangaratta Chronicle. I will use some of his comments to refute his arguments. Senator Birmingham, I am looking forward to you watching and reading this speech and telling me where I have it wrong, because I am not politically grandstanding. I am not here for any other purpose than to represent my community. I am here because you came to our community. Together with me, you listened to everything my community had to tell you. We have met with your staff, we have met with the Labor Party, we have met with government, we have met with all the crossbenchers. We have put hundreds of hours into this particular topic. We have given it everything we have, because what we wanted to say to you is: there are problems, and we could work together to fix them up. We had great trust, in the beginning, that you would listen to what we had to say. When you came to Wodonga and spoke to the TV cameras and said, 'Trust us; It will work out,' we really wanted to believe you.
But, sadly, we are back in the parliament today with the original bit of legislation we started with. So there was an opportunity to try the whole process again, to re-move our amendments, to go through all the work that we did a couple of weeks ago with the omnibus legislation, but we are not going to do that. We are going to call it a loss—a really sad loss. And, in calling it a loss, we will be gracious and we will work together to make it work better. I give you and all the government members here my commitment that we will do everything we possibly can as Independents never to be in this situation again. We will focus 100 per cent of our time on getting a really decent policy on rural and regional Australia—a policy that commits to deliver comprehensive services that meet our needs. We have learned our lesson on this single issue, and we will not be going there again.
Let me address your specific points, Minister. You said:
The Turnbull government's early childhood education and care reforms have been comprehensively designed with regional Australia in mind.
That is good to know. When we put up amendments to this House, so that we could test the logic of that, they were knocked down by your government 70 to 72. Your government was not prepared to back this up by getting the statistics that would show us that the reforms had worked. So I ask you to reconsider those amendments in the Senate. Come back to the House in six or 12 months time and show us that the reforms have worked. Frankly, I do not believe they will have. Minister, you also said:
Families in cities, in regional centres and in the bush know that our early childhood education and care system is not working for them.
We all agree with that. We would like a system that did work for us, and we agree with your statistics: the system of mobile child care, as it has been funded—or budget based funding services—absolutely needs reform. But the sad thing is, we do not think you are reforming it in a way that is going to work. You say in your letter:
Many of the services in regional and rural areas are part of a scheme set up 40 years ago that limits the amount of funding they can get from the government and stops them from growing to support families.
Interestingly, Minister, my community tells me that exactly the same problems are built into this legislation. It is a grant based process, limited to a maximum of five years. It does not allow for new services to be instigated into the long term. We believe that many of the problems in the initial program are running out again, so I would be very keen to have you and your department's staff tell me how this system is avoiding those problems, because everybody in my community tells me it is not. You talk about the plans the government has. You say:
Rather than reduce their support we plan to increase it and provide more opportunity for services to respond to changes in their community.
We are supporting services onto a new model of funding that targets increased support towards those families working the most and earning the least, while our ‘Child Care Safety Net’ worth $1 billion will help services that might not otherwise be viable—like some mobile education and care services in regional and remote communities.
That is great, but the thing is it is not going to be policy driven or needs based—we are going to have to apply for grants. Minister, you have told me there will be a designated amount of money out of that $1 billion that we can apply for, but it still will be short term. It will not be enabling us to build the workforce and the capacity that we need in our rural communities. I need to say here that what makes rural communities special is that we do not have childcare centres. Because we do not have childcare centres, most of the service, which is designed for centre-based care, is not relevant to us. So the subsidies do not apply, and if we cannot get the grant we do not have a service, or, if we have not got the people in the community to apply for a grant, we do not have the service. Minister, you said in the letter to the Chronicle:
Firstly, the services will have access to the child care subsidy—
that is no good if we do not have child care—
which will allow growth in funding per child for the first time.
Sure it would, if you have a childcare centre. But if you live in the towns that I live in, we do not have childcare centres, so the subsidy is irrelevant for us. For you to print that in the paper, as if it works, is so wrong. Thirdly, you say they will 'access the $110 million Community Child Care Fund'. I beg your pardon; that is the fund and the grants—I just made a mistake around the childcare safety net. But that is the fund, and that is so limited and will go nowhere near to meeting the demand we are going to have to provide child care for the particular groups that I care about, which are farming families and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.
It is not just me who says this is not going to work; Fiona Stanley, who was Australian of the Year, got on the phone. She was really, really upset about the changes that you are going to make. She is not convinced that you have got it right. I am not convinced you have got it right. My community is not convinced you have got it right. You keep telling us that you have got it right, but you have not come forward and said how our rural and farming families will be able to create new services that will last for the next 20, 50 or 100 years, which is what our sister cities will be able to have access to. They will have services that work. There are clearly things about this package that are good; they are really good if you are town based and you have access to a service. They are no good if you live in the country and you do not have access to a service. And no-one is saying the changes to the funding will work. Minister, you also say:
We will also remove red tape that currently stops child care services from only operating on certain days or for limited hours, which should also help regional Australia …
For sure, if you have a service. But if you do not have a service, what do you do? You apply for a grant, if you can get it, for one or two or three years. Minister, you are not instigating a mainstream service into our communities. You continue:
Overall, official analysis shows our reforms are set to benefit around one million families across the country.
We have no argument about that. What we are asking is this: how are you going to make sure that, in the long term, our farming and Aboriginal families have access to the services?
Your letter goes on. You say that the amendments recently suggested are already addressed through the package and are unfortunately more about political grandstanding than supporting Australian families. We could not see it there in the package. We cannot see how the things that we have asked for are addressed. You talk about the guidelines. The guidelines are not in existence yet. The guidelines will have to be drawn up after this legislation is passed. Of course we are happy to have input into the guidelines and we will try to make them work; but guidelines are not legislation. They do not force whichever government is here in parliament to do what it needs to be doing. It is a matter of 'Trust us—we will look after you.' Well, we did not want to do that. We actually wanted to make sure that the changes that you have promised deliver what your government said they would do and that you must report back to parliament on how they are going.
It is true, Minister, that you say you have provided me with the information; but none of it has satisfied me. It is true that you say you will continue to engage and speak with me and hope that we will appreciate how your changes will make child care more affordable, accessible and flexible for Australian families. Sadly, I am not convinced. I am not convinced because the people in my community are not convinced. I am not convinced because people come to my door and say, 'Cathy, this is not going to work. Can you go to parliament and represent us?' I am not convinced because the experts in my community have asked me, as their representative, to come forward and make their case.
We have lost. This legislation will go through the House today. It will go through the Senate. I am sure that there will be some really good outcomes from it. We will continue to work.
I would now like to move in my closing comments to how we could have done this better and how we could have made this work. The little bit of my conversation that I am really wanting to talk about is the opportunity that the minister and the government have to work with the regional ministerial task force. If I could bring in my final comments here, to finish on what I hope is an optimistic note, I am really pleased to see that there are five Liberal members and three Nationals on this task force. There are some very key people, including the minister for this particular legislation. So that is a positive step. I am really hoping that you can work, as a ministerial task force, to look at child care, transport, telecommunications and education; to look at our young people and how we operate in rural and regional Australia; and bring it into a whole so that we do not have to come here to the parliament every single time and fight the same battles, saying, 'Child care is not working for us; public transport is not working for us; the NBN is not working for us; changes to higher education were not working for us.' It is so time consuming and it lacks vision.
What we are hoping is that the regional ministers task force will take this lesson to heart. It is a great opportunity to deliver a coherent regional policy that ensures that all regional Australians have access to really good government services. Hopefully the task force will focus on the budget that is coming up. Hopefully the budget will deliver our long-requested budget impact statements as part of that private member's bill that I moved to amend the Charter of Budget Honesty Act, calling on the government, if it makes changes that impact on rural and regional Australia, to come and tell us first what the effects will be. Do the money, do the economics; do not do that last. Let us understand how the budget is actually a budget that includes rural and regional Australia in its planning and design. I am really hoping that the ministerial task force takes a look at that legislation, and when we get the budget in May it has really clear financial indicators of how budget measures are going to grow—ideally that will be the case—rural and regional Australia.
In October 1999 the Hon. John Anderson hosted a regional Australia summit here in Parliament House. I had the real pleasure of being here. As a result of that summit John Anderson set up the Regional Women's Advisory Council. Could I really encourage the government to take a leaf out of the book of past members—of the National Party in this case. That summit worked. It did really good relationship building. It created a task force. It created a combined, bipartisan approach to policy. So can I ask the regional ministers task force, if it does nothing else, could it call another summit? Could we invite John Anderson back? Could we get him here in parliament telling us what he did that worked so well? He was an outstanding minister and he did such great things for rural and regional Australia. We have a really opportunity now to do that same sort of thing again, and not put us back into the wilderness of coming into the parliament and having these really scrappy debates about child care. It should be at such a higher level, and we should be able to build our trust together and not be arguing through letters to the paper about what does not work.
In bringing my comments to a close I will say how disappointed I am. I am really disappointed in the politics of this. We deserved better. I am sorry the minister has not been able to come to the table and deliver for Aboriginal families and for us in rural and regional areas. We will continue to work with you on the guidelines to make the best we can out of that. We will continue to ask for statistics to come back into parliament so that we can get a real sense of how this program is rolling out. Then we will work to make the amendments we can in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to meeting with you, Minister, and working on how we can make the best out of this very poor circumstance.
I move:
That the motion be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I ask leave of the House to inform Members about Australia's part in the Korean War and about the last veterans' mission to South Korea that I had the privilege of accompanying in October 2016.
Leave granted.
The Korean War has long been overshadowed by the world wars–it came just five years after the Second World War–and by the long war in Vietnam that followed a decade later.
Because of this it has been called 'the forgotten war'. But for those who fought there, for their families, and for the families of those who did not return, Korea has never been forgotten.
Nor should it be forgotten by Australians today.
Fighting in the Korean War ended more than six decades ago. The wartime generation has grown old, but the war remains within living memory.
Last October, I had the privilege of accompanying eight Korean War veterans back to South Korea on a commemorative mission organised by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Those eight veterans are joining us in the House today. Can I, on behalf of all members of this place, give you the very, very warmest of welcomes and say what a great honour and privilege it is to have you here in the House with us.
Mr Speaker, I am again privileged to welcome them to the chamber today for this statement and I acknowledge their presence on the chamber floor and the presence of their friends and family in the gallery.
These men represent each of the three Australian services who fought in the Korean War. Gordon 'Taffy' Hughes was a naval aviator, flying operations from the deck of HMAS Sydney. Spencer 'Ray' Seaver was a pilot in No. 77 Squadron. Graham Connor and Les Hall served in 1RAR. John 'Jack' Lang, Les Powell, John Murphy and Peter Scott all served in 3RAR. Peter was mentioned in dispatches for his work as an intelligence officer during the battle of Maryang San.
It was a singular honour to accompany these men—the 'magnificent eight'—on their return to the country that as young men they knew only as a theatre of war, a place where they once risked their lives in Australia's service. It was my particular privilege to see these Korean War veterans meeting a new generation of service men and women—the members of today's 3RAR and a contingent of the Federation Guard, who supported the mission. When they meet, veterans of past wars and the men and women of today's Defence Force share a bond that transcends the decades. The veterans' service in Korea added another chapter to Australia's proud military heritage. They are part of a proud tradition that our Australian Defence Force personnel continue to uphold.
For four of the veterans, this mission was their first visit to Korea since the war. Jack Lang mentioned that he wanted to see how Korea had developed over the decades since he had served there. The transformation in South Korea has been remarkable. In the six decades since the war, the country has developed into one of the most prosperous, advanced and successful nations in the world. They have done so on a chance given to them by men and women who did not share their future but shared their values. To the veterans here today, you and every Australian who served in Korea helped make this transformation possible.
In South Korea, the war is not a historical episode, but an ever-present reality. The warmth of the veterans' reception was an eloquent testimony to the gratitude felt by South Koreans towards those who served in their country's defence. Shortly after he arrived in Korea, Ray Seaver recognised the airfield from which he had flown combat operations during the war, at Gimpo outside Seoul. The mountain looming behind was a familiar, evocative landmark, even at night. But many of the familiar landmarks of the war that these veterans knew lie in North Korea, still in a state of war against South Korea. They remain in forbidden territory.
In Korea, the veterans took part in moving commemorative ceremonies to honour those who did not return. Some of these ceremonies—at Kapyong and Maryang San—took place within view of former battlefields. We also travelled to the far south of South Korea, to Busan, home to the world's only United Nations war cemetery and a place where more than 280 Australians lie buried.
The Korean War was the first war between major powers in the Cold War nuclear age and was the first war fought by the United Nations. Twenty-one countries committed personnel to repel the North Korean invasion of the south, among them South Korea, Australia, Britain, New Zealand, and the United States. The Korean War was a major conflict with far-reaching implications for Australia, for our region and for the world.
Australia was involved in Korea from the beginning. Two Australian military observers inspected South Korean forces along the border in the days before the war began. Their report that the South Koreans were deployed for defence helped convince the United Nations that North Korea was the aggressor and was an important factor in the decision to go to war.
When the war began on 25 June 1950, elements of each of Australia's three services, the Army, Navy and Air Force, were nearby, in Japan on post-Second World War occupation duties. By the beginning of July, airmen of the RAAF's No. 77 Squadron were operating in the skies over Korea and the Navy's HMAS Shoalhaven and HMAS Bataan were engaged in operations in the waters offshore.
The 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR), arrived at an important moment in the war. The North Korean invasion had made rapid progress. Communist forces had captured Seoul and advanced down the Korean Peninsula towards the southern port city of Busan. But two weeks before Australian ground troops arrived, United Nations forces landed far behind the front line at Inchon near Seoul on South Korea's west coast. The HMAS Bataan and the HMAS Warramunga assisted the landing as part of the screen for the British aircraft carrier, HMS Triumph. The Inchon landing was fraught with risk. But it succeeded in forcing the North Koreans into retreat. After Inchon, United Nations forces liberated Seoul and crossed the frontier into North Korea.
Through October and November 1950, Australian troops fought a series of tough actions against North Korean troops. The names Sariwon, Yongju, Chongju and Pakchon are little remembered today but they rank proudly on the list of battle honours earned by 3RAR in Korea during the war's opening phase. In October 1950, Chinese troops that had begun mobilizing crossed the Yalu River. They struck in early November, when many on the United Nations side believed the war against North Korea would soon be won. Stunned United Nations troops withdrew down the peninsula into South Korea through the bitter winter weather while under relentless attack. In January 1951, Seoul fell to communist forces for the second time in six months.
China's intervention changed the war's character, pitting the two great communist powers, China and Russia—whose pilots flew against United Nations airmen and which provided material support to the communist cause—against the combined forces of the United Nations, including the United States. With vast reserves of manpower and more powerful weaponry than the North Koreans, China was a formidable adversary.
In the air, Chinese MiG-15 jet fighters outmatched the propeller-driven Australian Mustangs in every respect. Their arrival signaled the end for the RAAF's Mustang operations. In April 1951, 77 Squadron began converting to Meteors—a British jet aircraft—and the Royal Australian Air Force entered the age of jet combat. The squadron returned to a ground attack role, a dangerous occupation the Australians carried out with great courage and dedication until the end of the war.
On land, the Chinese advance lost momentum. In April 1951, 3RAR went into reserve near the ruins of Kapyong village after a period of hard fighting. But the battalion's rest was short-lived. Within days a Chinese attack directed at Seoul swept into the Kapyong Valley. After a difficult fight, 3RAR, with other British Commonwealth and United States troops, stopped the communist advance. The Battle of Kapyong proved one of the war's most significant actions. The South Korean capital was not threatened again.
The front was beginning to stabilise along a line that corresponded closely to the pre-war border between North Korea and South Korea. Senior United Nations military and political figures agreed that the war in Korea could only be settled by negotiation. The communists had to be convinced that neither side could triumph on the battlefield.
To gain the advantage in a war that was bound for stalemate, United Nations forces determined to occupy a strong defensive line. In October 1951, 3RAR took part in a series of assaults on Chinese positions in the Maryang San range. The Battle of Maryang San ended in a communist withdrawal and with United Nations troops occupying this important high ground. The victory at Maryang San was, said the official historian, 'the greatest single feat of the Australian Army during the Korean War'.
For the Army, the war's most dramatic phase was over. From then, until the end of the war in July 1953, the three Australian infantry battalions—1RAR, 2RAR and 3RAR—fought a defensive war, no less fraught than the war of movement but very different in character. This was a war of artillery and mortar barrages, the endless labour of maintaining trenches and defences, dangerous night-time patrols into no-man's-land, probing enemy positions and gathering intelligence.
At sea, the Royal Australian Navy's operations off Korea's coast were equally full of hazard and discomfort. The navy sent an aircraft carrier, five destroyers, four frigates and three naval air squadrons to Korea. Australian sailors weathered heavy seas, freezing cold, snowstorms and were at considerable risk from mines during their time in the waters off the Korean Peninsula. Some Australian ships came under fire from shore based batteries. HMAS Murchison, in perhaps the most well-known example, was fired on regularly during her 60 days in the Han River estuary in late 1951.
Korea's estuaries proved particularly testing for Australian sailors. Strong currents and tides, ice floes 'as big as trucks', as recalled by one sailor, shoals, mud flats, narrow waterways and the close proximity of shore based enemy guns threatened every operation that required naval vessels to navigate tight coastal channels.
Farther out to sea, in October 1951, HMAS Sydney lost an aircraft, a truck and other equipment overboard in a typhoon. But, with her complement of naval aircraft flying operations over North Korea, Sydney's seven-month presence in Korean waters from August 1951 until February 1952 added an important dimension to the Royal Australian Navy's war effort.
Three hundred and forty Australians lost their lives during the combat phase of the Korean War and sixteen more in the post-Armistice period to 1957. For every man killed in the fighting, many more were wounded.
More than 100 Australian military nurses cared for casualties in the British Commonwealth hospital in Kure, Japan. Royal Australian Air Force nurses also served on the Korean Peninsula, preparing casualties for evacuation to Japan and tending to them on the flight from Korea, giving specialist and often lifesaving care to Australians and soldiers of other nationalities.
The Korean War veterans who I have had the pleasure to meet and know were young men at a significant moment in Australia's and the world's history. They served in an era when traditional ties to Britain and empire were fading while growing bonds with the United States were reshaping the way Australia considered its place in this region and the world.
For the world, the Korean War was seminal. Alliances were cemented, critical territory was held, communism was tackled fiercely and front on and the resolve to take up arms for the values we hold so dear was clearly reinforced.
The people of the Republic of Korea understand this. They remember and honour those who left their loved ones, their children and their country to fight and to die for someone else's loved ones, someone else's children and someone else's country.
As was demonstrated so many times during this visit, the Korean War will always be remembered by the people of Korea. For them the service and sacrifice of our men and women in Korea shall never be forgotten.
Equally, it will always be remembered and never forgotten by our grateful nation.
For those of us who accompanied the veterans and tried to imagine something of their experiences in Korea, these were solemn occasions of respectful reflection. But for the eight gentlemen who remember the war and who knew the cost at firsthand, this was a time of recalling friends and comrades, men they knew and with whom they shared the profound experience of wartime service, some of whom never came home.
At Busan the veterans placed poppies on the graves of fallen friends in a moving and deeply personal gesture of remembrance. They made sure their sacrifice shall not be forgotten. In this House today and every day, we should make a commitment to do the same.
Lest we forget.
It is a great honour to welcome the 'Magnificent Eight' to Canberra, my electorate, my home and our nation's beautiful Parliament House and wonderful capital. I would like to thank and commend the minister for this ministerial statement and for the opportunity to speak as well. The minister made this commitment when we were in Korea during the delegation in October last year. I commend you for allowing this opportunity to take place and for getting the Magnificent Eight over here to Canberra. It is just wonderful to see you again. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that our shadow defence team are here. We have our shadow minister for veterans' affairs and defence personnel, as well as the shadow assistant minister for the Anzac Centenary, who is someone you probably know from his former life as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel.
It was a privilege to join the 65th anniversary visit to Korea last October to commemorate the battles of Maryang San and Kapyong and the contribution made by Australia all those years ago. But it was an even greater privilege to meet and be in the company of the Magnificent Eight: Gordon 'Taffy' Hughes who served on HMAS Sydney; Graham Connor who served with1 RAR; Les Hall who served with l RAR; Jack Lang who served with 3 RAR; John Murphy, also 3 RAR; Lieutenant Commander Les Powell (retired), also 3 RAR; and from the ACT, Colonel Peter Scott, DSO (retired) from 3 RAR and Ray Seaver from 77 Squadron. There they all are with their medals, looking glorious up there in the chamber.
Apart from episodes of M*A*S*H, Australians have very little knowledge of the Korean War. They do not know why it began. They do not know what happened there. They do not know who was involved or about the fact that there was an enormous international effort of 21 countries. They do not know why we were there—why Australia was there. They do not know about the unique framework under which we were there—a framework that influences the strategic environment today, and we are seeing that play out more and more each day. And they do not know how many Australians served and how many Australians made the ultimate sacrifice.
It is, as the minister said, the 'forgotten war,' which is incredibly unfortunate, given Australia became the second nation behind the United States to commit personnel from all three armed services to the war. It is unfortunate—it is tragic, actually—because 17,000 Australians served in that war, with many of them coming straight off the reconstruction efforts in Japan after the Second World War. It is unfortunate—tragic—because four million people in the region died through the course of that war. It is unfortunate and tragic because 1,216 Australians were injured and a further 29 taken as prisoners of war. It is incredibly unfortunate and tragic because 340 Australians died, 43 went missing in action and, as we heard from the minister today, 16 also were killed in the post-armistice period.
Our lack of understanding of Australia's contribution to the Korean War is unfortunate and tragic because there were so many firsts in this war. As the minister said, it was the first war in the Cold War period. It saw the first combat action fought by the battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, 3 RAR, in an apple orchard in Yeongju. It was the first and only United Nations-initiated war. It was the first time the red kangaroo appeared on the funnel of a Royal Australian Navy ship. It was the first war that raised the question about the need for an Australian ensign, not a British ensign, on Australian Navy ships. And it was the war that earned the 3 RAR the title 'Old Faithful.'
As a nation, we need to better understand and appreciate the contribution that so many Australians made to the Korean War. We need to continue the conversation about the unique nature of the Korean War, particularly coming so quickly on the back of the horror of the Second World War. We need to appreciate that the Korean War still lingers today in the demilitarised zone, where North Korean troops, with bloodied, skinned and scarred hands—remember those hands—from martial arts training, stare it out with troops from all over the world on the other side of the DMZ. And we need to keep alive the memory of those who served, who were captured, who were injured, who were missing in action and who made the ultimate sacrifice.
I have many wonderful and powerful memories of my time in Korea on this 65th anniversary tour, but the most powerful, and the ones that have stayed and will remain, are the personal, told in the words of those who served—told in the words of the Magnificent Eight. I heard the Magnificent Eight remembering their fallen mates. Colonel Peter Scott DSO said:
I felt very emotion about the MIA memorial. Looking at the graves from my two classmates at Duntroon—Eric Larson and Joe Luscombe. And other graves I wanted to see—Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Green and Slim Madden.
For those who are not familiar with the 'Slim' Madden story, it is a very powerful story. This was an extraordinary Australian. Private Horace William Madden—Slim Madden—was one of the 29 Australians taken prisoner in the Korean War. He was the recipient of a posthumous George Cross, the highest decoration of an Australian in the Korean War. Slim Madden was a signaller with 3 RAR and was captured at Kapyong on 24 April 1951. He was forced to march 300 kilometres in freezing conditions to Yalu River. Despite poor health and being deprived of food, he defied his captors and gave the little he had to those more needy. He died of malnutrition just months later. As Colonel Scott told me very proudly:
When I assumed the command at Woodside, I arranged to have the soldiers' canteen named in his honour, and I believe it is still being referred to as the Slim Madden Soldier's Club, and I'm very proud of that.
And rightly so.
I listened to those stories and heard the Magnificent Eight relive the hardship of war. Jack Lang said:
You had to keep your eyes open for snipers all the time. They were like flies. But we got rid of many of them. We took it in our stride.
I heard the Magnificent Eight relive the famous battles of Maryang San or point 317. Colonel Peter Scott also told me:
We were up top, the battalion was around us, we were mortared, shelled continuously for the whole day. We were very, very fortunate to get off it. I never thought I would ever see it again.
I heard about the suffering of the Korean people. Four million were dead. The country was decimated by the ravages of war. There was poverty. There were people who had lost loved ones. There were people whose villages and houses had been blown apart, whose lives had been shattered.
Then the Magnificent Eight returned to South Korea and saw what it is today. Jack Lang said, 'They are just such a wonderful people considering how they were 65 years ago and the way that they have built the place up because it was a hell of a mess 65 years ago.' He said, 'There were bodies lying around. It was like walking into a rubbish dump. There was nothing. People could hardly stand. Their houses were burned. They were streaming out of the city. They had nothing. What they had, they carried on their back.'
And I heard from the Magnificent Eight of the overwhelming respect from the Korean people today. Graham Connor spoke of the gratitude. He said: 'In Busan we were getting lunch in a restaurant when this well dressed young woman spoke to me, "Thank you, thank you, thank you for all you have done for us." I was walking near the market and this elderly gentleman was eyeballing me and he came over and said to me, "Are you a Korean War veteran?" I said yes, and he threw his arms around me and burst out crying and said "thank you, thank you".'
As an aside, I asked the young members of 3RAR who accompanied the Magnificent Eight on the tour why they were chosen for the anniversary visit—a natural question—and they told me it was because of their good looks! Those young members of 3RAR spoke about their pride in the contribution made by the battalion and in the provenance of Old Faithful. I was told by one of those young members, 'It was a name given to us because we were there for the entirety of the war and one of the main contributors to the war.' According to him, 'Old Faithful means 3RAR can be trusted, and it has been trusted for many years, and we are always there on the frontline.' And in a display of their pride, each current member of 3RAR at Busan cemetery were formally honoured by those young, good looking men.
Colonel Peter Scott, spoke about how Old Faithful emerged because the battalion was the first into Korea and was there at the end and through the armistice. He said: '3RAR was there at the beginning, middle and end. 3RAR was always reliable to do the job.' They are the stories from the veterans who were with us, the Magnificent Eight, who we spoke to during that visit.
We also heard stories about the women, the children, the wives, the mothers who were all left behind. We heard the story about Thelma Healy's passage to Busan to visit the grave of her son Vince Healy. Vince volunteered and, once he had signed up, his letters to the family trickled to very little contact. His sudden death in uncertain circumstances on a frozen battlefield in 1951 plunged his mother into a deep depression. But Thelma Healy was determined to say farewell to her son. She vowed that, before she died, she would find her son's grave and say goodbye. This began a 10-year odyssey that eventually took Thelma, on her own, on a 15,000-kilometre journey halfway around the world to war-torn Busan in Korea in 1961. Being a woman of no means, and with nine children to feed and clothe, Thelma had to scrimp and save, sew and slave, to raise the money needed for her epic voyage. But she got there in the end to bid farewell to her much loved son.
Another story was told to me by Dr Rebecca Fleming, the historian who travelled with us on the mission. When she told me this story, standing in the Busan cemetery, I immediately burst into tears; it is that powerful—so if anyone is listening to this speech, do not say you were not warned! Sixty-five years ago, Sister Nancy Hummerston married her beloved Captain Ken Hummerston in Tokyo. Six weeks later, Captain Hummerston was in Korea when the jeep he was driving was blown up by a landmine. He and his driver were killed in the explosion and were the first Australians to die in the Korean War. Captain Hummerston had been in Korea just six days and had been married for a very short time. Nancy was heartbroken but threw herself into her work and returned to Japan to continue nursing. She never remarried and devoted her entire life to helping veterans. Her one wish was that when she died her ashes would be buried with her husband. And so it was, her ashes were returned to his grave in Busan cemetery and she was finally returned to the love of her life, Captain Kenneth Hummerston, decades after they last parted ways.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for asking me to represent him for this 65th anniversary tour—as you can see, it had a very powerful effect on me. I understand the Leader of the Opposition worked with a Korean War veteran in his teens so there was a very special connection for him and he was very sad that he could not go on this visit.
I also thank the outstanding nurses, Jane Gallagher and Julie Howard, who were who were up at 4 am and in bed at midnight. They were amazing women—tireless, calm and patient absolutes angels. And I want to thank Squadron Leader Chris Gilbert, the mission doctor.
I thank our embassy in Korea for the 24/7 support. As an ex-DFATer, as is the minister, we know the work that goes into these visits—they are tireless, around the clock, 24/7. I particularly want to thank the charge, Ravi Kewalran, and the team at the mission, who had a tough year last year and were still in mourning following the sudden and tragic loss of my former DFAT colleague and friend Richard Fogarty.
I thank the straight-out-of-central-casting Navy officer, Defence Attache, Captain Vaughn Rixon CSC and his wife, Felicity. I want to thank the Assistant Defence Attache, Major Simon Hawkins and First Secretary, Ben Fallet, Defence Office Manager, Kyung-Hee Her, Defence Administration and Research Officer, Inji Seo and Administrative Assistant, Hyunbae Jean.
Thank you to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Many of them are here today—Simon Lewis PSM, Major General Mark Kelly AO DSC, Tim Evans, Robert Harmon, Mathew Hardy, Major General David Chalmers, Susie Dunn, Stacey Anderson and my old communication mate Dale Starr. And thank you to the Federation Guard, who, as always, put on sterling performances at the many commemorative events that we had at the Busan cemetery, Kapyong and Maryang San.
I finish with the words of one of the Magnificent Eight, John Murphy, just before the Kapyong ceremony. He said:
I don't think any Australian kids know anything about the Korean War. But certainly the schoolkids in this country do.
The cemetery in Pusan. Seeing how the Australian braves are looked after, respected. It gladdens the heart of an old veteran. To know that his old comrades, or some of his mates, are buried here and they are not forgotten.
The Koreans know what the Australians have done in this country. They know they made a large sacrifice. 340 of them died here. Most of them are buried here. They will always remember the Australian contribution to the Korean people.
We are happy to know that we helped a little the South Koreans to get started, and build their country and make it into one of the most powerful nations in the Asian sector now.
We can always sit back and say we done a bit. We done our bit.
John and the others of the Magnificent Eight, you did more than a bit. We salute you. In the words of the Korean people: thank you, thank you, thank you. We will remember them. Lest we forget.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I commend the shadow minister for her speech and the two other representatives of the shadow ministry who are here. Thank you for sharing with me the journey that we went on in October last year. It was a true show of bipartisanship. I think it clearly demonstrates the better part of this place, and long may it be that we continue to do these types of commemorations. We got a little bit out of it, but for the Magnificent Eight it was a truly remarkable experience. Well done in thanking and recognising everyone else who played such a significant part in it.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill bans corrupt and secret payments made between employers and trade unions. It also requires disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits they stand to gain as a result of an enterprise agreement before employees vote on that agreement.
The role of union leaders is to put their members first. They are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly trust will be the first priority of their union.
Any union leader who accepts secret—let alone corrupt—payments from the employers of their members is betraying the obligation they have to represent faithfully, honestly and diligently the workers who are members of their union. It is a breach of faith.
A business that makes payments of that kind is also seriously compromised. As the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found: 'Corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment.' If a payment is made without being disclosed to members, why not? What innocent explanation can there be for a union not disclosing to its members each and every payment received from employers?
Yet successive royal commissions have uncovered millions of dollars of payments secretly transferred between employers and unions.
These deals were not revealed to the union's own members or the employer's own workforce.
Some payments involve union leaders obtaining kickbacks for their own personal benefit, like officials who obtained free renovations on their homes.
Other payments involve deals to bolster the status and power of union leaders, particularly within the Labor Party. These deals involve employers making payments accompanied by lists of employee names which have been used to secretly sign employees up to the union.
Shockingly, there are also payments that have been used to encourage unions to sell out their members—the very members that they are paid to represent.
A repeat offender when it comes to these payments was the Australian Workers Union in Victoria under the then leadership of the now Leader of the Opposition.
In fact, the AWU in Victoria received hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments from employers at the same time as its members were facing lower pay or redundancy.
For example, the AWU received half a million dollars from the glass manufacturer ACI, which was laying off workers at its factory in western Melbourne. The employer undertook these redundancies without any agitation from the union.
Notoriously, the AWU also received $24,000 from the mushroom-picking company Chiquita Mushrooms that was in the process of casualising its workforce. Again, the employer avoided union agitation as it was undertaking the redundancies and employing workers on labour hire contracts in the place of their permanent employees. The deal, as the royal commission found, saved the company millions of dollars.
The AWU also received $75,000 from the services company Clean Event in exchange for maintaining a workplace deal that paid cleaners well below award rates and stripped them of penalty rates, overtime and shift loading. Again, the royal commission found that saved the company about $2 million a year. The royal commission concluded that the only beneficiaries from that deal were the employer and the union itself.
These secret deals have the real potential to corrupt union leaders, corrupt employers and seriously disadvantage workers. They are wrong. They need to be outlawed, and this is exactly what this bill will do.
Today the government is introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill because we are committed to ending these secret deals between unions and employers, and because we are committed to putting the interests of workers first.
We are committed to ending the dodgy arrangements which ensure millions of dollars in financial benefits flow into union coffers from insurance, training and superannuation schemes, with employees none the wiser.
The bill therefore criminalises benefits given or received with the intention of corrupting the officers of registered organisations.
The bill also outlaws payments or other benefits transferred from employers to unions or their officers. Certain legitimate categories of payments will be allowed, such as payments at fair market value for genuine services that are actually provided by a union, or genuine payment of membership fees.
The criminal penalties will apply equally to an employer and a union. The party that makes or offers the payment will be penalised in the same way as the party that solicits or receives the payment.
Criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual, or $4.5 million for companies.
Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual, or $450,000 for companies.
The bill also requires full disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits they stand to gain under an enterprise agreement before employees vote it.
If money changes hands between an employer and a union, then both parties have an obligation to honestly declare these payments to their employees and the members of the union.
Employees have a right to know about any deals derived by their employer or the union before they vote on an agreement.
My government is committed to restoring integrity and fairness to the workplace, and this starts with requiring employers and unions to act with integrity and fairness in negotiations.
All parties in this parliament who believe in fairness, honesty and transparency in workplaces, who believe unions should put their members first and that corruption in all its forms should be stamped out should now support this vital reform to outlaw corrupting benefits.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The digital age has fundamentally altered the way Australians engage with copyright. Content is more accessible than ever before. While this brings with it unique challenges for the protection of copyright, it also provides profound opportunities for creators and consumers alike. Respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators is essential to a properly functioning copyright regime. At the same time, if we are to harness the opportunities and respond to the challenges presented by the digitisation of content, it is critical that Australia's copyright laws are also flexible and facilitate fair access to, and use of, content.
The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 responds to views expressed by copyright stakeholders. They have said that reform is needed to address outdated, prescriptive and overly complex provisions of the Copyright Act. They also said that these provisions impact unfairly on the ability of libraries, archives and educational institutions, and persons with a disability, to access and use copyright material. The bill is designed to be technology- and format-neutral so that these important reforms will remain relevant in an environment of rapid technological change.
Disability access p rovisions
I turn first to the disability access provisions. Even with the vast amount of digital content made available online, the great majority of published material worldwide is not presently accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired or who have a disability that affects the way a person reads, views, hears or comprehends copyright material. This bill therefore puts in place a consolidated, flexible exception for use by organisations that assist people with a disability. The bill also introduces a fair dealing provision for people with a disability.
These measures reflect the government's commitment to improving accessibility for persons with a disability following the ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty on 10 December 2015. They bring Australia in line with global best practice to provide a flexible copyright framework that recognises the various ways people with a disability use accessible format content. These measures are designed to be format-neutral to ensure that Australians with a print disability will be able to continue to have fair and equal access to material in line with technological advancements.
Library and a rchive exceptions
Let me now describe the library and archive exemptions in the bill. The digital era offers us the chance to preserve copyright materials in ways that were not available, and therefore not contemplated, under the existing Act. For this reason, the bill replaces the current preservation copying provisions in the act with simpler, uniform provisions that give libraries, archives and key cultural institutions greater flexibility in preserving the material in their collections.
The new preservation provisions will apply to libraries accessible to members of the public, parliamentary libraries, archives (including the archives of museums and galleries) and prescribed key cultural institutions that hold copyright material of historical or cultural significance to Australia. There are currently three prescribed key cultural institutions: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation and the Australian National University Archives Program.
The new provisions enable libraries and archives to make, if necessary, multiple copies of copyright material in a version or format that is in line with best practice preservation policy, if a copy of the material cannot be obtained in a version or format that is required for preservation. These changes remove the restrictions in the current act under which preservation copies of published material can only be made after the material has suffered damage, has deteriorated, or is lost or stolen. The new provisions will enable libraries and archives to take a proactive approach to the preservation of the material in their collections for future generations without infringing copyright.
Further, the measures introduced by this bill will allow the public to have greater access to the copyright materials held in the collections of libraries and archives for research purposes. The bill includes measures to ensure that preservation and research copies of copyright material in electronic form can be made available for access by a person at the library or archives, provided that the library or archives take reasonable steps to ensure that the person accessing that copy does not infringe copyright in that copy. The measures are technology and format neutral, ensuring that organisations and institutions can use the best and most effective preservation methods in line with technological advancement.
Educational provisions
I now turn to the educational provisions in the bill. These will streamline the educational statutory licence provisions for the copying and communication of works and broadcasts for educational purposes, and permit the use of copyright material for online examinations. The intention is to reduce red tape and adapt to technological advancement.
These reforms include consolidating and simplifying the existing provisions relating to educational use of works and broadcasts and providing greater flexibility for educational institutions and collecting societies in their negotiations for licensing and access arrangements for copyright material. The measures appropriately balance the interests of copyright owners and the needs of educational institutions. At the same time, they remove the cumbersome and unnecessary mandatory report-keeping requirements of the existing educational statutory licences scheme.
The changes to the educational statutory licensing provisions also consolidate the framework for the operation of declared collecting societies. They do this by specifying the requirement for bodies seeking to be declared as collecting societies under the Copyright Act and the circumstances in which such declarations may be revoked. The bill empowers the Copyright Tribunal to determine questions relating to this new educational statutory licence scheme, upon application by either party.
The bill also extends the operation of existing provisions that permit the use of hardcopy material by educational institutions for the purposes of examination to allow the use of copyright material for online examinations. This extension will expand the ways in which examinations are delivered to students and assist our educators to operate competitively in the digital education era.
Term of protection for unpublished material
Let me now turn to the provisions regarding the term of protection for unpublished material. These are directed at facilitating access to culturally important content. They are aimed at aligning the terms of protection for unpublished materials with published materials. Currently, if copyright materials are unpublished, they remain in copyright in perpetuity, so their productive uses may be lost. By contrast, generally the copyright in a published work subsists for 70 years from the death of the author or, if the work was not published until after the death of the author, for 70 years from first publication. Currently, copyright in a published sound recording or film subsists for 70 years from first publication.
The bill harmonises the copyright term for works (including a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work) by creating a new standard term of 70 years from the death of the author, irrespective of whether the relevant work has or has not been made public. This means that an unpublished work will have the same term of copyright protection as a published work. Where the identity of the author remains generally unknown, or the work is made by an international organisation to which the act applies, the standard copyright term will be 70 years from when it is made. However, if this work is made public within 50 years of being created, the copyright term will be 70 years from first being made public. For sound recordings and films, a standard copyright term of 70 years from the year in which the material is made will apply. However, if the sound recording or film is made public within 50 years of being made, the copyright term will be 70 years from first being made public.
Libraries, archives and other cultural institutions hold large volumes of unpublished materials which are an important part of Australia's cultural heritage. Setting a term of protection for unpublished materials will give these institutions greater opportunities to deal with unpublished materials. It will also improve access to important Australian historical and cultural materials that were not previously available to the public.
The new copyright terms will commence on 1 January 2019 and will apply to copyright material created before 1 January 2019 that remains unpublished (or otherwise not made public) at that date. These new copyright terms are consistent with the requirements under international conventions and agreements to which Australia is a party. This will also bring Australia into line with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the European Union, where all works have a copyright term, whether they are published or not.
This bill is an important step in simplifying Australia's existing copyright framework, in response to specific challenges and concerns identified by copyright stakeholders and sectors of the community. The bill enables the law to respond more flexibly to the constant technological changes in the digital age by ensuring that these sectors and the wider Australian community have fair and reasonable access to copyright material.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility) Bill 2017, provides the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) with increased flexibility in the scheduling of advertising and clarifies SBS's ability to earn revenue through having product placement during programming.
SBS advertising
SBS is Australia's multicultural and Indigenous broadcaster. It is funded through a mixed funding model. While the majority of its operating budget is provided by the Australian Government, a sizeable proportion is earnt through SBS's commercial activities, which include advertising and sponsorship.
During 2014, the then Department of Communications undertook an efficiency study of the ABC and SBS in cooperation with the national broadcasters. The study identified a range of areas where the ABC and SBS could realise savings, mainly in their back-of-house operations, without reducing the resources available for programming.
The study found that SBS could realise additional commercial revenue through implementing advertising flexibility, without increasing the maximum amount of advertising it was permitted to broadcast over a 24 hour period.
Under the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991, SBS is restricted to five minutes of advertising per hour, equalling a maximum of 120 minutes of advertising broadcast per day. The majority of advertising revenue is earned by SBS during peak viewing times—between 6 pm and midnight—or during the broadcast of special events such as the FIFA World Cup.
This bill seeks to amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991, to allow for a more flexible approach to advertising, where SBS may broadcast up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour, with a daily limit of 120 minutes.
This flexibility will give SBS the ability to take advantage of greater demand for advertising during peak viewing times. SBS will be able to earn more advertising revenue by scheduling up to 10 minutes of advertising during the peak times, while scheduling less advertising during other hours to ensure the 120 minute daily cap is not exceeded.
While this amendment may on its face appear to be generous, the existing 120 minute daily cap is well below the limit applying to commercial broadcasters, which is a maximum of 350 minutes per day.
In addition, SBS does not currently fill 100 per cent of the time it has available for advertising across all of its channels and markets. This is particularly so in regional markets where SBS struggles to fill the current allotment of five minutes per hour per channel during peak viewing times and higher rating programs.
In such situations, it is very unlikely that providing flexibility will generate much additional revenue. The benefits of the proposed amendment will be found in the metropolitan markets.
Product placement
The efficiency study also identified that SBS could earn additional revenue through the use of product placement within particular types of programming, particularly food or sports.
Product placement is not a new concept. It has been widely used by commercial broadcasters for many years to earn revenue and subsidise the cost of content production.
Currently SBS broadcasts some programming with product placement, however, the majority of this content is acquired rather than commissioned, and SBS therefore does not receive any direct benefit for this product placement.
While SBS has introduced a modest level of product placement in its commissioned content, the amount of revenue being collected is not substantial due to the lack of clarity regarding the use of product placement in the SBS Act.
The bill amends the SBS Act to provide clarity, to allow a wider use of product placement in commissioned content. To ensure this process is properly managed, the bill requires the SBS Board to develop and publish guidelines on the use of product placement.
It also requires SBS to report on the use and earnings of product placement in its annual report, consistent with the existing requirement for SBS's other advertising and sponsorship announcements.
Financial impact of advertising changes
The introduction of advertising flexibility and product placement is anticipated to result in a modest increase of SBS's commercial revenue of approximately $27.4 million over four years.
In the short term, the additional revenue would be directed towards meeting the government's efficiency targets. In the longer term, it is intended that future revenue raised from this amendment can be used to deliver more distinctive and innovative content and services in line with its Charter responsibilities.
With advertising revenue of the commercial broadcasting industry (excluding WIN) totalling $3.7 billion in 2015-16, it is highly unlikely that any additional revenue earned by SBS from this amendment will have a material impact on the commercial broadcasters.
Since 2006-07, when in programming advertising was introduced on SBS, its advertising revenue has gradually increased. Generally during FIFA World Cup years, SBS's advertising increases significantly. While this may seem like a substantial amount of funding for SBS, this revenue constitutes two per cent of the commercial television industry's revenue during the same period.
The steady growth of SBS's advertising revenue over this period has not led to a reduction in overall commercial advertising revenues for free-to-air television. This is because the growth of the entire television advertising spend over the period has outstripped the growth in SBS's advertising revenue.
Therefore, a minor change to SBS's advertising arrangements is unlikely to have any significant effect on other broadcasters.
Conclusion
The additional revenue earned from these advertising measures will put SBS in a better position to provide more high quality and relevant programming that reflects and promotes Australian's multicultural and Indigenous society.
SBS currently receives approximately 75 per cent of its operational budget through government funding. Measures in this bill will give SBS more independence to earn additional revenue, and in turn become somewhat less dependent on government funding.
The government understands the significant relationship SBS has with Australians, particularly those from rural and regional areas, and it is committed to a strong and resilient public broadcasting sector that efficiently uses taxpayers' money.
Debate adjourned.
I rise today to speak in support of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017. As we have heard, the bill establishes a VET student loans ombudsman with the power to investigate complaints about the student loans scheme, to recommend that providers take action to address and resolve problems, to give providers advice and training about handling complaints and to work with the sector to develop a code of practice. The VET Student Loans Ombudsman is very welcome. In fact, Labor took a policy to establish such an ombudsman to the election last year. Then, when the VET student loans bill was debated in the House late last year, Labor moved amendments to establish a VET student loans ombudsman. The government did not support the amendments at that time but did give an undertaking to establish a VET student loans ombudsman separately under the Ombudsman Act 1976. This bill gives effect to that commitment.
In general, stakeholders are supportive of setting up an ombudsman, but many are disappointed that the office does not have stronger powers. They would like the ombudsman to be able to make binding decisions, they would like the department to be able to take action against a provider that does not follow the recommendations of the ombudsman and they would like the ombudsman's powers to cover the entire VET system, not just student loans. But this is a start, and this government is on notice that it must prove its ombudsman model can get results. It must be acknowledged that, without Labor's consistent badgering, the government would not even have come this far. Labor can and will take credit for dragging the government to the table to establish a VET student loans ombudsman—a process that has taken almost two years—and Labor will make sure this ombudsman delivers for students. We know students need someone in their corner to stand up for their rights and to fight back against bad practices and dodgy providers. We have certainly heard enough bad stories and we have seen the names of good organisations tarnished by association with the bad. Labor has really led the debate on this, just as we will continue to lead the broader debate on the need for our country to focus on skills and training. We expect to see the recommendations of the ombudsman respected and heavy punishment for any providers that do not cooperate.
There are many thousands of students who have been treated very badly in recent years, and we know that the system has fallen into crisis. In 2014, the graduation rate for the largest 10 providers was under five per cent. That is hardly a raging success. That represents $900 million in federal money—more than $215,000 for every graduate. Students were tricked into racking up massive debts with little hope their courses would ever lead to jobs. Ten thousand qualifications were cancelled in Victoria because they were not worth the paper they were written on. There was an explosion in short courses and online courses and a decline in quality. It is estimated that 40 per cent of VET FEE-HELP loans will never be repaid. VET FEE-HELP loans have blown out from $700 million in 2013 to a staggering $2.9 billion in 2015. Where was the government when this was happening right under its nose? Labor will lead the debate on the VET sector and will lead the broader debate on skills.
As Labor leader Bill Shorten told the National Jobs and Skills Summit on Friday, our nation is crying out for a long-term vision, and that vision that includes three key objectives: firstly, lifelong learning, ensuring all Australians have access through their working life to the education, skills and training they need for decent jobs; secondly, preparing for the jobs of the future, making sure the Australian workforce is more responsive to the evolving skills needed in our economy; and, thirdly, working together. As the Labor leader said, training and skills is not something that the government does alone; it has to be something that business does as well. It is the responsibility of us all in a changing world and changing environment and a global workforce. In the past 10 years, Australia has lost 75,000 manufacturing jobs. Let me say that again: 75,000 manufacturing jobs in 10 years. But in that time 485,000 jobs have been created in health care and social services. Jobs are changing, and jobs in the service sector are filling those voids left by manufacturing jobs. But there are still challenges—challenges in automation, offshoring, casualisation of the workforce and underemployment. To address these challenges, I again reflect on the Labor leader's words: we must be productive, competitive, adaptable and resilient. To do that, we need to have a workforce with a good education, with good skills and with good training for the jobs of the day.
Key to this debate are apprenticeships. When Labor left office in 2013, Australia had about 420,000 apprentices—now we have 280,000. Across the Hunter, including in my electorate of Paterson, we have lost 4,200 apprenticeships since June 2012. More broadly across the country, we have seen cuts to TAFE and training in the order of $2.5 billion. We have seen an explosion in the private provision of training and some truly shocking examples of mismanagement. We have a great university system, but university is not for everyone. Vocational education is vital. Our TAFE sector is vital, and we must rebuild TAFE for the future. Between 2013 and 2015 the Liberals oversaw a 21 per cent decline in TAFE enrolments and an almost 75 per cent decline in TAFE and VET capital investment. Talk about gutting a worthwhile organisation! We have started to turn this around, but the VET and TAFE sectors are still under pressure, and that is why a VET ombudsman is so important.
As Rod Sims, the Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, told the National Consumer Congress in Melbourne last week, it has taken two years to clean up the mess following the so-called reforms to vocational education, and we are still going—hardly swift, that is for sure. The switch to vocational training carried out by the private sector rather than through the longstanding government provided TAFE and equivalent systems led to disaster. Rather than providing quality education at efficient prices, many VET providers provided poor education at sorely inflated prices.
In its recent report, the Australian National Audit Office found that poor design and a lack of monitoring and control led to costs blowing out. It also found that insufficient protection was provided to vulnerable students from some unscrupulous private training organisations. Mr Sims said the ACCC had so far taken court action against four of these companies, but he described it as the tip of the iceberg. The Australian Government Actuary estimates that over a billion dollars of Commonwealth money in loans issued inappropriately by the education providers in 2014 and 2015 alone will never be seen again. A billion dollars!
In my own region, the Hunter Valley, more than 1,500 students have been left in the lurch after 11 private colleges were suspended across the state for failing to meet minimum standards. Among them is Careers Australia, which the Newcastle Herald reported closed its Steel River campus in Newcastle in July after the New South Wales government withdrew funding, leaving 300 students in the lurch. Among the colleges that had funding terminated was Wise Education Group, which documents reveal had more than 100 enrolled students in Newcastle. The Herald has also reported that Hunter students have been caught in the federal crackdown on the scandal-plagued vocational education sector, after Aspire College of Education and Evocca College both closed their Newcastle campuses. This government, finally, is acting on these shonky dealings, but we must go further, to ensure that the ombudsman being set up is truly a voice for students.
As the Business Council of Australia Chief Executive, Jennifer Westacott, said recently:
The VET sector is a crucial piece of Australia's economic and social infrastructure. It prepares workers for the rapid economic change and helps to keep Australians competitive in a global market.
We recognise the role of strong TAFE providers alongside effective and accountable private providers.
Ms Westacott said the Business Council welcomed the opposition leader's recognition that vocational education and training is not a second-best alternative to a university degree and that both types of qualification should be valued equally. Generations of Australians already know this. They know that TAFE is the backbone of our apprenticeship system, and that both are badly in need of revival. This is a job that Labor will do.
I will not say this VET Student Loans Ombudsman is a case of 'too little too late', but I will say it is a case of 'just in the nick of time'. Reforms are being made; shonks are being closed down. But the ombudsman is a vital link in the chain to ensure that students undertaking vocational education are protected, not ripped off, and that their concerns are not summarily dismissed but taken seriously. The government is on notice that Labor will be watching this VET Student Loans Ombudsman to ensure the office is a strong voice for students, the way that Labor will be.
I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate on the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017. This bill establishes a VET student loans ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976, with the power to investigate complaints arising from the Commonwealth government's student loans scheme. I am assuming he is going to be rather busy.
This is an important reform because, given the recent controversies surrounding dodgy private vocational education and training course providers, students clearly need a watchdog in their corner to make sure they are not getting ripped off, as my friend and colleague the member for Paterson has just pointed out. This ombudsman is long overdue, and it comes after those opposite sat on their hands as the system derailed around them like a bad train accident, with more and more students being cheated, and more and more taxpayer funds being defrauded. The fact is that those opposite were too busy playing musical chairs with the portfolio to do anything about the growing problem that existed within it. But, when it comes to protecting VET students, and under a fairly apathetic government, I guess it is better late than never. Although I do think those affected are owed an apology.
When it comes to responding to the growing problems we have seen in the VET sector, Labor has led the charge in addressing these problems. In the Senate, we moved to establish a VET ombudsman more than one year ago. Where has the member for Wentworth been? MIA. At the time, the government said they would consider the idea and act on it. Well, it has taken them a fairly long time to finally act. And, I should note that, when they did act, they got it wrong. After 12 months of considering the issues, and after seeking feedback from the sector, they introduced a bill into the parliament that neglected to establish an ombudsman. This, of course, was despite students, providers and consumer advocates all calling for one. These I would refer to as the experts in the field. Once again, the government is not listening to those experts. We know that establishing an ombudsman was the most popular idea in their own discussion paper among industry stakeholders—again, the experts. So, following this incompetence, it was up to Labor to move an amendment to establish an ombudsman, and the government gave a commitment to introduce standalone legislation.
So here we are. Only after the government has been dragged kicking and screaming, the right policy finally prevails—and, I might add, a Labor policy. We believe this amendment has been brought forward in good faith, and we sincerely hope the government are genuine in their moves to establish this ombudsman, and we hope they demonstrate this genuineness by resourcing the office accordingly and not simply window-dressing. It is important to make very clear that we need outcomes in this area, because without significant changes our VET system will continue to be under enormous pressure and under threat of collapsing, leaving hundreds of thousands of Australians without a pathway to improve their skills and enter the workforce—which, I would suggest, is pretty bad for the budget.
On this side of the House, we in Labor believe in vocational education and training, and we believe in the people who rely on it to contribute to our society. And that is why it is so important that this government starts taking the VET sector seriously. Without a strong and effective VET sector, many people in my own electorate, and many more around the country, will not be able to reach their full potential, and therefore they will not be able to contribute to society as much as they otherwise would have—and that means we all lose.
Under the Liberals we have seen the sector ripped off and defrauded, with students being signed up to fake courses, people being enrolled in courses that are completely inappropriate and people being tricked into taking on significant public debt with absolutely no personal gain or return, nor an ability to repay. We know of people being bribed with iPads and the like, and these are vulnerable people—young, sometimes with a disability. They are made to sign up to courses they have no intention of participating in or completing, or that they have the ability to complete. We know of vulnerable people being tricked into enrolling in classes where the completion rate was less than five per cent. Shockingly, we know that the 10 largest private providers were, at one stage, effectively paid more than $215,000 for every successful graduate—such was the scale of failure in this sector. We know that 10,000 qualifications were cancelled in Victoria alone, because they basically weren't worth the paper they were written on. Just think about that for a second: while TAFE course fees around the country are rapidly rising—especially in my home state of New South Wales—and hundreds of thousands of people are being locked out of courses that could change their lives, millions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been spent on courses where the qualification was not worth the piece of paper it was written on.
We can talk about the numbers. We can talk about the statistics. We can talk about people being locked out, but what if you are one of those students? What happens if you are one of those people who spent your time, energy and money trying to study only to have that course that you qualified for, or the certificate that you obtained, ripped up?
It is estimated that up to 40 per cent of these dodgy Commonwealth loans will never be repaid, meaning taxpayers will end up footing the bill to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. Where is the government's obsession with debt and deficit on reflection of those numbers? Now, it does not actually surprise me that those opposite in the government have attempted to blame Labor, because that is their only effective policy; it is their fall-back position for every tricky issue facing this country. Every single time, it shows how hopelessly unsuited they are to leading this country forward. I can only imagine that, in ten years time, their entire legacy will be summed up in two words, 'hurt and blame' because, time after time, their actions hurt those who can least afford it, and their inaction is simply blamed on us. How unedifying and disheartening it must be for those opposite who actually came here to make a difference to their communities.
We also know that apprentice numbers in this country have fallen by 30 per cent—that is, 130,000 fewer apprentices under the Liberals. These are incredibly shocking statistics, and they point to a fundamental failure of this government. The government have not mentioned apprentices once this week but have mentioned Labor, Bill Shorten and the unions countless times—I think even in the hundreds. So where are the priorities of this government? This is a failure that belies their promise to govern for all Australians.
In contrast, Labor has always stood up for TAFE and our vocational education system, because we know how life changing these courses can be. And, unlike those opposite, we are in the business of improving the standard of living for ordinary Australians, not taking every opportunity to attack and reduce it.
Just on TAFE, I am a very, very proud TAFE graduate. TAFE changed my life and gave me the ability to then go on to university. I know firsthand the benefits and I certainly want to make sure that it is something that is around for my own children.
We are undoubtedly—over on the Labor side—the party of TAFE, just as Labor is undoubtedly the party of Medicare. That is a legacy that some on the opposite side might wish to consider—and what their legacy might be. We want to see more people have access to the technical and semiprofessional skills they need to engage in and contribute to our communities, and build a decent life for themselves. We believe that every Australian should have access to quality skills training that positions them well for our rapidly-changing world. It is about equity and, sadly, too many people have been taken advantage of under this government and too many people have been, and will continue to be, left behind.
You can go out into any community around the country and, I can assure you, one of the most trusted and respected government institutions will always be, and has always been, TAFE. People understand its importance and know the value it adds to the lives of those who learn there, but Liberal governments just cannot bring themselves to back in TAFE. They just do not get it. At a state and federal level, the Liberals have an ideological opposition to assisting people gain skills so they can better compete in the employment market and build a better life for themselves and their families. What is it that you guys hate so much about TAFE? And there is no point in denying it, because everyone knows that is the case.
Going back to the substantive issue at the heart of this bill, we know that stakeholders are supportive of the move to establish an industry ombudsman—and I touched on that earlier. However, we also know that there is quite a bit of disappointment among stakeholders that the powers of the ombudsman are not as strong as they could or should have been. We have heard that there is a preference for the ombudsman to make binding decisions, which it cannot do under this legislation. We have heard that an industry funding source could ensure the office was well resourced and out of the hands of government budgetary decisions and constraints. We have heard that, at the very least, there could have been a requirement of the department to take action against a provider that ignores a recommendation by the ombudsman, and we have heard the voices of people who would have preferred that this office had scope to deal with the entire VET system, not just the student loans aspect.
And it is important to note those positions but, overall, even though this bill does not deliver on those views, it does represent a substantive improvement to the status quo and, for that reason alone, I am happy to support this bill. Of course, this does show that there is room for improvement in future—for the government to come up with their own policies, not simply borrow ours. In this regard, the government is certainly on notice to either prove that their model works and actually deliver the desired outcomes or be willing to work with the sector in the months and years ahead to strengthen it even further.
I think the most important thing here and going forward is to ensure our VET system is strong and fit for purpose. We need a government that prioritises skills training and supports people who rely on vocational education and training. Time and time again, Labor has shown that we are up to the job and we will certainly be holding this Liberal government to account to make sure this system is fairer for ordinary Australians looking to increase their skills and, ultimately, engage more fully in their communities.
I commend the member for Lindsay for her remarks in respect of the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017. As other speakers have made clear, this bill has two schedules: the first is in relation to the establishment of the VET Student Loans Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976, and the second is in relation to making annual appropriations to the Australian Research Council.
I am going to focus my remarks on the VET Student Loans Ombudsman. This is an appointment which has become necessary because of the Turnbull government's incompetence and woeful administration of the VET student loans scheme. It was not the scheme that was the problem; it was the Turnbull government's oversight of it. As the figures show, between 2013 and 2015 VET FEE-HELP loans blew out from $700 million in 2013 to $1.8 billion in 2014 and then to $2.9 billion in 2015—that is, in the space of just two years, VET FEE-HELP loans blew out by over $2 billion.
It is beyond comprehension how a government could oversee that kind of increase. Surely there would have been figures coming into the government on a month-by-month basis as to what was happening, and surely those figures should have raised alarm bells for the government. Indeed, I ask myself: just what advice was being provided by the department to the minister of the day, and what did the minister do with that advice? Why did it take so long for the government to act?
In fact, the government only acted after this became a public issue, with lots of media stories and examples of the rorting that was taking place being brought into this House. Indeed, I do not recall having seen a similar level of incompetence by a government as what I have seen with respect to the Turnbull government's mismanagement of the issues relating to VET FEE-HELP loans. Not only should the cost blow-out have raised concerns; the stories that had been continually and openly talked about out there in the community, and which surfaced months and months before the government acted, had become too commonplace.
The sad reality is that, at the end of this scandal, it was not just the government and, through the government, the taxpayers of Australia that lost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars; it was also the students who were left with thousands of dollars of debts, with worthless certificates that would never ever get them a job anywhere, because no-one gave those certificates any credit, and with courses that, in many cases, were left incomplete because the dodgy providers were unable to fulfil their obligation to provide the full courses that had been promised in the first place— indeed, providers closed down before they were able to deliver the full courses.
Many of the young people who were caught up in these scams where young people who were desperate to find work and who were, in turn, left further out-of-pocket because they spent some of their own money chasing courses with dodgy providers that resulted in a worthless certificate. When they realised that they had been duped and enticed into expensive courses with little prospect of employment at the end of them, who did they have to turn to? They had no-one to turn to because, when they turned to the government, nothing was done about it. Indeed, I can recall taking up some matters on behalf of constituents in my electorate, and, regrettably, the outcome was not very good at all at the end of it.
So Labor promised that an ombudsman would be created if we were elected to office, and the government finally agreed to do that. At least an ombudsman provided an office where some of these people could turn to when they found themselves in the situations that they did. Regrettably, under this legislation, while an ombudsman is being created, my concern—a concern that is shared by other speakers on this side of the parliament and by other external bodies who have an interest in this matter—is that the ombudsman's powers are limited.
The ombudsman has no ability to make binding decisions and, indeed, will be dependent on the department taking action. In fact, reading the explanatory memorandum, the department does not, in any event, even have to accept or take any notice of the ombudsman's advice or report when they receive it. So you might as well put your complaint, if that is what it is, directly to the department, because ultimately it is the department that is going to make a decision as to whether anything is going to be done about it or not.
This was an opportunity for the government to do more than that. It was an opportunity for the government to establish an office that had some real teeth and was able to resolve problems if and when they arose, either with respect to the student or the training organisation. Like other speakers on this side of the House, I welcome the position being established, and we will wait with interest to see just how well the position does deliver.
I also want to talk about apprenticeship numbers more broadly. A report last week suggested that between June 2012 and June 2016 there had been a 45 per cent reduction in the numbers of apprenticeships across Australia. The figures were: in June 2012, 515,000 apprentices in this country; in June 2016 the number had fallen to 282,900. That is nearly half. One has to ask the question: why is that? Why are we losing apprentices in those sorts of numbers, and why are there no places for apprentices in this country? It seems to me that it predominantly is because of many of the decisions of this government.
The first was abolishing the $6,000 Tools for Your Trade program, which I believe was working very well and which offered apprentices $6,000 in real money in their pocket to assist them with their training. It was not a loan that they had to pay back; it was $6,000 of assistance. Secondly, we have seen TAFE being undermined by this government, and, in turn, when it is undermined, it is not able to perhaps perform to the extent that it would otherwise have done. TAFE had been a reputable training organisation for decades—and still is—and it should have been an organisation that this government put its full support behind. But it did not; it actually wanted to see its demise.
Then we saw this government also oversee the demise of the automotive industry in this country. The automotive industry was one of the industries that provided opportunities for young apprentices in a whole range of different vocations. Again, with the loss of the automotive industry comes the loss of apprentices that would have otherwise been employed.
Lastly, the fall in the number of apprentices is due to the obsession of conservative governments over recent decades with privatisation. The reality is that it was always governments—government departments and government utilities like the water, power, transport and construction arms of governments—that provided opportunities for most of the apprentices in this country. As those different entities have been privatised, their new owners do not commit to taking on apprentices in the same way that the government departments did. The truth of the matter is that, as we sell off more and more of those government entities, there will be even fewer opportunities for young people to take up apprenticeships. As the Business Council of Australia Chief Executive, Jennifer Westacott, said only recently, as reported in one of the newspapers, we need to change the stigma surrounding TAFE being a poorer cousin to our universities. The reality is that not every young person either wants or is suited to university education. I will talk in just a moment of an example of a person who is doing exceptionally well right now but at the time was not suitable, for a range of reasons, in terms of seeing university as a career path for him. For decades, as I said earlier, vocational education has been part and parcel of the core function of TAFEs around the country and, hopefully, it is going to continue to do that if it gets the support of this government. We should not consider vocational education training and TAFEs as the poorer cousins to universities.
I said I would talk about a specific case example in just a moment and I am going to get to by talking about St Patrick's Technical College in the electorate of Wakefield. The college services the northern region of Adelaide, much of which I represent. Last week I attended the college as it celebrated its 10th anniversary under the leadership of the principal, Rob Thomas. St Patrick's Technical College also comes under the umbrella of Catholic Education South Australia. For the last 10 years or so it has been providing a range of apprenticeships and trade and vocational training courses to young people in the region. Indeed, my understanding is that some 800 apprenticeships have come out of St Patrick's Technical College. The areas that it focuses on are building and construction, community services, hospitality and lifestyle, and engineering and transport. And then it links with local businesses to try and provide career paths for the youngsters who go through the college. The youngsters are generally here year 11 or year 12 students from one of the surrounding high schools who, for whatever reason, do not think their future lies in university education.
One of those young people, who I met last Friday, is young Jack Donaldson, who did a certificate III in engineering and fabrication at St Patrick's college. Jack was transferred from his local high school to St Patrick's because his teachers and his school considered that, at the time, he was not going to be someone who had a future beyond going to high school, and so they recommended that he go to St Patrick's. Young Jack did that, and he became the young apprentice of the year in South Australia after having completed a certificate III in engineering and fabrication. Having done that, built his confidence, and stabilised his lifestyle, he then decided he would pursue a university degree and he is now doing a diploma in leadership and management. This is a good example of having an alternative opportunity at a time when it suited him best in order to keep them focused on his future. And he did it very well. He addressed the gathering last week at the college, and I have to say that he shows an incredible amount of ability and confidence in what he is doing.
It is important that we maintain a strong VET system in this country—a system that gives confidence to young people, industry and the broader community. The VET student loans ombudsman office is a step in the right direction—we acknowledge that. Hopefully, it will not be a tokenistic initiative to appease the sector but a an appointment that will make a real difference to VET in Australia because right now that is what is needed. With unemployment at nearly 6 per cent and youth unemployment more than double that and in some places triple that, Australia should not be filling the skills shortfalls that we have through immigration programs but instead by making the most of providing skills training to young people in this country, who I am sure would love to be given the opportunity to do that.
With those comments, can I say again that we will support the legislation but I wait with interest to see how well it works.
I would like to thank all of the members have contributed to this debate on the Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017.
There is no greater defender of vocational education in this place than me. There is no greater of vocational education than the Turnbull government. There have been a number of fairly wild inaccuracies made by those opposite in speeches in relation to this bill. Quite frankly they are made by those members who are really struggling to defend their dismal record in the area of vocational education and training. The shadow minister has talked about government funding of TAFE. I have gone through this in detail with her before and I believe, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Irons, that you were actually in the chair on the day that I referred directly to Labor's fiscal plan. I am sure you remember it because it was just staggering what we were hearing from the other side of this place.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Order! You are not reflecting on the chair, are you?
They talk at length about Labor's commitment to TAFE. I have researched it and I have gone back and checked the information. It does not take a lot to research what Labor has had to say about this and what their position is. I keep going back to this document, which is Labor's Fiscal Plan
This would be about as accurate as Rocky and Bullwinkle's Fractured Fairy Tales!
I am not sure if the member opposite is actually concerned about the accuracies of his own document. Perhaps that is it, so I am going to read directly from it. In here, under education and skills, it has 'provide guaranteed TAFE funding'. So here we go: 2016-17 is a zero, 2017-18 is a zero, 2018-19 is a zero, 2019-20 is a zero. Zero plus zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. So, for all of their carrying on and talking about guaranteed funding to TAFE, in their own document four zeros equal zero—so absolutely nothing. Labor was guaranteeing no increase to funding to TAFE at all in their document.
Those opposite have also talked about the decline in apprenticeship and trainee numbers, something that the Turnbull government is heavily focused on reversing. This is another mess that was created by Labor that the coalition has, once again, been left to fix. The previous Labor government cut employer incentives to take on an apprentice nine times during the period 2011 to 2013. Those cuts totalled $1.2 billion. In Labor's last year in office—so, from June 2012 to June 2013—the number of apprentices and trainees in training slumped by more than 100,000, or 22 per cent. The rot started under Labor and, as usual, they now try to blame others for the mess.
This government has a plan to restore the status of vocational education and training that was so badly damaged by Labor. We are putting industry at the centre of our reforms to ensure that skills training meets employer needs. We have introduced Trade Support Loans to support apprentices throughout the life of their training, and so far nearly 60,000 have been approved. The Turnbull government is following through on its election commitment to establish a National Career Education Strategy so that school students receive the best career advice possible, matching them with the right training. And the VET Student Loans program is restoring integrity to vocational education after the debacle of Labor's VET-FEE HELP scheme.
The first part of this bill establishes a VET student loans ombudsman to investigate and act upon student complaints under both the failed VET-FEE HELP scheme and the government's new VET Student Loans program. VET Student Loans offer financial support to enable genuine students to receive and complete high-quality training. Our plan will ensure that training provided aligns with the skills employers are looking for to fill the jobs of today and the future, and this is good for our economy.
VET Student Loans fix the mess of Labor's failed VET-FEE HELP scheme, which allowed unscrupulous training providers to target vulnerable people, who were left with debts but with little prospect of getting a job. The cost to taxpayers from this scheme soared, and the reputation of vocational education was badly tarnished. This bill is an integral part of the government's total rebuilding of the vocational education and training loans program, and to restoring integrity to the sector. This bill on is the commitment I made in this place on 13 October last year to establish a VET student loans ombudsman.
Unlike those opposite, we properly research and plan our policy implementation so that we do not end up with debacles like Labor's VET-FEE HELP scheme. The VET student loans ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints and compliance by providers with legislation in relation to loans for both the new VET Student Loans program and under Labor's failed VET-FEE HELP scheme; make recommendations to training organisations and to the secretary of the Department of Education and Training and the minister in relation to loans, including cancelling student debts; conduct systemic reviews of the student loans scheme to ensure it is working as intended; and publicly report on its findings.
It follows the government's wide consultation with stakeholders in the VET sector on the introduction of an ombudsman through Redesigning VET-FEE HELP: discussion paper released in April last year. As a result, the government's proposal for an ombudsman has received wide support from interested parties, including Consumer Law regulators and advocates, unions and training providers. By establishing a VET student loans ombudsman and the VET Student Loans program, the Turnbull government is supporting students to get the skills they need for work and protecting students and taxpayers from abuse and rorts.
The second part of this bill increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001 in line with inflation, and ensures that the Australian government can continue to support thousands of research projects. High-quality research provides significant benefits to our nation. It helps to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, saves lives, improves standards of living, protects the environment and is absolutely critical to Australia's ability to compete internationally.
Again, I thank all members for their support for this bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution an appropriation for the purpose of this bill.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
This is quite a simple amendment. It relates to division 6 of the bill—Additional protections for retail clients, and specifically relates to section 738ZD—Cooling off rights for retail clients. The section reads:
If a person who is a retail client in relation to a CSF offer makes an application pursuant to the offer, the person may withdraw the application within 48 hours after the application is made.
The effect of this amendment is to increase that 48-hour period to five business days. It is a very simple amendment, increasing the duration from 48 hours to five business days, and I certainly commend it.
With the cooperation of the minister at the table, the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would like to give an extended response, if I may, to this issue, given it is the introduction of a new financing platform particularly targeted to small business and to start-ups. The minister has referred to an amendment that the opposition put up in the Senate to strengthen the investor protection integrity around this entirely new financing platform, but I cannot neglect the opportunity that is presented by this period of debate to reflect on this bill.
On our side, we have been very firm advocates and very big supporters of bringing in equity crowdfunding—to ensure that small enterprises and start-ups that are in need of capital injection to either kick off or grow have access to this new mechanism. It was Labor that, when in government, provided the reference to the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee to allow the work of examining how we would allow equity crowdfunding to occur in this nation, as it was starting to operate in others. In 2012, for instance, the US government put in its JOBS Act that allowed for the emergence of equity crowdfunding in the American jurisdiction. Literally a year later, Labor, when in office, provided that reference to see CAMAC. CAMAC went away and started working, and they handed their final report to the then Abbott government in May 2014.
I am not going to go through all the history, but CAMAC put forward some recommendations that we were not comfortable with and I know the government was not comfortable with. It was largely around this whole notion of an unlisted public company. In a lot of our discussions with the start-up sector, they said they would not accept this. This bill, despite coming in two iterations to this place, continues to maintain this restriction. In fact, this bill achieves one thing and one thing only—a headline. The government wants a headline that says they brought it in. After having advice delivered three years ago on what to do with the system, this system puts a massive barrier between small businesses and start-ups and access to finance. The demands of the Turnbull government compelling business to completely change their model of business just to access equity crowdfunding represent the most restrictive conditions to be set on equity crowdfunding in any jurisdiction on the planet. It is so bad that people like Dr Marina Nehme from the University of New South Wales law faculty have said that the bill currently excludes over 99.7 per cent of companies from accessing crowdsource funding, and that:
Such a reality defeats the purpose for introducing legislation to facilitate CSF as only a very small minority of companies will be able to raise funds through this mode of finance.
That is what people have been saying. That is the barrier that is put into place. The government knows this is bad. They did not care. They were so desperate for any legislation to go through that they put this through. How do I know it is bad? Because a few weeks ago in this place the Treasurer at that place said they were going to change it. They said that they would make changes to this bill that is now about to receive royal assent—that in a few months time we will have a series of changes made to this that will make it redundant. Worse still, after saying that they would change it the finance minister, on Monday in the Senate, admitted that they had not even started consultation on the bill that will tidy this bill up—none; it has not even commenced. Like everything else with this government, this will be stuff-up that takes a long time to fix. The government has not just let down the start-up community with this bill—they have let down the start-up community badly with this bill. (Extension of time granted) What is more surprising is how badly the start-up community has been let down by representatives of the start-up community themselves; groups like—I have to say, and I am sorry to say—FinTech Australia. It should be pointed out that this group, which received $200,000 in funding from the Turnbull government last year, hardly raised a peep about this massive barrier that will prevent so many of their members accessing equity crowdfunding—not a word. The only thing that FinTech Australia took umbrage at was the improved investor protections that have been flagged by the minister at the table. The extension of the cooling off period from 48 days to five days was the only thing—
It is 48 hours.
Forty-eight hours—thank you for the assistance, Minister. The only thing they took umbrage at was the improved protection for retail investors that will be engaging with the system for the first time. There was nothing about their members being prevented from accessing crowdsourced funding, but they were big on weakening investor protection. When the issue of the crowdsourced equity funding regime locking out 99 per cent of start-ups was raised, FinTech Australia said:
It's very easy for the startup community to become very self-focused. It's not really targeted as much to startups …
So, bizarrely, FinTech Australia says this bill—which is about to go through this place and which has always been talked about as helping start-ups—is not aimed at start-ups. Maybe the government has muzzled FinTech Australia with the usual conditions a coalition attaches to funds. Who knows? But let us take at face value what they have said. If FinTech Australia says this is not about start-ups, let us look at a body entirely funded by the government and see what they said. That body is the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, who, I might add, has not been a card-carrying member of this side of the House, but is an ideological soul mate of their side. So what did Kate Carnell, the ombudsman, say about this bill that we are now debating or reflecting on the amendments that have been made to the bill in the other place? This is what she said:
As noted in the prior consultation papers about 99 per cent of Australian companies are proprietary companies and a majority are small businesses.
That is step one. Step two:
This means that the vast majority of potential small business users of the new framework must wait for another, soon-to-be-announced round of amendments and regulations before they can begin to make the necessary decisions and adaptations, including possibly taking the decision to switch legal structures and become a public company.
But critically, the ombudsman said:
… we believe it would be simpler, more certain and more straightforward for small business if the current amendments were held off so the full package of amendments were introduced at the same time.
That is by the ombudsman. FinTech Australia say, weirdly, that this is not about start-ups—it is about other small businesses. Then you go to the body that actually represents them and it says that this bill should not proceed. We demand to know what constraints the Turnbull government has forced upon FinTech Australia. It is clear that no logical person could argue for what FinTech Australia is arguing. They have simply been intimidated into the position. What is the only other thing that FinTech Australia spoke on? The only thing that FinTech Australia spoke on was not the barriers to this bill. What they spoke about was this amendment from the other place that the minister has advised the House. That is, they spoke against Labor's moves to ensure that investor protections were strengthened. That is what they did.
FinTech Australia need to ask themselves, are they properly representing the interests of members—not the handful of members. You could probably count on one hand the number of crowdfunding platforms that FinTech Australia are representing in this debate. They have other FinTech players who will need alternative finance but who have not had the benefit of FinTech Australia speaking up for them. They have had the ombudsman speak up for them to ensure there is access to finance, but they have not had FinTech Australia say it. That is wrong. This is why I am always suspect about funds being granted to groups in this way: it prevents them from doing the proper job of speaking up on behalf of the people they should be representing.
We have now had a suggestion that FinTech Australia will be in consultation with the government. As I said before, we have this entirely new system of finance. We need to ensure that it actually works for the betterment of the end user that it was intended to be put in place for. We need industry associations to rightly point out what they expect will be done on behalf of and for the benefit of their members. They should not be cowed, they should not be silenced from being able to express those views, because it not only runs against the interests of their own members; it runs against the interests of the government, who should be getting a good system in place. They should benefit from frank and fearless advice about what is required to be done.
So I would say that, while FinTech Australia have argued that they have begun consultation, the bell has been well and truly rung on that. We have had the admission from the finance minister in the other place on Monday that that has not even started. The other thing is that this will make sure that we have a delay in the new system, even though, weirdly enough, once this bill gets passed it will still be six months before we even get to that point. So we have all this time that has been built in. Instead of having this bill come through, we should have waited and had the consultation. We extended the government a commitment to bipartisanship to fix it up. We had even offered on a mechanism to fix this up. It was not done.
Frankly, I think that what should have happened is that it was done the first time. It has not. It has gone through the Senate now and we have had this change. But we hope, and this is the important point I will end on, that another set of arrangements is going to be put forward some time down the track. Industry should recognise that this is the final chance they have to get the proper system in place. We hope that they properly represent their members and make sure a system is put in place that will work for everyone, and that the bill will be a solid one into the future.
Question agreed to.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Since yesterday, when we mentioned how Aerocare, the great Liberal donors, have been treating their workers like slaves and them like third-class people, my office has been inundated by people in the aviation industry who are feeling this pain. Apparently it is not happening just at Sydney International; it is actually happening right across the country. Everywhere where Liberal donor Aerocare is funding its operations, people are being treated like slaves, and it is unfair and it is wrong. Many people who have spoken to me have told me about how their conditions are so appalling that they cannot believe they are forced to do this in an Australian industry in a place such an international airport.
This was brought up because the TWU has been fighting strongly to ensure that these people get treated fairly and are paid adequately. But we need to ask: where is the PM and his government on this issue of unfair treatment? Nowhere. He does not care. He has never had to work a day in his life. He has never had to worry about what it is like to scratch around for a dollar to put food on the table or to pay the bills, and he will certainly never ever stand up to his big corporate Liberal-donating mates. The ideology of the Prime Minister and his party has been selling workers down the river for years. He has been trying to push away the penalty rates, taking backhanders for years. We are going to continue this fight to stop this from happening. We will not allow Work Choices by stealth by this terrible government.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognise one of Forde's most generous and active community members, David Look, who, sadly, passed away recently aged 66. David was an active, caring and generous person who was involved in many activities around our local community, and he would always come up to you and say, 'G'day, Bloke.' He was a life member and past president of the Gold Coast Horse and Carriage Club and was actively involved in the agricultural show circuit, including stewarding at the Gold Coast and Beenleigh Shows as well as the Royal Easter Show for many years. David's love of horses kept him busy as a member of several clubs, including the Australian Carriage Driving Society, the Queensland Donkey Society and the Commonwealth Clydesdale Horse Society.
David was also a very proud Rotarian and passionate executive member of the Beenleigh and District Historical Society, where he was president for the past two years. More recently, David was a founding member of the Beenleigh District Men's Shed, an initiative of Rotary. He was a friend to all who knew him and worked in the community with enormous vigour and good humour to make it a better place. David, you will be sorely missed by so many in our community. Thank you, Bloke, for all you have done to make our community a better place.
I regularly rise in this place to talk about the importance of agriculture, and I am particularly proud today to welcome into the House some of my colleagues from Indi. A warm welcome to Stuart, to Scott, to Pat, to Patten, to Karen and to the mayor of Towong, David. They left their homes yesterday and have come up here today to talk to ministers and senior public servants about what is happening in the dairy industry in north-east Victoria. We have particular issues around water, around succession and transition between farms, around productivity, around energy, about growing the industry and about education. I appreciate the efforts you have made to be here today and am wishing you well with your meetings with everybody.
But I would particularly like to tell the House of the fantastic work the dairy industry is doing in community engagement and particularly in engaging with young people. They have this most amazing program happening with Tallangatta high school, working together to bring young people in and introduce them to the full range of jobs that are available in agriculture in north-east Victoria. Of all the work you do, I think the work with agriculture is going to pay the greatest dividends. We are encouraging young people to see agriculture as a future. We are saying, 'Come and stay in this community; we have wonderful jobs.' But the most important thing is that the dairy industry says, 'We care'—and they do.
This month I am holding the first Bonner Volunteer Awards, which I have spoken about before here. In the spirit of these awards, today I would like to speak on Sailability Bayside, an outstanding volunteer organisation in Bonner that has been providing a tremendous service for local people with disabilities for years. A few weeks ago I spent a beautiful morning with the Sailability volunteers down at Manly Boat Harbour. It was great seeing them in action. Every week on Mondays and Thursdays between 9 am and 2 pm the volunteers take up to 85 people with disabilities and their carers out sailing in small dinghies.
They also sail on their yacht, named Faith, which has been designed specifically for the disabled. Unfortunately time did not allow me to get out on the water with them, but it was heartwarming to see how excited these participants were. Sailability does truly selfless work making these fun adventures available to people with disabilities every week. As a not-for-profit group they rely on donations, fundraising and grants. Most importantly, they need volunteers to keep operating. Nanetta from Sailability tells me that they require around 30 more volunteers to help out on their sailing days. So, I would like to encourage anyone who loves sailing and wants to give back to the community to consider volunteering their time to this wonderful organisation.
The Central Coast is home to truly inspirational women. I congratulate Julie Vaughan, Group Leader of Connected Communities at Central Coast Council, a worthy recipient of an International Women's Day New South Wales Women in Local Government Award. Julie has made an extraordinary contribution in over a decade of service to local government, and it was an absolute pleasure working with her during my time as a councillor for Wyong Shire. Among Julie's most recent successes is the Love Lanes Festival, which transformed the Wyong CBD and showcased the extraordinary talent of our community. My mum, Barbie—fifth-generation Wyong—was so excited by the energy in our home town. Thank you, Julie, for your work, which makes our home an even better place to live.
It was a privilege to open the Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre's annual International Women's Day forum. The centre has been working to improve women's health on the Coast since 1976. Thank you Xylia and your dedicated team. The Central Coast's newest women's movement, She Story, was spectacularly launched on International Women's Day. We heard the stories of Gina Jeffreys, Pauline Wright and the formidable Liesl Tesch, Paralympian, gold medallist and Labor candidate for Gosford. Thank you to Suzy Miller and Tiffany Doman for your work empowering women on the Central Coast. Thank you to the women of the Central Coast and women of the world who live boldly for change every day in our communities and across the world.
Some of you may be wondering why I am sporting this new hair style this afternoon.
Warren Snowdon was first.
No, I am not taking after Warren Snowdon. On Friday of last week I took part in 'Shave for a Cure'. I would like to thank my friends and my colleagues both on this side and on that side and also in the other place who have supported this great cause. We raised $2600 in only four days. To my friends and family and constituents back home in Fisher, this was a great demonstration of the way that Australians can pull together to help those who are suffering from leukaemia, which is the third greatest cause of cancer deaths in Australia. It is third only to melanoma and breast cancer.
The Leukaemia Foundation does fantastic work. On Monday they sent me an email to say that with the money we have raised this year, Australian scientists have come up with a new form of testing for leukaemia that is not as invasive or painful as it once was. This is a great example the Leukaemia Foundation using that money to help Australians.
I rise to offer my thanks to Bryan Green, the former leader of the Tasmanian Labor Party. He retired on Friday, following a 19-year career in the Tasmanian parliament and he goes with our good wishes and our thanks for his many years of service.
I wish to offer my congratulations to my good friend Rebecca White who is the new Labor leader and the new leader of the opposition in Tasmania. Like me, she is the member for Lyons—the state electorates in Tasmania mirror the federal electorates—and she does a great job in our shared electorate. Beck was elected unanimously by the Labor caucus and I know she is bringing new energy and vigour to her role. She has a lot of support in the community.
Just yesterday she and the state Labor caucus were in Bridgewater in my electorate at a community forum. The great thing the state Labor Party is doing is listening to and learning from the people of Tasmania. They are getting out into the community; they are finding out what the real issues are; and they are acting on those issues. Beck will bring great energy and vigour to this role. She is refocusing on a very tired and very ordinary Hodgman Liberal government. They have been in power now for three years; they have done absolutely nothing for Tasmania; they are basically living on the back of a lower dollar—the lower dollar is doing good things for agriculture in Tasmania—(Time expired) this
There are many passionate and connected communities in my electorate of Robertson, including the families who live in beautiful Avoca Beach. Earlier this year, members of the Avoca Beach community approached both their federal and state representatives with a petition calling for improved safety at a busy pedestrian crossing.
Shortly after, I was invited via Twitter to join local Avoca Beach residents, including Jodie Skellern, Susan Thomas, Tom Roberts, Jenny Roberts, Dessa Cook, Natalie Parkes, Assaf Mawad, Brian Thomas and Pauline Mawad. Jodie told me that her concerns about the crossing included that often drivers simply do not see the crossing, particularly during the early morning and late afternoon, when the sun shines right through the windscreen into their line of sight.
I also heard from dozens of people through my Facebook page, such as Virginia who said she works at Avoca and regularly sees near misses at the pedestrian crossing. Karen agreed it was a dangerous crossing, saying she actually had a near miss as a pedestrian herself.
I am pleased to advise the House that almost 1,000 signatures later, the Central Coast Council is now recommending a number of safety upgrades. The recommended works include zig-zag warning lines on both sides of the crossing to slow traffic on approach, additional signage, the addition of no-stopping zones near the crossing and the repainting of the crossing itself. The council says that the work is set to be completed within a few months.
I would like to recognise Susan and Jodie for their important commitment to this project, as well as each and every resident who signed this petition. I would also like to thank the council and the state member for Terrigal—(Time expired)
I spoke in my first speech about the great people I have to represent in Lindsay—our people are actually our strength. This is no different. Last week I was at the Glenmore Park Learning Alliance with some prefects and some local school captains.
I was approached by a little girl who is in year 6, Jasmyn Tan. She wanted a selfie—which was fine, because I am quite partial to that. She also wanted a signature—which was a little bit strange because she still has not cottoned on that politicians are not that popular.
She wanted to tell me about a haircut. This is a little leader from her school—Leonay Public School. She had read on her mum's Facebook about a little boy in our community, Bryson Kai Miles. He is three years old and he is suffering from a significant brain tumour. Jasmyn was inspired by his story—she had never met him; she had never met his family; she knows nothing about them—and she wanted to help. So she decided that her hair which reaches down to about there—and the member for Fisher and I will probably talk about something we have in common after this—and she wanted to cut all her hair off in support of Bryson and raise money for his family and his parents, Tamara and Grant, so they could support Bryson's journey and offset some of the costs that go along with having a very unwell child.
On Monday this week, while I was in this place and I am able to be there and help with the haircut—which is properly a good thing for Jasmine—she cut all of her hair off. I want to say, 'Thank you, Jasmyn, for your leadership and your compassion' and 'All the very best to Bryson and his family for good recovery.'
For a few short months every year, enormous aggregations of Killer Whales or Orca and other marine life occur 70 kilometres offshore of Bremer Bay in the Great Southern region of my electorate of O'Connor. For the past three years, filmmaker Dave Riggs and Naturaliste Charters have conducted eco-tourism adventures into this area, now known worldwide as the Bremer Canyon Orca Hotspot.
Last year, community advocacy for this phenomenon, together with recommendations from the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review, prompted the Minister for the Environment to announce a $100,000 National Environmental Science Program research grant to improve understanding of this biodiversity hotspot. This was enhanced by a further $50,000 from the Director of National Parks.
This month, the NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub's team, with scientists from Curtin University and the University of WA and coordinated by Professor Jessica Meeuwig, has undertaken several research projects. Last week, I met marine mammal researcher Bec Wellard and marine biologist Verity Steptoe at Albany airport, as they commenced aerial surveys of the area. Meanwhile a deep water glider is collecting oceanic and biochemical data to a depth of 1000 metres, and a mid-water pelagic fish survey is providing data on key species, including whales, giant squid and sharks.
I thank former Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt and current Minister Josh Frydenberg, for recognising the value of this unique phenomenon, and facilitating research that may lead to greater protection of the area outside the existing marine reserve.
When Maddie Bishop, a high school student from Kurrajong, had an idea for a wonderful community event, she pitched it to the Kurrajong Community Forum, and they saw a great idea too. That led to a fabulous free evening of jazz in Kurrajong Memorial Park. The Steve Arie trio entertained with smooth jazz and more than 100 people gathered on picnic rugs in a donation-only event. There was plenty of food, including the obligatory sausage sizzle, which was supplied by the Kurrajong Rural Fire Brigade. Grapes and ice-creams were on offer to help raise funds for the Kurrajong Community Forum. Even a small amount of rain did not dampen our spirits, and the whole event showed what a community can do together.
I want to acknowledge the grant from Hawkesbury City Council that made this event possible and pay tribute to the volunteers on the Kurrajong Community Forum who give up so many hours of their time for the community. Their last big event was Kurrajong-a-Buzz, which was not just your average weekend fair but also a chance to learn about bees and the important role that they play in our ecosystem. I am pleased to see the parliament is similarly encouraging bees. These events go to the heart of what Kurrajong is—a village originally surrounded by rural land and now facing the challenges of development but still, hopefully, able to keep its sense of being a lovely historic, rural village with a strongly connected community. It is also a great place to visit.
Political parties are very similar to consumer brands when you think about it. They might seem interchangeable, but each brings a very different product to our democracy. Let us take the example of breakfast cereals. Labor are Coco Pops. You might add milk so they become 'a chocolate milkshake, only crunchy', but it does not reduce the amount of sugar that you consume. The legacy is that eventually your insulin capacity maxes out and 'debtabetes' sets in. That is when voters rightly give them the flick and look for healthier alternatives. The Greens like to think that that is them—a healthy bowl of organic muesli and a dollop of almond milk. That is seemingly good, but only the uber rich can afford it. Meanwhile, their policies of forcing up electricity prices harm the poor. One Nation are Froot Loops. They are colourful, and many have been tempted by Toucan Sam's enticing sales pitch, but in the end we know their colour does not quite come naturally.
That is where the Liberal-National coalition sets in. We are Sultana Bran. It is consumed for the health of the nation because we clear out the system and make things regular again. Given enough time, we can recure Labor's 'debtabetes'. We know that hardworking families need to be able to afford their cereal and sometimes even deliver a healthy sultana surplus. The point is that the benefit of Sultana Bran is that it is everyone's logical second choice, but Sultana Bran and Froot Loops should never be mixed.
That is 90 seconds none of us will ever get back! I was proud to last week stand with Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula, member for Northcote Fiona Richardson and staff from the Darebin Community Legal Centre as we together called on the Turnbull government to scrap its cruel cuts to community legal centre funding. The Darebin Community Legal Centre has been helping our local community since 1978. Their family law program, in particular, has been supporting the victims of family violence and touching the lives of 430 families and over 1,000 children every year.
Under the Turnbull government's cuts, they will lose over $130,000 per annum. Critically, this means that their family law program, upon which so many rely, will cease to operate from 30 June this year if those cuts proceed. Without this program, victims of domestic violence will be forced to negotiate family law issues with their violent ex-partners, exposing them to continuing risk. It is absurd that this government will not invest $30 million in desperately needed community services, but they are more than eager to give big business a $50 billion tax cut. For the sake of those vulnerable members of our community who rely on the Darebin Community Legal Centre, I urge this government to rethink their cruel cuts before it is too late. It is vital that we fund equal access to justice.
Last Saturday night I had a fantastic night at the opening of the Emerald Sporting Club's new pavilion. This was an election commitment back in 2013 for $500,000, but club members and donors through the Australian Sports Foundation contributed $100,000—truly an amazing effort. We also thank Bendigo Bank for $50,000. The club members have turned this money into at least a $2 million project.
I must thank Bill Kuys, the president and project manager, for the fantastic work he has done in leading this project with his wife, Robyn. Also on the committee is Kris Strong, who is the VP; Jacquie Morris, who is the treasurer; Mick Huisintveld, who is the building manager—he committed 1,000 hours of voluntary labour; and committee members Steve and Kaye Livermore, Gary Santini, Ross Macumber, Graham Steer, Jamie Campbell and Paul Reilly. They have done an incredible job at this facility. It is something that the whole Emerald community can be so proud of. The most amazing thing about this project is that not one cent was paid for a person's salary. The club and the local community chipped in to turn the old clubrooms, which were very sad and very tired, into something spectacular. They are now the benchmark in the hills, and other clubs will need to follow in their footsteps.
In August 2014, a group of primary school students from Mount Sinai College in Maroubra were racially abused on a bus on their way home. There were targeted for one sad reason: their religion, their Jewish heritage. The actions of the perpetrators were offensive, insulting and aimed at humiliating the children. Yet, 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' are the three words that are being removed from the Racial Discrimination Act by the Turnbull government. On Harmony Day, of all days, the Turnbull government announced that they will amend Australia's law to allow Australians to offend, insult and humiliate each other on the basis of their ethnicity and race without legal recourse. It was a truly sad day for our nation. Yesterday, former senator Nova Peris posted on her social media some of the vulgar letters and emails that she has received. They were truly disgusting. Some of the racist rhetoric in modern-day Australia is truly shocking.
I say to those opposite: have we not put the Aboriginal people of Australia through enough already? Isn't it enough that we kicked them off their land, that we took their children off them and that we made them abandon their heritage, their culture and their language? We are now going to amend Australia's laws to allow people to offend, insult and humiliate them on the basis of their race. This was a truly sad day and it was a truly sad day for Malcolm Turnbull's leadership.
Hillview Bunyip hostel, located 150 kilometres from the Melbourne CBD and West Gippsland, are a not-for-profit community based aged-care facility of the highest standard. So far they have done the good work they do on their own. Born out of the Bunyip bush nursing hospital, the centre is now a hub for employment and business in Bunyip and district. Hillview hostel, run by locals for locals, provides care in the district for its residents, and its committee has its hand up for a fair share of our national wealth. There is nothing worse than a family being told that the aged-care bed facility that will be provided is many kilometres away, foreign to them and foreign to their loved one's needs.
The small and not-for-profit providers have been neglected by successive governments in provision of capital and a fair share of the aged-care bed allocations. The government has favoured large providers in the for-profit sector. Regional aged-care providers in this nation deserve a fair go, and I will continue to voice their concerns in this place until they receive equal treatment to those city based for-profit providers. Regional Australia deserves the best aged care we can possibly provide. As sure as night follows day, one day it will be you we are caring for.
Yesterday I had the great pleasure of once again dropping into the Power of Speech competition here at Parliament House to listen to two young Canberrans who took part in the public speaking competition. They were Ayham and Saja Nasser. They are brother and sister. They represented the Shepherd Centre, which is an organisation that operates across New South Wales and the ACT to help children who are deaf or hearing impaired and to help families to develop their children's spoken language so they can reach their full potential.
The Power of Speech competition has been going for a number of years. I always love attending it here at Parliament House. It has student participants from all around Australia—every state and territory—as well as from New Zealand. The children who participate in this competition have a profound hearing loss, have a cochlear ear implant and have been through years of intensive therapy to learn to listen and speak just like the hearing peers. Yesterday we heard from children about some of the craziest thing that they have been asked, and there were some pretty crazy things! They have been asked, 'Can you listen to music?' The answer is yes. They have been asked, 'Can you play music?' The answer is yes. We also heard about some of the tricks that they can play with the magnet in their cochlear implant, like the party trick of putting paperclips on their heads! The kids had a great time. I congratulate them all on their performance. (Time expired)
The final exhibition for the Medtronic Bennelong Schools STEM Challenge was held last Wednesday night, with over 100 people attending. It was just like a sports event, but these young athletes were competing with their brains. It was an amazing and most impressive night. Mr Darren Forrest, the event sponsor from Medtronic, and Dr Kate Patterson, from the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, joined me on the judging panel.
I say congratulations to Epping Boys High for their 'handy glove', engineered to replace a laptop keyboard for people with spinal injuries. Dilian Mannaperuma, Oden Peterson, Anthony Lai, Daniel Kwang, Bailey Shakesheff and teacher-coach Mitchell Leggo were very impressive. Carlingford High's obstacle avoidance autonomous robot vehicle really impressed. I say congratulations to James Wong, Carson Kwong, Josiah Tan, Patrick Chen, Alan Tsen and teacher-Coach John Wallace. Finally, Melrose Park Public developed an app called 'Riverside Guide'. It is a tourist guide for the riverside walk which follows the Parramatta River near their school. Well done to Jack McShane, Ashlyn Gange and Arjun Bhagotra, and thanks to Principal Clare Christensen and teacher-coach Pam Grover.
They will all be my guests at the Great Hall in Parliament House where they will join the many high-tech companies of Bennelong at the eminent Bennelong Innovation Fair this coming Monday night. (Time expired)
I refer to the human rights inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia and a comment made by Jeremy Jones from the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He said in response to a question:
The question is: are we opening the floodgates to stuff that we would not want to hear, that no-one around this table would want to hear, inadvertently by trying to improve it without knowing what is likely to happen next?
Since there was the shameful coalition decision in the party room yesterday to attack minorities in Australia—or to open the floodgates, as Jeremy Jones has suggested—I wanted to point out a couple of facts.
The first is that minority groups have made submission after submission saying that opening the floodgates will create harm for minorities and will create more work for lawyers.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
The member for Hughes is warned.
Let's be up-front: the current meaning is settled. Justice Kiefel made that clear in the Cairns Post case. Also, as we heard from Iain Anderson, the Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, in evidence to the inquiry, any changes in the wording will cause more uncertainty and more litigation. As the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law said,
The rolling back of a law sends a message, as does the passage of one. It can send the message that it is acceptable to offend and insult another person on the basis of their race.
(Time expired)
I am sure all members will agree that dementia is an issue that is facing many, many more Australian families. Whether it is when a spouse is caring for another spouse or whether it is when children are caring for aged parents or other relatives, the reality is that dementia is on the increase. That is why I wanted to alert fellow members to the new dementia-friendly home app which is available through Alzheimer's Australia. This is a very real way in which people can experience what those suffering from dementia experience in their own homes, with suggestions about how they can change the layout of the home or even the colour scheme to help that person stay in their home for much longer. We would like people to stay in their homes. This is an important development and I commend it to all members of the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's new social services bill, introduced into the Senate today. Can the Prime Minister confirm that every cut to families and vulnerable Australians in this bill is lifted directly from the Abbott government's 2014 budget. Labor has fought these cuts every day since then, defending pensioners and defending families. When will the Prime Minister stop recycling cuts from the 2014 budget and stop hurting families?
The Leader of the Opposition has no plan for child care whatsoever. He claims to talk about his concern for Australian families. He claims to be concerned about the rising cost of living. He has no plan for child care at all—none, nothing—and, certainly, no means of paying for one whatsoever. We have heard the member for Jagajaga many times saying, 'Social welfare reforms have to be paid for.' Well, that is no longer the case with Labor in opposition. They have no plans to pay for child care at all. He talks about wages and the importance of protecting wages. Yet, as the leader of a union, he traded away penalty rates again and again, and did so in return for payments to the union he led. He did that again and again.
We have introduced legislation into the parliament today to ensure that those secret payments come and see the light of day so that the members will know about it. He says he cares about the cost of living in terms of energy, too. He does—he says he does. But what is he doing now? A 50 per cent renewable—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting —
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Gorton will cease interjecting.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
On direct relevance: the question refers to a bill that was introduced into the Senate today. It cannot, therefore, be relevant for the Prime Minister to talk about any other piece of legislation. He is going to every other piece of legislation but refusing to talk about the one that was introduced to the Senate today and its links to the 2014 budget.
The SPEAKER: I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business and I am very happy to address his point of order.
Government members interjecting—
The members on my right will cease interjecting. They will cease pointing and interjecting. I am going to address the point of order. Certainly, the question, at the very beginning, referred to the bill. It also referred to a budget from a couple of years ago and a range of other matters. The Prime Minister is entitled to have a preamble and to compare and contrast. Whilst the very first part of the question was specific, the rest was rather broad, but I am sure that the Prime Minister will address the other aspects that were raised in the question. But it was fairly broad to begin with and it took the whole 30 seconds referring to the budget. I will hear the Prime Minister and I will keep listening very carefully to ensure that he is relevant to the question.
The childcare reforms that we are delivering for Australian families—that we are fighting hard to deliver for Australian families—will provide the highest level of support to those who need it most. You would think the Labor Party would support that. You really think they would. But they throw one obstacle in the way of achieving that. A family earning less than $65,000 a year would only pay around $15 for child care. You would think Labor would support that as well.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga!
And a family earning $50,000 a year with two children in day care would be more than $3,000 a year better off. You would think Labor would support that, but, no, they do not.
And they talk about past budgets. Well, it is interesting to look at budget history. I have the 2011-12 budget. Now, who was in power then? Oh, it was the Labor Party, of course! 'Reform of family payments: pause indexation of family tax benefit supplements for three years.' That is a Labor policy; there it is. And what about the 2013-14 budget—another Labor budget. 'Continue indexation pauses on upper income limits and supplements of family payments.' It is said that the definition of hypocrisy is somebody who claims to have higher standards than he actually does. Well, the Leader of the Opposition is, by any definition, the greatest hypocrite in this chamber.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Robertson will resume her seat. That final term used by the Prime Minister is a reflection on the Leader of the Opposition, and he needs to withdraw it.
I will withdraw that.
I thank the Prime Minister.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's childcare and energy policies are helping to reduce cost-of-living pressures and support household budgets, including for constituents in my electorate of Robertson?
I thank the honourable member for her question. She understands very well the cost-of-living pressures on the constituents in her electorate—on the families in Robertson. Everything we are doing—every element of our agenda—is focused on ensuring that we relieve that pressure of the cost of living on the families in her electorate and every other member's electorate, and that we provide greater opportunities for the jobs, businesses, children, grandchildren and their parents in that electorate and every other electorate. We know that their future depends on strong economic management. That means reforms have to be paid for and that means that reforms have to be well targeted.
A moment ago, I talked about the benefits for low-income families from our childcare reforms. I can go on and say we are also abolishing the $7,500 rebate cap. That is a cliff that forces many families to choose between working fewer hours or facing higher childcare bills. That is again another relevant, significant reform that will enable more families, and more mums and dads to work more hours—absolutely vital for productivity. That is what we are delivering. Labor has no alternative childcare plan at all, no proposal to pay for it at all. There was no competition on child care in the election, just a long complaint from the Labor Party.
When it comes to the cost of electricity, which has more than doubled in the last decade, what we have seen is a complete failure of policy on behalf of Labor, a massive ideological renewable energy target with no means to pay for it—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned.
and no plan to provide the storage or the backup that would enable more renewables into the network. We have seen exactly what happens with that type of ideological approach to energy policy and it is in South Australia, with that huge wind resource of which Jay Weatherill was so proud—which can provide more than 100 per cent of the state's electricity but then, a few hours later, provides absolutely nothing at all. There is no plan for storage there, nothing at all. So what do they have? They have what the Leader of the Opposition promises the rest of Australia—the least reliable and the most expensive electricity.
What have we done? Snowy Hydro 2.0, the biggest renewable supporting storage plan in the southern hemisphere. That is our commitment: to get on with the job of storage in South Australia, storage in the snowies. We have got the plan, we have got the vision and we have got the means to deliver. (Time expired)
Ms Burney interjecting—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The member for Barton and the Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. One and a half million families will have their payments cut, and millions of children will be worse off because of the Prime Minister's decision today. Why is the Prime Minister pitting families against each other, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and leaving one and a half million families worse off?
The Labor Party has nothing to offer on child care at all. We have set out a plan which has come out of careful work by the Productivity Commission. We have taken this plan to an election and we know it supports the families that need help the most. We know that it supports families on low and middle incomes the most. We know that it removes the $7,500 cap. For the vast majority of families, it provides the support that Australian mothers and fathers need to be able to work the hours they need.
You would think Labor would be getting behind that but, oh no, they are opposed and they have no alternative of their own. As I noted earlier, the member for Jagajaga used to say social services, social welfare reforms have to be paid for but not anymore; apparently, you just run up more debt. They took to the election higher taxes, higher deficit, higher debt. That is the Labor chronicle of mismanagement.
We are determined to deliver a fair go for Australian families. We are determined to enable more mothers and fathers to work the hours they need. We are determined to enable more Australian children to get access to the high-quality child care and early learning they need. We have the means to do it. The Labor Party should be backing it. Instead, they are throwing every obstacle to this reform they can. They have no plan on child care, no plan on energy, no plan on jobs, no plan on the economy. All they have is a plan for more debt, more tax, more deficit thereby putting an enormous burden on the future of our children and grandchildren. We are defending them. We are protecting them. Labor should get on board and support it.
I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the honourable Bruce Billson, former member for Dunkley and former minister. Sitting next to him is the former member for Deakin, Mr Mike Symon. We extend a very warm welcome to both of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on what the government is doing to support the incomes of hardworking Australians and relieve the cost pressures on the family budget. Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies that would actually increase cost of living pressures for Australian families?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. At the last election, he was returned to this place from one of the most marginal seats in this country because of his advocacy for the government's national economic plan that drives growth in our economy, that drives jobs in our economy, that supports increased hours and that supports better wages so hardworking Australians can support themselves and their families in the face of rising costs of living. Our investment in infrastructure is some $50 billion. We are investing in transforming our defence industries through technological change so that the skills and experience can be acquired to ensure that our defence industries, particularly in South Australia, Western Australia and Northern Queensland have the support they need.
We are supporting investment in science and research to drive new industries and the growth of those industries. We are supporting start-up companies in particular, with access to capital and with discounts for start-up companies on capital gains tax. We are opening up new opportunities in trade in a growing global economy. This is a national economic plan to drive jobs, to drive the growth that Australian families depend on so they can support themselves.
In addition to that, we have delivered tax cuts for full-time wage earners. About 500,000 Australians will now not go into the second-highest tax bracket because this government delivered on its promise to ensure that those average wage earners did not go into that second-highest tax bracket. We do not recoil from our commitment to ensure that companies are not burdened with the uncompetitive tax environment which the Labor Party want to impose on them. We remain absolutely committed to seeing businesses remain competitive in this global economic environment so they can drive their own investment that drives the jobs that are important.
On top of that, we are determined to ensure that we address the significant energy challenges that are faced by householders and businesses. The Prime Minister's visionary announcement for Snowy mark 2 is absolute proof positive of this Prime Minister's vision and the opportunist Leader of the Opposition's complete lack of vision and of any interest in the economic advancement of this country. We will absolutely and outright oppose the kamikaze energy policies of those opposite. We oppose their 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target or whatever it is called this week—an ambition, a goal, a thought bubble or whatever they want to call it—because we know that will put up prices for Australian households and Australian businesses. Their energy kamikaze policy is designed to drive business out of business, kill jobs and drive investment offshore.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Treasurer has overseen the linking of the childcare package to cuts to family payments, the delay of the childcare changes, the linking of the omnibus bill to budget repair then to the childcare changes and finally to the NDIS, and today the splitting of the childcare changes and the family payment cuts, does the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in his Treasurer?
I thank the honourable member for her question. The Treasurer is doing an outstanding job, and I have enormous confidence in his ability and that of every member of my ministry.
Ms Husar interjecting—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Lindsay is warned! Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
I inform the House that we have just had former senator Mary Jo Fisher join us in the gallery. Welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the minister for the environment. Minister, regrettably the Tasmanian government is pursuing legislation to allow logging in 356,000 hectares of protected forests. These forests contain large areas of habitat that are critical to the survival of nationally listed threatened species—wildlife that the minister is responsible for protecting. Can the minister outline what steps he is taking to prevent damage to this habitat, including to the critically endangered swift parrots and giant freshwater lobsters? Can the minister update the House on the Tasmanian government's response to the freshwater lobster recovery plan, which proposes to permanently reserve 30,000 hectares of the publicly owned reserves that are now proposed for logging by the Tasmanian government?
I thank the member for Denison for his question. I can tell the members of this House and the member for Denison that the Turnbull government is doing more to protect the threatened species of our country than any prior government. We appointed the first-ever Threatened Species Commissioner, Mr Gregory Andrews, who has been able to galvanise more than $210 million, including $150 million to prevent habitat destruction. We have launched the first-ever Threatened Species Strategy. We have launched the first-ever Threatened Species Recovery Fund. Just last month, I was at Taronga Zoo to launch the first-ever Threatened Species Prospectus, which is protecting our quolls, our bilbies and our helmeted honeyeaters.
You asked me about the swift parrots. We are concerned about them because they were recently uplisted to the critically endangered list. We are investing $8 million across Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria to prevent habitat destruction. This includes the construction of hundreds of nest boxes which will protect them against predatory players like the sugar glider.
We are also concerned about the freshwater crayfish and freshwater lobsters. We have put in place our own national recovery plan. We have worked to prevent habitat destruction, including investing $350,000 to prevent invasive weed species. We are also doing a number of other things. We understand that, when it comes to forests, the Regional Forest Agreements have been in place for some two decades, and they work well. We need a balance—ensuring sufficient supply of resources while also ensuring that we protect our environment, our endangered species. So we will continue to work with the Tasmanian government and protect our endangered species through the various measures that we have.
The member for Denison on a point of order?
Yes—on a point of order. It is to do with—
Has the minister concluded his answer? I am sorry, member for Denison. The minister has indicated he has concluded his answer.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government will reduce cost-of-living pressures for Australian families through improved childcare support? Is the minister aware of any other approaches—ones that would hurt hardworking families?
I thank the member for his question. The point is that the government is on the verge of the most significant childcare reform in decades. As has been noted by the Prime Minister in an earlier answer, that very substantial $1.66 billion investment in child care has to be paid for—famously described by the member for Jagajaga as 'having to be paid for somehow'. We have always said from the very start of this process that the way in which we would find the appropriate savings funds to pay for generational reform to child care was through the family tax benefit system. The approach that has been settled on and the approach which the crossbench—or at least a majority of the crossbench—have agreed is a reasonable approach is a simple approach, and that is to pause the indexation of family tax benefit payments for two years starting on 1 July of this year. That will allow the government to achieve much-needed and generational reform to child care. No family would lose a dollar—not a dollar—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned!
This year we spend $20 billion in the family tax benefit system and, by holding that amount constant for nearly two years, we pay for all of these marvellous achievements and changes in child care. I am asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' The Labor alternative is, in fact, equally simple—that is, simply do not make the savings and do not proceed with any reforms to the childcare system. The reason why they would adopt that approach is summarised in a press release put out by the member for Jagajaga this morning. They say that a two-year indexation pause to the family tax benefit system is a sledgehammer blow to Australian families. That is an interesting description when you consider the double standards involved. Labor in July 2009 reduced the indexation of family tax benefit part A from the pension rate down to CPI—not pausing; reducing. Labor in 2009 paused the higher income threshold for FTB, saving $1.4 billion over three years. Labor paused the indexation of the FTB part A and part B is supplements for three years in 2009. Labor paused the indexation of the—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
FTB higher income threshold for two years in July 2012. Labor paused the indexation of the FTB higher income threshold for three years. None of those were sledgehammer blows—none of them—and none of the money was spent on reforms in child care. That is the alternative. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's centrepiece—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Mr Laundy interjecting—
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
The member for Rankin will resume his seat just for a second. The members for Hume and Reid and the Minister for Trade and Investment will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will begin his question again. The clock will start again.
Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the government's centrepiece $50 billion handout to big business. Today in question time the Treasurer said the government would not recoil from its company tax cut. Does the Treasurer guarantee that the full $50 billion handout will remain on the books in the budget?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. The Treasurer has the call.
I invite the members opposite to support the government's plan. I invite them to support the government's plan because we are committed to the plan. I refer you to the comments of the shadow Treasurer who said this on 22 September 2015. He said:
It is a statement of fact which I agree with.
I have previously said the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned!
It is all lined up, mate. It is all lined up. All you have to do is come into this place and vote for it and you will hit it—you will hit the target that you said you want to hit.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
Your problem, mate, is you cannot see—
Honourable members interjecting—
I am sorry—he is not my mate.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite is warned! I refer all members to my statement yesterday, particularly those who were warned yesterday. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just on comments being made through the chair. Other than that, at the end we agree.
The Treasurer knows what he has to do. The Treasurer has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will ensure that I do so. The point is this: this government took a plan to ensure that company taxes were competitive in this country and that they would remain so, and those opposite, the Labor Party, for years and years and years have said on the record, up hill, down dale, that they support reducing the tax burden on businesses, and the shadow Treasurer himself has nominated the rate of 25 per cent as his great aim. He must have the worst aim there is in this place, because, despite us lining this up for him, he cannot hit it. We have delivered a bill into this parliament and all he has to do is vote for it and he will hit it, but he refuses to do so. It is not because I think the shadow Treasurer all of a sudden does not believe that reducing these tax rates for businesses will not actually lead to an increase in investment or an increase in jobs or an increase in wages. It is not any of these things. I actually believe the shadow Treasurer still believes absolutely in what he wrote—that if you reduce company taxes you will get the outcomes of better growth, better investment, more jobs, increased wages. This is what makes the hypocrisy of this decision all the more profound. The shadow Treasurer knows this is the right policy, but he has bowed his knee to the desperate populism of the Leader of the Opposition who, since he became Leader of the Opposition all those years ago, has not announced one policy that will create one job—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
that would invite one business to invest one dollar so they could actually get people earning higher wages and seeing our economy grow. When it comes to economic policy, the Leader of the Opposition is just a sucking vacuum.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on why an affordable and reliable energy supply is vital to delivering the regional forestry agreements? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to jobs in Australia's sustainable timber industry?
I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question and note his intense interest in the working men and women of Gippsland and the Central Highlands and the jobs that are at threat there today. I might note that the member for Calwell and the member for Shortland and maybe the member for Griffith and most certainly the member for Gorton, whose brother is in the building today trying to save jobs, should take notice of this as well. It seems amazing that, on a day when we have 250 people at Heyfield about to lose their jobs, we do not have a concentration by the Labor Party on labourers. It seems absolutely disgusting that we have to rely on our side of the House to go in to bat for these working men and women.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left. The member for Shortland!
It seems an absolute absurdity that the Labor Party in Victoria are starving these forestry workers of their livelihoods. They are not getting access to timber. Apparently, there is a greater fascination in Leadbeater's possum than there is in the working men and women of Victoria, especially those associated with Heyfield. Might I remind the House there are about 21,000 jobs associated with the timber industry—21,000 well-paying jobs? It is an absolute travesty that we have a time in our nation where we are going forward, and the Labor Party are about to stand by and watch 750 working men and women at Hazelwood Power Station lose their jobs as they drive that state into destitution. The calamity that was South Australia is going to become the calamity which is Victoria. It is time that the Australian Labor Party actually start standing up for workers. It is time that the member for Calwell, who is looking down at her books, starts looking after the CFMEU—construction and forestry workers.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Lalor is warned.
It is time for the member for Shortland to start looking after forestry workers. It is time for the member for Griffith to start looking after forestry workers. It is time for the member for Gorton to support his brother and look after forestry workers. But they are not. What they are doing is looking after the Greens. They have become tied to the Greens. They are now the party that represents Annandale. They have given up on forestry workers. They have given up on their heartland.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for McEwen!
They have given up on what actually made them a party that was great one day. When is the member for Gorton going to support his brother, try and support these jobs and look after these jobs? When is the member for Gorton going to have the constitution to stand up and support forestry workers?
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Deputy Prime Minister concluded his answer?
No.
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Simply with the management of the House, there has been a long-term practice that both sides have observed with respect to family members. It has worked well for the dignity of this place, and I would simply remind the Deputy Prime Minister of it.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
The Deputy Prime Minister does not have the call. The Manager of Opposition Business, I gave latitude for that point of order. As he is aware, the standing orders do not cover it, but he is entitled to put his point of view.
I have the greatest admiration for the member for Gorton's brother because at least he is here trying to look after jobs.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Bendigo is warned.
But what the Australian Labor Party is doing in Victoria is starving timber workers of access to their right to work.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
What we have to do is remind the Australian Labor Party that there is actually a group of people out there called labourers. They want a job, they need power and they need access to timber. (Time expired)
Two hours ago you were calling for—
The member for Whitlam is warned. To make it very clear for those members, I am not going to endlessly keep warning them.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the government's full $50 billion worth of corporate tax cuts that were in the 2016 budget be in the 2017 budget?
If the member opposite wants to support the corporate tax cuts that he has long supported, then vote for them.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Regional Development. I refer the minister to the situation of Dobinsons Spring & Suspension business in my electorate of Capricornia which has installed 2,000 solar panels to offset their significant energy costs. Will the minister update the House why an affordable and reliable energy supply is essential to secure jobs and support regional development?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. She is a very hardworking member who is focused on jobs in her electorate, and a real fighter for regional Australia. She wants local businesses to grow and prosper not just in her community but right across Central Queensland and throughout regional Australia. The best thing we can do for regional businesses is to ensure that they have access to reliable and affordable energy.
The member for Capricornia has asked me specifically about a Rockhampton business. Dobinsons Spring & Suspension is a family-owned business. It has been operating for more than 60 years. It employs 43 people locally and a further 22 across Australia. They export products to around 50 countries around the world. It is a great local business doing marvellous things in the Capricornia electorate. The member for Capricornia recently visited it, and Glen Dobinson made it clear that as a regional business they are concerned about their energy costs:
Dobinsons are only a medium sized business and have been looking at all avenues to minimise electricity usage and cost of electricity by 2020. We've just outlaid $1.3 million on solar so as to reduce our electricity bill, but after installing over 2,000 solar panels it is still only one-third of our electricity. It doesn't help us with starting the furnaces at 5.30, heating them up for the 7 am start.
What Dobinsons is saying is that we need a mix of energy sources. On this side we understand the need for the right energy mix to keep energy reliable and affordable. The coalition is committed to supporting regional Australian businesses and giving them the energy security they need. We are working to ensure that households and businesses do not pay more than necessary and that they remain competitive in the future. Those opposite are pursuing policies which damage energy security, and they are putting pressure on power prices for businesses and Australian families.
I feel sorry for those opposite, I really do. They are hopelessly compromised on the issue of energy security and affordability. We just heard from the Minister for Agriculture, and he made it very clear: those opposite know they are meant to stand up for blue-collar workers—those workers in our coalmines and in the coal-fired power stations in Central Queensland and the Latrobe Valley. They know they are meant to do that, but the problem is most of them rely on Greens preferences to get elected, so they end up trading those blue-collar jobs for the Greens votes in the city. They trade blue-collar jobs for Greens votes in the city every day they come in here.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for McEwen!
We are seeing it right now in Gippsland. We saw it yesterday with the Heyfield timber workers marching on state parliament as Labor in Victoria chose possums over jobs. Labor in Victoria chose possums over jobs, and Labor sold out workers. It is also happening in relation to the Hazelwood Power Station. Labor in this place pretends to care about the Hazelwood Power Station workers, but they voted for the contract for closure under the Rudd-Gillard government. They wanted it to happen, and they know it. It is time for those opposite to actually stand up for the blue-collar workers and their families and join us in our efforts to deliver reliable energy—(Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that while speaking about the government's watering down of protections against racist hate speech, One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts said he is very happy the government is starting to follow One Nation, and Liberal senator James Paterson said it would help win back One Nation votes. Was it One Nation or the conservative backbench who convinced the Prime Minister to abandon his long-held beliefs and instead to water down protections against racist hate speech, or was it both?
I would remind the honourable member that throughout my life I have been committed to multiculturalism, to Australia as the most successful multicultural society in the world.
Opposition members interjecting—
I would also say to the honourable member—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The members for Lyons and Fremantle will leave the House, under standing order 94(a). Anyone else who wishes to join them, it is a matter for them, if they continue to interject.
The members for Lyons and Fremantle then left the chamber.
Throughout my life I have defended free speech in the courts, in public, in every arena. Free speech is the absolute foundation of our democracy.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Perth will leave the chamber, under standing order 94(a).
The membe r for Perth then left the chamber.
If the honourable member thinks it is right that a cartoonist like Bill Leak should be hauled into the Human Rights Commission—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, I can see some of his colleagues think it was right that he should be hauled into the Human Rights Commission or that young students at QUT, the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, should be hauled through the courts, having years and years of legal expense. What objective is being served by that? It has been said for years that the provisions of 18C have lost their credibility. They have been criticised by one authority after another.
The honourable member asks who has been influential in forming that point of view. Let me give you one example. The Hon. James Spigelman AC, QC, a former Chief Justice of New South Wales and a former chairman of the ABC, said in a Human Rights Day Oration in 2012:
… declaring conduct, relevantly speech, to be unlawful, because it causes offence, goes too far.
That is James Spigelman, a great Labor figure, a great Chief Justice and one of our great lawyers. Or what about Irene Moss, the former Race Discrimination Commissioner who led the national inquiry into racist violence that was the origin of the laws against racial discrimination. In March 2017, just so few weeks ago, she said:
In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility.
She said:
I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.
Or indeed Warren Mundine, who said in October last year:
If people are going to be hauled before tribunals or courts over these very issues, it is going to stifle debate.
I could go on with more quotations, expressing the same reservations, from equally distinguished Australians. The language of that section lost its credibility a long time ago. I have made this point in the past. What we have done is made the law stronger, fairer and clearer, and we have stood up for free speech. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is reducing the pressures on energy costs for businesses such as the Nowra abattoir, which employs 220 Aussies, or Argyle Meats in Nowra, which employs more than 30? Is the minister aware of any obstacles to delivering energy reliability and affordability?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and acknowledge her deep concern about the rising electricity prices from Berry to Batemans Bay. Just yesterday I met with the owner of a major abattoir in Junee that has gone from 32 employees less than two decades ago to 210 today. He is the biggest private employer in the Junee area and he has seen his electricity prices increased by 35 per cent year on year to nearly three-quarters of a million dollars. That is why we on this side of the House are focused on important reforms to the energy markets, trying to get more gas into the system, ensuring that we can reduce the cost of the transportation of gas, reining in the network costs, which can be up to 50 per cent of a household electricity bill, investing record amounts in storage, whether it is in battery storage or in the pumped hydro facilities that the Prime Minister has so encouraged, like Snowy Hydro 2.0 and others at Kidston and at Cultana.
I am asked if there are any obstacles to this approach. We know that those opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, who always turns his back when we are talking about energy policy, has refused to acknowledge the folly of his ways. Just four days after the election of Donald Trump, the Leader of the Opposition went down to a Victorian ALP's state conference and said, 'We will heed the lessons of Ohio, of Detroit, of Pennsylvania, of the mills, the batteries and the mines.' I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you do not have to turn on NBC to learning those lessons; you need just turn on the ABC and look across the border at South Australia, look at the debacle in South Australia, with their 50 per cent renewable energy target. And he wants to take this shemozzle national! He also has an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent, which the BCA has called 'risky', saying it could risk the future growth of this country. He has an emissions intensity scheme that wants to see the closure of the Yallourn Power Station, of Muja AB of the Liddell and also other coal fired power stations across the country, including Vales Point, in the member for Shortland's electorate. These are the policies of those opposite. No wonder people are starting to ring the alarm bells. No wonder Ben Davis of the AWU said you are potentially crucifying thousands of manufacturing jobs. No wonder Tony Maher, the head of the CFMEU, has written to all Labor members saying a 50 per cent RET will increase electricity prices. No wonder Richo, Graham Richardson, the original fixer—apologies to the member for Sturt—has said that Labor's policy is a farce. Your policy is a farce. Switch away from ideology, and think about jobs and investment in this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Sky News last night Andrew Bolt was asked how many insults would constitute harassment under the Prime Minister's new laws which give licence to racist hate speech. Mr Bolt replied:
Let's say five.
Given the government has cited Andrew Bolt as a reason for watering down race hate protections, is it the intention of the government that Australians must be subject to five separate instances of racist abuse before it constitutes harassment?
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.
My father-in-law was advised by a senior member, more than 50 years ago, to treat any question as a polite request for information. On that basis, I will advise the honourable member that, firstly, the bill specifically states that a single act can constitute harassment. That is the answer; it is in the bill. Secondly, as the honourable member would know—he is, after all, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law—the law on sexual harassment, which is a considerable area of jurisprudence, establishes that a single act can constitute harassment for that area too. But it is expressly stated in the bill.
I would like to inform the House that we have present on the floor of the chamber this afternoon a delegation from Argentina, led by the Vice President and the President of the Senate, Ms Gabriela Michetti. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House any examples of union activities which would be eradicated through the introduction of vital reforms banning secret payments between big unions and big business?
I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. Members might remember that yesterday I was talking about the corrupting benefits legislation the government has introduced today, and I was outlining some of the payments that significant companies had made in Victoria to the AWU over the period 2004 to 2007—very significant payments over many years on many occasions: Visy, for example, paid almost $200,000; IUS Holdings, over $560,000; Alcoa, almost $90,000; Sugar Australia, around $16,500; and Austral Bricks almost $14,500. The question I asked myself was: why would these corporations make such significant payments to the AWU when the Leader of the Opposition was either the national secretary or the state secretary? What could they possibly have been getting in return? It is very unusual for businesses to simply give money to unions—they might give money to charities and not expect very much in return, but to unions, it seems very unusual. On digging a bit more, I discovered that when these payments were being made by Visy Industries, for example, to the AWU, the current Leader of the Opposition was negotiating six enterprise business agreements with Visy at the time. And when the payment by IUS Holdings, which was $560,000, was being made to the AWU, IUS was the compulsory income protection insurance provider specified in at least one of those deals signed by Leader of the Opposition with Visy.
Perhaps it is the case that this was a complete coincidence, but, on digging further, one of the more egregious examples was of Austral Bricks, which gave the AWU almost $14,500 at the time. They had never made a payment until one week after the EBA was signed by the Leader of the Opposition with Austral Bricks. So, just one week after that EBA was signed by the Leader of the Opposition, Austral Bricks started making these payments. Obviously, it is a coincidence. Clearly, it is a complete coincidence! As a generous man who always believes in the good of people, I assumed all three of these were coincidences. But then I looked further, at Alcoa, and he was negotiating five enterprise agreements with Alcoa while these payments were being made. And there is even more—there is more to come. It goes on and on and on—one company after another. That is why these corrupting benefits must be stopped by this legislation—to clean up the unions and stop them shaking down business.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Approximately 323,000 people are employed in the club, restaurant, cafe, hair and beauty industries. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that these workers will not have their pay cut because of the precedent set by the penalty rates decision which the Prime Minister supported? Will the Prime Minister make a submission to the Fair Work Commission to protect the penalty rates of workers in these industries?
No-one can complain that the opposition's question time strategy does not have a lot of variety in it. They are leaping from one topic to another—they have no plan for child care, no plan for energy and no plan for question time. Regarding the Fair Work Commission, every member was put there by the Labor Party, and three of the five were put there by the Leader of the Opposition. The head of it, Mr Ross, of course an assistant secretary of the ACTU, gave a decision on penalty rates recently, which they justified on hundreds of cases of small businesses in the retail and hospitality areas who said that, were the rates to be brought closer to Saturday rates, they would be able to offer more jobs for more people and provide more services for more customers.
The Fair Work Commission decided to back small business. We back small business, and so should Labor. But of course they said they would. Again and again the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gorton—he was particularly eloquent—said they would support the decision of the Fair Work Commission, whatever it found. They gave commitment after commitment. They appointed the tribunal; they set up the inquiry; and they said they would back it in. Now, of course, they have not backed it in: they have backed away. They are like the new secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus. She has said that you only have to obey the law if you like it. That is the law for unions. Imagine where we would be if that were the law for everyone. People would only pay tax if they liked it; they would only obey the speed limit if they liked. What are we talking about? This is the new Labor. This is not a Labor that believes in the rule of law. It is not a Labor that believes that there is a law for everybody—no. There is no law for the CFMEU, but everyone else has to obey the law.
Well, things have changed. The Building and Construction Commission is back on the job. Registered organisations law has been passed. Unions have to be accountable for what they do to their members—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
The member for Brand is warned.
and the bill that we introduced into the House today will ensure that all those payments, all those coincidental payments that the AWU received simultaneously with enterprise agreement negotiations, all of those payments, of which the opposition leader is so proud—he is so proud of what he did—are going to have to be disclosed. His members will have to know about it. What we are going to do is stop the corruption, stop the secret payments and let the members know what the union bosses are really up to.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister inform the House of the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies? What are the benefits of having a strong and consistent border protection agenda?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to follow on from the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, because there is another grubby protection racket and money-laundering exercise going on within the union movement. This involves the CFMEU. The CFMEU has contributed about $10 million to the Labor Party. They have their claws into this Leader of the Opposition, like other union bosses. He can turn his back, which is a recent trick, just like he did on the workers, but I think the Leader of the Opposition should listen to this. He should listen to this because there is a treasure trove. The more that you look at this Leader of the Opposition, the bigger the case becomes against him.
We know that the CFMEU, just before the last election, not only donated millions of dollars to the Labor Party; they also joined the Leader of the Opposition to get through a cosy deal at the Labor Party conference to pass their vote policy, because they were worried that the left of the party was going to trample the Leader of the Opposition's position in relation to boats. We know what happened when that happened when Labor was last in government. When Kevin Rudd promised that there would be no boats and that there would just be a continuation of the Howard government policy, 50,000 people came on 800 boats and, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. We know that if the Labor Party is re-elected, if this Leader of the Opposition, who is again turning his back, is elected as Prime Minister of this country, the left will take control of the Labor Party again. You need to hear about the boats that arrived and the people who died. You need to recognise that as you look across the front bench there are many, including the member for Grayndler, who at conference opposed the Leader of the Opposition when it came to the boats policy. He is sitting there twiddling his thumbs, but let me say that you cannot trust the Labor Party when it comes to boats. You cannot trust the Labor Party when it comes to staring down people smugglers, and you cannot trust this Leader of the Opposition when it comes to dodgy payments. This Leader of the Opposition has a whole track record—years and years and years—of being involved in deals where he has taken benefits away from workers, where businesses have paid the Australian Workers' Union—
Members on my left will remove those props. The attendants will collect them.
They have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars—
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Griffith can leave under 94(a). The member for Moreton can join her. The member for Moreton can leave immediately or he will be named.
The member for Griffith and the member for Moreton then left the chamber.
and all I can say to the House and the Australian people is that we have only just started on this Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it that when the Commonwealth Bank reports a record half-year profit—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. I am trying to listen to the question. The member for Gorton will begin again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it that when the Commonwealth Bank reports a record half-year profit of $4.9 billion he wants to cut company tax, and when there is a record low wages growth he wants to give workers a pay cut?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member, I am sure, would recall very clearly the numerous occasions on which he has said how important it is to defend the independent umpire and the decisions of the Fair Work Commission, and how he railed against the policy of the Greens, echoed by his leader, the member for Maribyrnong. They railed against the Greens for suggesting that parliament could interfere with decisions of the Fair Work Commission. Having a long and distinguished career in the union movement, the honourable member would often say what a fundamental issue and principle it was for the Labor Party to defend the independent umpire in setting wages and conditions. But not any longer, because now—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton has already been warned, I remind him.
in line with the new ideological leader of the labour movement, Sally McManus, the law should be followed by unions only when it suits them. So, the law is optional for trade unions, apparently. The CFMEU has always had that approach. And we brought them back, under the rule of law, with the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and we will bring out all of those shonky payments, all of those secret payments, some of which have been listed here and many of which went to the Australian Workers' Union—mysterious payments about which the Leader of the Opposition is so proud. And that distinguished advocate the member for Isaacs has said—speaking, I am sure, for all of the members opposite—how proud they all are about the advocacy and leadership by the Leader of the Opposition in the Australian Workers' Union, which involved the union receiving payments from one employer after another but never bothering to tell the members about it.
I wonder why that was? Why were those payments hidden? Was it because they did not want to trouble the equanimity of the members of the union? I do not think so. I think is was because they knew there was something wrong. People who have nothing to hide do not hide anything. What the Leader of the Opposition did, what the union bosses did, was set out to hide those payments. They hid them from view.
An opposition member: You're obsessed!
Oh, I am obsessed, am I?
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton.
We are obsessed about the law. We are obsessed about obeying the law. We are obsessed about integrity. We are obsessed about ensuring that the members of the unions you claim to represent are represented honestly and fairly and with the respect and the diligence they deserve, and you have failed them.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Lingiari is warned. The member for Gorton has been warned twice. I warned him, he acknowledged it and he immediately interjected. So, he is immediately ejected.
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen can join him.
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Minister for Sport. I refer the minister to youth mental health issues present in the Clarence Valley and other communities. I thank the minister for visiting my community recently. Will he advise on how the government is taking action on mental health and helping young Australians reach their full potential, including in my electorate of Page?
I want to thank the member for Page, who has a deep personal commitment to addressing and confronting issues of youth suicide, suicide in the community more generally and mental health. It is of course a commitment that is shared—and I say this is in full confidence—by every member of this House. One of the reasons is that, with 3,000 lives lost to suicide each year, that would represent more than 20 lives in each electorate—if you look around at each member, more than 20 lives. But with four million people who suffer from mental health issues, this is something that is present in every family, in every community, in every room. So, the advocacy of the member for Page is fundamental.
We visited the town of Grafton because this was one town that had been hit by a particular series of tragedies—a series of youth suicides that have ripped at the absolute fabric of that town. The member for Page and I, along with Pat McGorry, met with four families, four sets of parents who either had lost their children or, in one case, were suffering the legacy of an attempted suicide that would echo for the next 30 years. What we saw at the same time, though, was a town determined to galvanise itself into action. Together the people of the Clarence Valley and in particular of Grafton had put together the Our Healthy Clarence plan. This is a plan we were pleased to be able to support—firstly, by announcing the first of 10 new headspaces focused on rural and regional Australia, where youth mental health and youth suicide have been such a terrible bane. And I want to acknowledge in particular the Leader of the House, who played a very important role in helping to establish the headspace program.
This headspace was welcomed by young people in the community. At the same time, we also launched the fact that the North Coast Primary Health Network would be one of 12 leading suicide prevention trial sites around the country. As part of that, $600,000 is to be focused across the area, particularly on working with young people in schools both pre and post suicides within their community, because what happens afterwards is about making sure there is not another loss, as well as working with Indigenous communities. These are all part of the pillars of our long-term national health plan: mental health and preventive health, two things the Prime Minister has made signature personal initiatives. I am pleased we have been able to give Clarence that sense of hope. I want to commend the members of the community, thank the member for Page and galvanise the House to work together on youth mental health and on suicide prevention.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, cut $30 billion from schools in the unfair 2014 budget. Why is this Prime Minister continuing with the $30 billion cut to schools at the same time that he is giving a $50 billion tax cut to big business?
Mr Ramsey interjecting—
The member for Grey will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is providing record levels of funding for schools—nearly $74 billion over the next four years, from $16 billion in 2016 to $20.1 billion in 2020. The real issue with respect to schools that all honourable members should be concerned about and that the government is extremely focused on is that despite the record levels of investment—nearly 50 per cent over the last decade—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon.
recent results show that we are not getting the outcomes that we should expect. We are focused on ensuring that as well as providing increasing levels of funding to schools we improve the performance in schools. That means getting better results—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon is warned.
supporting quality education, supporting teachers—ensuring we have the best teachers getting the right backing. All of our policies are doing that. The suggestion that schools funding has been cut is yet another Labor exercise in misinformation.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on the government's Remote Airstrip Upgrade program? How will these upgrades benefit my electorate of Maranoa?
I thank the member for Maranoa for his question and acknowledge that he represents a vast electorate in the order of 731,000 square kilometres, which is three times the size of Victoria, as he is prone to telling me. He understands that in representing such a vast electorate there is a need to invest in our rural and remote communities. He understands connectivity in all its forms. Whether it is road connectivity, rail connectivity, telecommunications or airport connectivity, it is critical to having a prosperous life in rural and remote Australia.
The Turnbull-Joyce government is delivering. We are delivering a safer and stronger regional Australia where everyone has the opportunity to get ahead. We are delivering on our $50 billion Infrastructure Investment program right around Australia. We recognise that, when you invest in good infrastructure, you can change lives and you can save lives. The difference between living in rural and remote Australia and moving to the cities comes through programs like the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program.
We have funded 91 projects under the latest round. We are getting on with the job of delivering right across Australia. An amount of $645,000 was allocated to the member for Maranoa's electorate with 11 upgrades to remote airstrips across his community. These upgrades will improve access to fresh food and medical services and provide work and educational opportunities for people throughout that vast part of Queensland. The upgrades include levelling of airstrips, installation of animal-proof fencing and installation of navigational lighting and other facilities.
I am sure that those opposite would agree and acknowledge that the Royal Flying Doctor Service has been an important recipient and beneficiary of this program for the work it does right across Maranoa and the rest of Australia. On average there are 100 Royal Flying Doctor Service landings every day in rural and remote Australia. The ability to put an aircraft down in the most remote parts of our nation is critical in saving lives throughout Australia. The funding of these rural airstrips is vital and allows the Royal Flying Doctor Service to provide the 24/7 medical emergency care for people who live in communities where you simply cannot ring the local GP or drop into the local hospital, which may be hundreds of kilometres away. The RFDS chief executive Martin Laverty said that through this Commonwealth funding
…means the flying doctor will be better able to deliver emergency medical care to injured or ill Australians across 91 frequently used airstrips.
So the remote program is good news right throughout regional Australia—through the electorates of Parkes, Farrer, Flynn, Grey, Leichhardt, Bass, Braddon, Durack, O'Connor, Lingiari and Kennedy. This funding is helping to connect regional communities like Maranoa and it is just another example of this government getting on with the job of delivering infrastructure that Australia needs. We are building for our nation's future and we are making sure that regional communities have the benefits of decentralisation. We are supporting job opportunities right across Maranoa and regional Australia.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
While everyone is here, I have just been advised that we have been joined in the gallery in the last few minutes by Yorta Yorta elder Uncle Boydie Turner, who is known to many of you. Welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I present Auditor-General's Performance Audit report No. 43 of 2016-17, entitled Proceeds of crime: Australian Federal Police; Australian Financial Security Authority; Attorney-General's Department.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
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.
I declare that the resumption of the debate on the motion to take note of the ministerial statement—that is the new wording—on the last veterans' mission to Korea is referred to the Federation Chamber.
I declare that at the completion of the speech by the member for Rankin on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-17, the following bills are referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-17
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-17
These are the new standing orders, member for Grayndler.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The need to properly fund Australian schools.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I have a favourite quote from John Dewey and it is:
What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children.
I have loved this quote for a long time and I think it is a good motto to take with the shadow ministerial responsibilities that I have at the moment. While I am not the best and wisest parent, I certainly have a very clear idea of the sort of education I want for my own children. I want excellence. I want high expectations of achievement. I want recognition of their individuality. I want teachers who know my children, like them and push them to achieve their best. I want my children to be happy learners who follow their curiosity. I want them to be prepared for the world. I want to futureproof my children. I want them to be prepared for the jobs of the future and for the lifelong learning that those jobs will require. I want them to be prepared for life itself—to know how to collaborate, to communicate, to innovate and to get along with others. I want schools that are well-resourced. I want teachers who are well-trained and who have the time and the support to continuously update their knowledge and their skills. I want principals who are excellent school leaders—who engage the community outside the school and make every teacher, every child, every person working in the school and every parent proud to be part of that school community. I know what I want for my children, and it is what I want for every Australian child no matter where they live and no matter their family background. I want the best for my kids, and I want the best for every Australian child—but that takes extra resources.
We have, right before us at the moment, a choice to make. We have a government that says they want to give a $50 billion tax cut to big business while, at the same time, saying that they have to cut $30 billion from our schools. On average, that is $3 million from every school across Australia. I ask my colleagues: which is a better investment? If you took any person at random, stopped them in the street and said, 'Here's $2,000—you can give it to your local school or you can pass it on as a tax cut to big business knowing that a fair proportion will go to overseas shareholders and knowing that $7.6 billion of the $50 billion is going to the big banks,' what do you think they would say to that? That is the choice that is before us right now. We are making that choice in this parliament.
This week we have heard a lot about rights. We have heard about the right to racist hate speech, the right to be a bigot and why it is important to have that right. But I ask you: what is the more important right? The right of every child to a decent education, the right of children with a disability to be included in their school and get the learning support they need to be active learners and prepared for the world after school, the right of children who are struggling with their reading to be allowed to learn to read, the right of children to learn basic mathematical concepts, the right to learn to write and the right for gifted and talented children to be challenged so they are able to make the most of their gifts—they are the rights that we should be talking about in this parliament. The right of children in remote communities to get the same opportunities as children in the middle of the biggest city in the country, the right of Indigenous kids, kids who are from a non-English-speaking background and kids from small schools to get a decent education as Australian citizens are the rights that this parliament should be focused on this week.
We are joined here today, in the gallery, by a group of very dedicated principals, teachers, parents and advocates for schools. They are Shelby Papadopoulos from Colac Public School; Rebecca Hack and Billie-Jean Ryals from Berserker Street State School; Cathie Dendle, who is a parent and teacher at Biloela State School, and Matt Sahlqvist, the principal; Peter Clifton from Magpie Public School in Ballarat; Kate Mitchell from Box Hill; Rob Shepherd from LeFevre High School; Rae Taggart from Glenelg Primary School; Jenny-Marie Gorman from Darlington Primary School in South Australia—not in New South Wales, I have one of those too;Peter Skinner from George Bass School; Jill Biddington from Rivendell School; Peter Rouse from Canley Vale High School; Phil Seymour and Erin Sinnott, co-principals from Hayes Park Primary School; Chris Presland, the principal from St Clair High School; David Lee, the principal from Atwell Primary School; Scott Mosey, a parent from Roleystone Community College; and representatives from their unions too. They are here because they are determined to fight for decent funding for the children who attend their schools and children like them all over Australia. I heard from these people today. I heard from Jeff Ward from Sanctuary Point Public School in New South Wales who talked about the huge difference Gonski needs based funding had made in his school. He said, 'Before this extra needs based funding, my school was a heads down, hoodies up community.' But the surge in school pride meant that their whole community now has a hoodies off, heads up attitude.
I heard from Kambrya College—a fantastic school where I met the principal and Michelle, a parent, who talked about the difference that individualised learning had made for her daughter with learning difficulties at school, the confidence that it gave her and the fact that she lost her anxiety about school. This is a school that has done such great work. I heard from their school captain as well. He was a kid who was at risk of dropping out and disengaging from school altogether. He was expelled from another school. At this school, because of the specialised help he got, not only did he pass his first maths test but also he became the school captain. That is the difference that extra resourcing, extra one-on-one attention, more teachers and more help with the basics can make.
Today we heard from the Australian Education Union, and their State of Our Schools Survey indicates that principals are saying that, if these $30 billion of cuts proposed by the government proceed, their kids will miss out. Students with a disability or learning difficulties will miss out. Principals are saying that that help with the basics—with reading, writing and maths—will be cut because they cannot afford to give those children the individual support they will need.
The government says that it is all about reform and it is not about money. We agree there should be reform. That is why we put these reforms into our agreements with the states. It was Christopher Pyne, when he was the Minister for Education, who cut the reform agenda. Our reform agenda said we needed to focus on quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, meeting student needs and transparency and accountability. We had those reforms in place. It was those opposite who said: 'We should give up on the reform agenda. It doesn't matter what the states do. They can do whatever they like.' We said that we should have comprehensive literacy and numeracy support for the first four years of school, have school readiness assessments, have ongoing implementation of professional standards for teachers, introduce better improvements for initial teacher education and induction into the classroom, have a new principal performance and development framework and be giving principals greater autonomy in schools. These are just a few of the reforms that we demanded from states in return for extra funding. This is not a question of extra resources versus reforms. This is a question of: can you do these reforms without extra resources? And the answer is, no, you cannot.
A couple of weeks ago I got a message from a fantastic teacher. I have three children in three great schools. They all have great teachers. In my youngest child's year 1 classroom we are using this great app that keeps the parents in touch with what the kids are doing all day. So I get photos and updates of what my son is doing in school. His teacher sent through a note which is a quote from Valerie Welk:
I promise you every day your child will learn something.
Some days they will bring it home in their hands,
some days they will bring it home in their heads,
and some days they will bring it home in their hearts.
That is the sort of education that I want for my children. I want my child to be extended, challenged, loved, treated as an individual and given the support he needs to achieve his best. But it is not just what I want for my child; it is what I want for every child. That is why on this side we will always stand up for needs based funding and we will never accept $30 billion of cuts to our schools.
What I would like to do at the start is put some context around this debate and to make a few things abundantly clear. Labor made unfunded, unbudgeted promises in the lead-up to the 2013 election. Those promises remain unfunded under Labor's current policies. The Labor government lost the 2013 election, which was a somewhat predictable outcome given what was happening in the lead-up to the 2013 election. As everyone would recall, Labor actually installed Mr Rudd as the Prime Minister in an effort to save the furniture—that is, to lessen the losses at the 2013 election. In the lead-up to that election when the Labor Party were facing the very real prospect of not being re-elected, they made a series of promises in education that were unfunded. They did that knowing that there was a limited prospect that they would ever have to deliver on those funding promises.
Funding is important. I do not walk away from that at all. But it is important to put some sort of context around what is happening with funding. The Commonwealth overall provides one-third of all school funding. The Commonwealth recurrent funding for schools will continue to grow, year on year, from an estimated $16.1 billion in 2016 to more than $20.2 billion in 2020. Over the last decade, Australian government per-student funding for government schools has been growing faster than state and territory government funding. State governments are actually responsible for 82 per cent of school funding for public schools and the Commonwealth provides the remaining 18 per cent of funding through to public schools. So Commonwealth funding to government schools has been growing faster than state funding to government schools.
I would like to go through the stats for my home state of Queensland. Under the coalition government, from 2014 to 2017, total funding to government schools in Queensland has been $5.2 billion. That is an increase of 47.9 per cent over that period. In fact, Queensland has had the biggest funding increase to government schools in Australia. Funding is important. I think we on this side of the House can demonstrate very clearly that, under the coalition government, funding has increased year on year.
When I last spoke on an MPI on a very similar subject matter I gave a message to the parents here in Australia. My message was very simple—that their kids would get a much better quality education under a coalition government than they would ever get under a Labor government. It was true when I made that statement several weeks ago; it is true now. It will be true next week, next month and next year. In 10 years time, it will be true. I am very confident of what I am saying because we on this side of the House are very focused on achieving a quality outcome in education based on evidence, not knee-jerk responses, and taking on board many, many of the comments from stakeholders that we have heard from not just in the last six months but over a period of years.
We have released a report—the Quality schools, quality outcomes paper. It actually goes through very clearly the five key areas that we are focused on into the future. I will run through those very quickly and then I will come back and talk about them. These are the five key areas that we as a government are focused on.
The first area is boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. The second area is teaching and school leadership.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
We will just have one speaker at a time, thank you. This is very unedifying.
I might just start that bit again. As I have said, we released some time ago our report Quality schools, quality outcomes. I am very happy to make available to those opposite a copy of that report so that they can understand what the future of education looks like and what the five key areas are that we as a coalition government are focused on delivering.
The first area is boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. The second one is teaching and school leadership. The third one is preparing our students for a globalised world. The fourth is focusing on what matters most and those who need it most. And the fifth point is accountability through transparency. I think it would be very hard for anyone who was at all interested in education to dispute that those are, in fact, the five key priority areas that we as a government and a nation should all be focusing on delivering. We want to make sure that we are delivering to our students a quality education today and into the future.
I have explained at length the errors in the assertions that the opposition are making in regards to funding in the future. I do want to take the opportunity today to point out that Labor did not actually just limit its damage in the education sector to schools. It did almost irreparable damage to vocational education in this nation. It is an area in which I have worked for a number of years in various capacities. It is soul destroying for me and for many of those around me—my colleagues on this side of the House—to reflect on the damage that was done to vocational education in the period 2011-12 when there were nine successive cuts to employer incentives totalling $1.2 billion. One point two billion dollars was ripped out of vocational education in 2011-12 when Labor was in government.
You have been in government for four years.
The member for Bruce!
And the Labor Party brought vocational education in this country to its knees, and it is still trying hard to get back up from where the Labor government put it. There was $1.2 billion in cuts—almost irreparable damage to the vocational education sector—and those opposite sit there smugly, thinking that they have the authority to speak about a sector that they brought to its knees. So there was $1.2 billion in cuts to vocational education.
On this side of the House, we understand that vocational education is very important to this country. We train about 4½ million people in vocational education in Australia. We have a significant issue in this country, courtesy of the cuts that Labor made to employer incentives. That is particularly in relation to apprenticeships, where we are still fighting against the downturn that was inflicted on that sector by those cuts to employer incentives—$1.2 billion in cuts.
On this side of the House, we do not see education as isolated areas, whether that is child care, schools, vocational education or higher education. We look at education in its totality, all the way through from early childhood education to schools, vocational education and into higher education. The commitment from this side of the House is to make sure that we work with all of the key stakeholders and that we deliver a quality outcome. We understand that there is not a direct link between the amount of funding and the results that our students are getting at school. We are working hard to target the funding to make sure that our kids get the best education and perform at the highest possible level.
When it comes to schools and when it comes to doing his job more generally, Minister Birmingham, who claims to be the Minister for Education in Australia, keeps telling Australians and, in particular, Australian students and their families that the dog ate his homework—not once, not twice, but three times. He has become the past master at dissembling and distracting from his real obligations. But there is some serious competition, and we saw that in the last 10 minutes. It was a long 10 minutes, but I think it could have been had a longer 10 minutes from the assistant minister. She spoke for 10 minutes but did not say a word about needs-based school funding—not a word. But more than that: she did not say a word about the government's plans for schools funding at all, because there is not a plan.
We will come to that in a minute. But we heard a different contribution from the Prime Minister. His expansive sophistry comes short when it comes to schools. He answered a question from the deputy leader on schools funding and the priorities of his government for Australia's future, and he barely got to a minute. That symbolises this government's contempt for: funding education; your obligations to our future; sustaining economic growth; fighting inequality; giving every kid every chance of fulfilling their potential in school; and putting us on a path to stay a high-wage, high-skill economy—something that just does not matter to members opposite.
Minister Birmingham, let us count the ways, and how far, we have fallen since the member for Sturt promised a unity ticket and 'dollar for dollar.' There were three times the dog ate his homework. In September last year, there were breathless drops to the media on needs-based school funding, but was there a bit of paper for the state and territory ministers to consider?
No.
There was not a bit of paper. He talked to journalists and undermined schools, students and school systems but did not do the courtesy of sharing his agenda with state and territory ministers. So that was September. There was a second time in December, when there was another ministers' meeting and another failure to put anything on the agenda. He asked for an extension of time—perhaps he had not been feeling very well—to April of this year, and now what do we find out? COAG in April, which was going to see this grand vision for our schools funding unveiled, has been put back, too—put back until June.
Before we even get to the substance of this government's agenda when it comes to schools, we see our schools put in an invidious position. They will not be able to plan for next year. Whatever the numbers are, they will not form the basis for schools, school communities, teachers or parents to make informed decisions. This is a fundamental abrogation of responsibility. It is simply unacceptable. It is beyond a joke.
Fundamentally, we know the minister has not handed in his homework work for one reason and one reason alone. It is because he has not done —or maybe he cannot do—this work. The Liberal government, whether under the member for Warringah or under—today—the member for Wentworth, has no plan to fund education and it has no commitment to needs based funding, just a plan for the $30 billion cut. Let's be clear: Labor, on this side of the House, remains committed to supporting Gonski and building on it, delivering on our commitment to make sure that every Australian counts when it comes to education by doing the work to support students with disabilities. This is another shocking broken promise by Minister Birmingham.
Today I was proud to stand with Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition; Tanya Plibersek, the deputy leader and education spokesperson; and with students, teachers and the Australian Education Union down the front of parliament and listen to them talk about their experience of needs based funding in the jurisdictions where needs based funding has flowed. I was so excited to hear the stories because we know it is working. We have got the evidence. The same evidence that David Gonski and his panel worked on, we are now seeing transforming lives.
I see the member for Grey is leaving. We are talking about $52 million going into schools in your electorate, helping very disadvantaged communities. Listen to the stories, members opposite, and do us the decency of talking about needs based funding today.
What a frightening exhibition we just witnessed from the member for Sydney and those opposite. It was frightening because they simply cannot add up. The alternative education minister cannot understand that, over the next four years, we will actually increase funding from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion. I am not sure we want to have our next Deputy Prime Minister being unable to actually do the basic maths. How can she lead an education department when she cannot even do the math? What an embarrassment to the people of Australia that the alternative education minister cannot even add up.
You are a new boy.
I may be new but do you know what? I still learnt to add up when I was out in the real world where I had a job. I employed people and I made a contribution to this country and to the tax income of this country that actually pays for the education in this country, not been part of a union system that actually denigrates business that actually generates the income that goes into our education system.
More frightening are the lies coming from a desperate opposition. We saw it in the election campaign around 'Mediscare'. We now see the desperation to become the next government extends to education. Labor are simply hiding behind a $30 billion cut that they never had the funding for anyway—it was all on the never-never; it was all on the credit card. It was never actually planned for anyway, as you would expect from the Labor Party. Their idea is to simply put money on the table, walk away, dust their hands and say: 'That is how we are going to fix it.' Unfortunately, that is not how you fix education. That is not how you fix health. That is not how you fix the problems of this country. It is about outcomes; it is not just throwing money blindly at problems. It is actually making sure that you target it in a proper and systemic way to ensure that we get the outcomes that we are looking for.
What an emotive speech we got from the member for Sydney—nearly tears. But the reality is those opposite do not pay the bills and they do not make sure that we get the outcomes. It is quite easy to sit there and have an emotive response to all this and think that we are going to change it but, in reality, the member for Sydney will not change a damn thing because she cannot add up. The reality is: if member for Sydney wants to talk about education then she should also be talking, particularly in my state of Queensland, to her friends in the state Labor Party, who are contributing next to nix to the state education system. In fact, we on this side are putting 6.8 per cent year-on-year increase into the Queensland education system but Annastacia Palaszczuk is only able to put in 1.8 per cent yet Labor are there to contribute the most into education. Labor are in charge of education in that state. Right across the country, we are seeing in the figures that our state governments, mostly Labor, put their hands out—do not worry about it; we will just put on the credit card, put it on the federal government because they will have the money. This is where we have to be smart about what we are doing. This is also about making sure that those outcomes are targeted.
I am proud to be part of a coalition government that is undertaking a review into regional and remote education that will look at the outcomes that we want to achieve for those living in remote areas from grade 1 right through so that those kids that live in my electorate are able to undertake an education, have the opportunities—no matter their postcode—and come back and contribute to Maranoa.
Only last week I sat with a young doctor who grew up in Charleville. He went away, got his medicine degree and has come back under our new medical pathways program to be a specialist in St George. Those are the success stories if we do the right things with education. We target our education. We do not spend blindly and put money out the window and just hope that it will happen. Throwing money at a problem does not always work. Outcomes are the solution.
I only have to look at what is happening in my electorate of Maranoa. Longreach State High School is a little high school in the outback. This year 62.5 per cent of the year 12 students had an OP of 1 to 5, not because we threw money at it, not because we thought let's throw millions of dollars at Longreach State High School but because of the passion and the dedication of those educators out there, who were able to use what they had to get the outcomes they were looking for. Throwing more money does not always work, and the proof is in the pudding.
You know what? We come in here and we see the emotive speeches of the member for Sydney and we are all nearly in tears with her. But the reality is: unless you stop the lies, unless we make this a bipartisan approach about outcomes—not throwing a blind amount of money—we are all kidding ourselves and we will not take the next generation with us and get them the best outcomes that they deserve. My children, her children, all our children are our responsibility when we step into this place, not to play blind politics and not put baseless lies out in the electorate that concern parents. We have that responsibility. (Time expired)
I rise to join my colleagues today on what has been a fabulous day. We spent time this morning with principals and parents from across country. The member for Maranoa, who is leaving the chamber, who had a lot to say on education ,might want to take this little piece of information back. The electorate of Maranoa will lose $33 million if this government does not come up with a new plan for schools and ditch the plan they currently have, which, of course, is to cut $30 billion from what was promised under Labor.
The school principals we spoke to this morning had pride in their faces as they went to the core of this issue. The core of this issue, as the member for Maranoa rightly points out, is about outcomes. He should have come with us. They were just down the hill; it was not very far to walk. He could have met principals and heard the stories about the outcomes that those schools are achieving, that those schools are getting, because of the resourcing that has been going into those schools. He would have been able to smile with me as I heard about those schools and their great work.
He would have been able to meet Shelby Papadopoulos, the principal of Colac Primary School, and hear her talking about what they are doing with needs based funding at that school. He could have heard from principals in Victoria, from principals in New South Wales and from parents. He could have heard their stories about the improved outcomes in their schools. For his information, in case he does not know—and possibly for the information of parents around the country—there is a website called My School. Those opposite might want to go and look up a few schools on that website. They might want to check what equity funding is going into those schools and the difference it is making to the outcomes for children in those schools.
I went out there today and I talked to Peter Clifton, the principal of Magpie Primary School in Ballarat. Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, if you go to the My School website and see the difference that it has made in that school, you will be stunned. What was all red on My School is now all green. That means that they are working above standard. He told me he has 90 children in that school—it is a small school—and he told me about the work that they have been doing. There is not one child in that school under national standards. The pride in his voice and on his face was extraordinary. There are stories like this right across this country because of needs based funding. There are stories of kids who were destined to always perform below.
When I go to schools in my own electorate, I walk through the door and principals say to me: 'Jo, I want you to come into the office. I want to show you our results. I want to show you the outcomes we're getting by implementing the Gonski ideals, by implementing the reforms that were set by the former Labor government.' Even though Minister Pyne, while he was minister of education, cut those strings to the states and to the sectors, professional principals have not let go of those reforms. They are driving on regardless. They are doing the work on the ground. They came here today to speak to those opposite. They came here today hoping to get a hearing with the people who are holding the purse strings and making the decisions. They came here to talk to Minister Birmingham about education—the man who keeps putting off the decisions and the sharing of the plan, the man who keeps undermining their work with his chats to journalists. His latest balloon was to pull out one tiny piece of data around children's behaviour and then blame children for a lack of outcomes in their schools. They came to be heard. They came to prove that equity funding is making a difference and improving outcomes. But the only audience they got were those who were already convinced. We on this side will stand here day in, day out, determined to deliver this for our schools for the long term so that we can build a better Australia.
The principals and the parents we spoke to today all had stories about the fact that this is working and that they are getting outcomes. I asked the question that I ask all the principals I meet in this role. I asked them when their indicative budgets will be in. Surprise, surprise! They will generally be in before the fourth term starts. When is this minister going to unveil his great plan? It will be when it is too late for those schools to get that money. It is an absolute disgrace. They are letting down every school in this country, regardless of sector. Just as the equity funding sector is blind, they are blind to what schools need, and they are treating every sector with the same disrespect.
It is always a pleasure to rise and ride the wave of outrage from those opposite, especially on an important issue like education. Education is something that we take very seriously in this chamber and, more generally, in the coalition. Our continued prosperity as Australians, the functioning of our political system, depends on young Australians having equal access to quality education across primary, secondary and tertiary levels. We cannot be any clearer on this. We care about education.
I want to make a few observations before I get started. Firstly, Labor have chosen to frame this debate in obtuse technocratic terms, as if education were all about money. Those opposite are the party of distant bureaucracy; they talk about education in conceptual terms. However, we know education is about young people, young Australians, who are our future with all their hopes, aspirations and dreams. It is not just about money. It is about people. It is about government delivering quality education.
$19 million!
You have made this about money, so let me answer that point straight up. Here are some facts. I will start with Australia and then localise it to my own state of Western Australia. The total Commonwealth funding to all schools across Australia will be $73.9 billion as at the 2016-17 MYEFO. Recurrent Commonwealth funding to all schools across Australia will total $73.1 billion as at the 2016-17 MYEFO over the forward estimates period. Based on current estimates, total Commonwealth funding to all schools across WA will increase by $600 million—a 38.2 per cent increase from 2015-16 to 2019-20. We are not cutting funding. Total government funding to government schools in WA will increase by $369.5 million by 2019-20—a 65.6 per cent increase from 2015-16. Total Commonwealth funding to non-government schools in WA will increase by $236 million by 2019-20—a 22.9 per cent increase from 2015-16. So the facts just do not add up for you; they effectively defeat your argument, but I will keep going.
In Canning itself, from 2014-15 to 2016-17 there was an increase in funding to all 52 schools of $382 million. But as I said, quality education is not just about money. It is much more than that. It is a range of factors. It is about parents, it is about children and it is about teachers, working in collaboration to provide quality education to young children. It is about community and commitment from that community.
One thing that is very distinctive about the coalition's approach to education is that we want to empower local communities when it comes to educating their children. That is why we are very supportive of the Independent Public Schools model. While they remain government schools, they are accountable to staff and parents. We know that giving power back to local communities improves educational outcomes. We encourage those on the ground to make important decisions. It puts students and parents first and removes some of those command-and-control features which those opposite really like to have at their fingertips. Australia does not happen in Canberra; it happens in local communities spread out across this continent. The IPS model has been a clear success in Western Australia. There are 445 IPS schools in the state. We believe in the Independent Public Schools model. We believe it is good for kids and for communities and it delivers better educational results. That is why we promised and delivered $70 million back in 2013 to encourage more primary and secondary schools to adopt this model. In the 2016 budget we continued this effort, pledging an additional $19 million to the effort until the end of 2017. So across the board the coalition's education policy provides extensive funding. In fact, funding is currently at record levels, with the budget and forward estimates moving towards $20.2 billion by 2020.
I just want to say a few things about Canning independent public schools. The Serpentine Primary School has just been recognised as an independent public school. South Halls Head Primary School, in the south of my electorate, and Jarrahdale Primary School, in an old timber town which started in 1874, are independent. Every time I go there I admire their community library. It is a reflection of how healthy the relationship between parents, students and teachers is. I think of West Byford Primary School and Pickering Brook Primary School. All these schools are independent. They are not produced through funding but, rather, through that relationship at the community level. (Time expired)
Sixty million dollars—that is the gap in schools funding in Tasmania in 2018-19 between the Liberals and Labor. The Liberals will not invest $60 million in Tasmanian schools, but Labor will. Sixty million dollars is real money. It would make a real difference in every Tasmanian school and would benefit every Tasmanian school child. Nationally, the school education funding gap between the Liberals and Labor over the Gonski years is $30 billion. That is a huge gap; it is a nation-changing gap. It is not just a chasm in funding; it is a chasm of priorities.
The Liberals went to the 2013 election with a bipartisan pledge on Gonski. I note the member for Maranoa is still in the chamber, wishing for bipartisanship again. After the last example, maybe we will think twice. A week out from the election they promised they would match Labor's funding in 2013 'dollar for dollar', but after the election that lie was exposed. They abandoned bipartisanship, they abandoned Australian families and they slashed $30 billion from Gonski. You have to wonder about the priorities of a Prime Minister who says $30 billion is too much to spend on schools, but he is happy to spend $50 billion on handouts for corporations and banks. This is a Prime Minister whose priority is bankers, not Australian school children. The priorities of this Prime Minister and this government are wrong, but they are not the priorities of the Australian people.
Australian parents want their children to have the best education this nation can afford. Australian parents want more teachers in schools, more speech pathologists, more computer coding, more languages, more music programs, more numeracy and literacy programs.
More of everything!
Well, we would rather spend it on schools than banks, Sunshine!
Labor knows this too. Australian parents know their children will do better in life with a better education, and so does Labor. Australian parents know it is not only the children of the rich who deserve a quality education, and so does Labor. Every child in every school in every community in Australia deserves a quality education that bears no relationship to the wealth or social standing of their parents. Australian parents do not accept the false argument that Gonski is unaffordable. They certainly do not accept it when they see this government so willing to hand $50 billion to corporations and banks—big businesses that are posting record profits.
This morning, the Gonski bus pulled up outside this place, crammed with teachers, parents and education union representatives who have been touring Australia, talking to school communities and gathering Gonski success stories. Many of us on this side of the House went out to talk to the Gonski bus passengers. It is a shame no-one from that side of the House bothered to show up. They would have heard some remarkable stories, like the one about a boy who had been close to dropping out of school but, because of Gonski intervention, he went on to become school captain. Those opposite did not show up for the bus, but I hope they take the time to read the results of a survey released today that highlights the impact of education cuts. Half of all principals report teacher shortages, problems filling vacancies and under-resourcing; 84 per cent of principals—these are the people we entrust with our education—say the $30 billion cuts will see students miss out on help with reading, writing and maths; and 62 per cent say students with a disability or learning difficulty will miss out.
There is light on the horizon. Before Labor lost office in 2013, we implemented the first stages of Gonski and those seeds are growing and starting to bear fruit. After just three years of this extra funding, 90 per cent of principals agree the extra funding is making a significant difference in their schools. The only way we can continue to make a real difference to education in this country is to vote in a Labor government at the next election and make sure that Gonski and needs based funding continue into the long term.
I am pleased to say that for once—and there is hope for the future here—speaking on a matter of public importance, I can almost agree with those opposite; almost. I do agree there is a need for state and federal governments to properly fund Australian schools, which is precisely what the Turnbull government is doing, overseen by the very capable Minister for Education and Training, my South Australian colleague Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for those opposite and particularly their state colleagues in my home state of South Australia. I cannot believe that those opposite who do come from my home state of South Australia could possibly support this matter of public importance when they know what their state colleagues from the failed Weatherill Labor government have done to the education sector and particularly the public education sector in my home state. It is the state Labor government and those opposite—not the Turnbull government—that have failed schools in South Australia.
Firstly—and just a broad point; the point that annoys me the most—the South Australian Labor government under Premier Jay Weatherill have failed South Australians time and time again. They have failed on education, on health, on public infrastructure—like the $1.8 billion desal plant that is sitting there mothballed and the world's most expensive hospital at $2.2 billion; it cannot open its doors—and on power. They have absolutely failed on education. On the so-called Gonski scheme they failed South Australian schools in the most spectacular manner. Premier Jay Weatherill signed South Australia up to a deal that would deliver most of the money in years five and six of the program—money that we on this side know was never in the forward estimates of the budget. If those opposite bothered to read the budget papers, they would see that that money did not exist. You never budgeted the money, and that is what matters: what was on paper, what was in writing, what was passed by this parliament. That is right—the Premier of my home state of South Australia signed us up for a deal that delivered almost no money to our schools in South Australia compared to other states. It was all to be delivered in these magical years five and six that were never passed by this parliament. I note that those opposite still have not funded these spending promises.
But it gets worse for public schools in South Australia—and I note that I cannot see any of my Labor South Australian colleagues among those opposite in the chamber right now. As my former employer, The Advertiser, revealed on page 3 on Friday, 3 February:
The state's spending on public schools fell from $2.450 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014/15 when adjusted for inflation, while federal money increased $12 million …
State funding per public school student dropped from $14,682 to $14,312, while federal funding rose …
So I say to those opposite: do not talk to us—especially to me as a South Australian—about failures in education for schools and, particularly, public schools in my home state. It is Labor who have failed in this area. The additional kicker on this issue in South Australia is that, as reported:
The figures come just days after it was revealed the State Government gave a $757,500 grant to a group of community organisations to run a campaign against federal education funding policies.
You have dropped $750,000 into a campaign to run against us—money that could have been spent so well in public schools in my electorate of Boothby, helping kids gain the education and the skills that they need.
What I would like to do now is congratulate my South Australian colleague and Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, on the work he is doing in education. We know that funding for Australian schools matters, which is why we are making a record overall investment of $73.9 billion in recurrent funding for schools over the next four years. We know that we do not bear the brunt of the responsibility for state school funding; the states do. State governments are responsible for 82 per cent of school funding; we provide the remaining 18 per cent to public schools. I would note that my electorate of Boothby saw an increase in funding for all its 53 schools of 11 per cent to a total of $364.2 million. These are the sorts of outcomes that the Turnbull government is delivering for schools in my state of South Australia.
It is interesting to hear those opposite as they twist and turn and try to change the facts on what has happened in the school funding debate. The member for Boothby, for example, is putting forward an argument that she is quite happy that the schools in her electorate will be getting $25 million less than they would have been if her government had kept the promise that they made to people in the election. Indeed, in South Australia there were posters up at polling booths: 'We will match dollar for dollar what Labor has committed on schools.' The reality is a significant decrease in the funding in her electorate. It is the same story in my own electorate and in electorates all across the country. Our schools across the Illawarra and Southern Highlands will lose $59 million in the next few years alone.
It is just over 30 years since I started my teaching career. I am pleased to have my colleague the member for Lalor here with me, another teacher. The other side like to quite often challenge us on what jobs we have done on this side. I wonder how many teachers spoke in this debate from their side. At the time when I started teaching, an intense, bitter and divisive debate about public versus private school funding played out, election after election, in this country. When we got an agreement around the work done by David Gonski and the panel on how to create a funding model that saw the rights of every child to get the funding they needed to give them the chance and opportunity they deserved to be full citizens in this country, it was sector blind and it was needs based.
For the first time in my generation of teaching, we saw every sector on board. We saw every state on board. But, most importantly, it was not politically divided either. We had the government—the then opposition—making commitments that they were completely on board with this Gonski model and funding program. They made promises at the election. The member for Boothby talks about South Australia; I would draw her attention to her own state colleagues in New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberal state government has been consistently calling for the implementation of the full Gonski model, because they know it is the best program for their schools.
Why are we so passionate about it? It is because resources in schools matter and teaching hours in schools matter, and they do not come free. You have to fund them if you want to deliver the outcomes that that additional targeted resourcing can achieve. Today I picked up a copy of the Getting Results booklet that the Gonski bus campaign, which I attended today, has been distributing. In it there is story after story of schools across the country that are making a real difference with that Gonski money. I want to share details of the two that are in my regional area. I met with Hayes Park principal, Phil Seymour, who talked about the fact that at their school, for the first time ever, they have had the supplementary funds that they needed so that they could utilise programs to address the particular needs of their students. He said, 'Whilst it is early days yet, we are confident that the results will continue and more and more of our students will reach their potential in literacy, funding targeted to what that community school needs.' At Sanctuary Point Public School, a bit further south, Principal Jeff Ward says, 'The nature of our community is such that the school is not able to just work with its kids. We have to work with the whole community if we want to achieve better things our kids. Programs such as the Sanctuary Point Dollars Scheme have had enormous benefits for students, because they see their parents and other members of the community working in the school and they see the positive experience it is for them.' There is story after story about the difference that it makes. Just get behind what you promised before the 2013 election: deliver Gonski and make sure the full program, including the reforms that we put in that your minister, when your first selected, cut the strings on, is put into place. You know it needs to happen. If you visit your schools you will have heard it from them across all sectors. It is time to stop the twisting and turning, trying to rewrite history. You made the promise: deliver it.
It is certainly refreshing to be part of another school funding debate, something that happens here nearly every month. Those in the gallery will of course be hearing it for the first time, but this is an age-old divide now, isn't it? One side of parliament argues for more money, regardless of outcomes, and the other side is just desperately seeking what works. Let's look for outcomes and quality, and fund success. At the moment we do not have that. What we have in Australia is the third-highest increased school funding system in the world and it is still not showing results. In fact, Australia is going backwards—backwards on TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA. On all the objective models of how we have performed Australia is stable or falling. Extra money did not prevent that from happening three years ago and it continues today.
When this Gonski bus was put together you would have seen all the principals gathering around and asking, 'Which of us are unionised,' and 97 per cent of hands go up. 'Who wants to get rid of Malcolm Turnbull?' and 100 per cent of hands go up. 'Who wants to get a week of school?' and 100 per cent of hands go up. And you can see them all jumping on the bus. What are the inclusion criteria for jumping on the Gonski bus? Let's start with, 'Raise your hand if you have had some extra funding from Gonski,' and all the hands went up. There is a problem here: 24 principals got a seat on the bus and 14 of those principles had their funding go backwards under Gonski—but they are still down here in Canberra—and that is because 82 per cent of school money comes from the state governments.
Let's get a bit of a perspective on what the Commonwealth and state governments do in education. Over the last 10 years we have seen an increase in school funding of 58 per cent from the Commonwealth government, and state government funding, which funds three quarters of it, has gone up by only 18 per cent. That is 58 against 18. Who is doing the heavy lifting? Let's go to state schools, where they are all fully unionised. I tell you that the highest predictor of poor performance in a school is when you see those green Gonski signs on the fence. They are worried about politics but they are not worried about education. The best predictor of a poor-performing school is the Gonski sign on the fence as you walk in. I will talk more about that later.
When we look at state schools, the Commonwealth has increased funding by 72 per cent over the last 10 years. The state governments, in total, have increased funding by just nine per cent. Let's go to South Australia. The minute they signed the Gonski agreement with the Commonwealth for more money, South Australia reduced their state funding to schools by five times what they should have done as an annual increase. When you put a dollar in from Canberra the states are often pulling a dollar out.
Let me talk about the two schools I have some knowledge of. Of the 24 schools on the Gonski bus two of them were Queensland high schools. Let's talk about those two principles: Upper Coomera having a conversation with Loganlea.
Loganlea principal: 'Hi, how are you going, Upper Coomera?'
Upper Coomera: 'Pretty well. We had a NAPLAN sit rate of 93 per cent.'
Loganlea: 'What was the state average?'
Upper Coomera: '96. The Gonski money did not help us much with that.'
Loganlea: 'How was your OP success rate?'
Upper Coomera: 'Well, we had 60 out of 225 kids get an OP. That is 27 per cent of the school.
Loganlea: 'What is the state average for a school of your wealth?'
Upper Coomera: '35 per cent.'
So Upper Coomera is a 75 per cent producer of OPs compared to an equivalent-wealth school in Queensland—hardly the paragon of virtue who should be down here lecturing us on funding, because Upper Coomera's funding went up very slightly from $11,000 per student to $12,000, but they could not up there OP rate or their NAPLAN attendance rate.
Let's go to Loganlea, which came in at 379th out of 406 state high schools in Queensland. This is not a school to be listened to. What they should have done at Loganlea is jump on a bus and go to Bray Park, to Woodridge or to Beenleigh, right next door, and talk to a genuinely over-performing high school. No, Loganlea, you get an E. You are too busy with your principal down here in Canberra jumping on a bus instead of looking at your own game scores, and they are not good. They are a sea of blood. If you look at their NAPLAN 8 to 10 bands they should have 12 per cent of their kids hitting NAPLAN bands 8 to 10. They are on 10 per cent at the moment. They have 80 per cent of their kids sitting NAPLAN. An equivalent-wealth school is getting 87 and the gold standard should be 92. This is a school so busy fighting about Gonski that they cannot even get their kids to sit down and do a NAPLAN test. Let's look at their OPs. How many OP 1 to 5s? Zero! You could just go up to Shailer Park and ask how they get decent scores in a similar demographic. This is a school with only 17 students out of 80 doing a university OP score, when the average for a school of identical wealth is 27 per cent, not 21 per cent. They proudly report that 59 per cent of their kids get an OP of over 1 to 15, but they are so busy stopping kids getting an OP that the reality is that that figure is actually 47 per cent. We need quality schools way before we need to be debating more about Gonski funding. When you see the sign on the side of a bus or on the side of the school that is a school to be very frightened of in school outcomes. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
I thank the House for the opportunity to rise today to speak on the appropriation bills and to support, as these bills do, the ordinary functioning of government. But these bills, as always, are about more than just the ordinary functions of government; they go much broader and much deeper, to the fiscal and economic conditions and the fiscal and economic policies of this government and to the alternatives on this side of the House.
We have less than two months to go until the government hands down its budget—the Treasurer's second and likely final budget, to be handed down in May from the dispatch box over there—and the sad reality for Australia is that this is a government which is too divided, too dysfunctional and too out of touch to put together a budget which legitimately deals with and which is in the interests of Middle Australia and people who work for a living. Theirs is a nasty, right-wing, extreme trickle-down agenda, and we saw it again today with the resurrection of some of the very worst cuts from the 2014 budget, arguably the nastiest budget in the history of the Commonwealth. Now we have seen this Prime Minister and this Treasurer reach up on the shelf, dust off the Abbott-Hockey budget of 2014 and resurrect some of the meanest cuts from that budget.
There are many reasons why those opposite have made such a mess of the budget, but key among those reasons is not just their willingness but their intent, their desperation, to shower largesse on the top end of town at the expense of the most vulnerable Australians and the hardworking people of Middle Australia. Anyone who thinks that this country's biggest challenges are that low-income people get paid too much, that big multinational corporations pay too much tax or that it is too difficult to sledge and slander someone on the basis of their race—anyone who thinks that the highest policy priorities of this parliament should be supporting cuts to penalty rates, giving big business tax cuts that the country cannot afford or watering down important protections against race hate speech is not just out of touch; they are from another planet.
The budget situation is dire. In between the government's first budget in 2014 and their most recent update at the end of last year, we have seen the budget deficit more than triple, from about $11 billion to about $37 billion, and, from the day the government came to office until the last update, we have seen debt in this country blow out by much, much more than $100 billion. As a consequence of all of those failures, we now have that hard-won AAA credit rating seriously jeopardised by the mess that those opposite have made of the budget. We on this side of the House are taking our typically and characteristically constructive approach to budget repair. Because we see a need after the deficit has tripled, debt has blown out so substantially and the AAA credit rating is at risk, we are taking a constructive approach.
Where we differ is not on the need for budget repair but on the way to go about it. We do not think that the best way to repair the budget in this country is to go after the weakest in our community while showering largesse on big business—and that is before we even get to the $17,000 personal income tax cut that a millionaire will receive from 1 July this year. We are providing leadership on this side of the House. We are demonstrating with our policies and with our actions that budget repair can be fair and that we can satisfy three key objectives of economic policy: to ensure that growth is inclusive, that hard work is rewarded and that there is a decent safety net for those who are left behind. In that context, with those three objectives in mind, we will always be about budget repair, but budget repair which is fair.
Our constructive approach begins but of course does not end—it goes well beyond—with supporting these appropriation bills. We, of course, will not be blocking the supply bills that are before the House today; they are required to ensure the ordinary function of government and to ensure that that continues for the remainder of this financial year. The bills appropriate something like $2.2 billion, which is already incorporated in the budget bottom line, as presented in the mid-year update late last year, and this is in addition to the amounts which were already appropriated by the supply acts and the appropriation acts last year. But, as I said, it is important to put these bills in the broader economic and fiscal context. If we begin with the economy, we note that, yes, there was a rebound in growth in the last quarter. That was thoroughly expected, after the disaster of the quarter before—the economy actually shrank in the quarter before last. We did get a decent headline figure in the most recent national accounts, but I think it is fair to say that that does really mask some troubling and some concerning trends that we have been witnessing in the macro economy.
One of those, of course, is that we have inequality at a 75-year high in this country. What troubles me about that is that it has flow-on consequences for social and economic mobility in our suburbs that I represent, in the suburbs the member for Barton represents and right around the country. When you have inequality at 75-year highs, that does have the capacity to feed into intergenerational immobility, which is something we care very deeply about on this side of the House, as I know my colleague the member for Barton—who is here at the table—does. I think where people are particularly hurting, when we think about the broader economy and the issues behind the headline growth rate, is really in the world of work and wages. That is where we see, unfortunately, low-income earners in this country under such substantial attack.
You have to scratch your head sometimes when you hear the Treasurer. Unfortunately, I am unable to make the choice that most Australians have made, which is to ignore the Treasurer, so I listen to what he says. In the last couple of weeks he must have got some sort of focus group report back that said that people actually care about their wages, so from time to time now we get the sense from the Treasurer that the government are all about wages, that they want wages to go up. There are so many ways in which that is an absurd statement, given the policy agenda of those opposite. He says, 'We want wages to be higher, and that that is one of our key objectives.' One of the many key reasons that the Treasurer has become such a laughing stock in this country is that he insists that he is all about higher wages at the same time as we have yearly wage growth at just 1.9 per cent—another record low under this government. It is worth noting that, if wages had grown over the past 12 months at the same rate as they did under the Labor government, the average worker in Australia would be over $1,000 better off than they are today. Probably most tellingly, most absurdly given the Treasurer's comments, penalty rates are being slashed, not just with the support of those opposite but really cheered on and campaigned for by those opposite. They are desperate to see low-income people in this country get paid less and they are desperate to see multinational corporations keep more. It really is an absurdity.
There are so many reasons why the Treasurer has become a laughing stock. Another is that he says he is all about growth, when, as I said before, the economy went backwards in the September quarter, the quarter before last. The economy actually shrank. It is only the fourth negative quarter in the last hundred, but it is the first one that cannot be explained by anything other than the Treasurer's incompetence. The first negative quarter was when the GST was introduced in 2000, the second was when the GFC was at its peak in 2008 and the third one was when the Queensland floods decimated a big chunk of the Australian economy in 2011. This Treasurer has nothing like that to point to for his negative quarter of growth.
The Treasurer is a laughing stock because he claims he is all about jobs, when 23,000 full-time jobs disappeared in the past year alone, and unemployment has jumped to 5.9 per cent, which is the highest in over a year and back to GFC levels. Given what is going on around the world right now, it is pretty remarkable to think that unemployment in this country is the same as it was during the sharpest synchronised downturn in the global economy since the Great Depression. The government has overseen record underemployment—something like 1.1 million people want more work but cannot find it. When you combine the unemployed with the underemployed, something like 1.8 million Australians are underutilised in the labour force. The total number of hours worked has decreased. We have seen youth unemployment hike a full percentage point to 13.3 per cent in the latest figures. The list goes on and on. This is a Treasurer who says he is all about jobs, and that is his record.
After all the bluff and bluster about budget emergencies and moral imperatives, we have a situation under those opposite where the deficit for this year, as I said, has more than tripled, from $11 billion in the first budget to $37 billion now, and debt is $133 billion bigger now than the day on which they came to office. The government says they have no money for child care or no money for the NDIS unless they smash the most vulnerable communities and the most vulnerable people in this country. If you ask them to find $50 billion to give to the big banks and the big multinational corporations, they can find that no dramas—that is easy enough. But, if you ask them to properly invest in the social safety net in this country, they are nowhere to be found. So the Treasurer is a genius, really. He has gone on and on about higher wages, more jobs, more growth, improving the budget, and instead he has delivered lower wages, patchy growth, GFC-level unemployment, record underemployment, more debt and more deficits. That is the record of those opposite.
One of the main arguments for the tax cut—I will get to the tax cut in a bit more detail in a moment—is that if companies earn more then they will pay their workers more. It beggars belief that the Treasurer has not noticed that, at the same time as we have had record low wages growth, we have also had soaring company profits. The link between the two has been severed. But the poor old Treasurer over there still thinks there is some link there. He has not been able to grasp the problem that we have right now, where companies are reporting something like a 20.1 per cent surge in profits in the December quarter during the same period in which wages grew by only 0.5 per cent. This is what is happening in this country. It is not something which is just cheered on by this government; it is an outcome which is actively sought. It is something that those opposite drool over. They love the idea that, in their time in government, they can increase the profit share for companies and decrease the wages share for ordinary Australian working people. It is disgraceful.
Those opposite are so out of touch that they want to give a pay cut to up to 700,000 workers, who stand to lose up to $77 a week from their pay packets, and they want to do that when they know that it particularly hurts low-income workers. My electorate is one of the top 10 most impacted electorates by this decision because it has such a high number of retail and accommodation and food service employees. They want to do it when they surely must know the impact on demand that taking all of these wages out of the economy will have. They must understand that, when low-income people are paid less, there is less money to go around and less demand in the economy, and that has broader consequences for the economic conditions in this country. That is some of the economic and policy context for these bills. That is the real story of jobs and growth in wages in this country. Now let me turn to the budget more specifically.
This is not an opinion; it is a fact. It is in the government's own budget papers. However you look at it, the budget today is in much worse shape than when Labor left office. So, when those opposite come to the dispatch box and get into us about our fiscal record during the global financial crisis, any time they criticise the levels that they inherited, they fail to recognise, they fail to confess and they fail to take responsibility for the fact that on each of the key indicators the situation has become much, much worse. Since their first budget, the deficit has tripled from about $11 billion to about $37 billion this year. Net debt has blown out by well over $100 billion since the 2013 election. This is the fiscal record of those opposite. With a debacle like this, it is no wonder that the ratings agencies are circling. They have been warning for some time of a downgrade of Australia's prized AAA credit rating, which Labor worked so hard to ensure. Under Labor, for the first time in Australia's history we got a AAA rating from the three big ratings agencies. We did that during the global financial crisis: we became part of a very exclusive club who had that AAA from the three agencies, and now that is at risk.
And why we care about this is because a downgrade in our credit rating means higher mortgage repayments for Australians. One reputable outfit estimated something like $720 a year in extra mortgage repayments, so we care about the AAA, because it flows through to mortgage repayments. We also care about the AAA because, if we lose it, it has the capacity to smash confidence in our economy, and that is a very damaging thing for the government to be responsible for. They would love to pretend, after almost four years, that somebody else is in charge of the budget. But, if we lose the AAA credit rating, they will have nobody else to blame apart from this Prime Minister and this Treasurer, having been in government for nearly four years and, over each of those four years, the budget is getting progressively worse.
One of the galling things of course is, as I said before, a government that says it cares about jobs and growth and wages and all of those sorts of things is actually exacerbating and accelerating the economic and fiscal problems that we are facing. It is true of the wage cuts. It is true of the attacks on vulnerable people—and we saw more of that today in the omnibus bill—and it is true of the big business tax cut. We call on the government, as we have been for some time, to finally bury the 2014 budget; instead, they pick it up and run with it again. We call on them to ditch the $50 billion in tax cuts for the big banks and the big multinational corporations in this country.
We tried to do the Treasurer a favour today: we gave him multiple opportunities to stand at the dispatch box and say that he would abandon that ram raid on the budget—the $50 billion for big business—which the country cannot afford. But, he could not back them in, because he is getting all this pressure about these deeply unpopular tax cuts. He could not back the tax cuts in but nor could he ditch them. The reason he could not ditch them is that he knows that, if he ditches those tax cuts, that will be the final humiliation. He knows that all of those behind him sit in judgement of his poor performance, not just in question time but in the budget and in the economy. He knows that he probably cannot survive one more humiliation like having to drop the absolute centrepiece of his so-called plans for jobs and growth.
He knows that the cheering that was once there when he was the immigration minister—all the adulation and all the 'Hear, hears!' that he used to get; I have not heard any of that for months. He has not been backed in for months. He is out on his own and he knows that, if he ditches that tax cut, it will be the final humiliation in a whole pile of humiliations. Because most of the bright ideas on that side of the government—things like linking the NDIS to a tax on vulnerable people, things like linking the childcare package to a tax on vulnerable people—generally emanate from the Treasurer's office with the full support of the Prime Minister.
Now the Prime Minister lectures about budget repair being a moral imperative but, until the Treasurer goes through that final humiliation, the government still has on the books a big business tax cut that Australians do not support and which the country cannot afford. The core of their agenda is: to take money from ordinary people and their hospitals and schools, and shovel it in the direction of the big banks—the worst kind of redistribution of wealth in this country in the wrong direction. It is the centrepiece of their economic plan. It is the only piece of their economic plan and it is such a farce that, even if they implemented it, it will see a 1.1 per cent increase in wages growth in 20 years time. That is $2 a day in 20 years time. This company tax cut that they have attached all of their hopes to is such a laughable prospect. The Grattan Institute has warned that the handout would reduce national income for years and that committing to the handout before budget repair risks reducing future living standards. There are all kinds of quotes that I would read out, if I had more time.
We know that even some in corporate Australia—including David Gonski, including the Australian Institute of Company Directors, who are in the building today—have said that the company tax cut is not the be-all and end-all for growth in this country. They understand, as we do on this side of the House, that if you want to grow the economy, you need to make sure you get the infrastructure right; you need to make sure you get the human capital right; and you need to make sure that growth is inclusive, because social inclusion and economic growth are complementary, not at odds. We understand these things on this side of the House.
On that side of the House, they think that, if you take money out of hospitals and schools and give it to the big banks, somehow that will miraculously flow through to growth in the economy. They think that somehow a $7 billion tax cut for the big banks will improve the life of a hospitality worker. It is just laughable and no wonder, even corporate Australia is saying—trying to tell them and send them smoke signals through the pages of the Fin Reviewthat this is not the be-all and end-all of growth in this country.
Another reason why the company tax cut is such a big problem for the budget is that, if you apply even a very conservative calculation to the $50 million that the government would need to borrow to fund this tax cut and if you apply a conservative assumption about interest rates not only would it cost the budget $50 billion; it would cost the Australian people $4 billion in interest. Think about that for a moment. They are saying to the Australian people, 'Hey, we've got a great idea. We're going to smash Medicare a bit. We're going to support lower wages for you. We're going to take money out of your hospitals and schools. We're going to give it to the big four banks and, by the way, we're going to send you a $4 billion interest bill for the privilege of us smashing your living standards while we boost the bottom line of the banks and big multinational corporations.' That is the sum total of the government's approach, and Australians will not just pay the price with the cuts, they will not just pay the price with the extra debt; they will pay the interest bill as well and that is an absurd situation.
So we are less than two months from the budget and what we see on that side of the House is the budget is supposed to be being put together at this point in time. It is something that resembles a three-ring circus, and we have got all these clowns riding around on unicycles, trying not to bump into each other. We have got all of these messages sent through the pages of the paper—courageously and on background, of course. We have got the Prime Minister saying that the Treasurer is not up to selling the budget and that he might have to do it himself. We have got the Treasurer and the finance minister at odds over key policies. We have got the far right calling the shots. When the Prime Minister was up at the dispatch box in question time today, he could see his leash was showing, the leash that the far right uses to yank on, whether it is about race rate speech, economic policy or whatever else—as a wry smile breaks over the member opposite, who is one of the people pulling the leash. We have got this debacle, which the member opposite is involved in, over housing affordability and particularly whether or not they are for or against negative gearing changes, for or against capital gains changes. We have got the assistant minister here who would not rule out changing capital gains. We have got a finance minister who categorically ruled it out. We have got a Prime Minister who eventually ruled it out and we have got a Treasurer who has no position on the matter. That capital gains tax debacle really is a pretty stunning illustration that, with less than two months to go until the budget is due—until the homework has to be handed in—they are so focused on brawling with each other over key policies that the chances of us getting a coherent budget that actually deals with the real concerns that people have in our neighbourhoods, in our suburbs and in our towns—
Zilch.
is absolutely, as the member for Barton says, zilch. There is no prospect of that happening, given the condition that those opposite are in. As I said, budget repair is necessary, but there is a much better way to go about it. We do not need a nasty, trickle-down agenda; we need decisions geared towards the three main economic objectives I mentioned before: growth that is inclusive, hard work that is rewarded and a decent social safety net for those at risk of being left behind.
Beyond the economy and the budget, the government's agenda has important consequences for our society and for our politics as well. We have a Prime Minister who likes to stand up at lecterns and talk about how worried he is about the outbreak of populism and the outbreak of protectionism. We are all worried about that. But the real issue is when you say to the Australian people: we are going to attack your schools and hospitals; we are going to attack your wages; we are going to cut your family payments; we are going to go missing on tax avoidance, because we always go soft on the big end of town—and by the way we are going to give away $50 billion that we took from your hospitals and schools and give it to big business. The only possible consequence of a policy agenda like that is to say to so many people in the broader Australian community that they are not being listened to by their government in this place.
No wonder, then, that people are looking for populist alternatives, when they have a Prime Minster with an agenda that is so at odds with the hopes, aspirations and ambitions of ordinary working people from Middle Australia and of vulnerable people as well, who just want a fair go from this government. They want a government that will listen to them. Instead they get this mob. Is it any wonder that the people have turned so starkly on the government and that some people are looking for alternatives? That is a very damaging thing for the Prime Minister and the government to have done.
We will, as I said, continue to play a constructive role when it comes to budget repair. Our responsibility is not just to improve the bottom line but to improve lives. We have led the conversation. We have already demonstrated our bona fides when it comes to budget repair. Straight after last year's election, we put forward a budget repair package worth more than $8 billion over the forward estimates and $80 billion over the medium term. We are pleased to see that the government picked some of our policies, including an increase to the tobacco excise, changes to VET FEE-HELP and opposing the return of the baby bonus.
We also put forward reforms to negative gearing and capital gains, which we encourage the government to support for the sake of the budget but also for the sake of first-home owners. Like many of the proposals that we have made, we have found a way to have a win-win—something that can improve the budget but also improve the lives of people trying to get a toehold in a very difficult housing market, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne.
We negotiated with the government to secure $6.3 billion in budget savings in the first omnibus bill. This was more than what the government originally proposed. But what our negotiations did was civilise the original omnibus bill and help protect vulnerable people targeted by cuts. They saved the Australian Renewable Energy Agency as well. We are also being proactive in opposition when it comes to ways to improve budget transparency and how Australia's fiscal blueprint is presented to Australians.
I released our better budgeting discussion paper last month, and I am very pleased with the reaction, with different sections of the community making submissions. We sent it to leading academics, accountants, economists and stakeholder groups, and I am very pleased to see people engaging in that process in a constructive and very helpful way. That will open up a public conversation about the best ways to budget for capital and recurrent spending, how to more accurately paint the longer-term picture, how to increase the transparency of key issues and assumptions, and more of those sorts of things.
Instead of focusing on inclusive growth or budget repair that is fair, the Prime Minister's priorities, as I said before, are hopelessly twisted. We have a situation where this Prime Minister thinks that the three biggest problems in the economy—the three biggest challenges that we need to overcome together—are that low income people are paid too much, that multinational corporations pay too much tax and that it is too difficult to make somebody feel horrible because of their race. When you think about it that way you can see why the Australian people have turned, and are turning, on those opposite.
You can judge a government by what they do in the budget, the priorities that they demonstrate in the decisions that they make. We saw today in the omnibus bill more attacks on vulnerable people from the 2014 budget, where the Prime Minister just rubbed out Tony Abbott's name and wrote 'Malcolm Turnbull' on there instead, in cuts to family payments—we have seen it in all kinds of ways today.
My Labor colleagues and I will continue to lead the way when it comes to setting the policy agenda and fixing the budget. We will continue to play that constructive role. We will agree with budget repair measures where we can, and we will disagree where we must. We will not support measures that unfairly target the most vulnerable people in our community nor ask them to carry the heaviest burden for the government's budget failures. We will keep offering alternative, responsible policies and savings measures, as is our role in opposition, and we will always prioritise budget repair that is fair.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. This is about supporting small businesses and it is a key plank of the government's plan for jobs and growth, ratified and mandated by the Australian people at last year's election.
I stand here in this parliament from Australia's small business middle class, partially and significantly as a result of the economic plan that this government took to the last election and at which I was elected to pursue this exact economic plan. I thought it would be helpful to start my speech today in support of the government's enterprise tax plan bill with a couple of quotes. Firstly:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said in March 2012 when he was in government. Another quote:
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 is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition in August 2011.
… for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
That quote is not from the opposition leader; that one was Churchill. And you probably have to go back as far as Churchill to find the last Labor leader who did not aspire to cut the company tax rate. Maybe not quite as far as Churchill's time possibly but certainly back many, many decades. It was until very, very recently a bipartisan position in Australia's parliament was that we all aspired to cut Australia's corporate tax rate to keep us internationally competitive.
The current shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, knows it. 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 more competitive.
And I could keep throwing quotes out there: Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Latham, Crean, Beazley, Keating, Hawke—and the list goes on. They all agreed. Even the member for Lilley promised to cut the corporate tax rate, although I must say that he promised it around the same time as he promised this country three surpluses, and they never quite eventuated either. The point is that some of the most eloquent arguments for this bill have been made consistently by the Labor Party for years. The Labor Party is walking away from that longstanding legacy. Why?
I think it is important for us to reflect on the motives of an opposition leader who would say one thing when he was a minister with serious responsibility and another when in opposition and digging for votes. I think it is important for us to reflect on the significance—what it really means—when one of Australia's two major political parties crab walks away from what was a longstanding bipartisan principle. They are walking away from a key plank—a bipartisan key plank—of Australia's longstanding economic plan. They are walking towards populism and the sort of class warfare that was supposed to be eradicated when the Labor Party reformed itself back in the eighties to make itself fit for office again.
I have paid very close attention to the language of Labor members opposite when they have mentioned tax recently. The catchcry is '$50 billion of handouts to big business and multinationals'. They are the words they use. I think the opposition leader rolled it out today in question time, just a few hours ago, and I think I heard the member for Rankin use those phrases in his speech just before this. It is definitely time to bust Labor's lines here. I want to break this silly phrase down word by word and expose Labor's mistruths. Consider the first word: 'handouts'. Tax cuts are not handouts. It is not a handout to let hardworking small business owners keep more of their own hard-earned money. It is not a handout. It is their own money. Secondly, it is not $50 billion. What is going on is that Labor is trying to add up the first 10 years of budget impacts, in which case the accurate figure would be around $48 billion. Hey, what is $2 billion between friends in the Labor party these days!
Can I mention in passing the despair I feel at how easily the word 'billion' rolls off the tongues of Labor politicians today. When I first started paying attention to politics about two decades ago, there would be an audible hush and amazement when government programs involved amounts of a billion dollars or more. Now, thanks to the terrible legacy bequeathed by those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, Labor does not even blink at the idea of a billion dollars here or $2 billion dollars there—as they are misrepresenting in this case. In fact, I fear sometimes that they have made the punters out there as numb to the significance of a billion dollars as Labor are themselves. But the point is that it is not $50 billion. That is just plain wrong. If you want to go around adding up 10 years of budgetary impacts then I would like to talk about this government's actual record recently in the space of multinational tax avoidance. The member for Rankin mentioned it. He should have been embarrassed to do so, because when they were in government they did nothing about multinational tax avoidance. The first steps that we took to address multinational tax avoidance have achieved in this year $2 billion of tax clawed back from multinational companies that would not have otherwise have paid it. Let's talk about how much that will possibly amount to over the next 10 years. It is just plain wrong.
We are proposing that small businesses and small businesses only get to keep $1.6 billion of their own money in this financial year, $2.3 billion of their own money in 2017-18, $2.5 billion in 2018-19 and $2.8 billion in 2019-20. And over 10 years, as I said, it would add up to around $48 billion, certainly not $50 billion.
Thirdly, I am very proud to say, given my background in small business, our tax cuts here are going first and foremost predominantly to small businesses. Not to big businesses or to multinationals. They are only going to small businesses this year, next year and for the whole of this term of parliament. And, yes, it is true that we want to legislate a longer-term plan to let the entire economy benefit from tax cuts. Over time we would seek to bring medium and then big businesses into the fold too—after all, that used to be the bipartisan aspiration in this place.
Let me tell you that the people of Brisbane who work or want to work in medium and big businesses deserve more hours, more jobs and more opportunities too. And, of course, it goes without saying that over the term of this enterprise tax plan, we would like to see many of our small businesses become medium and big businesses.
But if Labor does not like that, it is easy: there are two elections between now and when any tax cuts would be passed on to big businesses.
If they are so sure of their new-found position then over the next seven years then they should make it a policy position in their next election campaign, or the one after that. And if the Australian people judged it a winner they would win an election and they would get to make the change before a single taxable dollar was kept to the benefit of any big business or multinational. They should not just get in the road of delivering these tax cuts right here and right now, which are going immediately and predominantly to small businesses.
Or alternatively—and I am speaking speculatively here—if Labor wanted to make a genuine policy contribution, I would respect that. If they think there is a case for withholding tax cuts to particular companies or industries that they hate, then they should give us a detailed policy proposal that includes their hit-list of companies. Maybe they could make a stab of justifying it on the basis of, I don't know, regulatory protections or a lack of exposure to international competition. That would at least be an attempt at real policy, rather than this. Anything more sophisticated, I suppose, than just yelling, 'Trickle-down economics!' because that phrase is actually incredibly misleading in this case. It is not trickle-down economics to give tax cuts directly to small businesses. Allowing hundreds of thousands of small business operators around the country to pay a little less tax on their own money is precisely the opposite of 'trickle-down', because it is starting with the hardworking small business owners, who are not at the top. They are the very base of our economy.
Britain has a tax cut right now of 20 per cent, with a target of 17 per cent in three years. Canada's corporate tax rate now sits at 15 per cent, Singapore taxes its businesses at 17½ per cent and the US, as we all know, is planning to reduce company tax drastically, down to 15 per cent. We have to remain competitive, and lowering our company tax rate to 25 per cent is, in all honesty, barely keeping up with the pace of the world.
I am proud to try to keep Australia competitive in a global and competitive new world. I am proud to support tax cuts for the 30,000 small businesses in Brisbane. I am proud to be fighting for a tax cut for Naples Pizzeria and Brewmasters in Grange, just down the road from my house; for Rose & Edward Espresso just down in Maygar Street in the other direction; for Soul Hair down on Days Road; and for CPR Insurance, Thai Chada, Fruition Tuition, the Grange Vet and the Wholesomeness Juice Bar nearby.
These businesses and the businesses just like them on Kedron Brook Road in Wilston will be the ones that offer the jobs we so critically need in our area, if we can support them to grow—including, I might add, jobs for the kids in Windsor and Wilston State Schools as they grow and ultimately enter the workforce in coming years. And this suburban story is repeated, street by street, suburb by suburb, right across Brisbane and all across Australia. Newmarket, Ashgrove, Alderley, Park Road, Eagle Junction, Racecourse Road, the Valley, and of course in the CBD—collectively, small businesses are the biggest source of jobs and opportunities for Australians. I have said it before in this place, and I will say it again: if every small business could be encouraged to employ a single additional worker tomorrow, our unemployment rate would be zero—zero!—meaning that the majority of young jobseekers, mature-aged Australians, Indigenous Australians and the disabled who are looking for work would find the dignity that they want and deserve.
Our Enterprise Tax Plan is one of the key planks of our economic plan. It is needed to unlock the power of our local small businesses. It is not about handouts: this is their own money. It is not $50 billion. And everything in our budget and in this term of parliament is going to small business; not a single dollar is going to medium or big businesses.
Labor is perpetrating a giant fraud here, with their use of sensationalist language, and it is just plain wrong. I am calling them out on it today. The opposition leader is damned by his own very eloquent words arguing for this policy. The shadow Treasurer is also damned by his own elegant words and the book he wrote on this topic. And Labor's position is damned by what was the consistent bipartisan position of former Labor leaders, stretching back for decades. They need to support this bill for all the reasons they so eloquently outlined before they were overtaken by populism. Thank you.
I am pleased to stand at the dispatch box and to follow the previous speaker to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I want to look at it from a number of perspectives. Firstly, what exactly the government is doing here, what they say it will do and then whether or not it will work.
I will say to the previous speaker that in addressing this bill I am actually dealing with the 10 years that are covered in the explanatory memorandum and the 10 years that were covered in the Treasurer's budget announcement last year when he got up and announced this as a 10-year plan, giving tax cuts across the range of businesses, including right up to businesses with a turnover in excess of $1 billion. That is actually in the explanatory memorandum; we are not making it up. The other side do not get to backtrack and say, 'No, it's really just one year,' because really it is not. The Treasurer stood up here and talked about a 10-year plan. So let's look at what that 10-year plan is.
In 2016 the company tax rate will be cut from 28.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent for companies with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million. The turnover of $10 million will be progressively lifted over the period to 2022-23, with the effect that companies with a turnover of $1 billion or more will be eligible at that time for the lower 27.5 per cent tax rate. And then in 2023-24, the threshold will be removed so that all companies will be subject to the 27.5 per cent tax rate. And then it will be reduced from there it to 25 per cent over the next couple of years to 2026-27. That is in the Bills Digestit is in the explanatory memorandum. That is what we know from the Treasurer's budget speech. That is actually what they are doing.
So, by 2022-23 we will see a turnover threshold of $1 billion and then after that we will see that threshold removed altogether and the tax rate go down. Examples of companies that will affected by that in the mid years are, in the $25 to $50 million turnover range, Broncos, for example, and in the $100 million to $250 million we see Baby Bunting, Cabcharge, Hansen Technologies and Capilano Honey. Then when we get to the big end-plus, we see the banks, Wesfarmers, Woolworths, Qantas, Aristocrat Leisure et cetera—very big companies that will be enjoying the benefits of this 10-year tax plan, in the government's own words.
Now, the cost of this is quite interesting: over the 10 years it is $48.2 billion on the ramp-up to its final year, and $8 billion a year after that. It is also estimated that because the government, in spite of all of its rhetoric about paying off the debt, has actually doubled the deficit we are actually talking about $4 billion in interest during that ramp-up period as well. It is an incredibly expensive piece of policy, announced as the centrepiece of the policy, the single thing this government had that was going to drive jobs and growth—the single thing. This was it; this was the policy.
The question about jobs and growth is really interesting. It is really important, because we are not in a very good position at the moment. Company profits have surged; that is a good thing. They have surged to a record high, but at the same time wages have suffered their sharpest decline in eight years—new figures are out now—at the very time that the Turnbull government are talking about a $48.2 billion tax cut for businesses across the full spectrum over a 10-year period. The Turnbull government say that if you give businesses a tax cut they will employ more people. They say that if you give big business a tax cut, investment will go up. In spite of the previous speaker's argument, this is trickle-down economics. It is trickle-down economics to say that if you give the biggest businesses a tax cut they will employ more people. Absolutely basic, trickle-down economics is what we are seeing here. I have heard Scott Morrison talk about this—give big business a tax cut, give big business more money, it trickles down. I am going to quote another well-known economist, Will Rogers, who is roughly on the same level as Scott Morrison, our Treasurer. He was around a little bit earlier, but was a really interesting man—someone from the cowboy days. This is from 1932:
The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow.
So even Will Rogers, back in 1932, got that essentially right. If you give money to the biggest businesses, they do not necessarily employ more people. In fact, the Treasury modelling itself shows that. It shows that over 20 to 30 years we might see a 0.1 per cent increase in jobs. That is the Treasury modelling. So we are seeing a $48.2 billion tax cut with, in 20 to 30 years, an improvement in the job market of less than 0.1 per cent. It is not exactly a good demonstration of how trickle-down actually works—not at all.
They also say that if you give big business a tax cut then foreign investment will increase, and this also is a rather questionable assumption. The analysis by the Australia Institute found that 97 per cent of the applications to Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board—
A credible source!
The member says 'a credible source'. I am waiting for the Treasury credible source—there aren't any. The Australia Institute finds that 97 per cent of the applications to Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board come from countries with lower company tax rates than Australia's—97 per cent. The company tax rates of the countries they are in are lower, yet they are coming to Australia. By value, 71 per cent of applications come from countries with lower rates. If it were true that just by lowering your tax rate business was going to flock in, then why is the money flocking in from companies that already have lower tax rates than us? The money should be going the other way, if that were true. New Zealand lowered its tax rate—it is a couple of points lower than ours—thinking that they might be able to attract Australian investment by doing so. At a recent press conference with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, the New Zealand government, through Bill English, confirmed that it did not actually work. He said:
We think it is really important to signal that we want reinvestment in businesses, because that is what grows the jobs and grows the capacity.
So they lowered their rate to two points below Australia's, hoping that 'it would attract a large number of Australian businesses across the Tasman, but that hasn't quite happened.' So even New Zealand, which has tried this already, is finding that it has not worked.
We can also look at Australia's history. In the past, when Australia's company tax rates were adjusted foreign investment did not go the way that was expected. In fact, when the rate climbed back in the 1980s to 49 per cent, there was a rise in investment, not a drop. A lot of things attract companies to invest in a country other than their tax rate: the skills of their workforce and a whole range of other things to do with stability of government, for example—not something that we are seeing much of at the moment, unfortunately. There are a lot of things that attract companies to invest in countries with a full range of tax rates. The study by the Australia Institute also finds that Australia's stock of foreign investments is dominated by 13 countries. Some of those countries have higher and some have lower company tax rates. Nine of the 13 have lower tax rates than Australia's. Countries with the fastest growing investment in Australia include the United States, which has a higher tax rate than Australia. So this simplistic argument that foreign investment will flood in if you lower the tax rate from 28½ to 27½ and then in 10 years time reduce it to 25 is not supported by Australia's history or by the facts at the moment. It is just not supported at all. When we look at company tax alone in Australia, we are actually about equal fifth, but if you examine the whole implied tax take we fall to about 14th. So even the company tax rate itself is not the only issue that we need to be concerned about.
The question also is: will it create jobs? I said before that the Treasury modelling—not the Labor opposition modelling, not Labor running a scare campaign, not Labor making up facts like the previous speaker alleged, but the Treasury modelling—finds that the level of employment in 20 or 30 years time will be just 0.1 per cent higher than otherwise because of this $48.2 billion tax cut. That is not exactly a good result. It is not a very good result for $48.2 billion off the tax base. You have to remember that at the time the government is hoping to do this—if they manage to get it through the Senate—they are also cutting away at some of the poorest people in our economy. They are cutting family payments and energy supplements. They are backing a cut to take-home pay for workers in retail and hospitality. They are presiding over a reduction in the spending capacity of some of the lowest-income people in this country.
It is hard to see, even with trickle-down economics running through their veins, how cutting the spending capacity of the customers of business actually makes the business better off. How is it that you cut the spending capacity of a business's customers and that makes a business better off? It cannot. This linear notion that this government has that somehow you can cut the spending capacity of customers, wait for the business to be more profitable and then give their customers some money back does not make any sense. There is not a single business out there that would argue to cut the wages of their customers—not one. There is not one that would say, 'Yes—all those people that come into my shop on a Saturday or on a Friday afternoon, who work down at the pub—let's cut the wages at the pub. Let's give them less money to spend.' That is what this government is doing. This is a really weird concept that this government has: that you can cut the wages of the customers, provide a tax cut to the biggest businesses, most of which will go to the really big end of town—an incredible percentage of it will go overseas—and somehow that is going to make our economy stronger.
None of the figures support it. If that single figure alone about the jobs growth because of this plan says anything, it says that this does not work. A $48.2 billion tax cut to business, and in 20 to 30 years time there is going to be a 0.1 per cent increase in jobs in this country as a result of it. That really demonstrates that this absolutely will not work.
I do not think the government is going to get this through the Senate. In fact I think that the government will walk away from it. We have heard rumours that they will walk away from this signature piece, this one thing they have that is actually going to create, in their words, jobs and growth—this jobs and growth mantra—supported by this policy, which over 20 years may create 0.1 per cent increase in jobs. This is their centrepiece. This is all they have. After four years of claiming to be a government about jobs and growth, this is it. This is what they have. We hear from rumours all around this place that they are about to walk away from even this. We on this side of the House would think that that is a good thing. The figures indicate that this is not a positive thing for the economy. The facts indicate it. Experiences around the world indicate it. The fact that Australian investment does not flock to countries with lower tax rates indicates that. The fact that Australian businesses did not flock across the Tasman for a two per cent tax cut indicates that. This is absurd policy, and the sooner they walk away from it the better.
I cannot believe that in 2017 those opposite, who purport to be the alternative government of Australia, are seriously arguing that reducing the rate of tax does not affect the decisions of business about how much to invest. That is a completely absurd proposition. The principle goes back a couple of hundred years, and I would have thought it would have been a pretty settled fact in economic life: if you want someone to invest more, you reduce the cost. There is a thing called the internal rate of return, where people calculate and say, 'If I invest a given amount of money, what is my return going to be? What are the cash flows going to be from that?' Then you take into account tax in working at the after-tax rate of return.
Based on the way those opposite put it, whether the rate of tax was 30 per cent or 70 per cent or five per cent the investment would be exactly the same—exactly the same regardless of how much tax the investor was required to pay. That is an extraordinary proposition. I think they start teaching economics now, and maybe a bit of commerce, in year 5 or 6. That the purported alternative government would seriously stand before the Australian people and contest the notion that the rate of tax affects the level of investment by businesses is absolutely unbelievable. It is not surprising because, let's be honest, those opposite have never worked in the business sector in Australia. If you wanted to do a little survey of all the members of the opposition and ask who has actually run a business, it would be a very small number. What if you asked who has worked in business—a business that tries to make money in the private sector, a full-time job in the private sector? That is not a particularly high bar to reach—I think most Australians would have reached that bar, given that close to 90 per cent of them work in the private sector—but if you asked that question of those opposite, it would be a very small group. I suspect it could fit in a small minibus. That is a big part of why those opposite have no fundamental understanding of this space.
The other thing that I find extraordinary is the way they describe income tax reductions as a giveaway. What that basically says is that in their minds—it is interesting because it gives you an insight into how they think—there is this big amount of money that sits in Canberra—it is somehow created here in Canberra—and then politicians sit around and decide that they will give this much to this company or this group or whatever. Of course that is completely absurd, because government does not create any money. Government does not generate wealth. Government basically looks at the economy and says, 'Here are some sources that we can get tax from.' Of course government does need to get tax revenue to provide services et cetera. But the government says, 'We're going to require you to pay us some money. If you don't do that it is against the law, and if you continue to refuse to do that over an extended period you might go to jail.'
So, it is a pretty serious thing to impose tax. And government is not out there running the corner store or the supermarket or prospecting for gold or whatever it is. Government is basically extracting that revenue from the efforts of people who actually go out there and do stuff. And those people, in the private sector, represent close to 90 per cent of all Australian employees. So, this notion that it is a giveaway, that the government is so good to consent to give some of its money back to these companies, is just unbelievable. And it is very important in the political debate in Australia that we just call out some of these absurd things that those opposite are trying to get away with at the moment, because this is 2017; it is not 1930. We know free trade works. It is very clear. We know reduced tax means more investment. We know so many things about the way free markets work. We know business is good. We know free markets are good. We know capitalism is good—and we should not be afraid to say so.
Those opposite want to construct this kind of fantasy land where the government sits at the centre and decides how everything is going to happen, and also a world where you can just make something up and repeat it a thousand times or so and just hope that it becomes received wisdom, even though it is completely false. The so-called $50 billion giveaway of the government's money is a classic example of that.
I want to come to the details of the bill, but let us just pause and reflect a little more on those opposite, if I might. We know what they think about tax, because they have actually put out some really interesting policies that I think are particularly instructive about the way these people think about the economy. Housing affordability is very important, with the Treasurer, the member for Deakin and others working on this issue. Those opposite say, on housing affordability: just basically raise a whole bunch of taxes and everything will be okay. You raise a whole bunch of taxes, house prices will be whatever you want them to be, and it will all work out perfectly. They say, remove a basic principle of Australian taxation law that has been there for over a century, just because it seems like a good idea. And that is an extraordinary proposition.
And this is probably my favourite part of the housing affordability policy, because if a policy is about housing affordability then it should have something to do with houses, shouldn't it? It is very difficult to understand how things completely unrelated to houses could have an effect on housing. It might just be that I do not follow the great, complex logic. But the thing I am very unclear on—and I would really appreciate knowing, and maybe members opposite can help me with this—is: say you increase capital gains tax by, say, 50 per cent on a farm, maybe one that is outside Mudgee in New South Wales. Someone invests in a farm outside Mudgee. And you say, you know what? We are going to increase the tax on that by 50 per cent. How does that affect housing affordability? I am genuinely open to any sort of interjection from anyone opposite who might like to assist me on this. How does increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent on a factory—it might be a factory in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons. You might have some people there who are willing to put some investment into that factory. Those opposite seem to be arguing that if you increase the capital gains tax on the investment in that factory—it might be plastics, or machinery; who knows?—then that is going to improve housing affordability. That is really quite an extraordinary proposition.
The shadow Treasurer purports to be a very thoughtful, learned sort of a fellow. He should put out a statement and explain the link here between the 50 per cent increase for the factory in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker, or the farm in Mudgee or wherever it is and just draw that causal link between that and housing affordability. I think that is going to be hard. Do you know what I suspect? I suspect that it is not about housing affordability. I suspect that it is about a way of raising additional tax revenue. I suspect that it is about a way of getting additional tax revenue so that you can just spend more and more of the money of the people who are out there investing. I do not think that is a very good idea, and it is clearly utterly unrelated to housing affordability. As I said, I am really keen to hear more about the link between increasing taxes on farmers and factories and maybe someone who invests in a commercial property and housing affordability. I might have missed it in the policy, but I would really like to hear it.
You're a policy-free zone. The government is a policy-free zone on housing.
The other one that is really interesting is this notion of big, bad companies that they talk about—the giveaways to the big, bad companies.
Let's talk about banks. Member for Banks, let's talk about banks!
Order! I remind the member for Gorton that he has already been exited from this place once today.
What those opposite say—and this is a good one as well; this is worth reflecting on for a moment—is that a big business is a business with revenue of $2 million or more, that if you have $2 million or more you should not get a tax cut. I think they think that a business with $2 million of revenue is a business that makes $2 million. But it is not, because the average business makes a very, very small operating profit margin. It might be five per cent. So, if it has a turnover of $2 million, it might be taking home $100,000 at the end of the year, which is not much more than the average wage. Those opposite say that is a big business that should not get a tax cut. Again, it would be really interesting for the shadow Treasurer to explain why a business that might be making 100 grand is a big, bad, evil corporation that should not receive any tax relief. It really is quite extraordinary. That is why it so important to reject these very shallow and superficial ideas of those opposite and to support vigorously the enterprise tax plan the Treasurer has put forward.
This is going to help Australian businesses a lot to invest more in the Australian economy. You would think that we would all want to see that. We know we are in a globally competitive world, and it is effectively a race to attract capital. We have people like Singapore, not far away, at 17 per cent; the UK going down to 20 per cent; and there are proposals for the US to go as low as 15 per cent. From the member for Parramatta's logic, it is all okay because it does not matter what the tax rate is, because business will just invest the same amount anyway. On that logic you may as well make the tax rate 70 per cent and they will just keep investing. That is clearly not such a good idea.
What you need to do is ensure that your tax rate is in fact very competitive. That is what the government and this Treasurer are focused on doing. We start with those smaller businesses of up to $10 million—there are many great businesses in that area in my electorate in Padstow, Revesby, Mortdale, Peakhurst; they are some of the key industrial centres in the Banks electorate, but of course they are all around Australia— and we then gradually provide that tax relief to all corporations, including big corporations. Because—guess what?—they also employ millions and millions of people.
According to some numbers that the ATO has put together, close to five million people work for small business. They are the biggest employer in the private sector, and it is absolutely appropriate that the tax relief starts with them. It is also the case that there are millions of people who work for medium-sized and big businesses. Those people benefit when those larger businesses invest in the Australian economy. Those opposite say that those large businesses will do exactly the same thing regardless of what their tax rate is. That is ridiculous—it is like primary school proposition. These corporations have people, some of whom are paid a lot of money, to do calculations on investment proposals, Big businesses might be looking at investing $100 million in a project and—guess what?—if they invest $100 million in a project, they employ heaps of people in the process. When they go through that process, they calculate the rate of return on that investment and that includes tax. If there is less tax, there is more investment—and that is an absolute economic fact.
Medium-sized businesses, as defined by the ATO, employ 2½ million people but more than three million people work for large businesses. The notion that large businesses are disconnected from the Australian people and that they are bad, nasty, evil corporations that should not be provided any tax incentives to further invest in our economy is absolutely ridiculous. The notions of those opposite on capital gains tax and their definition of what a small business is demonstrate an abject lack of understanding of the most basic fundamentals of the Australian economy. It would be funny if it were not so serious. These are the people pretending that they could handle levers of the Australian economy. They could not—it would be disastrous for the nation. It is so important that we get this Enterprise Tax Plan through the parliament to support Australian business.
With the possible exception of this government's proposal to weaken Australia's racial hatred laws as a sop to One Nation, there is no bill more reflective of the sorry state of the Turnbull government than the bill before the House today. At the last federal election the Prime Minister told Australians that he had a plan for 'jobs and growth'. This is apparently is the three-word slogan that you have when you have promised not to have three-word slogans.
Extraordinarily enough, almost 12 months later, the bill before the House is the core of this definitely not-just-a-slogan jobs and growth economic policy. It cuts its corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent for all corporations progressively over a 10-year period. It gives foreign multinationals and Australia's big banks a $50 billion tax cut. This unfunded $50 billion tax giveaway will allegedly, according to Treasury modelling, increase growth in Australia by one per cent in a decade's time.
This bill is no way to make economic policy and it is no way to make tax policy. Paul Keating—someone who the Prime Minister mistook himself for in this chamber earlier this week—used to say that leadership is about courage and imagination: the imagination to see the potential for change and to have the vision to see what we could achieve by doing something differently; and the courage to pursue that change to make it a reality in the face of vested interests and institutional inertia. There is no courage and there is no imagination in this bill. This bill shows no imagination, no vision, for the role that tax reform could play in kick-starting economic growth in this country. It shows no effort in thinking about how we could redesign a tax system so that it would better serve the Australian economy and no effort in thinking about the role that the tax system could play in improving allocative efficiency in the economy.
The bill ignores the outrageously profligate and distortionary impact of the operation of the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing on investment decisions in this country. It ignores outrageous superannuation concessions; it just cuts taxes for big business. It is right-wing economic policy from central casting. It is a lazy cut-and-paste job from the favourite think tanks who cut-and-paste it from their favourite ideologues without a care for the actual conditions in the Australian economy and without any effort to imagine the potential for real reform.
Take the outrageous distortionary effect that the combination of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount is having on investment decisions in this country. Before the Howard government introduced these changes, with trademark economic irresponsibility at the turn of the millennium, barely 50 per cent of the loan portfolios of Australian banks went to housing investment. Sixteen years later more than two-thirds of Australian bank lending currently goes to housing investment, but it is not going to Australians breaking into the property market to buy their first home. First-home buyers make up just 15 per cent of housing purchases today, well below the long-term average. Instead, bank lending that might otherwise have been made to Australian businesses to create the jobs and growth promised by the Prime Minister is being thrown hand over fist into property speculation.
What is the benefit of these tax arrangements? Who benefits from them? For negative gearing, the top 20 per cent of income earners earn about half of the negative gearing benefits, according to NATSEM. The top 10 per cent capture more than the bottom 60 per cent. The benefits for the capital gains tax discount is even more inequitable with the top 10 per cent receiving nearly 70 per cent of the total subsidy. The government's own Financial System Inquiry found that 10 per cent of Australians receive 38 per cent of Australia's super tax concessions—more than the combined benefit of the bottom 70 per cent of Australians. These investment subsidies come at a significant cost to the budget, which means that other taxpayers have to pay higher taxes or accept lower quality services.
Labor's reforms of negative gearing tax subsidies have a different objective. They are aimed at shifting the incentive of the taxation system—shifting the allocative efficiency of our economy—towards the construction of new housing and not property speculation. Independent modelling by the Parliamentary Budget Office assumes that those changes will result in negatively geared investment in new dwellings almost doubling. This is a tax reform agenda that might actually kick start jobs and growth. Instead, we get the bill before the House today, and the myopia of this economic agenda is a function of this government's political weakness.
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have already burned through all of the political capital that they accumulated when they deposed the unlamented member for Warringah. Their economic and political credibility was sacked by six months of government by thought bubble, variously floating an increase in the GST, broadening the base of the GST, state based income taxes and crackdowns on the excesses of negative gearing—all for naught.
As a result, we have been left with the weakest economic leadership team of any government since Billy McMahon. We have a Prime Minister who does not believe what he is saying, a Treasurer but no-one believes what he is saying and a Deputy Prime Minister and no-one can understand what he is saying. What we are left with is a massive tax cut for vested interests. It is the only tax policy that this Treasurer has the clout to get through the cabinet, and it is the only tax policy that this Prime Minister can be confident of getting through his party room without them wanting to knock him over. That is why they will not do negative-gearing reform. That is why they will not do reform of the capital gains tax. It is not about policy; it is because they are too scared and they are too weak.
Given that the Prime Minister promised economic leadership when he seized the top job from the member for Warringah, the current state of affairs might prompt a wry smile—it might, if the consequences were not so serious. Australia's economic situation is not strong presently. There is a need for strong economic leadership in this country today, with 34,000 full-time jobs being lost in Australia last year. Wages growth is at an all-time low—the lowest on record. Inequality is at a 75-year high and living standards are stagnating. Underemployment—the number of people in this country who want to work more but cannot get the opportunity—is at a record high, and we experienced only our fourth negative growth quarter in 25 years this year.
The MYEFO shows that deficits over the forward estimates have blown out by another $10 billion and, since the first budget, the budget deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion. The projected surplus under this government in 2020-21has shrunk and is now wafer-thin, leaving us in the danger zone when it comes to the AAA credit rating that the previous Labor government bequeathed to the Abbott-Turnbull—maybe Abbott again—government. A weakened economy has also delivered more than $30 billion in revenue writedowns. But it is clear from this bill that this government has no plan for economic growth. After railing on about the importance of the AAA credit rating in opposition—after saying that we were in a budget emergency and saying how important budget repair was to keeping our AAA credit rating—what have they done instead? They are putting a larger hole in our budget with this tax cut.
You do not have to be an economist to know that this economic mismanagement will ultimately put our AAA credit rating at risk. A downgrade in our AAA credit rating would impact everyone in Australia. Mortgage holders would be slugged an extra $720 a year if we lost our AAA credit rating. The Prime Minister says that he wants to help families, but instead he is playing roulette with household budgets. Not content with taking away the penalty rates of 700,000 Australians—taking $77 a week from the take-home pay of Australians—he is also putting the AAA credit rating at risk.
The bill before the House is not even a new plan. It was announced almost 12 months ago. Why have they brought it out again now? Why is it coming only to the chamber now? It is because they have nothing else to offer. They have no answers for the problems that Australian families are facing. Imagine what this country could do with this $50 billion forgone by this bill. Imagine the schools that we could fund, the training and apprentice opportunities we could create, the productive infrastructure we could build and the investments that we could make in productive capital—human and physical—for our nation. Instead of helping young Australians buy their first home, this government wants to gift this forgone revenue straight to big businesses and to big banks.
As it stands, this bill does nothing to help balance the budget. Meanwhile, as we wait for a plan from the government, the PBO has reported that unlegislated measures are costing huge amounts of money. The impact of the government's unlegislated measures in 2020-21 will be 0.2 per cent of GDP—double that of the projected surplus. There is a projected $42.8 billion black hole in the budget.
Listening to the government's explanation for why this bill should be passed is like listening to a snake oil salesman. The Treasurer claims we need to protect the revenue base from structural weaknesses, and yet here we are giving away $50 billion in revenue cuts. The Treasurer claims that Australia's competitiveness will decline if we do not cut the company tax rate, and then there is the argument about the international competitiveness that we need to be on par with with other developed economies—they use the United States as an example. What they will not tell you, though, is that in the United States companies will also have to pay state taxes on top of the headline federal company tax cut. Comparing our headline rate against theirs is like comparing apples and oranges. The Australian people are not stupid. They will not be sold a pup. They can see when the government is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
The Prime Minister says this tax cut will benefit Australian families. They say that this bill will result in a 1.1 per cent increase in wages—roughly a $2-a-day increase. That is not much of a consolation for the 700,000 Australians who are losing $77 a week as a result of the government's inaction in the face of cuts to penalty rates. However, what they will not tell you is that this $2-a-day increase will not come this year, will not come next year and will not come in 10 years but will arrive in 20 years time. It does not pass the pub test. They want to rip $50 billion from the Commonwealth budget—the budget that supports Medicare, schools and family payments—and for what? A $2-a-day increase in 20 years?
The Prime Minister wants to smash the federal budget, putting our AAA credit rating at risk, so that families can receive a $2-a-day increase in wages in 20 years. Can you imagine taking this to your bank manager? Can you imagine walking into your bank and saying, 'I'm looking for a loan,' and the bank manager asking, 'What do you earn? What are the details on your wages?' and you saying, 'Here's what I earned today, but the Prime Minister has promised that in 20 years I'll earn an extra $2 a day!' It simply would not cut it.
This proposed tax cut does not take into account that many big companies use complex profit-shifting mechanisms to avoid paying tax or to reduce their tax. According to the ATO, big business already pays less than the 30 per cent rate. Data shows that members of the Business Council of Australia already pay an effective tax rate of just 24.3 per cent. Treasury modelling showed that the planned tax cuts would boost economic growth by a little bit, but there is no way to compare that increase—one per cent in 10 years time—with the economic growth we could have if we invest that money in the productive capacity of the Australian economy and invest it in our education system, in the health of the Australian population and in jobs for the Australian population, including apprenticeships.
The government has provided no answers on how to deal with the revenue shortage created by this bill or on the inherent consequences that it would produce in the form of severe cuts to important social services such as Medicare to enable this tax cut for big business.
This government is out of touch with ordinary Australians. Some call the policies of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer neoliberal. I prefer to call them neo-Martian, because they are policies produced by someone on another planet, someone who has not come into contact with Australians living their lives in our community in quite some time.
The Australian Labor Party, by contrast, want to help young people buy their first home in an increasingly unaffordable housing market. We want to invest in health care. We want to invest in our schools. We want to invest in infrastructure. We want budget repair to protect our AAA credit rating, but we want budget repair that is fair.
Offering a tax cut to big business of $50 billion unfunded will not leave Australian families better off. That is why Labor will oppose this reckless tax cut. We will oppose the bill in the House and we will move amendments in the Senate to reflect the position that we have consistently had for 12 months now. We will not support the corporate tax rate going to 25 per cent. We will support the tax rate going from 28.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent for businesses earning up to $2 million. Labor will not support the increase in the small business entity threshold from $2 million to $10 million. Labor will not support the unincorporated small business tax discount going from five per cent to 16 per cent. We will support an increase to eight per cent, matching the corporate tax rate for businesses earning up to $2 million going to 27.5 per cent. If the government cared about the welfare of Australian families, they would do the same.
Now, as this legislation comes before the House, we see the final irony of the Turnbull government's economic weakness. We learn that the Turnbull government will not even commit to maintaining its support for this 10-year corporate tax cut plan at the next federal election. We learn that the Treasurer is planning to split this bill to secure the first phase of this plan. But, beyond this, the fate of this bill rests with the strength of the economic leadership of the government, and its prospects are not good.
The Turnbull government is committed to providing tax relief for hardworking Australians. I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 because this bill forms a key component of the government's reform agenda to improve Australia's tax system for businesses and to drive further investment in our economy. This bill provides incentives for Australian businesses to create jobs, reinvest their profits, grow their businesses and succeed.
This bill immediately reduces the tax rate to 27.5 per cent for 870,000 businesses with turnover of up to $10 million. These businesses employ 3.4 million Australians. Information compiled by the Australian Taxation Office shows that, in 2013-14, 98 per cent of companies would have been subject to the lower small business company tax rate at a turnover threshold of $10 million. The bill will: reduce the company tax rate for all businesses to 25 per cent by 2026-27; increase the unincorporated tax discount for small businesses from five per cent to 16 per cent by 2026-27; and increase turnover thresholds so that more businesses can access lower tax rates. This government will do everything it can to pursue policies that encourage investment, because it creates jobs. The measures in this bill go right to the coalface and make positive changes that will absolutely help small businesses and, indeed, all businesses over time.
This bill is a tax-rate reduction road map, and businesses can see very clearly the tax reform direction in which Australia is headed and can start to plan their investments. These reforms will let Australian businesses reinvest more of their earnings in employing more Australians and growing their businesses. That means all Australians will benefit, with much of the economic benefits of a lower company tax rate going to workers as higher real wages, longer hours or additional recruitment.
Australia's company tax rate is higher than that of many other advanced economies. This bill is an important step in fixing this. It will allow Australian businesses to once again be globally competitive on tax. It will assist our businesses to succeed both at home and internationally, and it will encourage businesses to remain in and even relocate to Australia. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, in their review of this legislation, received 29 written submissions. An overwhelming majority of submissions expressed support for the bill, with one of the key endorsements being on this very point—that this bill will help make Australia's corporate tax settings more internationally competitive and encourage higher levels of foreign investment in Australia.
It is important to note that complementary measures will ensure businesses are not able to avoid paying tax and are required to pay their fair share. Government is keen to support businesses with lower taxes but will ensure those businesses which seek to pay no tax are penalised. This includes tougher rules for multinationals that shift profits offshore and enhancing the ATO's enforcement capabilities.
I will go to the specifics of this bill. Schedule 1 amends the tax rate act 1986 to reduce the company tax rate. In the 2016-17 income year, businesses with turnover below $10 million will see a tax rate of 27.5 per cent. Schedule 2 increases the small business unincorporated income tax discount to 16 per cent by 2026-27. Providing unincorporated small businesses with a reduced rate of tax improves their cash flow and enables them to keep more earnings to be reinvested into their businesses. It also ensures that small businesses benefit from a reduced rate, regardless of whether they are operating as companies, sole traders, partnerships or trusts.
Schedule 3 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to increase the aggregated turnover threshold for access to many small business tax concessions to $10 million. It is long overdue. The aggregated turnover threshold for access to the unincorporated small business income tax discounts will be increased to $5 billion and the current aggregated turnover threshold of $2 million will be retained for the small business capital gains tax concessions.
More than 90,000 additional small businesses will be able to access a range of small business concessions. These include simplified trading stock rules, a simplified method of calculating pay-as-you-go instalments by the ATO and the option to account for GST on a cash basis and pay GST instalments as calculated by the tax office. On average, small businesses face higher costs of complying with their regulatory obligations as a proportion of their turnover and income compared to larger businesses. We need to change this, and this bill is an important start. Eligible businesses will be able to use small business concessions to reduce their tax liability and compliance costs and improve their cash flow.
Small and medium businesses are the prime drivers of jobs and growth in our economy. A tax on their business is a tax on their innovation, entrepreneurship and investment. It ends up being a tax on jobs that they create—or are prevented from creating. When they invest and grow, we all win. That is why there are so many supporters of the changes put forward in this bill. Along with the 870,000 businesses set to benefit, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Council of Small Business Australia have welcomed the government's focus on small business and the reforms that actually improve the bottom line for those businesses.
I have met with so many small businesses since becoming the member for Tangney—mums and dads and families; hardworking Australians employing hundreds of people in Tangney and champing at the bit to invest in and grow their businesses. As someone who comes from a family dedicated to small business and employing people, and as someone who stands in this chamber today who has actually interviewed people and given them their first jobs, I know, fundamentally, the importance of creating an opportunity for small businesses to flourish and grow. The prize for the application of a small businessperson's effort is to grow their business, employ more Australians and prosper. It should not be a higher tax rate, but that would be the case if this bill is not passed. This bill brings down taxes for Australian businesses—immediately for small and medium-sized businesses. This bill must pass this and the other place as soon as possible.
But we all know that Labor, the Leader of the Opposition and their union mates have chosen to oppose the reduction in the company tax rate. They have put populism before good policy once again. Labor and the unions hate it when people apply their own effort and succeed. The Australian Council of Trade Unions was critical of the proposed company tax changes following the 2016-17 budget, stating: 'A corporate tax cut is not a jobs plan.' But that is absolutely rubbish.
The contributions in this place from members opposite to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016 were nothing but disgraceful. That bill is so relevant to this legislation before the House today. This government drew together feedback from businesses and the preliminary findings of the investment approach analysis to devise the innovative Prepare-Trial-Hire Program that will make a difference to young people's lives. The Youth Jobs PaTH intervenes with early investment and training to get people into work and off a path to lifelong welfare dependency. The program will increase young people's employability and provide them with real work experience to get the start they need in the workforce and will focus on making sure young jobseekers know what to expect when they get into the workforce and what is expected of them.
It is good to be joined in the chamber by the member for Swan—a good friend and someone, like many people on this side of the chamber, who has experience in running small businesses, employing people and giving people a start. He knows full well, like many people on this side of the chamber, including the member for Stirling—
What about the minister?
and the minister!—what it is like to give people a job. Young jobseekers will participate in the intensive pre-employment skills training that will help build practical industry skills, like working in a team, presentation, effective communication, IT skills and job hunting skills. The voluntary internships of four to 12 weeks will give young jobseekers real time in businesses and they will be incentivised with an additional $200 payment per fortnight. The employers that give these young people a start will be eligible for a youth bonus wage subsidy of between $6,500 and $10,000 if they hire a young jobseeker under 25 who has been in employment services for six months or more. It is a much smarter way of leveraging what the community would otherwise spend on welfare payments.
But all those opposite could do was advocate for more handouts for no personal effort for those that sit back and feel it is their right to get a handout without any personal obligation. Those opposite should remember the words of the member for Lilley, the former Treasurer, in May 2010, shortly after the Rudd government had included a budget measure to reduce the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28 per cent. The member for Lilley said:
Our plan will also improve the competitiveness of the entire economy. It will deliver a company tax rate cut for all companies.
… … …
These changes promote growth across the entire economy.
Fine words. And I encourage my Labor colleagues to take the sage advice from their elder statesman—a 'Treasurer of the Year', in fact, from memory. While we are reviewing the hypocrisy of the current campaigning of those opposite, we should heed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, who said:
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.
But that has gone straight out of the window in the attempt to pursue populism over good policy.
The core focus of the Turnbull government remains increasing what hardworking Australians can earn. Through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill, this government is committed to providing tax relief for businesses. This bill improves Australia's tax system for businesses and to drive investment in our economy. It drives investment and new jobs to employ people, particularly young people. Businesses in Tangney want it, industry bodies want it, young jobseekers want it and this Liberal-National government want it because it is good for all Australians.
It is very clear since I have been in this place for a short time that there is a party and a government that is going to back hardworking aspirational Australians that want to apply their efforts to succeed. There is a government on this side of the chamber that is committed to encouraging and rewarding those people that go out there, that work hard and that give people the opportunity to do so themselves. What we have seen from the Labor Party constantly is the pursuit of populism—abandoning things that they have said before, abandoning things they know will make a big difference to employing young people in this country in order to pursue populist politics for their own political end.
This bill is an important one. As someone who has grown up in a family committed to small business and working in small business, I know what is like to give people a job. I know what it is like to interview someone. I know what is like to look at your cash flow and to work out if you can afford to give that person a chance, if you can afford to take a risk on that young person. To suggest that cutting the tax of small businesses will not lead to more jobs and more investment in our economy is absolutely absurd.
In conclusion, I would like to commend this bill to the House and I hope that the Labor Party will put aside populism and do what is good for this country.
I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I agree the challenge is for us to do what is right for the country. We have before the House, we have before the parliament and we have for the people of Australia two propositions. One is to give a $50 billion unaffordable tax cut to Australia's largest companies. The other is to improve school education funding to ensure that our kids have the resources in their schools to grow up, to get the education that will enable them to participate fully in the modern world. I cannot support an unaffordable tax cut to the biggest companies in this world and I challenge the government's proposition that this is going to benefit the Australian economy.
We have looked at the idea that this is going to add to jobs and growth and it has been found wanting on both counts. In fact, the government's own modelling has showed that the net contribution to growth of this initiative over 10 years will be less than one per cent. The benefits to the economy simply do not stack up. The costs to the budget and to the Australian people are obvious.
The member for Rankin and the government's finance spokesperson have released data this week which show the cost that this reckless initiative is going to have on the Australian economy and on the Australian budget. It has been revealed that the government has tripled the budget deficit—and we have a significant budget deficit—so we cannot afford this tax cut. It means we are going to have to borrow to fund it and we are going to have to pay interest on those borrowings somewhere in the order of $4 billion in additional interest charges. That is right. We are going to cost the budget $50 billion for the tax cut and we are going to accrue an interest bill of an additional $4 billion to give the wealthiest companies in Australia that $60 billion tax cut. If you break that down to a per capita level, that is going to cost every man, woman and child in Australia around $162 to give a $60 billion tax cut to some of Australia's wealthiest companies. We on this side simply cannot support this proposition. We will not be supporting it.
There are some propositions within this bill that Labor could support. We do believe that there is evidence that, if we give a tax cut to small businesses, it will support them and it will improve their competitiveness. But we do not support the proposition that you can redefine what a small business is to something with a turnover of $10 million. We propose a turnover of $2 million, much in keeping with what the average person in the street would understand to be a small business. Labor supports maintaining the thresholds for small business at $2 million, which is consistent with the ATO determinations. Small businesses do need support. They do not need to be squeezed out by their larger rivals reaping the rewards of the government's small business definitional change.
We learned in December through the MYEFO that deficits have blown out by another $10 billion over the forward estimates. The budget deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold to $28.7 billion from $2.8 billion since the LNP's first budget. Our AAA credit rating is already under pressure and this is going to blow it out of the water. We know, because of the projected deficit, this is going to ensure it will be the nail in the coffin for the AAA credit rating, thereby ensuring that Australians are paying more interest on the debt that this government is racking up because of these unaffordable or corporate tax cuts.
I have the great privilege of representing a regional electorate. Like so many people that I represent, I understand that it is important that we do whatever we can to ensure that they have the same sorts of opportunities available to them as are enjoyed by people in the capital cities and in the big urban centres. In regional Australia, people are often making do with circumstances that our metropolitan cousins take for granted or are living in circumstances that they simply would not tolerate. It is a great shame that the Liberal and National parties that represent many regional seats have failed to represent these regional areas adequately, and this bill is another example of that. I am yet to hear the case from any member who has spoken in this debate how these tax cuts are going to be good for regional Australia. The regional MPs on the government side are virtually silent on this issue. I asked the minister, in his closing remarks, if he could inform the House and through it the nation what proportion of businesses in regional Australia will benefit from the bill that is before the House today.
I submit my own figures based on some research that I have done—very simple research—but I will yield to anyone who can provide better data. I understand that in 2015 there were just over 2.1 million businesses in Australia, and just under a third of those could be found outside our capital cities. My deep concern is that, once implemented, this will be yet another policy which disproportionately advantages those capital city economies, leaving regions and their small businesses behind. Let us not forget that a tax cut is the same as government spending because it is money that is not available for another purpose.
Let us have a look at small business income. I am going to use income from unincorporated small businesses as a proxy for small business. Looking at this income data from 2012-13 and extrapolating forward, we can see where the benefits are going to flow from this government policy. They will overwhelmingly go to big businesses and businesses that are located in the capital cities, skewing against people who are operating businesses in regional Australia. The simple fact is that businesses in regional Australia are earning less. I have had a look at the Prime Minister's electorate. Average income from an unincorporated business in the electorate of Wentworth is $61,000 per annum. The national average is a little bit closer to $23,000, but in regional electorates it is a completely different story altogether. In some areas that you will be very familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton—the electorate of Page and the Richmond Valley—it is around $17,000 per annum. In the Clarence Valley, it is closer to $7,000 per annum. In Robertson, in Gosford, it is closer to $24,000 per annum. Down the coast from me in Gilmore on the south coast, it is a similar story—around $17,000 per annum. In that small snapshot, we can see that the benefits of this tax cut are overwhelmingly going to go to businesses that operate out of electorates like the Prime Minister's and, overwhelmingly disproportionately, not to electorates such as the one that you and I represent, where businesses are not earning the same level of income.
As I said, any tax cut is the same as government expenditure because it is money that is not available for another purpose. I have already said that this is money that could well and truly be spent in the area of education. That is, literally, the debate we are having. Today we have had people from around Australia visit us and lobby parliamentarians on the importance of additional school funding to provide higher standards of education for every child in the country, no matter where they live. These are the choices we have. We can deliver this $50 billion tax cut to, overwhelmingly, large businesses and skewed towards benefits in the capital cities, or we can provide funding for needs based education for every school in the country.
The numbers are roughly equivalent, I have to say. The government's own figures show the savings that they are booking for cancelling the final years of the Gonski school-funding formula are in the order of $30 billion. That is $30 billion that they are not going to be funding to our schools—savings that they are claiming and savings that will perhaps go to giving these big businesses a $50 billion tax cut. Most of that tax cut is going to go to overseas shareholders, by the way. It can hardly be argued that this is a benefit that is going to be captured 100 per cent within this country. That is simply not the case. I think most Australians will look at this and say: 'Well, if I've got a choice between investing in education, investing in our health and our hospital systems and investing in infrastructure which is going to truly make a difference to the productivity of regional areas, and providing a $50 billion tax cut to the big end of town, that's not a hard thing. You don't have to chew over that for too long.'
The argument is pretty simple to make. I have challenged the minister, when he sums up debate on this bill, to contradict what I have said—to contradict that simple proposition that the overwhelming benefit of this tax cut is going to go to businesses that operate in electorates like the Treasurer's or the Prime Minister's, certainly not in electorates like yours or mine, Deputy Speaker Coulton. I see the member for Wakefield is in the chamber at the moment. It certainly will not be going to businesses in his electorate. This is at a time when we know that regional disadvantage and inequality are growing. We have some choices to make in this parliament. We can advocate for policies and vote in favour of legislation which are entrenching that disadvantage, or we can advocate policies and advance legislation which mitigate that disadvantage and reduce inequality. I, for one, know the sorts of policies that each and every Labor member is going to be supporting. We will not be supporting this bill. If the government want to get any measures through that are going to provide some support to small business in this country, they will do the right thing. They will drop the unaffordable measures, and they will enter into discussions with Australian Labor about ensuring that we can deliver some benefits to small businesses at the same time as preserving our AAA credit rating and preserving some equity in the budget propositions.
There are challenges for the government. I very much doubt that this proposition is going to go much further than the distance between this House and the other place. The government have a choice as they frame the budget over the next few weeks. Will they include this measure in the budget and in the forward estimates, or will they do the right thing by Australians and drop it and move on to a more sensible proposition?
Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair.
Thank you, mate. That is a lovely compliment!
I will just remind the member for Whitlam of something. He talked about the definition of a small business. Obviously, not many on that side of the chamber have run businesses; they think $2 million is a lot of money. Back in 1980, my small business—and it was a small business; we only had five people—was turning over $5 million as a company, as a small business. If their definition is turnover, it makes a big difference. It should be profit that marks whether it is a big business or not. There are many small businesses, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, that are turning over well over $2 million and are not making the huge profits that the Labor Party think that small businesses make. They do not make those huge profits and they should understand that.
I rise today in strong support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016—a plan which is an integral part of this government's reform agenda to improve the state of Australia's tax system. It is a promise the coalition made to the Australian people in the budget—the same budget we took to the election. It was the election we won, which is proof the Australian people are supportive of this coalition government's economic plan for jobs and growth. I only hope Labor can put politics aside to ensure this important plan goes ahead, supporting greater investment and, in turn, more jobs for hardworking Australians.
As I mentioned, the enterprise tax plan is a key component to our economic plan. The enterprise tax plan benefits employees because, when businesses pay less tax, it frees up more money to pay employees more and, of course, give them more hours of work. As you know yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, it is all about return on investment. The more return we can make the better we can put that back into the economy and put it back into employees' pockets as well. It is known that lower taxes allow businesses to invest in themselves, allowing room for capital purchases, more equipment or more machinery and, in turn, requires them to invest in people, offering more hours and actively supporting growth and higher wages. It provides employers with the confidence for them to invest and grow their businesses. As we know on this side of the House, that effectively grows the Australian economy.
Our economy is transitioning. As a member in the great state of Western Australia, I have seen firsthand the positive impact of the investment phase of the mining boom, but now it is time for us to adjust as we transition into much broader based growth in our economy. As we do this, Australia is still growing faster than every G7 economy and our growth continues to be above the OECD average, which shows we are successfully transitioning our economy. I also remind those on the other side of the chamber that part of the slowdown in the Western Australian economy was due to two taxes they implemented: the mining tax and the carbon tax. They were both anti Western Australia taxes. To further this, it is time to give businesses the opportunity to invest, innovate and grow, and develop the support mechanisms for them to do so. To ensure we are best equipped to do this, now more than ever is the time to be supporting businesses and assisting them in their growth and, subsequently, job creation. That is why this enterprise tax plan is so important. It looks to encourage private investment. It looks to generate broader based growth for our economy.
For the benefit of the House, this bill makes a number of amendments to tax legislation to implement our budget commitment to progressively reduce company taxes over the next decade. The measures in the bill include an immediate reduction to the corporate tax rate to 27.5 per cent for the 2016-17 tax year for small businesses—that is, corporate tax entities with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million. There are more measures in the bill and I will get to those later.
The enterprise tax plan is fully funded and, as a 10-year staggered approach, will decrease the tax rate on all companies to 25 per cent by 2026-27—a plan which is not only providing certainty to business but also avoids a concentrated short-term impact on the budget. We heard before the member for Parramatta talk about other countries that invest in Australia having higher tax rates. I would like to correct her. She stated that the USA had a higher tax rate than the Australian economy. They currently do, but they have already signalled that they are going to reduce their tax rate to 15 per cent by the end of the year. So that was another false claim by those opposite with regard to this bill. This means a lower tax rate for around 870,000 businesses employing over 3.4 million workers across Australia.
On 15 September last year, the Senate referred the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016—this bill—to the Senate economics legislation committee for inquiry and report. I read the Labor senators' dissenting report on the bill. After suggesting a number of amendments, the Labor senators' report notes—and I am sure you will be surprised by this:
Labor Senators also call on the Government to abandon fiscal recklessness and instead work cooperatively to continue the work of budget repair in a way that is fair.
Again for the House and for you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz:
Labor Senators also call on the Government to abandon fiscal recklessness and instead work cooperatively ...
I would say that is an absolute joke coming from that side of the House when you saw the six years under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. For them to talk about fiscal recklessness, they have obviously forgotten about the carbon tax, the mining tax, pink batts, the BER—all the things that drove our economy into deficit and debt. I strongly suggest that side of the House take their own advice. After the six years of fiscal recklessness seen in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, they should work cooperatively with the coalition government in achieving real outcomes that contribute to our economic plan.
My electorate of Swan has close to 20,000 businesses. Within Swan we have the Kewdale-Welshpool industrial hub, the Belmont Business Park and Technology Park Bentley. Within Victoria Park, where my electorate office is located, is a cafe strip and multiple car yards. There are about 100 car yards in my electorate. In fact, I have spoken previously in this chamber about Victoria Park becoming a centre for junior sport and elite sport, with the new stadium due to be completed by early next year and an AFL training base located at Lathlain Park, to which the coalition gave $10 million for a $67 million infrastructure project. It has a long been a thriving area for small business in my electorate.
Might I mention that the coalition government also granted $6 million to the City of Belmont through the National Stronger Regions Fund, round 1, for the $12 million Belmont Business Park project. This project plays an integral role for small businesses in Swan as it aims to boost the revival of the City of Belmont's major business area by creating opportunity for the growth of a more diverse economy which will offer more job opportunities to meet the needs of the region. Also in my electorate, the Kewdale-Welshpool industrial hub is a key manufacturing area in Western Australia. It is also a premier freight and distribution centre that employs many of my local constituents. Over my nine years as local federal member of the area, I have made many connections in the Welshpool hub at the transport hub of Western Australia. In fact, I started my own business in Anvil Way off Division Street in Welshpool way back in 1988 and worked in the air-conditioning and refrigeration sector for over 25 years.
As you would know yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, the experience as a small-business owner can be very rewarding and very taxing. How you are going to pay the bills and how you are going to pay the wages keeps you awake at night. You put everything on the line. This is why the coalition government has an economic plan to support small businesses: to help them grow and prosper, and employ more people.
An example of a small business owner in Swan is Gem Gautam, who owns the Busy Bee Deli in Como. In October 2015 a fire destroyed the deli. Just over a year later, in November last year, Gem was able to reopen his deli. But this would not have been possible without the support of local community members and other local businesses. You see, Gem had never started from scratch before. So, he said, it took a lot of patience as he had to deal with the council, architects and tradies who helped him along the way and taught him a lot. In the local newspaper, when he re-opened his deli Gem said it was the support of the community that spurred him on to reopen the business during the 13-month period when he was unemployed. He said when renovations were going on people from the community and other businesses would knock on his door and ask when the deli would be open. He said that some of the local businesses gave him discounts, which he was thankful for.
As you can see just from that example, small businesses are an integral part of the Swan community, and all of them play a big part in driving the Australian economy. But, for too long, local business owners not only in my electorate of Swan but across the country have been forced to watch their own incomes decline and to reach into their own pockets just to keep people in work. This has meant people have kept their jobs and wages to support their families, but at a great cost to many small-business owners. For too long now, small businesses have been forced to make great sacrifices for this nation's economy.
Running small businesses seems to be a common theme on this side of the House. We have business experience. Many of my colleagues over here on the government side have real-life business experience which holds us in very good stead as we take measures like this that actively support and encourage Australian businesses. The member for Wright—you, Mr Deputy Speaker—ran a very successful trucking business in Queensland. The member for Gilmore ran a fudge-making business. Our Treasurer was a CEO and senior executive in various industry bodies and government agencies. I could go on. I know there are numerous of those. I see another member—one from the Nationals—sitting in here. The member for Flynn still runs and owns businesses. On the other side of the House, there is, I have noticed, a lack of business experience. It has been an ongoing obstacle in achieving real outcomes for Australian businesses. But what do you really expect from the Labor Party, whose experience in small business is as extensive as their understanding of how this bill will support local businesses and trigger economic growth and resources?
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced last year it supports the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill, particularly the progressive reduction in Australia's company tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses by 2026-27. The chamber also made a submission to the Senate inquiry, which I agree with far more than I do the Labor senators' report. Treasury modelling indicates that by reducing Australia's company tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent, we would be boosting Australia's national income by 0.6 to 0.7 per cent, including a 0.4 to 1.1 per cent increase in take-home pay for workers. In their submission, the chamber notes that this boost in living standards should provide support for our government's proposed company tax reforms. It includes a two-page table that provides reasonable and factual responses to many of the poor objections made by those across the other side of the House.
Similarly, the Business Council has also thrown their support behind the bill, noting, 'Australia is falling behind in the global contest for new investment,' and highlighting the need for Australia to remain competitive in, and attractive for, investment. I refer to one of the key points made in the Business Council's submission, which I think will resonate in this chamber:
Choosing not to pass this Bill in its entirety would be a decision to let Australia fall further behind other countries and give up on competitiveness and building future prosperity. It would be a decision to continue imposing self-inflicted harm on the Australian economy, workers and households. We cannot afford not to pass this Bill.
Again, they said, 'We cannot afford not to pass this bill.' These recommendations and this resounding support came from a range of industry associations and industry bodies. Yet, thoseopposite still cannot quite grasp the benefits andimportance of these measures—which, come to think of it, is quite surprising given thatin 2011 the Leader for the Opposition himself said:
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.
Has he backflipped on that? We have not heard about that, but I could not have put it better myself. In addition to this, the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, in 2013 in his book Hearts & Minds wrote:
… it's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
It is a Labor thing. I tend to disagree with the member for McMahon because the only Labor thing we have seen in relation to this bill is cynical and opportunistic politics that now is the greatest threat to the Australian economy. But it does not stop there. In addition to this, the shadow Treasurer told the ABC's Lateline in 2014:
I'd like to see it lower over time. I think we've had 14 years of having the corporate tax rate stable. That's too long. Over time, I'd like to see it lowered.
But it gets even better. He continued:
As the alternative Treasurer, I'm telling you that I think it would be a better thing if Australia's … tax rate was more competitive …
These are statements they have made again and again, but they are all backflipping on them now.
After proposing just that, the shadow Treasurer—or the alternative Treasurer, as he likes to call himself—says he cannot support this bill. Labor is demanding that small- and medium-sized businesses pay nearly $5 billion more in tax but is refusing to support more than $6 billion in savings in our welfare system to get the budget back into balance. As they say, it is the Labor thing to want Australians to pay more tax to support a larger welfare system.
In contrast to this, our government—through this bill, the National Innovation and Science Agenda, the crackdown on multinational tax avoidance and a range of other measures—is proactive in its efforts to raise the living standards for hardworking Australians. This bill is designed to drive investment in our economy, support jobs and wages. I commend the bill to the House.
In parliamentary terms I am, of course, very new here and I am still figuring out the code and why things happen and so on. I remember some advice to new members from former Prime Minister Paul Keating, with whom the current government is developing an unhealthy obsession. He said to new members that, in his view, it takes at least six or seven years here before you figure out the procedures and also get that internal sense of when something is right and when something is wrong—the code, the flow.
So I have been sitting here wondering, reflecting and trying to figure out why it has taken so long to debate this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill, to cut company tax. Its first reading was 1 September. We have passed its six-month anniversary. It is supposedly the key part, the centrepiece, of the government's urgent plan for jobs and growth. So why not keep it high on the Notice Paper, instead of having it bouncing on and off the list in dribs and drabs and meandering through over six months, and just push it through with their numbers if they actually believe it is important. So I listened and watched and the conclusion I have drawn is that of course you behave like this if you do not actually have a plan but want everyone to think you do. You would say it a thousand times over many weeks and months, hoping eventually that someone might believe it to be true, like the fictitious plan at the election for jobs and growth. For eight weeks we and the rest of Australia were subject to this 'jobs and growth' phrase repeated ad nauseam to the point of nausea by the PM and Treasurer every hour of every day and every interview everywhere: jobs and growth. Propaganda in its classical definition: statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader or a government.
At the centre of this scam, this sham, is this $50 billion tax giveaway. In truth, of course, there is no plan. There was a blue and yellow logo, a website and a slogan and a massive unaffordable giveaway to the big end of town, to get them over the line. In question time this week we have heard the Treasurer's refusal to back-in his own policy in the budget—the hints that they will just dump it and walk away, and probably blame 18C or something for that. It fails every test.
I want to touch on four aspects of the tests that, in my view, this proposal fails at this time—fiscally, economically, the test of fairness, and the political test. Does it make fiscal sense? Of course not. We are in deficit—tripled actually under this government's watch. They love to remind us and tell us this, as if they have not actually been the government for the last four years. It is a massive giveaway to big companies that rips an enormous hole in the budget, unless of course you are going to cut spending by the same amount. It is galling, given the lectures we have to put up with from those opposite about fiscal restraint, to see that the government has run up another $100 billion in debt and has tripled the deficit. The then Prime Minister Abbott, the now sad, dejected and somewhat demented member for Warringa, ran up spending and debt under his watch. Of course it would be nice to cut company tax. We keep getting these quotes thrown back of this. Of course it would be nice. We can understand the case put forward, but it is not affordable in the present circumstances.
In previous speeches we have heard a lot about Hawke and Keating. I think the government is becoming obsessed with and jealous of that enormous legacy that Australia today still lives off. Howard had 11 years and did the GST and then went to sleep and went on a spendathon with the mining boom. What other single piece of economic structural reform to rival the Hawke and Keating years could that side claim? Keating lowered the company tax rate from 49 per cent. I had the misfortune of having to sit here on chamber duty and listen to the contribution in the last sitting week from the member for Hughes. He talked about how Keating lowered the tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. But there are a couple of critical points that are conveniently missed. The Treasury summary to this bill says:
… company tax rate reductions had largely corresponded with base broadening measures, such as the removal of accelerated depreciation.
That is right. Not all the previous cuts were fully at the expense of the budget, or running up debt, or cutting services and investments. Some of the reductions in the headline rate that those opposite love to crow about were funded through making the tax more efficient and by broadening the base. So with the 49 per cent to 39 per cent one go in 1988, which we are still hearing about, they are pretending it is a straight cut or is somehow comparable to this giveaway to corporate Australia. It is a special kind of love that you have discovered for that great Labor man, and in that respect we welcome it. But I went back and had a look at what Keating actually said in his statement in 1988:
The Government is to cut the corporate tax rate in one step, from 49 cents to 39 cents, to give Australian companies a tax structure more than competitive with the rest of the world.
… the Government has decided to lower the company tax rate by removing some tax concessions.
That is, lowering the company tax rate by broadening the company tax base.
So instead of tax breaks only being available to select businesses, with others shouldering the burden, all companies will now enjoy a lower tax rate.
In other words, a better and fairer company tax system.
Of course, there are tax reforms that broadening the base, like capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax, which the other side opposed at the time. It was not a massive tax giveaway for little or no return and is materially different.
In a modern parallel you could say that if they were serious about proper tax reform rather than just this tax cut, which is a giveaway to multinationals and big companies, they might come in here with a proper multinational avoidance package that actually broadens the base and improves the integrity and efficiency of the tax system and offset some of this revenue that is going to be lost. It is a sham and a fig leaf.
The second test I would run it past would be the economic sense test. In my view it fails, putting aside the government's tendency to get the economics confused with the budget. The claimed dividend from this enormous tax cut is tiny at best, and even that is highly questionable. The Treasury figures, not ours, which this whole thing relies on, say there is a one per cent increase in the long-term change in GDP—that is in 10 years. So something might start to happen 10 years from now and in 20 years we might get a one per cent boost to the economy. It is not a great return for $50 billion and it is a bad choice. But, like any modelling, it is heavily dependent on the assumptions. I used to do a lot of modelling and business cases for both sides of politics. The saying in the public service goes 'crap in, crap out', in terms of a model. It relies on the assumptions. Not everyone agrees with the Treasury model anyway. The Grattan Institute suggests that it is more like 0.6 per cent and not one per cent. The Australia Institute, taking a broader view, says there is little to no evidence from Australian economic history or in overseas jurisdictions that a race to the bottom on company tax actually spurs growth, as the government claims. The Treasury concedes that its modelling assumes that any government spending cuts to fund the reduction in company tax would be from wasteful spending. Hang on! There is apparently $50 billion of wasteful spending hanging around the budget. I highly doubt that, because the task of budget repair, as everyone knows post the GFC, is difficult. The member for Lilley on his watch restrained growth in spending enormously. He introduced myriad savings measures and revenue collapsed further still. I hear the screeches from those opposite, but these are the facts. In the period where growth was over two per cent, real payments rose on average under his treasurership by only 0.4 per cent. They can deny the numbers and deny the facts, but they are the facts. That is what the historical budget papers say—by far the lowest of any modern Treasurer since John Howard was Treasurer.
The government must come clean on what exactly they propose to cut to fund this enormous tax giveaway. It is a bit like 18C—what do you propose that people can say that they cannot say now? What do you propose that we cut from the budget to fund this $50 billion tax cut? We know this trick, people know this trick: cut corporate tax now, say it is about investment, then next year there is a bigger deficit, so more cuts to basic services. It is a scam and a sham.
The third test is: is it fair? No, no, no, no, no, no and no. Inequality is at a 75-year high in this country. Oxfam pointed out in their recent report that the top one per cent now own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. The two richest Australians own more than the combined wealth of the poorest 20 per cent.
Government members interjecting—
The response from those opposite in the chamber is absolutely typical. Any time anyone on this side gets up and talks about inequality and says the P word—poverty—they laugh. That is exactly what happens—every time. What is the government's response to inequality? Cut pensions, cut the wages of 700,000 mainly low-income workers, cut Medicare, cut school funding, fight to the death to protect tax breaks for the top 10 per cent, and give away $50 billion to big companies, most of which, we know, goes offshore to multinational shareholders or the big banks.
The final test you have to run these things past, of course, is: is it politically smart? In my view it fails the fiscal test, it fails the economic test and it will worsen inequality, but it is also profoundly bad politics. It is not our job to give political observations or advice to the government. In the scheme of things, if you want to stand over there and bash yourselves over the head in the face of community sentiment, then go for it. That is great. Why not? But, in another sense, all responsible legislators—whichever party we are from—should be concerned about this, because people are not stupid. There is immense frustration in the community with members of parliament and our performance. There is a feeling that politics is not acting in the best interests of the nation or everyday Australians. There is a feeling that the system is rigged to the benefit of the rich and powerful. And we have this kind of raid on our collective wealth—taking $50 billion, as the opposition leader has said, from the national ATM and giving literally billions away. This is your analysis; it is the independent analysis: if you do this, billions of dollars of this tax cut flow straight offshore to multinational shareholders and to the big banks. What evidence is there that that giveaway creates any new investment? There is none; it proves the point.
In my view, we are being sold a con to brainwash us into thinking that this race to the bottom is somehow inevitable—roll over, cop your medicine, cut the health system, cut the schools, skim money off the people who have least. Leave the middle-income earners paying far too much income tax while corporates pay less and less. What is nirvana? We take the rate to 25, then someone else goes to 20. So we go, 'We better go to 20,' and someone else goes to 15. Is it zero? Companies should pay zero? That would be nirvana, would it? In my view it is not inevitable. Domestically, this reminds me of that silly game, that damaging game, played by Australian state governments to outbid each other with bribes to lure companies from one state to the other to set up shop. There was no net benefit, it was costly to the taxpayer, and eventually a truce was declared. Conceptually, nations can do the same. It should not be beyond the wit of the international community and the developed countries of the world to say, 'Enough. We cannot keep this race to the bottom going, so everyone gets to zero. That is a nonsense. I do not think we are at the point yet where sovereign governments are prepared to say 'enough'. They are still in the thrall of the dying neoliberal god—except Donald Trump; that is an interesting side point, but we do not have time—cut tax, cut spending, live within our means, but with no concern for having the means to live.
There is some glimmer of hope, and I will close with this example. Some people get it. They are not stupid and I do not believe that, ultimately, sensible communities will support this race to the bottom on corporate taxes. In the last month, there is the example of Switzerland, home to 24,000 multinationals. There was a proposal put to voters by the Swiss government on 12 February to reform corporate taxation arrangements. It was put to voters and was rejected by voters. Sixty per cent of voters in Switzerland, when they had it in front of them, said no. There was a case for reform, certainly, in Switzerland of state and national tax arrangements. The government and business argued that without reform foreign companies would quit the country for other places—they would go to the Cayman Islands and to tax havens. But the voters saw through the proposal. They understood that, ultimately, someone has to pay—that the tax shortfall would always be borne through other taxes, such as income taxes or a GST, maybe. That will be the next thing: 'There is a deficit. We cut company tax and we have run out of money. Let's jack up the GST.' Someone will always pay, or there will be spending cuts. So, what happened? Well, they will think through it further, and life goes on in Switzerland. In fact, the global advisory firm, EY, that left-wing radical bunch of hippies, EY's tax advisory people, published a note in late February after the result. They said:
Despite the referendum and the resulting delay of tax reform, Switzerland remains an attractive business location with its highly skilled workforce, excellent infrastructure, and the overall attractive tax environment.
Of course, this debate is premised on the myth that somehow all the companies here pay 30 per cent. The average effective tax rate is about 24 per cent, and paying tax has become optional for so many of the large multinationals. Does anyone really think that if we had a proper crack at multinational tax reform somehow Google and Apple would shut up shop and go somewhere else, that they are not going to sell things here? Australia does not have to be pushed into this race to the bottom on company tax. If we could afford it in the current fiscal situation, great. But it is about choices. It is fiscally irresponsible. It would smash the budget and mean either tax rises in other areas—consumption or income—or massive spending cuts. They are the choices. That is what will happen. It is economically irresponsible with little to no economic benefit. It would worsen inequality and it is politically dumb, as people are not stupid. We should reject it.
It is a pleasure to rise on the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. The premise behind where the government is taking this is quite simple: we want to spur investment and enterprise within Australia. We want to unlock the native elements, the native attributes, the hardworking entrepreneurialism and the skills of Australians. We want to provide an incentive for jobs and growth. It is fairly simple, as so much of economics tends to be. That is why this bill moves forward on a company tax cut; it moves forward on a Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan; and it moves forward on small business tax relief.
There was a time when the opposition believed in these things as well. The Leader of the Opposition said in 2011:
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.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I think that what he said in 2011 was wise and sensible. He was a minister. It was right. And because I think the Leader of the Opposition is right in what he said in 2011, I think we should read it again. The Leader of the Opposition, as a minister in a Labor government, believed that cutting the company tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. Of course it does. It provides more money for corporations to invest into new technology, new systems and new approaches—which of course equals productivity—and new investment in capital, people or in a multifactor sense.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
A company tax cut, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, leads to more jobs and higher wages. Hallelujah—I'm in! Let's go! We now have a bill before the House to do exactly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted.
Let's look at what the Shadow Treasurer had to say in his book Hearts and minds. It is a wonderful book, I am sure. Let's quote from the Shadow Treasurer:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
Jobs and growth—I thought that was our mantra. I thought jobs and growth is what we are about. I thought jobs and growth is what the Liberal and National parties took to the last election, where we won a mandate for this tax plan. It turns out that jobs and growth has been used before by the member for McMahon in his book:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
That is what they used to believe. The problem is that things quickly change. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation he also said.
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
So the Leader of the Opposition is speaking again, casting the net wider now. 'Any student of Australian business and economic history'—any student. If the Leader of the Opposition is so sure of himself, that must mean everyone here—He has spoken for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, he has spoken for me, he has spoken for those opposite, on the other side: any student of Australian business and history since the eighties knows our success was derived from a reduction in the company tax rate. Well, here we are with a bill before the House to build on that success. On 13 March 2012 the Leader of the Opposition said on Sky News:
We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.
We do need to make life easier. How about we do something that leads to economic growth, more jobs and higher wages? How about we do that? In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that looks like a company tax cut.
The Leader of the Opposition further addressed the Institute of Chartered Accountants on 6 April 2011:
The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus—
I can see him; it is almost Churchillian—
on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest ... Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.
I agree. Let's take the step. Let's go! He continues:
This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over the past 30 years.
It seems that everyone on the opposition benches is talking about investment, jobs and growth linked to a company tax cut. We agree. Let's go!
Let's go on back to the Shadow Treasurer's book Hearts and minds. He wrote a chapter there promoting growth through cutting company tax. What—there is a whole chapter called that? 'Promoting growth through cutting company tax'? Let's read those wise words:
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.
What? Cutting taxes leads to jobs?
Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is more competitive. It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax …
It is a Labor thing. Referring to the company tax cut, the Shadow Treasurer goes on to say:
I'd like to see it lower over time. I think we've had 14 years of having the corporate tax rate stable. That's too long. Over time, I'd like to see it lowered.
On 4 December 2014, the Shadow Treasurer on ABC Lateline, said:
As the alternative Treasurer, I'm telling you that I think it would be a better thing if Australia's corporate tax rate was more competitive.
It goes on and on. Here we have the two most senior parts of the opposition saying the same thing at least 10 times: if you cut the company tax rate, it will lead to higher productivity, more investment, more jobs and greater growth.
We agree. In fact everyone agrees, and the Leader of the Opposition was correct when he said that any student of history and politics and student of this place also knows that this has to be done. Even the member for Bruce, who was speaking before, a member who has spent his entire life working in the public sector, on the public teat if you will, even he made the point that 'We would love to do a cut to the company tax rate, but now is not the time.' Really? So when is the time to do it? Does only Labor know when the time is? The time is now. A company tax cut leads to more jobs, higher growth, higher wages, stronger investment and greater productivity. We know it; those opposite know it; economists know it. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition, any student of this place knows it. We need to do it.
The member for Bruce would like to suggest that it is a race to the bottom, that other nations or jurisdictions are lowering their company tax rate and so are we, and we should all link hands and sing 'Kumbaya' and together make some decisions on keeping the company tax rate at a certain level. What sort of fairyland is the member for Bruce in? What sort of land of nonsense, where we can all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'? I remember in 1986, the International Year of Peace, 46 wars raged across the globe. The violence across our world today is greater than that, but the member for Bruce believe we can all hold hands and keep the company tax rate high together. Competition—the free enterprise—is what has fuelled our development and our growth, not some sort of public sector la la land nonsense.
So, what are we facing out there in a globalised world where companies have choices on where they can land jurisdiction-wise? The United Kingdom, for example, reduced its main corporate tax rate in stages from 30 per cent in 2008 to 20 per cent from 1 April 2015. They are 30 per cent more efficient in terms of taxation than we are. From 2008 to 2014, Canada reduced its main corporate tax rate from an average of 36.1 per cent to 26.5 per cent—there are some provincial differences—and Singapore went from 20 per cent to 17 per cent. Companies have choices. We need a more competitive tax rate if we are going to attract foreign capital. Ever since ships landed on these shores in 1788 we have needed foreign capital to grow. Australia is a great place to do business—a marvellous place. It will be a better place with a lower tax rate. Our Enterprise Tax Plan will boost the Australian economy. It will encourage employers to employ. As the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have said, it will lead to higher growth, more jobs and higher wages. It will give businesses the certainty that this is a fabulous place to invest in. It will give long-term investments the opportunity, through that stability, to see some real growth come along.
There is broad consensus—there always has been—amongst economists and those in business that higher rates of corporation tax undermine investment and economic growth. Even the OECD have said:
… corporate income taxes are the most harmful for growth as they discourage the activities of firms that are most important for growth: investment in capital and productivity improvements.
Now everyone from the OECD to the Leader of the Opposition to the shadow Treasurer to anyone who is a student of this place is talking about linking the company tax rate with growth and jobs. It seems that the only people right now who are not talking about that linkage are those poor, miserable souls opposite, who, for the sake of sheer politics, are saying, 'No, we don't want to help you companies become more competitive.'
According to the UK government, cutting the main rate of corporation tax from 28 per cent to 20 per cent has been a central part of their economic strategy, contributing to the economic recovery by supporting business investment and job creation. Business investment increased by 11 billion pounds, according to Oxford University, on the back of those corporate tax cuts. In 2013 the UK government published analysis modelling the long-term economic impact of the corporation tax cuts. It found that the cuts could increase GDP by between 0.6 and 1.3 per cent—extraordinary.
The numbers speak for themselves. The evidence is overwhelming, from lower-tax jurisdictions to the OECD. In fact, in years gone by, those opposite have known it, have passionately advocated for it, have tried a little bit to achieve it and, when it got hard, have walked from it.
The member for Swan, as he left, threw me a speech, with some highlighted bits. It is a cracker! The first lines are:
The four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the strength of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies.
In an uncertain and fast-changing world, we walk tall—
No, you do not walk tall! What those opposite left was a disaster. This was the appropriation speech from 2012-13, the member for Lilley speaking on 8 May 2012. All that was left were deficits in the tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars. In that speech they announced a $3.7 billion small business tax break. Where is it? Where did that tax break go? Why isn't it there? At the end of the speech the member for Lilley said:
… our multi-speed economy is putting pressure on businesses that aren't in the fast lanes.
… … …
We'll encourage companies to invest and innovate …
… … …
This will support businesses …
No, they did not! The did not do anything. They talked about it. Oh, they talked about it, and there were photo shoots and videos and standing in front of pie shops. They talked about it but never, ever delivered it.
The shadow Treasurer had an aim, an ambition—25 per cent, he wanted; that was his aim, his target. Well, now is the opportunity to actually put all the words, all the rhetoric, all the statements over so many years to the test and vote for a sensible enterprise tax plan. It makes sense. It will lead, as the numerous words of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have said, to higher growth, more jobs, higher wages, greater productivity, greater investment. I encourage the House, I encourage those opposite. The government is not asking you to do anything other than what you said you would do. The government is not asking you to keep any promise or any word other than that which you promised and that which those opposite said they would keep. The government is simply asking Labor to stand up— (Time expired)
What a ridiculous contribution from the member for Fadden, who must exist in an ahistorical vacuum in which the last four years have not occurred. I know that the last four years have not been good for the member for Fadden and I can understand why he would want to blot them out. But since his party has been in government, they have tripled the deficit and increased net debt by $100 billion. Let me repeat this: for all their cant about fiscal management, they have failed on fiscal policy. They have tripled the deficit, increase net debt by $100 billion and put us on a very dubious trajectory for a balanced budget. That is the context for this debate on company tax cuts.
Unfortunately, that has not been the only ridiculous contribution from the members opposite. My particular favourite was the revival of the discredited Laffer curve by the member for Reid, who is normally slightly more sensible. He is not one of their extremists—he has been quite good on things like 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—but he was caught out arguing the Laffer curve, which was all very fashionable in the 1980s. It advocated that somehow you could cut taxes and that would increase revenue and pay for the tax cut. It was discredited by the Reagan tax cuts and by the Thatcher tax cuts. Quite frankly, it was beneath the member for Reid, but that is what they have been arguing for.
I will put one simple question to the government: if somehow we are facing this massive crisis of international tax competition, why do the full tax cuts not cut in sooner? We are facing almost a full decade before the tax cuts are achieved and so, if we had some competition crisis, why do they not occur earlier? The truth is: this is a rubbish plan. It is a rubbish plan based on the very dodgy fiscal situation. In the end, when we look at the alternatives this money could be used for, there are much better things that would drive economic growth in this country.
Let us leave aside the language. What do we know about the impact of this bill? We know the fiscal cost—$48 billion of cost to taxpayers in an environment where the deficit has tripled and net debt has blown out. We know that, as revealed by costings done by the Parliamentary Budget Office, we are facing $4 billion interest bill because this will be financed by debt. On top of the $48 billion cost, there will be a $4 billion interest bill. We know from Goldman Sachs, the Prime Minister's favourite merchant bank, that at least 60 per cent of the benefit will flow overseas to foreign investors—at least 60 per cent, because we have in this country a little thing called 'dividend imputation'. It means that domestic investors will not benefit from the tax cut.
We also know—because the government has not refuted it, and they have not even made the effort to put out a media release on it—that the biggest single beneficiary of this tax cut will be the US government. The US Inland Revenue Service will gain eight billion of the $48 billion because of the gap between their tax rate and ours. Basically, they tax their corporations' foreign earnings on the difference between the US tax rate and the tax rate of the home country where the profits are earned. If they reduce their tax rate, and we will see whether that happens, but if they do not, on current tax rates we will see an $8 billion contribution from the taxpayers Australia to the US government. Such is the farcical nature of this plan.
Let's look at the economic theory that this is based on: that somehow we are in a competition crisis and we desperately need to implement this plan, and we need to do it very fast, over 10 years. Somehow we need to do this because we are lagging behind on the investment attraction stakes. Let me confess to the House that there is no firm evidence, if you look at OECD growth rates, that links company tax rates with economic growth. Quite frankly, there is limited evidence about whether there is a relationship between corporate tax rates and investment attraction. Companies invest in countries for a whole of reasons—tax rates being one of them, an educated workforce being another and proximity to markets being a third. There are many reasons that tax rates are not the be all and end all of investment attraction, and every serious economist will acknowledge it.
Let's look at the government's own modelling, which is based on some incredibly heroic assumptions. It assumes that the massive fiscal black hole that this creates, the $48 billion, is either replaced with a non-distorting income tax—I cannot see this government doing it—or a $48 billion cut in government expenditure. They have not fessed up to where they are going to cut the $48 billion of government expenditure, and so it assumes that. The modelling also assumes perfect competition—another furphy that there is perfect competition in Australia. It also assumes full employment—patently untrue. It also assumes that there is zero government debt, a balanced budget and a single representative household. This is the basis of the government modelling that the government has been hiding behind—ridiculous assumption after assumption that thoroughly discredits the modelling.
Let's look at the actual outcome of this modelling. It projects that in 20 or 25 years' time there will be a 0.1 per cent increase in employment. It also assumes that the net welfare gain to households—the real impact on households—is again 0.1 per cent. We are looking at driving a $48 billion hole in the government budget for a 0.1 per cent increase in jobs and economic welfare in 20 or 25 years' time. That is beyond ridiculous, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it shows the economic incompetence of the government.
Let's also look at reputable third parties and what they have said about this tax cut. We have found that the Grattan Institute—no friend of the Labor Party—a centrist think tank—
Government members interjecting—
Sorry, who happens to be on the Grattan Institute? The Prime Minister's own wife is on the board of the Grattan Institute—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. You will have your opportunity.
I will take that interjection from the member who claims that the Prime Minister's wife is on the board of a Labor-controlled think tank. Thank you for that interjection. No-one can argue that the Grattan Institute is not centrist because they criticise plenty of Labor policies as well as government policies. They have found that this corporate tax cut will lead to a $4 billion reduction in national income. Let me repeat that: a $4 billion reduction in national income. The Victoria University's modelling confirms this: they also found a very significant drop in national income. There are real concerns about the economic impact of this tax cut, and we need to contemplate that, even if the government's modelling is true and we see capital inflow, what we will see is capital deepening. We will see an increase in the capital investment in this country if their modelling and assumptions are true, which is a big if, and we will see a reduction in labour's share of income. Labour's share of income will decline. If labour's share of income declines, what we will see is a rise in inequality. This is in a period of the highest inequality in this country in over 75 years. What they are proposing, if it works, is capital deepening leading to a reduction in labour's share of income and leading to an increase in inequality. The OECD and the IMF—hardly raging lefties—have found that increasing inequality is bad for economic growth. Increasing equality drives economic growth, so this proposal is dubious all round economically.
Let us look at the alternatives, because you cannot fund something to the tune of $48 billion in a vacuum. You cannot fund it in a vacuum. You need to look at what the alternatives are that the government could be doing with this funding. One classic example is education funding—$48 billion would be a massive boost to education funding in this country. Most serious economic commentators have said that funding education and skills training is one of the most direct ways of increasing economic growth in this country. Investing in human capital, which is what you do when you invest in education, is a great boon for an economy, so that is one way of using that $48 billion. You could use the $48 billion to tackle inequality in this country and try and reduce and reverse the 75-year-high inequality.
As I said before, the OECD and the IMF have found direct linkages between reducing inequality and economic growth, and I would submit that a $48 billion assault on increasing equality would have a much higher economic dividend than a 0.1 per cent increase in household welfare in 25 years time. You could invest it in innovation to drive more commercialisation of products in this country. You could do a range of things that would boost this country. Forty-eight billion dollars in infrastructure expenditure would unlock massive economic potential in this country—removing congestion and increasing economic productivity. I am absolutely certain that if that money was wisely invested according to Infrastructure Australia's priorities we would have an economic dividend well in excess of this boondoggle.
Let us go to the basis of this. The true political basis for this tax cut is the hopeless and desperate attempt of this government to find an economic agenda—to find a political narrative. That is because for 3½ years they have just blindly walked through the desert of this government, blindly walked through without an agenda other than cuts and attacking Labor's legacy. At the last budget they said: 'Righto, we're desperate. We need something. We have a slogan—jobs and growth—and we need to have something underneath it.' So they came up with this $48 billion of tax cuts. They jury-rigged up some modelling from Treasury based on some very dubious assumptions, and that is their central agenda. There are real question marks around whether they will even include it in the budget papers for this year. We saw in question time today that after direct questions to the Treasurer—a man more interested in bringing lumps of coal to question time than serious economic challenges in this country—he could not answer a straight question about whether or not he would be including the cost of the tax cuts in that budget. So this government, despite all their supposed commitments to jobs and growth, are already contemplating junking the central tenet of it—a central tenet based on Laffer curve rubbish; a central tenet based on supposedly falling behind, despite the fact that the tax cuts do not kick in for 10 years at their full extent. That is what we are debating in this country.
In conclusion, what do we know? We know that it will cost the budget $48 billion at a time when this government has tripled the deficit. Strip away all the verbiage of this debate and we are debating a $48 billion expenditure, which is what this is, in a context of them tripling the deficit and increasing net debt by $100 billion for an economic gain, even if it is achieved, in 20 to 25 years time. This is what we are debating in this place.
We should be having a genuine debate about how we can repair the budget, how we can invest in productivity in this country and how we can invest in infrastructure. Instead, we have this tired old debate—these tired old talking lines from previous government members and particularly the member for Fadden. Instead, we should be debating serious national issues. I am deeply disappointed that this is the best the government could do. If the government was really serious about getting this through parliament, this would have been the first bill debated. We are about seven or eight months into this government and we are now finally talking about this bill, so yet again their actions do not match their rhetoric.
I am happy to engage in this debate, I am happy to have a serious discussion about competitiveness in this country, but I would submit that investing in education, investing in our workforce, investing in infrastructure to clear the congestion that is strangling our capital cities and investing in infrastructure to open up regions such as mine in the Hunter Valley would be a much better use of taxpayers' money than this corporate tax cut. Again, $8 billion of it will go to the US Internal Revenue Service, $8 billion will go to the big four banks, 60 per cent of the benefits will flow overseas and we will pay $4 billion in interest charges. I conclude by saying that this is a sham. This government should be doing better, but yet again they demonstrate, despite all the rhetoric, that the coalition are hopeless economic managers, and there is no greater symbol of that than this bill.
I always love listening to the member for Shortland. He is a member of a party that has never found any reason to cut taxes for anyone ever—except for foreign backpackers. That is the only time the Labor Party has ever supported a tax cut in this House.
We have built a successful nation—a nation that has created a modern and dynamic economy, brought people from all over the world and created a cohesive community, one in which you can achieve whatever you aspire to. We have done this peacefully. There has never been a war on our soil. We are part of one of the greatest global networks for peace in the history of humanity. We did all of this and more as individuals working together as a community—not as a government imposing these things upon us. At the heart of this question—at the heart of this bill—is whether you believe our community is better off with an overreaching government or you believe empowering individuals and communities delivers a more prosperous and just society. We on this side have always known that there is no social justice without economic growth and that work can provide meaning and dignity in life.
Those opposite speak of companies as if they are a cancer on our society, something that must be eliminated, something that must be stopped and something that must be purged from our economy and our country. When on its fourth go the Fair Work Commission created and selected by Labor decided to reform penalty rates, what was the response from those opposite? Apparently business owners are not workers. Apparently business owners are parasites living on the toil and sweat of those working for them.
Nothing has upset people in my area more than being told that, when they work on Sundays because they have to pay their mortgages, pay rent and pay for electricity and they bring their partners, parents, cousins or uncles to work because they cannot afford to employ people on penalty rates but they cannot afford not to open, they are not workers. They have put their houses and their financial futures on the line and they are told that they are not workers. Nothing has upset them more than that.
The reality is that real wages have not been growing in this country. That is an economic reality for a lot of Australians. Not everyone has felt the positive effect of our move towards globalisation, and there are some, shining a light on the glory of the past, who wish for us to regress, to move to protectionist policies when it comes to the economy. At what a risk? At what cost? When in the history of the world has going backwards ever taken us forward? I would ask those advocating for this shift: when have policies such as free trade ever harmed our people?
Take companies like Incat Crowther in my electorate. This is a company that designs boats and has won many international contracts for the delivery of equipment to offshore oil and gas platforms. It is currently bidding with another Australian firm for a $750 million contract with the US military. These are companies that have benefited from globalisation and, in benefiting, have been able to employ more Australians and pay more tax in Australia. Going down that path of turning our backs on globalisation is a slippery slope towards economic disaster.
That does not mean that we should ignore the reality we are faced with. The mining investment boom is over. The days of a society flush with cash and blessed with high commodity prices and low interest rates are coming to an end. Simply ignoring economic reality, demanding ever higher subsidies while accepting ever lower standards, like those opposite like to do, is living in fantasy land. We need to find policies that work. If we can grow the economy, that means more jobs for Australians. More jobs for Australians means Australians can spend more money in our economy.
There are companies in my electorate, such as Dematic, that manufacture here in Australia and are employing more Australians because of the investment that they have been able to make in capital equipment. These are companies that are making a huge contribution to our economy. The more Australians they employ the more Australians who are no longer unemployed or underemployed and the more Australians who are actively contributing to our society and can support their families and communities. That is social justice.
There are Australians who temporarily fall on hard times, often through no fault of their own. There are Australians who are not able to participate in the workforce because of mental or physical impairments. There are people who simply need help and, as a community, we cannot ignore that. That is why we have a welfare system. But we also cannot ignore that money does not fall from the sky. We need to find ways to sustainably fund our welfare system. Endlessly borrowing money which our children and grandchildren will one day need to pay back is not a solution. Debt is nothing more than delayed taxation.
Ultimately, this bill aims to do just that. It is our proposal to grow the economy, to grow jobs for Australians and to sustainably fund our welfare system. In my electorate, companies such as PharmaCare have made massive improvements because of investments they have been able to make in their companies. Those investments have allowed them to employ more Australians, to grow their businesses and to ultimately pay more tax.
While at first glance it seems like reducing the corporate tax rate may mean less income for the government and so less money for social welfare, that is a short-sighted conclusion. That is why the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has pointed out that the last three corporate tax cuts have already more than paid for themselves in economic growth and income.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
I see the member for Shortland is still hanging on to the delusion that the Grattan Institute is not a Labor front. I will leave him over there to do that. In the long term, cutting taxes now means companies investing more to grow so their turnovers increase and, in real terms, they end up paying more tax. That is more real dollars that can go towards funding essentials for all Australians such as schools, hospitals and disability schemes. If you take that net gain and you combine it with the increase in overseas investment we will see because of a more attractive and competitive tax rate, as well as the crackdown on profit shifting by multinationals which has already netted this government over $2 billion, I am hard pressed to find any argument against this bill.
What does this package look like in greater detail? Step 1 is a reduction of the tax rate for small businesses to 27½ per cent. We all know, as we have heard it time and time again, that small businesses are the engine room of our economy. That does not make it any less real. In my own electorate of Mackellar on the Northern Beaches, there are over 12,000 registered small businesses. That is 12,000 businesses and 12,000 workers who would directly benefit from a reduction in tax—and that is just looking at the workers who run the businesses, not the ones who work in them. What does reducing taxes really mean for a business?
I ran my own business for 11 years. I know that I was ambitious and that I wanted to grow it as much and as fast as I possibly could. I took pride in the number of Australians I employed, and I strived to employ more. If I had had to pay less tax, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would not have let that extra capital go to waste. I would have invested it back into my business, I would have bought that extra piece of software, I would have invested in that extra inventory and I would have hired that extra person for longer. I would have sold more, I would have made more profit and I would have ended up contributing more real Australian dollars to the tax system. I am not alone in that. Companies like VisionFlex and Chroma are currently developing on-site diagnostic equipment that will save lives and reduce the cost of running our healthcare system. They will be able to do more of that if they can keep more of the money they make. And, what's more, in my business I would have taken market share from offshore multinationals who enjoy lower tax rates overseas than I do in Australia. Would I have made more money? Absolutely, but what is wrong with that? When has striving to make more money to support someone's family become a bad thing?
Now, I know that what I would have done does not necessarily apply to all Australians who run their own businesses. Some run their own businesses simply for the flexibility and lifestyle it allows them to enjoy. They have no interest in growing their businesses and will be happy to pocket the cash. But let me ask you this: how many business owners do you know who do not want to invest in that extra toaster for their cafe, employ that extra salesperson to help sell their products or invest in greater skills for their workforce so they can better compete for customers? How many small business owners do you know that do not want to grow their businesses?
We are a country of go-getters. We have ideas and we want those ideas to become reality. We believe that we can make that better product and provide that better service, and that if we work hard we will succeed. Our job as a government is to get out of the way; it is to let every Australian who makes that courageous decision to go out on their own, invest their own money, mortgage their own home and put their own job security at risk to start their own business, to do just that. Governments do not create jobs; people do.
Step 2: by 2026-27, we will extend the tax rate cuts to larger businesses and bring it down to 25 per cent for all businesses. What does that mean? In effect, exactly the same thing, but at a greater scale and over a longer period of time. Yes, in the first instance, the extra cash might go to shareholders, but, at the end of the day, what do shareholders want? They want their share value to go up. Their share value only goes up when businesses grow. Businesses only grow when they invest in their assets: their infrastructure and, most importantly, their people.
Another reality we should not hide from is that we live in a global economy. That brings both challenges and immense opportunities. Over the years, we have seen large international corporates exploit tax loopholes and profit shift their way across the globe in order to minimise their tax bill at the expense of the nations they trade in. We all know it. They know it, and we know that they know that we know it. It must stop. It is why our Prime Minister and Treasurer have taken decisive action. Under our plan—not Labor's plan—big international companies are paying their fair share of tax and contributing to the wellbeing of all Australians. What we do not want is the behaviour of a few to taint the way we see all international companies doing business in Australia. The reality is that we want those companies to come here. We want those companies to invest in Australian infrastructure and hire Australians. We want them to do their research and development in Australia. We want them to choose Australia over any other place in the world where they could decide to go. To do that, we need to be globally competitive. We must remain a place that is attractive to foreign investment—and we are in a lot of ways. We have a highly skilled, well-educated and motivated workforce. Discounting the six years of Labor instability, we have one of the most stable governments in the Asia-Pacific region. We value and enforce the rule of law. They are all important factors for a company to consider before investing in Australia as opposed to somewhere else.
But our company tax rate is letting us down. We have become globally uncompetitive. Countries all over the world have understood that an attractive tax rate for companies plays a major role in attracting investment. So we, too, must face reality and adapt. We must accept that what might feel like a short-term loss is the only way to secure a long-term gain. There is only one way to secure our future prosperity, to make sure we have jobs, our children have jobs and we can afford to take care of each other, and that is to enable our local businesses to keep growing and remain open for business to the rest of the world.
The fact of the matter is a vote against this enterprise tax package is a vote for less work, not more. It is a vote for higher unemployment, not less. It is a vote for more people on welfare, not fewer. It is a vote for lower wage growth, not higher. It is a vote to stunt Australian businesses when all they want to do is compete internationally against the best in the world. It is a vote, frankly, for complacency. It is a vote for the very things that this parliament is meant to be against. It is a vote for removing the spirit of community that led to the creation of one of the greatest countries in the world.
That was an extraordinary speech from the previous speaker. I wondered for a long time whether he actually had the right speech and if his staff had given him the wrong speech. But right near the end he got to a point where I thought he was actually dealing with the bill.
From a government that has tripled the deficit and increased the debt by more than $100 billion, we get a piece of legislation called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 which is going to give away nearly $50 billion to corporate Australia. It is an extraordinary thing—to put at risk the AAA credit rating while, at the same time, to work as hard as they can to cut funding in terms of pensions, young people and assistance to families. This government seems to be taking away the capacity of battling people who are doing it tough with low wages growth—the lowest on record; about 1.9 per cent growth, and it is backwards in some parts of the economy and some regions—to spend money on goods and services. It is not defending them on penalty rates at all, with 700,000 Australians to lose up to $77 a week. It will not defend them there. It wants to cut pensions and put young people onto youth allowance instead of Newstart and make them wait up to about five weeks before they can get access to Newstart. It is cutting payments in terms of energy supplements for pensioners. This is a government that is determined to put ideology ahead of economic reality.
I spent more than 20 years in private enterprise, building up a business. I know how important small business is. I know the delight on a young person's face when I offered them a job. I know the delight on my business partner's face when we saw we were profitable at the end of the year and had made more money than the previous year. I know how important small business is to my community because it is a battling community and we struggle at times. We are still struggling, I think, in the aftermath of the 2011 and 2013 floods and in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis.
The government, when in opposition, talked about a massive time bomb in debt and a budget emergency that was terrible. They said that we were maxing out the nation's credit card, that debt was spiralling out of control, and that it was a disaster. Those opposite promised a surplus in their first year in office and every year thereafter and have monumentally failed. They gave away billions of dollars in revenue by getting rid of the carbon price and then failed to make any reform to excess—capital gains tax and negative gearing—which their own Treasurer talked about but he was overruled by the cabinet.
From this government, we see a giveaway effectively of $50 billion. I have heard speech after speech from those opposite about how this will be good for jobs and growth. But platitudes and just because you say it does not mean it is actually real. If you look at the analysis done by Treasury, in the long term, a decade or more, you might have seen a 0.1 per cent improvement on employment. The Gonski funding would triple the growth in employment if this government decided to invest in young people and actually supported needs based funding instead of cutting $30 billion out of education and $50 billion out of health funding in their 2014-15 budget—cuts which continue on with Medicare freezes and the like.
This government today put forward this legislation and speaker after speaker said how it was going to be good for small business and how it was a 10-year plan without any reference to any reports, analysis or anything to back up the platitudinous statements they made. But their own Treasurer dropped them in it during question time today. Question after question was put to him about their signature policy, the raison d'etre, the reason for the government, their championship of jobs and growth—remember the corflute's on election day and all throughout the campaign—and whether they would stick to it. Again and again he has refused to commit. So he is leaving those members who have made statements today high and dry.
What does this legislation actually say? What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of the bill is this: in 2016-17, the company tax rate will be cut from 28.5 per cent to 27 per cent for companies with an aggregate turnover of less than $10 million. That is going to be progressively lifted over the period to 2022-23 with the effect that companies with a turnover of a billion dollars or more per annum—real small businesses there, guys—will be eligible at that time for the lower 27.5 per cent rate. In 2023-24, the threshold will be removed so that all companies will be subject to a 27.5 per cent rate. The general company tax will be reduced from 27.5 per cent to 25 per cent over the period of 2024-25 to 2026-27. And the turnover threshold that applies to determine whether certain small business tax concessions will be available, currently $2 million, will be retained for those applying to certain capital gains tax concessions, to be lifted to $5 million or $10 million or more.
So companies, within 10 years, with a turnover of $1 billion or more—small businesses they believe—will actually get these tax concessions at a time when the government is trying to cut funding for pensioners. They have cut the asset test and increased the taper rate so we have got a situation where pensioners are losing their income. Those opposite are all over the place having done a deal with the Greens on the asset test. They have then launched the attack through the Centrelink automated debt recovery process without any manual review whatsoever and failed to understand the impact of those debt collection letters upon people. We know that at least 20 per cent of those letters are actually wrong. The legal aid society from New South Wales reckon it is about a 37 per cent improvement in overturning decisions when Centrelink actually calculates a debt. So they are in fact more accurate. The government seems to think that there is nothing wrong, nothing to see here but it publicly releases personal information without privacy considerations. This particular government today is actually trying to do this.
The unemployment rate in this country has gone up from 5.7 per cent to 5.9 per cent, much higher than it was during the Global Financial Crisis and the highest in more than 12 months. There were 6,400 fewer jobs last month and a decrease of 33,500 part-time jobs. There are 1.1 million Australians underemployed—wanting more work but unable to find it. This government seems intent on actually giving tax cuts to corporate Australia without any analysis and without any information to back it up. Indeed Treasury analysis says to the contrary, that it will have virtually no impact at all on jobs and growth, which seemed to be the obsession of this government at the last election.
So what they are doing is not actually improving jobs—the unemployment rate is going up—and growth is anaemic. Inequality is at a record high, and these guys are not doing anything about it. They are not addressing it. The legislation before for the chamber today is going to accentuate the challenge we face. They should not be supporting this particular legislation. It is not in the best interests of a fairer Australia and it is not good for business either.
We are in now the adjournment debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Blair. The House, along with the member for Blair, would be happy to know that today in this place we have had none other than the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors. They have been here in the nation's capital all day. There are seven of them. I would like to formally welcome each and every one of them to Canberra.
Lord Mayor Graham Quirk from the Brisbane City Council does an exceptional job of chairing the group. The Deputy Mayor of the City of Gold Coast, Donna Gates, is representing Tom Tate, the mayor. Tom is no stranger to Canberra, and neither is Donna. They are both welcome here whenever they arrive. Luke Smith was down only a couple of weeks ago and is here again in his capacity as Mayor of the Logan City Council. Welcome, Luke. I know you are doing an exceptional job for your community, Logan City. Greg Christensen, Mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council, is also here. Greg and I recently made some announcements of federal government funding in my electorate, and he is doing an exceptional job representing the diverse views of the good people of the Scenic Rim. Mayor Paul Antonio, of the Toowoomba Regional Council, is probably one of the longest-serving mayors in the group. Paul, congratulations to you for the way that you represent the good people of Toowoomba, and welcome to our nation's capital. The Deputy Mayor of Ipswich City Council, Paul Tully, is here representing Paul Pisasale. Councillor Tully has an innate ability to forecast elections. Before you look at TAB or Sportsbet to work out who is going to win the next election, if you know Councillor Tully, get on the phone or follow his website. He will put some good money on where the next election is going to go.
You'd better worry, Scotty!
I hear the boisterous member for Blair interjecting on the other side. For the sake of Hansard, he is saying complimentary things of Councillor Tully, which is quite rare because the good member for Blair very rarely says anything complimentary of anyone! From the Moreton Bay Regional Council, there is Mayor Allan Sutherland. Welcome, Allan. It is always wonderful to see you down here. I also welcome the Mayor of the Redland City Council, Karen Williams. Karen, you are looking more gorgeous every time I see you!
An opposition member interjecting—
Actually, I was offered some compliments today, out of the room. There is also Jamo from the Sunshine Coast—Mayor of the Sunshine Coast Council, Mark Jamieson. Welcome, Mark. Mark and I had business relationships many years ago; I think it would have been in the late 1990s. It is good to see the way that you are conducting local government business on the North Coast.
Unfortunately, my local mayor from the Lockyer Valley, Tanya Milligan, was unable to make the trip, but she is no stranger to Canberra. She is a regular attendee here as part of the Lockyer Valley junior council chamber. She brings a group of young, energised and enthusiastic members of the Lockyer Valley community here and introduces them to democracy and how the parliament works. She is doing an exceptional job in advocating and developing tomorrow's leaders in that community.
We had the opportunity to catch up with them briefly today. They have left in Canberra a document about a smart, sustainable and safe South-East Queensland collaborative future. It is their 2017 federal advocacy document. To the constituents represented by these mayors: if you are listening to this broadcast or if you read this Hansard at some stage in the future, know that, irrespective of your political leanings or persuasion, this collaborative group of mayors representing South-East Queensland do an exceptional job in building relationships. They build relationships not only with their local communities but with their state members. As local governments, they know how much money comes out of the federal government into their coffers and how competitive that tendering process is. I offer my heartfelt congratulations for the way that this group goes about tactfully, democratically and effectively advocating for their regions. Queensland is a better place for the existence of the South-East Queensland Council of Mayors. (Time expired)
To the surprise of the member for Wright, I will commend him for his speech and agree with him and commend South-East Queensland Council of Mayors for their advocacy for South-East Queensland! In the last 20 years, 20 per cent of the growth in the Australian economy has been in South-East Queensland. One in seven Australians lives in South-East Queensland. So the topic of my speech tonight will be important to the mayors in South-East Queensland.
Recently I had the pleasure of showing my good friend the member for Canberra and shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and defence personnel the RAAF Base at Amberley in my electorate of Blair. The Amberley RAAF Base is the largest base in the Royal Australian Air Force. It is host to six squadrons, the C-17 Globemasters and the F/A-18F Super Hornets, and it recently welcomed the EA-18G Growlers—all of which are integral to Australia's national defence.
Currently undergoing a $1 billion dollar investment and upgrade, the base employs over 5,500 ADF personnel and civilians. There is a complete bipartisan commitment to the upgrade of the base. I am very pleased with and will commend the Turnbull government for their commitment to upgrading the base, just as we upgraded it when we were last in government. Hosting such an important piece of Australia's defence infrastructure is a source of great pride for the people of Ipswich, and any opportunity to visit and see the great work done by the hardworking men and women of the Australian Defence Force is certainly a privilege.
On this occasion, however, I felt concerned when I went with the member for Canberra. Despite the growth of Amberley base, the Turnbull government has refused to acknowledge the very real and pressing need for infrastructure in the local area adjacent to the base. Nowhere is this neglect seen more than the government's failure to upgrade the Cunningham Highway.
The Cunningham Highway is a major Australian road. It provides an inland link between Brisbane and Sydney and forms part of the National Land Transport Network. As well as being part of the daily commute for locals living in Ipswich suburbs like Yamanto, Ripley, Raceview and Willowbank, it is also used by the overwhelming majority of ADF members stationed at Amberley to get there and back each day. It is also a key haulage route. Almost 3,000 trucks travel that route each day, making up part of the 17,000 vehicles utilising this stretch of road between Yamanto and Ebenezer Creek. With freight numbers on the rise and the local area experiencing an almost unprecedented population boom, these numbers are only set to rise. As any local will tell you, for four hours every day this road effectively becomes a car park as cars, trucks and ADF personnel sit queued up on the highway trying to access the Amberley Interchange so they can get access to the base. When people and goods cannot get to their destination on time, it hurts businesses, it hurts productivity and harms families.
This stretch now lays claim to the unwanted title of the Ipswich region's No. 1 crash zone, many of which have resulted in fatalities. We should be doing everything we can to keep ADF personnel safe, not forcing them to put their lives at risk every morning to get to work. Just yesterday, a two-car collision on this stretch of road shut down the highway for hours—something which local residents have come to expect on an almost weekly basis. This Amberley Interchange is not a distant problem that will face us some time in the future. It needs to be dealt with right now. I commend the Willowbank Area Group for their advocacy across this space.
I call on the Turnbull government, which has not allocated one cent towards this project. I call on the Queensland state government to also come to the table, commit to an updated business case and outline a detailed concept plan. It is something the federal government should not play politics with. It should come to the party with an agreement on the percentage and the commitment to fund this project so that the crashes, congestions and needs of thousands of Ipswich locals will be attended to. The cost to the base is enormous and the base's benefit to Ipswich is also enormous.
The government's refusal to act on important defence related projects does not stop at the Cunningham Highway. I commend the concept of the Amberley defence centre. The Amberley Defence Support Centre has been on the table for a long time. It needs to be processed. The 3½ thousand civilian jobs it could create would make a big impact in our region. So I call on the government. The Amberley Defence Support Centre is a particularly important project, but so is the Willowbank interchange. It would satisfy the requirements of Infrastructure Australia, which considers this a priority project. I call on both sides to do the work that is necessary. (Time expired)
The $500 million Mackay Ring Road, Stage 1, will create a wealth of jobs—600, in fact. These jobs will include concreters, plant operators, drivers and labourers. We have people with these skills and experiences already living in our community, so reading the news that the ring road is soon to start construction is very good news for those people. The project will need to move a lot of dirt, a lot of gravel, a lot of steel and a lot of concrete around. We have businesses already in the community who do just that and they have the plant and equipment and are waiting to go. Again, knowing that the ring road is about to get under way should be very good news to them, their employees and their families. An enormous amount of supply will be needed for a long supply chain to do that road. All that business and all those jobs mean pay packets spent in other local businesses, so the dollar goes around and around and continues to create and sustain even more local jobs. That is a massive employment boost for a region that has been enduring tough times for quite a number of years.
For the region to truly benefit, though, a fair share of the jobs must go to people who live in the local community and spend their pay packets in the local community as well. Unfortunately, on major infrastructure projects that has not always been the case. I can cite one other infrastructure project—and it is not too far from where the Mackay Ring Road will be built—where we saw examples of local service providers, local contractors and even local workers being overlooked and southern based contractors being brought in. The locals were not even considered. The head contractor may have had an existing relationship with capital city companies. They may even have had specific purchasing agreements in place. Whatever the reason, the outcome was not good. Many local service providers sat idle while watching southern or interstate companies travel all the way to our region to perform a service that a local could have done just as well or better, and for the same price or perhaps an even better price.
For the local economy to get the biggest boost it possibly can from this massive infrastructure project, a fair share of the contracts to undertake the work must go to local business operators, because they are the ones who live in the community and they spend in the community. When hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on a project, there is a certain expectation in that community that those dollars will flow into the local economy. The locals do not expect those millions of dollars to be funnelled off to the south-east corner of Queensland or interstate.
While the federal government has stumped up the bulk of the funding for stage 1 of the Mackay Ring Road, the project is being administered by the state government, as these projects always are. The Queensland government decides who gets the tender for the Mackay Ring Road and it is the Queensland government that, basically, decides who decides who gets the jobs. A fair share of those jobs should go to locals. A fair share of those jobs must go to locals. Now is the time to fight for that outcome. I am asking Mackay locals to join the fight by signing a letter to the Premier of Queensland. The letter raises the community's concern that a southern contractor will no doubt win the tender for this project and could give many of those jobs to people from outside the region. The letter calls on the Queensland government to do the right thing by the Mackay region. It is a region that generated so much wealth for the state and for the nation during the mining boom. The letter calls on the Queensland government to ensure that this local project, the Mackay Ring Road project, creates local jobs. Regardless of who gets the head contract, who wins the tender, we simply ask that local businesses, suppliers and workers be given priority by the successful tenderer of the Mackay Ring Road project. Sending more pay packets to the south-east corner and southern states would be a gross neglect of regional Queensland and the people who drive the state's economy.
The letter is available to be signed on the website that I have set up at www.jobsforlocals.com.au. That should be up and running by the end of the week, and I encourage anyone who wants to see jobs for locals to sign that letter. This is an important message at an important time. The Mackay region has done it tough, but there are opportunities on the horizon. One of those opportunities for jobs in the economic recovery is the Mackay Ring Road. This is an opportunity to create jobs for locals; it is an opportunity we must seize with both hands.
Increasing inequality is driving so many of the challenges that Australians face and Australia faces as an economy, but the Turnbull government cannot even say the word, much less take meaningful action. In fact, if you plug in inequality and the Treasurer's name into Hansard for this parliament you will get no results—not a single result. If you were minded to do the same with the Prime Minister—and I do not encourage anyone else to do so; I have gone through that—you will find he has said the word on one occasion in this parliament. This is far from good enough, when we are more unequal as a society than at any time since the Great Depression.
We have a deeply ideological government here which is determined to divide Australians. Sometimes this is explicit—just look at the behaviour of the minister for immigration, openly fanning the flames of racial division. But it is also insidious, promoting an approach to managing our economy in the interests of the few and not the many. This carries consequences beyond the simply economic; it is breeding resentment and alienation as well as compounding the anxieties for too many who are just getting by. Inequality separates Australians from one another, and increasingly this separation is physical, especially in our major cities. The boom in housing prices is helping drive this, as well as increasing wealth inequality. This is a phenomenon that was massively exacerbated by the election of the coalition government under the then leader the member for Warringah, but it has not changed with his replacement, after Labor through the global financial crisis managed to put brakes on the growth of inequality.
On this side of the House we remember that it was in 2014 that the then employment minister said Australia was in danger of facing a wages explosion. How did that turn out? At the time, wages growth was well below average. Since then, as we on this side of the House know and recognise as a challenge to deal with, workers have experienced record-low wage growth. Yet, still the attack on working people continues. The Treasurer talks about wages growth. He does so while endorsing penalty rate cuts that will lower wages for hundreds of thousands of hardworking people—as just one example of many. The election slogan of 'jobs and growth' has been exposed as empty words, with further downward revisions of growth prospects just revealed and a labour market that is simply not working for workers.
Philip Lowe recently put it this way to the Australia-Canada Economic Leadership Forum. He suggested that our challenge is not so much slower growth alone but 'the distribution of that growth because technology and trade created very strong returns for that part of the population that benefits.' And so it is exciting times for the PM's neighbours, but not so for most Australians, who are feeling the effects of slow wage growth, underemployment or insecure employment, compounded by this housing affordability crisis.
In this context, what is the government's response? Welfare cuts, watering down the Racial Discrimination Act and stripping penalty rates—it is no response at all. The coalition have no plans to reduce inequality in Australia, and that is why the Prime Minister and his Treasurer are so scared of even saying the word. They are not engaging with the challenges of the changing world of work. When it comes to housing affordability, they are increasing the problem. Not only do they have no plan to ensure housing can be affordable to all Australians but the Minister for Urban Infrastructure has specifically said that he thinks people should have other things to think about—18C, perhaps? The absolute disdain he and other members of this government have for everyday Australians' struggle to own a home could not be more clear.
A recent study released by the OECD has shown that the decline of labour share across the OECD is particularly pronounced in Australia. We are seeing a significant decline in the ratio of median to average wages, driven by large increases at the top. This is a problem we must get serious about solving. It presents profound challenges. It requires a complex, nuanced and multifaceted response, but the Turnbull government have one answer to this problem: corporate tax cuts that will trickle down. This is absolutely the wrong decision. What we need are investments in productive infrastructure and in people, especially through education, like supporting needs-based funding of schools education and reversing the cuts to higher education.
This debate about inequality is ultimately a debate about how we see ourselves. It is not just about spreadsheet analysis. It raises profound moral questions which Labor is engaging with. But it is also an instrumental challenge, because we recognise that securing decent economic growth rests on putting brakes on inequality and taking seriously the concerns of ordinary Australians.
In the past two weeks Dunkley residents have again seen the impact of a Victorian Labor government which continues to make decisions without proper consultation with the local council, local businesses or the public, and which clearly demonstrates a lack of forward planning. Further to their sky rail debacle, which will see the Frankston train line become a roller-coaster, we now know that the Labor government plan to move the train-stabling yards from their current location in Carrum to an already-occupied industrial land site at Kananook in Seaford. This news of further land acquisitions and the Victorian state Labor government's heavy-handed approach to public transport infrastructure will again have a negative impact on my electorate of Dunkley, and the ripple effect will be felt by many local businesses, employees and families. The government's behaviour and disregard for my community is beyond belief. In fact, this plan was revealed in the media, not through an announcement, and with little or no consultation with the businesses affected.
The land of at least seven businesses will be compulsorily acquired, putting over 200 jobs at risk, and hundreds of families, along with their children. Page Bros Jayco is a well-known name across Melbourne and the peninsula. It is a family business of over 50 years' history, with 50 full-time employees. Its land will be acquired and it may, potentially, have to shut down. Owner Steven Page was quoted as telling the state government that he and his employees are going to be fighting the decision, and that they are very, very upset—amongst many other words that I cannot use in this parliament. Other business owners and I were made aware of these plans only through the Frankston Standard Leader newspaper. Their shock is understandable. Other businesses at risk—at least the ones we are aware of—include Sims Group Australia Holdings Ltd, McGhie Truck and Machinery, Melbourne's Cheapest Caravans & Trailers, Seaford Panels and Charlie's Diesel Services, but I suspect that that will not be the extent of it.
Frankston City Council Mayor, Brian Cunial, described the decision as a 'loss of key industrial land' and said that this move 'would result in the loss of vital businesses' from the municipality. The audacity of state Labor to impose this upon my constituents is just unbelievable. These businesses will be forced to close, at great cost, putting jobs at risk, and if they reopen it may not be in Seaford or in my electorate.
Many in this House and in my electorate are more than aware of the ongoing work by the federal government locally through my election commitment of $4 million to fund an extensive business plan for duplication and electrification of the Metro Frankston line to Baxter, which state Labor refuses to sign off on to allow this plan to start. This federal coalition government commitment is what many in Dunkley see as real action and future planning to meet community needs and to provide connectivity. One of the aspects of the business plan is to investigate the option of moving stabling yards to unused land further down the line, likely near Baxter, freeing up land to create more opportunity for economic growth within Frankston—a position that the Victorian state opposition leader, Matthew Guy, has endorsed. This is in stark contrast to what the Labor state government is doing by forcibly moving businesses to simply store rolling stock on their land. Opposition leader Matthew Guy has joined me in opposing this land acquisition in Seaford.
In his opinion piece in the local newspaper, local Mornington Peninsula resident and Channel 7 newsreader Peter Mitchell reflected on the lack of planning in local transport in our region. On the topic of land acquisitions and relocating the train stabling, he said:
Many are up in arms over this, including the owners, management and 50 full-time staff at Seaford caravan firm Jayco Page Bros, whose 3 ha site is earmarked for the wrecking ball.
Frankston City Council favours a new stabling facility at Baxter in a project that would also deliver an electrified and duplicated track to the growing area.
He ended his piece with:
Don't hold your breath waiting for an efficient public transport system on the Mornington Peninsula.
Returning to my initial point, if the Labor state government bothered to ask the local community, or the local council for that matter, or me, about what would be good for our community, perhaps we might be seeing some serious action to utilise the federal funds of $4 million to fully investigate the option of the electrification to Baxter and the benefits this would bring, including the relocation of the stabling yards to a better location. It is called future planning. But we are still waiting for the state government to sign off on the project proposal report. We have a community that does not believe the state Labor government is serious about public transport or in helping us to complete this project.
With so much going on in the chamber yesterday I think it is timely to actually take a minute to reflect on the true meaning of Harmony Day, because while we were in here having a fairly robust and at times emotional debate about race hate and freedom of speech, people around Australia and indeed around the world were commemorating an event that took place in Sharpeville in South Africa in 1960. On 21 March in that year, 69 people were gunned down while peacefully protesting against the apartheid pass laws. The pass laws were actually designed as a form of internal passport, designed to segregate people on the basis of race, and in particular controlling the movement of African people within the apartheid state and keeping them as a source of cheap labour for the gold and diamond mines. The day is now commemorated as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Harmony Day, as it is called in Australia, is celebrated around the country, mostly in the form of fairs, or the sharing of food or a celebration of our cultural diversity.
In my home state of Western Australia we have been celebrating Harmony Week since 2003 and we were in fact the first Australian state to do so. At that time, 2003, I was working at the Office of Multicultural Interests in Western Australia. I am proud to say that I was a very critical part of the decision to change from celebrating our cultural diversity on the one day, Harmony Day, the one that coincides with the elimination of racial discrimination, to making it a week where we can celebrate but also reflect.
I am also proud to have been a recipient, in 2011, of the Office of Multicultural Interests' Multicultural Community Service Award for my work with government, community and academia in combating racism and discrimination. So it seems kind of surreal that I must say that having received that award six years ago to the day I have to stand here in parliament on the day when this government proposed to water down racial discrimination provisions, under the misguided banner of freedom of speech.
But I want to go beyond that this evening to talk about the meaning of Harmony Day, which was missed amongst yesterday's fairly tumultuous events. This week, throughout my electorate of Cowan, many schools will hold events to celebrate their cultural diversity. Ashdale will hold an assembly; Alinjarra Public School will have school assemblies where kids wear their traditional costumes; Our Lady of Mercy will have a free dress day and picnic; West Beechboro will have a Samoan performer visiting school, making wristbands, and will have parents bringing in a plate from their culture; Beechboro Christian School will dress in their national costume and participate in class activities; and at Burbridge Avenue School staff brought in lunch from their cultural background, they dressed in orange and they had in-class activities as well.
The city of Wanneroo is facilitating a series of living book sessions to allow people to challenge labels and preconceptions about others. On Sunday I will join in the fun at the City of Swans Harmony Day festival in Ballajura.
But Harmony Day is more than just enjoying each other's cultures through the sharing of food, music, dance and fun. It is ironic that yesterday's events prompted people to share their experiences of discrimination and racism on social media under the hashtag 'freedom of speech'. I would like to read a couple of them:
@mrbenjaminlaw tweeted:
At the age of 10, I was at the local pool as a group of white boys held my head underwater, laughing at me for being Asian. #FreedomOfSpeech
@SuDharmapala
#Freedomofspeech—my 8 year old begging for skin bleaching because he was teased for being the colour of poo. I lost it that night.
Sharon Davis
After taxi ride full of racist comments. I tucked my 6yo into bed. He asked me what's wrong with us? Why do they hate us? #FreedomofSpeech
Faustina Agolley
90s. almost veered off the road with my Chinese mum & aunt by a group of white men yelling 'go back to where you came from!' #FreedomofSpeech
As we proceed through Harmony Week, I urge parliament to take a moment or two to remember that racial discrimination in our past continues to leave an ugly stain on our national identity. Let us not repeat those mistakes. Let us all strive towards a country where every person can fulfil their full potential as equal citizens, unhampered by the scourge of racial hatred.
House adjourned at 20:00
The following notices were given:
Mr Frydenberg to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011, and for related purposes. (Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017)
Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to immunisation and family assistance, and for related purposes. (Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017)
Mr Porter to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes. (Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:02.
One of the great privileges of being a member of parliament is meeting extraordinary people who volunteer in our communities. A few weeks ago I was pleased to visit Meals on Wheels at Swansea and take part in a delivery run. All of us would be aware of the wonderful work that Meals on Wheels does in our communities, providing meals to people in their homes who, for a variety of reasons, need this assistance. I know firsthand the difference it makes as the grandmother of one of my good friends benefited from the deliveries, and he cannot talk highly enough of the difference it made in her daily life, receiving these meals when she was too sick to cook for herself. Of course this applies to so many elderly and vulnerable people in our communities who are no longer able to cook. In fact, the companionship and the act of checking up on these people is, in many cases, more valuable than the food itself. I like to think of the Meals on Wheels volunteers almost as social workers who bring food as well.
I recognise and acknowledge the work of the coordinator of the Swansea site, Donna Smith, and thank her and her team for the fabulous work they all do. It was fantastic to see firsthand the operation of the cooking on site. Donna emphasised to me that all the meals that are distributed from the Swansea site are freshly made and not frozen, and obviously this is very much appreciated by the recipients. I pay tribute to the head chef, Rebecca Allan, who is doing a great job in preparing these meals. On the delivery run I went out on, there was lots of positive feedback about the quality of the meals—so well done, Rebecca. I was grateful for the opportunity to do a delivery run for a few hours, and I thank Keith Graham for allowing me the opportunity to tag along on his run. I learnt that people from all walks of life access this service, whether it is because of disability, age or sickness. I really enjoyed helping Keith deliver the meals and could tell how appreciative the people we met along the way were of the service.
I acknowledge that there are serious question marks over the future of Meals on Wheels, with the funding agreement due to expire shortly. I would be very concerned, and I am sure all in my community would be concerned, if the funding that is now going to Meals on Wheels was allocated to larger organisations that might be purely focused on delivering frozen meals without any attention being paid to the wellbeing of the community members that Meals on Wheels services. This is a very important service and it is very important that it is grounded in the community, as all the local Meals on Wheels organisations are, including at Swansea. So it is very important that we get the funding agreements resolved so that Meals on Wheels can continue to do their fabulous work. Can I again place on record my thanks to Donna and her team at Swansea Meals on Wheels for the work they do in Shortland. Our community is a better place because of the generosity of these people. I look forward to a close relationship with this organisation and doing another delivery run soon.
There are some things our society simply should not tolerate and domestic violence is top of the list. It must stop. In my former career as a police officer, I saw the devastating toll family violence takes on victims, including children, loved ones, friends, colleagues and communities. Family violence does not discriminate. It is present in every part of society—the rich, the poor, city, country, any culture or background, all variations of relationships, women, men and children can all be affected—and we need to take a stand against it. Any form of abuse by men or women whether it is physical, emotional, social or financial is unacceptable. Research from the 2012 ABS Personal Safety Survey and the Australian Institute of Criminology shows both men and women can experience domestic violence, yet the study also found that one woman every week was killed by their current or former partner. The research shows that one in six women from age 15 experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or former partner, and one in 19 men from age 15 experienced physical or sexual violence from a current or former partner. The same research shows one in four women from the age of 15 experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner, and one in seven men from age 15 experienced emotional abuse from a current or former partner. In May 2015, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported on family violence incidents between 2002 and 2012, showing 60 per cent of victims of all domestic homicides were female, and that males were the offenders in 77 per cent of intimate partner homicides. Another 2010 to 2012 AIC study found that there were 26 male and 83 female victims of intimate partner homicide.
This problem has been kept behind closed doors for too long and it is time we said, 'No more.' The coalition government is leading the charge against domestic and family violence, investing $200 million to end this serious social problem. This includes $21 million to help Indigenous women in communities. Additionally, we are delivering a $100 million action plan to keep people safe in their homes. This funding includes $30 million for front-line legal assistance to fight family violence with $16.5 million supporting community legal centres. The government is working to stop domestic abuse, but we must all play a part in creating a society where all women, children and men live in safety. As a man, I say only cowards and those weak of character commit family violence, but it is up to all of us to wipe out the scourge of this violence altogether.
If by Rudyard Kipling:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
That poem is being used by Darwin businessman Clinton Hoffman. It is called Ifby Rudyard Kipling. Clinton is turning that poem into an app to help with men's health issues.
It is well known that a lot of men do not like to talk about their mental health issues. I ran a men's health forum in Darwin last week, and it was one of the things that everyone agreed on: women are much better communicators than men. Clinton's aim is to come up with an app that can be always available to someone so that when people are in their deepest darkest hour they may just decide to have a look at their phone, and they may get that little bit of advice or perspective that may make a massive difference. I am running a national male health forum next week, here in Canberra, and I thank everyone who is coming to participate.
I had the great pleasure, earlier this month, of attending the 100th anniversary of the iconic Urangan Pier at Hervey Bay. The pier is one of the longest in Australia and has a strong and vibrant history. It was opened as a cargo-handling port to enable the export of sugar, timber and coal, and, in later years, fuel.
The centenary celebrations may not have happened if it was not for the community rallying together to ensure that this crucial piece of Hervey Bay history remains standing where it is today. I also want to acknowledge the various councils that have invested funding to see the pier restored over the years. Congratulations to the Hervey Bay Historical Village and Museum for keeping the stories alive, and to the Pier Centenary Organising Committee for such a wonderful community event.
Another 100th anniversary being celebrated in the Hinkler electorate this year is that of Thabeban State School in Bundaberg. I visited the school last week to present school captains Hayley and Cooper with new flags, and, on request, I signed the old flags, for Principal Ken Peacock, which will be included in a time capsule as part of the centenary celebrations on Saturday, 29 April. I am sure they will see me out!
This important milestone for the school is a credit to the countless teachers, principals, students, parents and supporters who have graced its corridors. But the strength of any school is not in its bricks and mortar. At the heart of a successful school like Thabeban State School is a group of passionate hardworking teachers who inspire and encourage their students to try their best every day. The centenary celebrations are a chance for past students and staff to reconnect with people they made lasting friendships with during their formative years at Thabeban State School. Congratulations to the anniversary committee, to the P&C and to staff for their hard work in organising the celebrations, which I am sure will be remembered for many years to come.
I have been fortunate to secure a number of military sheds for various organisations in my electorate, such as the Burrum District Community Mens Shed, and, in recent weeks, two more have been built. Congratulations to Camp Gregory Veterans Retreat at Woodgate, and to the Bundaberg Vintage Vehicle Club. The veterans retreat is a place for all ex-service personnel, veterans and their families to camp and connect with other veterans. It was opened in 2010 and, before then, it was a place where veterans from the 1968 national service intake would gather. Congratulations to Roger and the team for their continued work at this great facility.
The Bundaberg Vintage Vehicle Club was a successful applicant under the Stronger Communities Program and received funding to prepare the site and lay a slab for its army shed. The shed will provide a much needed central meeting point for the club's 160 members. Congratulations to Ian Jefferyes, John Sweeney and the committee for making it all happen.
Finally, last week I opened the 2017 Bundaberg Seniors Forum, and it was great to see so many seniors from our local community in attendance. Thank you to Nina Higgins, the organising committee and the Bundaberg Regional Council for, again, putting on such an informative session for the seniors in the Bundaberg region.
Policy is one of the main things that this government does. I have to say that I am so sad that in this government we do not have regional policy. I am told that we have not had a regional policy since John Anderson was the relevant minister. I have got a little bit of hope that the current minister, Senator Fiona Nash, is promising us something in early April. But it is in terms of policy that I would like to make my comments today, because, in terms of being effective, policy by itself just exists. Without leadership, it cannot be implemented. My comments today are about the role of community based leadership. In particular, if we want to make sure that government policy is effective in rural and regional Australia and delivers its outcomes, we have to work in partnership with our community leaders.
I am delighted to tell the House that yesterday and Monday I welcomed to parliament members of the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program. They spent a day learning about how parliament works and how policy works. As part of that process we had a really interesting meeting with the Prime Minister. The group were talking about the community leadership program in Victoria. We have 10 community based leadership programs. They were talking about how they work with government—local, state and federal—to deliver policy. He was quite inspired—I have to say, 'Good on you, Malcolm!'—and he has asked us to go away and do some work on how we might develop a national approach to community based leadership, to work hand in hand with the Commonwealth government.
I want to acknowledge the work of the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program and say to Helen, Luke, Sandra, Catherine, Karen, Ben, Will, Alison, Laura, Troy, Katie, the two Nicoles, Richard, Chris, Jacqueline, Tammy, Kim, Ryan, Shane, Tamara and Amy: you heard it from the Prime Minister. You heard his request to work hand in hand with him. I am sending you off with that really clear task now to step up, to become leaders, to stand for election. I am also acknowledging the work of Karly and Kim in making it happen and to you, Kerryn Lee, for being the facilitator of the work.
But it is not enough to come to Canberra. It is not enough to speak with the leaders. What is really important in leadership is to go back to your communities and say to your community, 'I am prepared to stand for election, I am prepared to put some ideas out there, I am prepared to work together and, most importantly, I have a vision for how our community can be a better place.'
My call-out is to the minister in charge of rural and regional Australia. Let's have that vision and, with it, let's have funding for a national program of community based leadership so that right across this magnificent nation we can support community leaders to do their bit in delivering what all of us want: a chance for rural and regional Australia to reach its potential.
I would like to follow on from the previous speaker in talking about the importance of community leadership. If you want to see community leadership, the member for Indie only need come down to the wonderful electorate of Goldstein, where we see community leadership every day. The place I would like to start is with the Bayside Church, which celebrated its 25th anniversary last weekend.
The Bayside Church is a consequence of hard work by Rob Buckingham and his wonderful wife, Christie, who came together many years ago and saw the opportunity for a church based around the Cheltenham area to work with and support religious communities in the area. It started in a funeral parlour and has gone on to grow and develop into its own site in a nearby industrial area.
So I say to senior minister Rob and his wife, Christie, and all of those people—including Sandra Cavello and the wonderful supporters they have, the hundreds who were there who celebrated the incredible anniversary with me—congratulations on your achievement. Congratulations on your 25 years that have come. Congratulations on the 25 years that are yet to come. And congratulations on all of your hard work in bringing the Goldstein community together to celebrate and promote, respect and love your fellow human beings.
The other thing is to look at the amazing amount of work that has been done at a community level, particularly with local scouting groups. On the weekend I was very privileged to go down to the 5th and 6th Central Moorabbin Scout Group, which is just outside the electorate of Goldstein in the federal electorate of Hotham. Nonetheless, they had a wonderful community day in their new scout hall, which got support from local Rotary groups and the local council.
Each works together with the scouting group to make sure that scouts continue to have an enduring presence in our community. I want to pay particular respect to the group leader, Geoff Gartly, who I was honoured to be with in part of the presentation. He even made me a scout patrol leader on the day. I do not think the deputy leader of the troop, Nick Staikos, appreciated being my deputy but, Nick, I just want to say to you how much I appreciate your support now and into the future.
There are also other wonderful events in Goldstein, like the St Leonard's College fair. I would particularly like to thank the principal, Stuart Davis, on bringing this important community day together and finding so many people to do such a wonderful job in making sure that the Goldstein community on, let's put it bluntly, an angelic day—that was the wonder of the weather on the weekend—had the opportunity not just to go outdoors but to enjoy the wonderful spirit of community. Equally I thank the Caulfield Primary School and their principal, Peter Gray, who had a similar experience on Sunday down at Caulfield Primary School, where there was a wonderful coordination of events, particularly by Ben Marshman, who did a fabulous job bringing everybody together.
It was exciting to welcome the Gonski bus to Parliament House today after it had travelled through the Central Coast and across much of Australia. Special thanks to Correna Haythorpe, Federal President of the Australian Education Union, your members and supporters, and the principals and parents from across Australia who are giving their time to be in Canberra today, sharing Gonski success stories.
I 'give a Gonski' because needs based funding is making a difference in schools on the Central Coast. At The Entrance Public School, extra funding provides a teacher for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program and a dedicated classroom for coding and robotics. At Wyong Creek Public School, it has meant more teacher aides. Valley View Public School's 'instructional leadership' program is developing and mentoring teachers. Wadalba Community School now has a speech therapist, and Kanwal Public School has six additional student learning support officers. Needs based funding makes this happen. Needs based funding means principals and schools are leading change in their schools and in our communities.
I recently held a round table with Labor's shadow assistant minister for schools, the member for Scullin. We heard from principals, teachers, support workers and parents about the Central Coast experience. We heard from MacKillop Catholic College, Warnervale, whose 2015 dux was a young man with high-functioning autism who, under the guidance of Sue Small and the learning support unit, received the extra support he needed to succeed. We heard from St Mary's Primary School, Toukley, whose positive partnership between ASPECT teachers and other staff has developed the understanding of all educators at the school. We heard from Wyong Christian Community School, where all students benefit from sharing their school journey together with students with disability.
However, there is much more to do, particularly for students with disability. This is an absolute priority area for Labor. We simply cannot continue to fail this group of Australian children. For many families, primary school is the first time there has been a conversation about their child's learning style and how it is different. On the Central Coast, families are waiting months to see specialists such as paediatricians or psychiatrists, which means funding to schools and early intervention for their child are unnecessarily delayed. We also heard of increased mental health issues in teenage years. Secondary schools are on the front line. Teachers are not mental health workers, but they are an integral part of students' lives and they need support during these critical years. I am determined to work with them to better support students in our schools.
I thank the member for Scullin for coming to the Central Coast and listening to my community. Most importantly, I thank the schools in my electorate for sharing their stories and their challenges. This is important work.
Often we hear about how our schools are underfunded, how the full funding of the Gonski report is the only way if we are to improve the educational outcomes of our schools. Until now, I found this difficult to understand. I distinctly remember during the election being accosted by a special education teacher at one of my schools telling me how functional illiteracy had increased under the Gonski package and all the extra money that had been provided. It just did not make sense to me. But I had no idea how bad things had got. I did not understand the scourge of underfunding until now. Recently it became known to me that one public school in my area has become so desperate for funds that it has been forced to hire out its staffroom. Since 2014 the Labor Party has publicly advertised and held 16 branch meetings in one public school staffroom in my electorate. We all know that the staffroom at a school is what the tabernacle is to a church. It is the holiest of sites at any public school. As a student, I never knew what went on behind those doors, but I knew that it was serious and, in some cases, very serious. So, when I learnt that this staffroom may have been hired out to the local Labor Party, I knew things had gotten really bad for public school funding.
I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Education and asked him to investigate how serious this situation has become. Are any other schools having to hock out their holy sites to political parties for some extra cash? What are the rules surrounding these room hires? Is the Labor Party making school staffrooms as lawless as their CFMEU mates' worksites? Or maybe the Labor Party has the answer to school funding. Maybe, if the Labor Party paid fair room hire rates, it could use some of that $3 million it receives from its union mates each year to help out our schools.
Teaching is a noble profession. In my travels around my electorate, I have met many passionate, committed and inspiring teachers. We cannot let the actions of the few teachers who misuse public property impugn the character of the many amazing teachers in Mackellar. However, the few must be called to account.
My grandmother lost her husband and her two young daughters to diphtheria in the same week. One day she was living with her husband, two daughters and two sons, and then she was not. Diphtheria caused more deaths than any other communicable disease back in the early 1900s. My family members were three of 4,073 people who died of diphtheria in the decade from 1926 to 1935. Given that our population was a quarter of its size now, you can imagine what those numbers would be in today's world if the mass vaccination program had not taken place as it did. The number of deaths from diphtheria dropped to 44 in the 10 years from 1956 to 1965, and the disease is almost gone from Australia now. We had one imported case in 2001 and we had one imported case in 2011, which led to two additional cases, and one of those people died.
For people born after me—I was born in 1958—you might not remember life before vaccines; you just will not remember. I do. I remember my three sisters with whooping cough. What I remember is my mother's panic—not the whooping sounds of my sisters but the panic in my mother's eyes every time one of my sisters went into that dreadful coughing. All three had mumps. All three had measles. I do not remember polio and smallpox, because the vaccines were well established by the time I was in my childhood.
I would like to remind people who were born more recently of what life looked like before the vaccination programs that we now take for granted. Whooping cough kills 250,000 children worldwide each year. In Australia, before the whooping cough vaccine, we had deaths of between 1,500 and 3,000 per decade, in a population a quarter of its current size. One in 200 children who get whooping cough die of it. Because of the vaccination programs, we had 18 deaths between 1993 and 2004—still 18 too many—and 16 of them were children younger than 12 months old. Whooping cough affects children more than any other age group. Of those 18 deaths, 16 of them were of babies—families lose their babies. Before the vaccinations, every two to three years every child got measles. Everyone got it—the entire community—and hundreds of people died from it. Prior to vaccination, one of the biggest decades for measles was 1926 to 1935, when, with a population of six million, over 1,000 children died.
This was the world before vaccines. Vaccines have removed that world from us. It now may not be as visible as it was, but that is what life looks like when you start to walk away from this wonderful medical miracle called vaccines.
As I am sure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, any day is a good day to be talking about the importance of women and the contribution they make to the economy right across Australia. More and more women are getting involved in the most important industries in my electorate, including industries like agriculture and fisheries. More and more women are running or taking up vital roles on the family farm. More and more women are running, or taking up vital roles in, pastoral stations.
Also, more and more women are creating and running various, very successful, small businesses—as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, the backbone of the Australian economy, right across Durack. In Geraldton, 'Boschetti' has been an accomplished business name for well over 50 years and across two generations. Julia Boschetti started what we now call Latitude Fisheries, along with her husband, Bert, in the early 1960s, and it has developed into a very successful fishing business. The Boschettis started off crayfishing, began prawning in 1981 and have since diversified their range to include tuna, swordfish and shark, at different stages, before they opened their shop, Latitude Direct, to the public in 1989. Latitude Fisheries moved into their current building on the fishermen's wharf in 1999, selling freshly cooked Shark Bay prawns daily, and, let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a shop worth visiting.
The apple does not fall far from the tree, with Julia and Bert being parents to two Durack businesswomen, each successful in their own right but for very different reasons. Erica Starling and Pia Boschetti spent much of their childhood growing up helping their parents, out at the Abrolhos Islands—let me tell you how idyllic that must have been—together with their brother, Michael.
Erica was involved with marketing and exporting 18 boats along the west coast before she created her own business, Indian Ocean Fresh Australia. Indian Ocean Fresh Australia has now created marine finfish aquaculture. By the end of the year, the business is expected to have eight different cages in the harbour. This is huge innovation and huge risk-taking, and I really admire Erica for what she is trying to achieve just off the coast of Geraldton.
Her younger sister, Pia—or, as she is known, 'the girl who grows the pearl'—is in a different kind of business from her sister's and her parents'. Pia started pearl farming in the family business 17 years ago before she opened her own pearl jewellery store, Latitude Gallery, with the mantra, 'Each piece of jewellery should tell a story.' Pia spends up to four months, yearly, farming pearls at the Abrolhos Islands. Recently, Pia has opened up two galleries, one in Noosa and the other in Montville—both a very long way from Geraldton, on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. I am sure you—those who are here in the gallery today—would all agree that the Boschetti businesswomen's story is an extraordinary story, not just for regional Western Australia but for Australia as a whole.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
It is always a pleasure to stand in this chamber or the House and speak about the great work that this government is doing with free trade agreements, and I rise today to speak in support of the agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Australia's free trade agreements are delivering tremendous economic benefits to our country—most importantly, delivering jobs. With Australia's trade in services recording strong growth in 2015-16, increasing 7.7 per cent to $146 billion, it is clear we are doing the right thing for our country. Service exports have grown nine per cent to $68.3 billion, driven by an increasing number of international visitors who are spending more when they come here. Australia exported some $1.7 billion of professional and business services to Singapore in 2015.
The agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed on 13 October in Canberra, is the most comprehensive update of an Australian FTA. It shows that FTAs are living agreements that can respond to evolving business needs. The signature of this treaty formalises the outcomes announced on 6 May last year by Prime Minister Turnbull and his Singaporean counterpart, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, under the auspices of the comprehensive strategic partnership.
The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement entered into force in 2003 and is one of our oldest free trade agreements. It is a central pillar of Australia's economic relationship with Singapore and underpins Singapore's position as Australia's fifth-largest trading partner. It has delivered substantial benefits for Australian exports, such as complete tariff elimination.
However, Australia's business needs continue to evolve. Over one-third, or $4 billion, of Australian exports to Singapore now comprise of services, and Australian businesses are eager to continue to expand. This update to the Singapore-Australia FTA will boost the competitiveness of Australia's services exporters by addressing key behind-the-border barriers and delivering new access and greater certainty to service suppliers in sectors such as education, law, communications and financial and professional services. The amendments to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will deepen economic integration between our two economies and make it easier for business visitors, including service suppliers and investors, to work in Singapore. It will provide greater opportunities for service exporters and create greater certainty by reducing red tape for exporters of goods, services and investment.
In key areas, Singapore is giving Australia its best free trade agreement treatment, putting our exporters on an equal or better footing than their foreign competitors. Under the amended Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Australian lawyers and law firms will enjoy greater certainty to practise Singapore law and work in international commercial arbitration, while Australia will also benefit automatically from future market reforms in Singapore's legal sector, which will become a Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement commitments. We all know that Singapore is a major financial hub in Asia, and the opportunities for our legal profession are enormous.
The amended Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement establishes a framework to support mutual recognition of professional qualifications on an ongoing basis, with priority given to arrangements for engineers and accountants, with Singapore and Australia agreeing to commence negotiations on mutual recognition arrangements. Under the amended free trade agreement, financial services providers will now be able to provide a range of financial services on a cross-border basis to Singapore, including investment advice and portfolio management services and brokerage services for insurance of maritime, aviation and transport related risks.
The amendments will also enhance the opportunities for Australia's world-class education exports, through recognition of Australian tertiary qualifications. Singapore has agreed to recognise the juris doctor degrees of Australian universities currently listed in the Singapore-Australia FTA, providing new access for those universities that have moved to a graduate model of legal education. Separately, Singapore will recognise allied health degrees in physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy from a number of Australian universities.
Australian citizens and permanent residents who are businesspersons seeking to enter and work in Singapore will also benefit from new guaranteed access, enhanced certainty on length of stay and reduced barriers to labour mobility. There will be longer stays for investors and independent executives and contractual service suppliers—up from three months to two years; longer lengths of stay for intra-corporate transferees—up from two years to three years, with a maximum stay of 15 years; enhanced certainty on entry and the length of stay for installers and servicers of machinery and equipment for up to three months; enhanced certainty on entry and work rights for spouses and dependants of Australians granted entry as intra-corporate transferees, independent executives and contractual service suppliers; and the introduction of a help desk and a streamlined process to facilitate temporary entry and work permits for Australian businesspeople.
The updates to the free trade agreement will also seek to facilitate trade in the digital age by including the most modern e-commerce and telecommunications provisions from the TPP, including guarantees on the free flow of data across borders for service suppliers and investors as part of their' business activity. Businesses cannot not be forced to build data storage centres or use local using local computing facilities; customs duties cannot be imposed on electronically transmitted content; software and games are to enjoy fair and equal treatment; software suppliers will not be required to hand over a source code when seeking to import or distribute software; promotion of a transparent and reasonable rate of international mobile roaming services—and I am sure all of us in this place will be happy about that; protections on privacy and consumer rights; and efforts to combat spam messages.
The amendments to this FTA will lock in opportunities for Australian countries to win high-value contracts with the Singapore government in sectors such as road transport, construction and engineering, and will provide even more opportunities to create jobs for Australians. As well as these changes to create more opportunity for Australian services, the amendments have also been made—to the good for Australia—to allow an already generous access to duty-free in the Singapore market for our goods. This is where these free trade agreements are important. I am sure all of us in this place go and speak regularly to students at our various schools, and we explain to them that their opportunities for work are now on a global basis, not just locally here in Australia. Agreements like this free trade agreement significantly add to that capacity for Australians to work overseas.
The amendments to this FTA will reduce red tape for exporters and promote greater regulatory coherence by incorporating the TPP outcomes on technical barriers to trade and rules of origin. Australia is 100 per cent committed to trade agreements which achieve a win-win outcome for both the countries involved. This agreement reflects our desire for a closer economic relationship with Singapore. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which has been in place now for 13 years, has in that time generated tremendous outcomes for both our countries in the exchange of goods and trade services. We have a great working relationship with Singapore, which will only be made stronger under the amendments to the free trade agreement. I commend my colleague, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, the Hon. Steven Ciobo, for this positive outcome.
Debate adjourned.
I am very pleased to rise in this chamber today to speak about the coalition government's record and our achievements since winning the election in 2016. The Australian people returned a coalition government because they believed in our plan to grow the economy and create more jobs. Since taking office in 2013, the coalition government has been focused on making Australian lives better, safer and more prosperous. During the previous coalition government in 2007, when we were at the peak of the mining boom, with some $20 billion in budget surplus and $40 billion in the bank, we had the opportunity to make many decisions for the benefit of the country. However, after losing government in 2007, we saw a period of government under Labor which saw the Australian financial situation—from a coalition perspective—trashed. That left a legacy for this country of debt and deficit as far as the eye can see.
Since winning the election, the coalition government has sought to tackle budget repair head-on. In the past six months or so, we have managed to pass significant pieces of legislation, many of which those opposite—and other commentators elsewhere—did not believe we could pass. And this was despite having fewer seats in the House and fewer seats in the Senate. We have already passed some $22 billion in budget repair measures and are currently working to pass a further suite of $13.2 billion of budget savings.
Our focus on restoring the budget surplus is more than finding savings. We have also sought to improve the way we manage the money that is placed in trust with us by the Australian people, because, at the end of the day, not a single dollar of what we spend is the government's money; it is the Australian people's money. We have sought to expand the Department of Human Services forward-prevention and debt-recovery capabilities, and, by recovering welfare overpayments or, in same cases, fraudulent payments, we have delivered some $2.1 billion in net savings over the forward estimates. The temporary budget repair levy remains in place and is expected to raise some $3.1 billion.
But I think most important is our multinational tax avoidance legislation, which we passed in 2015. There was also a further tranche last year and further tranches will be brought to the House. That will raise more than $2 billion in the 2016-17 financial year. Interestingly, it was those opposite that voted against this legislation. There is also the coalition government's diverted profits tax legislation, which is expected to raise a further $3.9 billion over the next four years. It is this coalition government that is looking to pass important savings and ensure that those who operate business in this country pay their fair share of tax. That is what will allow us to continue the task of budget repair.
But we have not stopped there, because Australian taxpayers want to know that they are getting value for money. In that regard, we have said that any spending decisions, including all of our election commitments, must be fully offset by spending reductions in other parts of the budget. What we are saying to the Australian people is that we cannot pass unfunded, uncosted promises and election sweeteners. Any funding promise will be costed and accounted for in an effort to reduce borrowing and, importantly, prevent tax increases, because we know that more taxes have a negative effect on economic activity. We want to see lower taxes, so that we have a growing economy that provides the opportunities for business to grow, develop and employ people.
Locally, the coalition government is delivering for many of the communities in my electorate of Forde. One of these achievements is the increasingly positive progress of the NBN rollout. Many suburbs in the electorate will soon have access to faster, more reliable internet with the construction rollout that is currently occurring. For the residents of Windaroo, Bannockburn, Belivah, Bahrs Scrub, Logan Reserve and Chambers Flat it is clear that super-fast broadband is on its way. I was pleased to catch up with many of these residents recently over coffee and, with a representative from NBN Co, explain some more of the detail around the NBN rollout.
The NBN has also commenced construction in and around Beenleigh and Yatala, which is one of our major enterprise areas. For many years, that area was significantly underserviced by the previous telecommunications infrastructure provider, and the businesses in that area—many of which are exporters that will benefit from the free trade agreements that I spoke of early—are tremendously optimistic about this rollout and the opportunities it will provide for them and their businesses. The next cab off the rank is the area down around Upper Coomera, where the NBN is presently being rolled out as well. That is one of our fastest-growing areas on the northern Gold Coast. There are so many businesses, schools and other organisations in that area that will benefit from the NBN rollout and the opportunities that it will provide going forward. I recently spoke at a chamber of commerce business lunch where, again, with the assistance NBN Co, we were able to explain the detail of the rollout and explain to people what that will mean for their businesses and what opportunities that will provide.
When we talk about these local initiatives, it is important to reflect that we only get to stand in this place because of the support of a great many people who help us on election days. In that regard, I want to acknowledge and recognise the many people who have helped out not only in the 2016 campaign in Forde but also in previous campaigns—people like John and Gwendoline Skeers, John and Helen Broadhurst, John and Ros Murray, Jeff and Cathy Charlesworth and many, many more. It is those people, some of whom have been members and involved in the LNP or its previous incarnations for 30 and 40 years. They are the backbone of our local campaigns who turn up at little community events and at our regular meetings, and are there on polling day each election helping out, and sometimes in very difficult circumstances. Unfortunately, this campaign in Forde was very negative to the extent that at one of our polling booths, a gentleman who was assisting a particular party—not yours, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird but who was a representative of a union that does support your party—ended up having to be arrested because of his conduct. I do not think anybody in this chamber would support that sort of conduct by a person at a polling booth. Equally, the comments that were made to some of my volunteers by representatives of political parties were, I think, quite uncalled for, particularly when they were directed at women volunteers. Those who made those comments to those ladies should be very, very ashamed of themselves.
But I am pleased to say that, now, as a representative of the most marginal coalition seat in the country, I do have the honour of representing the electorate of Forde for another three years. In closing, I would like to thank some very, very important people: my campaign manager, Nathan Kucks, who, as usual, has gone above and beyond; and the fantastic team who work tirelessly every day, day in and day out and during the campaign, went over and above. Everybody in this place and all our staff in our offices do a fantastic job. Lastly, I would like to recognise my wonderful wife Judi and my two fantastic sons, Zac and Josh. We, all in this place, spend a lot of time away from our families and I think it is important that at an opportunity like this we get to recognise and to acknowledge the value, the support and the love we get from our families, and thank them for supporting us in a job that we do here to represent our communities and to make decisions and represent the best interests of what is great in Australia. I thank all of those people whom I mentioned. There are many others whom I have not mentioned but deserve thanks and gratitude for their support, their service and their assistance; but, most importantly, to my wife Judy and to my two sons, Zak and Josh, for their undying support, love and commitment, without which I would not have the honour of being in this place.
The formality of this speech requires some explanation to those who might be reading it hence and wondering, 'What is thing called an address-in-reply to the Governor-General?' Seven months ago, the Governor-General gave a speech which purported to set out his plan for the next three years of the 45th Parliament. It is a sad indictment of the capacity of the government to manage the business of the House that it is nearly seven months after the opening of the parliament and we are still dealing with the addresses-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech.
I have to say I do look forward to the time when the parliament is opened by an Australian head of state who is chosen to represent the Australian people and is directly accountable to no-one else but the Australian people. Until that time, might I suggest that a modest change to the way that we deal with these opening proceedings of the parliament might be to dispense with the fiction where the Governor-General has us all traipse over to the upper house and lip-syncs a speech that has been prepared in the Prime Minister's office, under the guise that this is his or her plan for the future of Australia. I mean no disrespect to the man or woman who holds the title of Governor-General. In fact, when it comes to the speech that was delivered at the opening of the 45th Parliament, it would add to the dignity of the office if the Governor-General did not have to pretend that it was his plan—because it is a woeful plan for the future of this country. It would do great dignity to the Governor-General if what he or she did instead was say, 'I have this speech that has been prepared for me by the Prime Minister, who has been able to gain a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and I'm going to set it out for you.' That would enhance the dignity of the office, not distract from it, and it would make very clear to all Australians the ridiculousness of the fiction that we currently have and, I would say, it would add to the enthusiasm that I and the majority of people on my side of the House have for having an Australian head of state who is directly accountable to the Australian people.
In my address-in-reply for the 45th Parliament, I want to speak in great detail about one of the most challenging issues for all Australian parliaments. It is the one that I intend to make the key focus of my work, both as the member for Whitlam and as a shadow minister responsible for regional economic development, regional communication and regional services. Labor believes that we need a strong economy, including a strong budget and the capacity to reduce the deficit over time, but we need to do that in a way that does not increase the growing inequality in this country but, in fact, decreases inequality between those who have very much and those who have very little. Australia's growing inequality is a particular challenge for regional Australia. On so many measures, the gap between those who live in rural, regional and remote Australia and those who live in our large urban centres and in our cities is growing.
Inequality is not an inevitable result in any society. Inequality is the result of policy choices. There is nothing on the agenda of the Turnbull government that addresses inequality, particularly when it comes to inequality between regions and the cities, but there is plenty which exacerbates that growing inequality. Until recently, inequality has not been at the top of the agenda, but I think, when we are seeing the tensions that are growing, particularly in regional Australia, people are starting to sit up and listen. The history of the second half of the 20th century shows that Australia's progressive tax and transfer system has, rightly, been the envy of most developed economies around the world. Added to that is the important role that our unions and our unique systems of conciliation and arbitration have in ensuring that workers are fairly remunerated for the work that they do and that there is a minimum social safety net for all people who earn their living through toil. We have a unique system, which has served us well. While we can look afar to other countries battling the demons of inequality; the discontent and cynicism about politics; the rise of populists with their shallow slogans—and there are those in this place who seek to mimic them; the rise of the working poor and the decline of the middle class, we know that we have some answers to these problems. But we are not seeing them in the program of the Turnbull government.
You do not need statistics to know that our egalitarian heritage, handed down from our grandparents, is rapidly vanishing. We will be passing on to our grandchildren an Australia very different from the one we grew up in. It is a future where job security can no longer be taken for granted. It is a future where we can no longer take for granted the fact that, if you work hard, apply yourself and save, at some point in your life you will have the capacity to own your own home. It is a future which includes fear about our capacity to see a doctor and get the best health care, or our capacity to get the best education for our kids, which will set them on the pathway to success in their own lives. In the regions, this future is more uncertain, and these anxieties about fair access to services and a meaningful role in society and the economy are deeply felt. We see not only that inequality is growing in Australia but also that the inequality gap between rural and urban Australia is growing.
In 2015, the Australian Council of Social Service released a study on this very issue. It found that wealth concentration was growing. The top 10 per cent of wealth holders own 45 per cent of all wealth, and somebody in the highest wealth bracket owns more than 70 times the wealth of somebody in the lowest quintile of wealth. If you are in one of those top wealth brackets you are more likely to be living in a capital city, and if you are in the bottom wealth bracket you are more likely to be living in regional Australia.
If you look at the key indicators of health, education, housing affordability and income, you see there are growing gaps. Regional Australia is being left behind urban Australia, and the policies of this government are making matters worse. If the Prime Minister benchmarked growing inequality between regional and metropolitan Australia against his own electorate, he would see what I am talking about. Compare key indicators such as unemployment, rental stress, digital access, life expectancy and full-time participation in work against the indicators in the seat in which the Prime Minister lives, the seat of Wentworth, and it is crystal clear that regional Australia is falling behind. So, instead of a $50 billion tax cut to big business, the Prime Minister might like to focus on some of the following.
Let's look at average wages, which are between $20,000 and $40,000 a year lower in regional Australia—areas like regional Tasmania, where the average wage is a little over $47,800 a year; regional Western Australia, where it is $63,000 a year and falling as the mining boom comes off; regional South Australia, where it is a little under $48,000 a year; and regional Queensland, where it is a little over $55,000 a year. Compare those to the average income in the Prime Minister's own electorate, which is over $80,240 per annum. You can see, through that one snapshot, how life is very, very different in one of those regional areas compared to the area that surrounds the Prime Minister.
Unemployment rates are high in Sydney's eastern suburbs, which has a 12-month unemployment average of 3.1 per cent. That is 3.1 per cent too high, I have to say, if you are an unemployed person living in the Prime Minister's seat. But if you compare it with regional New South Wales, which has a 12-month average close to 5.6 per cent, regional Queensland, where it is 6.6 per cent, or regional South Australia, where it is close to 5.7 per cent then you can see there is a huge gap.
Then, when you drill down to jobless families, you see we have an even bigger problem, and this is an issue we need to focus on. If no-one in your household, no-one in your street and no-one in your social network has a job, where do you get the life examples? Where do you get the life connections? How do you have the capacity to get a foot on the ladder, to get a toe into the labour market, when the majority of people nowadays get a job through somebody they know? If you are living in a jobless household in a jobless street, you are behind the eight ball before you even start. Typically double the proportion of families with children under the age of 15 in regional areas like regional New South Wales are unemployed compared to such families in urban and inner urban areas. In regional New South Wales, 16.5 per cent of households in this bracket are jobless households; in regional Victoria, close to 15 per cent; and in regional Queensland, 14.6 per cent. Compare those areas to an area such as Waverley or Woollahra, where the figure is a little over 6½ per cent. That is 6½ per cent too many, but you can see in each of those examples I have cited that it is a factor of three—three times the number of jobless households in those regional areas compared to those inner city areas. And I am not talking about retirees; I am talking about families which have a child aged under 15 years.
People in regional Australia are delaying medical treatment because they cannot afford it, at a much greater rate than anywhere else in the country. In the wealthy eastern suburb of Woollahra in Sydney, around six per cent of people are delaying medical treatment because they cannot afford it. That is still six per cent too many, and we need policies to assist these people. But compare that to an area like regional Tasmania, where a massive 17 per cent of people are delaying medical treatment because they do not believe they can afford it, or regional Northern Territory, where over half the population—53.8 per cent—are delaying medical treatment because of economic factors. This is at a time when the government persists with a version of the GP tax which will make access to a GP even more expensive, and at a time when it is increasing the pharmaceutical benefits thresholds to ensure that the cost of medicines is more expensive. These policies are going to make existing inequality even worse.
Rental stress is often thought of as something that only affects people who live in the cities. In fact, in a famous intervention about a month ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said, 'Well, that's only an inner-city issue—it doesn't affect people in regional Australia.' We who live in regional Australia know that that is an issue. In regional Australia around 26 per cent of people are undergoing rental stress—that is, they are spending more than a third of their income on housing. That is significantly higher than in areas like Waverley or Woollahra, where it is around about 12 per cent. Nearly a quarter of people living in regional Australia are suffering from rental stress.
It is not for no reason that I am referring to these comparisons as a Wentworth index. It is an index of where people in rural and regional Australia are at, when you look at all of the proxy measures of disadvantage and inequality in this country, compared to where people in our capital cities are at. What could be better than using the Prime Minister's own electorate as an example, as a benchmark? Of course, it has the added benefit that, if the Prime Minister currently seems either unaware of or unmotivated by the growing inequality that exists between urban Australia and regional Australia, perhaps the production of a Wentworth index will help him to understand that the world that the majority of Australians are living in is not the same world that he lives in.
Of course there are solutions to all of this, but you will not find them in the Governor-General's speech-in-reply. If we are going to do something to close the gap between life expectancies for people who are living in the regions, as opposed to the cities, then you want to pull down on education as a key lever, because we know we have got a huge gap even in the area of education.
There is a gap of nearly 7.5 per cent in participation in secondary education when you compare the regions versus the cities so, if we are going to make a difference, we have got to close that gap. And you do not do that by failing to commit to funding the additional years of expenditure, the critical years of expenditure for our schooling system on a needs basis, commonly known as the Gonski funding arrangements. You do not do that by ripping nearly a billion dollars out of apprenticeship support and traineeship schemes; in fact, you invest in education, you invest in our TAFEs and you invest in your universities. You do not persist with a policy that is going to see students lumped with $100,000 university debts. There has to be a better way, if we are going to give these people a better chance in life.
I was pleased to see last week that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, called a skills summit to bring all of the key stakeholders together to ensure that this was on Labor's agenda, if it is not on the government's agenda. It was a fantastic summit, and there will be more policy announcements in this area over the course of the next couple of years.
It was laughable to many when a couple of weeks ago, in fact, not two weeks ago, we saw the Treasurer Scott Morrison tell Australians that his No. 1 economic priority for the year—that was last week's No. 1 economic priority for the year—was to increase wages. I ask you to think about that for a moment: the man who today will refuse to vote in favour of Bill Shorten and Labor's plan to protect penalty rates so that existing wages are not reduced said the No. 1 priority, the No. 1 economic priority, is to boost wage growth in this country. At last they understand: if you boost wage growth, you stimulate demand, you have people with money in their pockets so that they can invest, they can spend that money in small businesses so that they can afford to invest in their children's education. At last, he has cottoned on, but you have a massive gap between rhetoric and action.
Something that the government could do, something that the Treasurer could do, immediately to boost wages, or to at least protect wages to ensure that they do not good backwards, is to ensure that people's penalty rates are not cut by 25 per cent which the government seems to be supporting, as we stand today.
We only have the capacity to stand in this place because of the great work that is done by literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who assist us over the course of a campaign and, in my case, over the course of my previous three years in this place. I want to place on—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:13 to 11:31
To be returned to represent the people of Petrie for a second time is humbling, to say the very least. I would like to begin by offering them my most sincere thanks and to say, 'I will not let you down.' I love the electorate of Petrie; it is my home. I feel extremely grateful for a childhood spent outside the borders of the big smoke. Days were carefree and saw me traversing the area between the boundaries of what would become the electorate I now represent. I know its demography like the back of my hand. If you have never visited Petrie, I encourage you to do so. I think you are actually coming up soon, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks. It is rich with natural wonders and thick with community spirit.
When the people of Petrie elected me a second time, I made the same commitment to myself that I made the first time: I will give all that I have to represent the best interests of the only community that I really know. I will continue to work hard for the people of Petrie. With all due respect, I am not here to mix it with you in this chamber. I have said it previously, and I will say it again with the greatest respect to each one of you here today: I would rather be home in my electorate than be knocking around the walls of Parliament House. If I could, each time I jumped on a plane to Canberra I would bring them all with me to show them around—to show them what we do here and how I represent them here. Petrie is a community of diverse interests and goals. It is important to me that we all have our say. Unfortunately, there is not room for everyone to be here in the chamber, but I do my very best to get out and talk to people through mobile offices and on the ground at different community meetings, listening to what people say is important to them. I guess that while they man the fort I join you as an electoral bugle of sorts to highlight the needs of each person, like me, that calls Petrie home. I bring my voice and each one of theirs to the seat of decision making, with one single goal: to work together to see that the communities of Petrie continue to grow and become the best they can be.
Today I have with me the concerns of the people of Petrie, and I would like to raise them with you. The people of Petrie tell me that the issues that sit at the top of their minds relate broadly to quality of life, costs of living, opportunity, health and employment. Company tax cuts, small business and jobs are things that are top of mind for the government. We spoke a lot about jobs and growth in the economy at the last election, and jobs are certainly a big issue in my electorate. Small business is the backbone of our community. It generates jobs, injects diversity and opportunity into the electorate, and fuels growth and prosperity for all. Locally, of course, I have been running the Job Seeker Boot Camp, where I have been inviting small businesses—those that employ five or more people—to come along and meet with people looking for work to explain what it is they look for when hiring. That has been quite successful, and I will continue to run that.
Company tax, of course, will provide welcome relief to businesses and workers and will boost the economy, which creates jobs. It sends a strong signal to the small-business and medium-business community in particular that, as a government, we are supporting them and thanking them for employing the majority of Australians. As Jodie Mae Ladhams from Bracken Ridge says to me:
Show support to Australians who work their butts off and pay their taxes, stop our companies from going bust, and make our small businesses profitable and successful…make Australia great again – strong industry, strong community…
I agree, Jodie, and I urge all members to support the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan—a solid plan that will put money in the pockets of workers. Under the enterprise tax plan, the government will back small businesses by reducing their tax rate to 27½ per cent starting on 1 July 2017—this year—for those that turn over less than $10 million. The plan will deliver a lower tax rate for around 870,000 companies who employ more than 3.4 million workers, allowing them to invest, grow, hire and pay more. We are also doing a lot for small business in relation to the instant asset tax write-off, which is a great initiative and will definitely be highly utilised by businesses with turnover under $10 million. That will be a great opportunity from 1 July this year for businesses with turnover under $10 million, and it will send a strong signal to them that the government is supporting them, and that we want them to invest in more workers and more employees, to help grow the economy and their business.
In relation to company tax, the weight of company tax is carried by consumers and workers. More than half of the economic burden of corporate tax weighs on employees through lower wages and on consumers through higher prices. We know that business passes on costs through higher prices. Research like that from the Tax Foundation in the US shows that for every US$1 rise in state and local corporate tax collections, real wages fall by US$2.50 five years later. But thankfully, the reverse also applies: wages increase by US$2.50 with every US$1 reduction in state and local corporate income taxes. As Bill Shorten said when he was Assistant Treasurer:
Cutting the company income tax rate … leads to more jobs and higher wages.
But we do not hear that being quoted now by those opposite. More jobs and higher wages are both useful and necessary in order to get by. The OECD has said that corporate income taxes are the most harmful for growth, as they discourage the very activities of businesses that are most important for growth; those being investment in capital and productivity improvements. As Dustin Henegan from Northlakes says, 'when are we going to wake up?' Well, with the vote for the enterprise tax plan, I hope, Dustin! I definitely appreciate that comment.
Australia has one of the least competitive business tax rates in the world. Thankfully, this parliament is about to be handed the opportunity to change that. Recalibrating company tax in favour of the prosperity of Australians involves more than just tax cuts. As Max Colquhoun from Scarborough rightly points out: 'Get stuck into businesses that are avoiding tax.' Max, you are absolutely right. In December 2015 we passed the multinational tax avoidance bill which is now in place, and we are already seeing income flow from that. But it is also time to crack down further on multinational tax avoidance—and Max, you would be pleased to know that we plan to do that right now. In fact, legislation has been introduced. The diverted profits tax will put an extra $100 million in revenue alone into the government kitty next year. The diverted profits tax is a useful anti-avoidance provision which will impose a penalty tax on profits transferred to offshore associates. It will apply to multinational operations with global income greater than $1 billion and that are making income in Australia of more than $25 million. It arms the Australian Taxation Office with a powerful mechanism for tackling contrived arrangements and uncooperative taxpayers, and it provides the Commissioner of Taxation with extra powers to achieve this. By making it easier to apply Australia's anti-avoidance provisions and applying a 40 per cent rate of tax payable immediately, the diverted profits tax will complement the application of the existing anti-avoidance rules and will encourage greater compliance by large multinational enterprises with their tax obligations in Australia, including with Australia's transfer pricing rules, and encourage greater openness with the commissioner, allowing for more timely resolution of disputes.
These two initiatives, the DPT and the company tax cuts, demonstrate this government's commitment to Australian businesses and workers, to creating jobs and to repairing a budget that Labor dragged backwards through a bush. By investing in fairness, we secure a brighter future for all, and that is what we all want, isn't it? We all want that. Fairness is a fair expectation, and the people of Petrie want that. They have tightened their purse strings and have a fair expectation that we will do the same. They do not see the value in or necessity of MPs who have left parliament flying for free, and neither do I. It does not put food on their tables or on mine.
Just ask Chrissy Bonello from Scarborough in my electorate or Gary Swanson from Kippa-Ring, who have both raised this issue with me. Parliamentary expenditure and entitlements, they say, must be reformed. In fact, Gary said:
If you really care in making a change, I suggest you and the liberals and the other parties, all pass legislation to cease making payments and any other concessions that are paid to former prime ministers, ministers etc. that includes offices, travel, support staff which all cost the Australian tax payer.
Gary and Chrissy, you are absolutely right, and we recently cracked down on that, when we got rid of the gold travel pass for former members of parliament, who were able to fly. That has now completely gone. It still does apply for former prime ministers, but I would say to Gary and Chrissy that I think that is reasonable, because most former prime ministers still do work hard, whether it is Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd or John Howard. They all still have numerous contacts and represent the country. Maybe at some time in the future we could put a time frame on it—up to 15 years or something after leaving office.
The other thing I would say to Chrissy and Gary is that new MPs like me and you, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, who were elected after 2004, no longer receive pensions. So, when we leave parliament, it does not matter how long we have been here, we will not receive pensions. We get superannuation on top of our wage, like everyone else, and we have to wait until after the age of 55 before we can access that superannuation. It is an important point, because you will often hear people say, 'You get a pension, mate. You'll be right.' Well, I do not want a pension, I do not expect one and I do not get one. Having been in the private sector for all my life before coming into parliament, it is not something that I support, and I think it is important to put that on the record for my constituents.
In 2016 the government commissioned an independent review into the parliamentary entitlements system. All 36 of the review's recommendations were accepted by this government, and we are continuing to implement them. With the recent passage of the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, the coalition government has abolished free travel for former parliamentarians, as I said before, and this is very important.
The authority that we are setting up will also act as a watchdog and adviser to provide oversight and certainty to Australians that their money is being spent appropriately. I think that is important, given that we earn right now, with the budget coming up in May, about $400 billion a year. That is how much we earn in income—$400 billion or so—from income tax from those people that work and from company tax from all those companies that do the right thing. But right now we are spending about $40 billion a year and we have done so for the last 10 years, since John Howard and Peter Costello left. If you add that up—$40 billion times 10—it is roughly $400 billion in accumulated debt plus interest that continues to grow and will be paid for by my children and the next generation. That will continue to grow.
An opposition member interjecting—
That is right. The member opposite interjects that it has gone up. That is what I just said, if you had listened. Every year for the last 10 years since Howard left it has been $40 billion. Forty billion dollars a year times 10 is $400 billion. You are right—it has gone up—but the problem is: members opposite do not seem to want to help us rein in that spending. People in my electorate should know that the Prime Minister is not in a position to just go, 'Let's spend $395 billion this year. Let's reduce it by $5 billion.' The Prime Minister cannot do that. The only way we can reduce expenditure is to get the support of the parliament through the Senate. And unfortunately, the Senate is not enabling us to do that—
An honourable member interjecting—
And they continue to see them go up. But that is an important point for the people of Petrie to know. I am certainly committed; I do not want to leave debt and deficit as a legacy to the next generation. I spoke today to Joe and Meirav Strasberg from Bracken Ridge, who made that important point to me. They said: 'Luke, we cannot continue to let debt and deficit go up. If the Senate does not support it, why not call another election now?'. And I said: 'Look, we did call another election, but the Australian people still voted for a different Senate. But it is important for me to know.' As someone that was elected, I continue to explain to people that this is an important measure, that debt is continuing to go up, and that we do need to address it—and I will continue to highlight it. Joe and Meirav Strasberg also spoke about free speech, and said that the changes to 18C were important. They criticised me—and us—for taking too long to do it, but I explained that we have been listening and we are doing it, and that I certainly believe in free speech. I think it is a really good thing—if people know me, and they know Prime Minister—that people in Australia do not tolerate racism. There is protection still in place there and, as the Prime Minister has said, we are strengthening that. So Joe and Meirav: thank you for your contribution in relation to that issue as well.
Paul Weisenekker from Carseldine shone a light onto a reform issue that had us all talking during the first sitting period—that when senators leave their party, the spot should go back to the party. So if someone leaves the party, then that seat should go back to the party; that person should not be able to sit in parliament for another six years. I agree with that. It has happened on both sides of parliament—but I think that if you are elected under a party, like I was, then you should stick with that party. Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, you will find that most Independents in this place—apart from the member for Mayo and the member for Indi, I think—were all originally with a party and then switched to become Independents, which I do not think is right, whether they are in the Senate or in the House.
Stella Burnell from Redcliffe calls on the government to fast-track the complete legalisation of medicinal cannabis for appropriate affordable treatment:
Please push for the complete legalisation of medicinal cannabis. Many people are suffering and this substance could alleviate their pain. It is frustrating to see how slowly this is happening.
Stella, thank you for contacting me. I have raised this directly with the Minister for Health, the Hon. Greg Hunt, and I am pleased to see that fast, safe and easy access to medicinal cannabis is on this government's agenda. I voted for that change last year, Stella. It is new territory, of course, for Australia. It offers hope for those with a wide range of health challenges. I congratulate the minister's office for listening to the people and moving swiftly to address concerns over difficulty accessing the product on script while domestic production becomes available. The controlled importation by approved providers from approved international sources offers interim supply and bridges the gap until domestic production can meet local needs. Essential services like health are stretched to their limits. We need to inject efficiency into the triangle of government responsibility.
Allan Bell from Scarborough also echoed the sentiments of many when he spoke of the high cost of living and said he would:
like to see more done about lowering the daily living cost which is killing low income Australians such as petrol, power, water, rent, fresh food…where and when does it stop?
Too right, Allan! The rising costs of living have reached a crisis point for many people. These costs include the costs of child care—our childcare reform package will make child care more affordable, more flexible and more accessible for families, and many families have contacted me. Hopefully we can have this sorted by 1 July, so we can encourage more women and more parents back into the workforce. Our package delivers the highest rate of assistance to those who need it most. I would also say to Allan to that the cost of power is a real issue. I was talking to The Golden Ox Restaurant from Margate: five years ago, their electricity bill was $2,750 a month and it is now $5,240 a month—almost a doubling of their electricity costs. That is why the Prime Minister's announcement in relation to a 50-per-cent expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme, pumped hydro and other forms of renewable energy—as well as clean coal and more gas for the domestic supply—is important, because we need energy security. If businesses' electricity costs are doubling, how are they going to employ more people?
I also had a number of other people—Dawn Cue from Rothwell, Terry Mead from Redcliffe, Brenda Wood from Scarborough, Trevor Johnson from Clontarf and Debra Lee Andrews from Kippa-Ring—talking about foreign ownership. One of them mentioned Cubbie Station being sold off to the Chinese. Obviously that happened during the former government when Wayne Swan signed off on it, but I would that say that the Foreign Investment Review Board has been in place and the government did stop the sale of the Kidman cattle station twice when it came before the FIRB, because it was 100 per cent Australian owned. Then a new bid came through from Hancock Prospecting for 60 per cent ownership and part Chinese ownership, and that was approved.
But I would say to people that, whilst some farmers are struggling, there are others who are doing very well. We have had a big increase in exports in the last 12 months, from $46 billion in agriculture exports to $60 billion in agriculture exports. Of course, that is partly because of our free trade agreements, and we can also invest in other countries. So I say to the people of Petrie, and everyone who has contacted me: thank you for your engagement. I will continue to work hard to represent you well and I look forward to leaving this place soon and being back with my constituents.
I rise to speak on the many virtues of Australia's Bush Capital, a city which is, according to the OECD, the most liveable region in the OECD. It is a great privilege to represent the north side of Canberra, the electorate formerly known as Fraser and now known as Fenner, after the great Australian scientist Frank Fenner. With community volunteers, we organised a 'Clean up Yerrabi Pond' afternoon last Saturday and were pleasantly surprised at the number of locals who turned out to assist us with making that part of Canberra just a little cleaner. I would like to acknowledge my staff, Nick Terrell, Eleanor Robson, Lillian Hannock, Jacob White, Nick Green and Taimus Werner-Gibbings, and the many volunteers, including Rob and Robin Eakin and Gerry Lloyd, plus other community volunteers, who helped us not only to pick up some of the garbage that had been strewn on the ground there but also—after we had washed our hands—to cook a barbecue for the community. It was a reminder of the strong community spirit that exists in Canberra and the Gungahlin area in general and Yerrabi Pond in particular. One of the things I love about Yerrabi Pond is it is a terrific spot take the kids with its flying foxes and state-of-the-art play areas. It is also the start area for the Gungahlin parkrun. I know that my colleague Ross Hart has recently spoken about the virtues of parkruns. This parkrun is very well attended and certainly one that I have enjoyed running in the past.
But Canberra in general is home to the highest quality of living worldwide, according to data from Numbeo, the world's largest database of user generated content. That research website ranks Canberra first on its quality-of-life index, which takes into account purchasing power, pollution, cost of living, safety, health care and climate index. Over the past seven years, it is the fifth time that Canberra has finished in first place. Sometimes this is a surprise to outsiders, but it is not to those of us who live here and understand the great cultural, sporting and community strength that is Canberra's.
Canberra will soon wrap up the Versailles: Treasures from the Palace exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia. It is an exhibition which is only travelling to Canberra and an extraordinary opportunity to see the excesses of Versailles, which played no small part in precipitating the French Revolution. My son Sebastian and I very much enjoyed spending time there, as indeed have tens of thousands of visitors. It is just one of the successful art exhibitions that have come to Canberra recently. These include the History of the World in 100 Objects exhibition, which, according to the Director of the National Museum of Australia, Mathew Trinca, has welcomed more than 128,000 visitors. Indeed, the exhibition saw its one millionth visitor during its Canberra showing. It is the National Museum of Australia's most successful exhibition to date, surpassing the 2010 Yiwarra Kuju Canning Stock Route exhibition.
Of course, culture does not just come in the form of the high arts. Canberrans were so enthusiastic to see Midnight Oil perform at the AIS Arena in October that tickets sold out in just 30 minutes flat. It is no surprise that Canberrans are keen for Midnight Oil, because it was a group formed in the 1970s when Peter Garrett was studying at the Australian National University. Indeed, I remember Peter telling me about the share-house he had on Limestone Avenue where, on the last night before moving out, they had a bonfire in the backyard which ended up being a little bigger than they expected because, by the end of the night, the entire broken down paling fence had been added to the bonfire. And, of course, the Doug Anthony All Stars were formed on the streets of Canberra in the 1980s and have held successful shows here. Canberrans love their live music.
On the sporting front, Canberra is home to the great Australian Institute of Sport, which has seen a range of sports stars, including marathon runner Rob de Castella. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Canberra Sports Award winners: San Antonio Spurs guard, Patty Mills, named Canberra Milk Athlete of the Year, Men's Sport; Olympic Gold Medal rower, Kim Brennan, named Capital Chemist Athlete of the Year Women's Sport; and Paralympic cycling medallist, Sue Powell, named Athlete of the Year, Para Sport. Sue and I met up last year for a run-ride photo opportunity by the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, and I can confidently report to the House that she rides a good deal faster than I can sprint. We also recognise as one of our own, tennis player Nick Kyrgios—certainly one of Australia's most interesting athletes. On the playing field, the Canberra Raiders had a stellar 2016 season, falling agonisingly short of a grand final berth. So Canberra's sporting prowess can be seen right across the board.
Last year Canberrans also showed their progressive values through re-electing Labor members in the federal election for the lower house, in Gai Brodtmann and me, and, in the upper house, in Senator Gallagher. And, in a historic re-election victory, Canberra Labor was re-elected for four more years, showing a clear mandate for light rail. Members and senators would, as they travel around Canberra, be aware of the light rail construction that is now underway—phase 1 linking Gungahlin to the city, but future phases will naturally build this out into a wider network. The world's leading cities are all investing in public transport, recognising that it is a way to ensure that we do not have our streets choked with congestion—and Canberra is doing just that.
As a result of that election, the ACT now has the first-ever female majority parliament, making it the first female parliamentary majority in Australian political history. The 25-member assembly can take great credit for this progressive move. Indeed, it reflects the progressive values of Canberra. Canberra is also the first jurisdiction in Australia to be led by an openly gay parliamentarian, in Andrew Barr. As Labor member Chris Steel, the second-ever openly gay person to be elected to the ACT parliament, has noted, Chief Minister Barr's 'hard-won path' meant that things were easier for others as they ran for office.
The ACT's progressive values are also seen in the ACT's strong commitment to renewables. The ACT is currently on track to be fully powered by renewables by 2020. That has meant that the ACT has seen significant jobs growth in the renewable sector. Jobs growth in the ACT renewable energy sector in the past six years has been 12 times faster than the national average and six times higher than in any other state or territory. The ACT government has invested $12 million into a renewable energy industry development strategy. Members will be aware, for example, of the solar farm on the side of the Majura Parkway, and also of the wind farm outside Canberra which serves the ACT region. It is another reminder that investing in renewables not only reduces our carbon emissions and brings down the long-term cost of energy but also creates renewable jobs. It is a progressive, sensible measure from a progressive, engaged jurisdiction.
Canberrans have always been naturally internationalist. Australian National University Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt said that he could not have won the Nobel Prize in physics without the natural international inclination of the ACT, a jurisdiction where people think of themselves very often as being citizens of the world, where they are interested in what is going on elsewhere and where they are committed to open engagement, whether that is a commitment to trade, to migration, to investment or, indeed, to travel. The opening of Canberra airport to international flights through Singapore Airlines, linking Canberra up with Wellington and Singapore, has been an important step. Indeed, we can look forward, I hope, over coming years, to other international carriers connecting Canberra up to the rest of the world. Canberrans like travel and its benefits of broadening the mind, and of course they love coming home to the most livable city in Australia.
Yet all that livability and those great achievements in culture and sport and in progressive values are so rarely recognised by the Liberals. We have seen, since the Liberals came to office, massive cutbacks on the federal Public Service. When Labor was in office, we saw Public Service numbers rise, year-on-year, in every year under Labor, except for the final year, in which they fell by a couple of hundred. Public Service numbers rose under Labor because, as the population increases, you naturally need more public servants in order to do the job. Most public servants are involved in service delivery—things like Customs and Centrelink and family assistance officers—so it makes sense that the Public Service should modestly expand as the population modestly expands.
But, in contrast to that steady growth in Public Service numbers under Labor, we have had massive cuts in the Public Service since the coalition came to office. We had a promise that there would be no more than 12,000 Public Service jobs cut, but indeed there have been considerably more jobs than that cut from the Public Service. The lie that the Liberals will tell is that these Public Service job cuts were implemented under Labor, but it is simply not true, as I have told the House. Public Service numbers under Labor rose every year, year upon year. And for people like conservative Senator Zed Seselja to suggest that there is a secret plan for job cuts is simply not true. Labor increased the Public Service in line with the population; the Liberals cut the Public Service, more than decimating Public Service job numbers.
Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, has continued to be just as fixated on attacking the national capital as his predecessor, Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah. They have looked to cut the Public Service—to rip jobs out of the Public Service. The worst offender on this has been Deputy Prime Minister Joyce.
Deputy Prime Minister Joyce has announced a plan to move the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority out of Canberra. There are many reasons to think that this is a terrible idea. One of the first is an independent cost-benefit analysis which found that the agricultural industry could lose up to $193 million a year, in part because the recruitment of new regulatory scientists to approve key agricultural chemicals could take up to five years. Most of those who work at the pesticides authority have said that they are reluctant to relocate to Armidale. That could well mean that the agency is unable to keep up with the rate of new product approvals. That would mean significant losses in crop values and for the chemical industry. It could mean the exit of key chemical companies from the Australian market. It could mean damage is done as the result of diseases to not only farm animals but also household pets. Yet the benefits are not there.
The independent report commissioned by the government says there is no material economic benefit of the agency being in Armidale rather than in Canberra. The government bypassed parliamentary approval of the relocation using extraordinary regulations to make the move happen. The result will be the loss of 365 jobs in Canberra and $4.4 million in costs to replace staff plus training costs; the agency not being able to relocate, recruit or replace key executives; reduced access to stakeholders; and the loss of technical staff, potentially 'seriously disrupting the ability of the agency to fulfil its purpose.'
As CropLife chief Matthew Cossey said,
Just relocation in itself doesn't achieve anything except interrupting the efforts being made by the APVMA to improve regulatory efficiency.
When asked about this, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce said,
If you did a cost-benefit analysis on the Sydney Opera House, well (you can say) that doesn't pay for itself either.
I am not sure how much Mr Joyce knows about the Opera House. It is one of the 20th century's best-known buildings in the world. It cost $102 million and now makes $60 million in annual revenue. If Mr Joyce could suggest another investment that would cost $102 million and would make $60 million in revenue every year, I do not think people would be booing. I think they would be cheering. If he could suggest an investment that would build an iconic building with 350,000 visitors, that would be a pretty good thing.
What we have instead is the pesticides authority being taken to Armidale, where the staff are now working out of McDonald's. That is right, because McDonald's has free wi-fi, albeit not very fast free wi-fi, APVMA staff are now, as we speak, sitting in Armidale Macca's doing their work. That is where Deputy Prime Minister Joyce's reasoning has ended up. Because he so wants to hurt Canberra, he is willing to have public servants working out of McDonald's in order to fulfil his vision of Australia. This is not a Sydney Opera House vision; this is a golden arches vision of Australia's future.
The Deputy Prime Minister has also launched a campaign to move public servants out of Canberra and into the regions, calling on his colleagues to identify Public Service jobs that could be taken out of Canberra. As my colleague Gai Brodtmann, the member for Canberra, has put it, Robert Menzies would be turning in his grave to see the result of a national capital built to the benefit of the nation now being turned into a crass pork-barrelling exercise in a desperate hope that the member for New England can get a few extra votes in his local region.
But it is not just Canberrans who are hurt when you rip Public Service jobs out of Canberra. It is also those who rely on those services. I pay tribute to the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, who gave an important speech on digital transformation and the problems that have occurred in digital transformation over recent years, under both Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull, the so-called tech-head Prime Minister. We have seen a decision by the government to locate the Digital Transformation Agency in Sydney rather than in Canberra. The member for Chifley is a Sydney member, but he recognises that if you are going to do digital transformation in the Public Service then you probably want that agency to be in the same city as the Public Service. Putting it in Sydney is great if you want to do digital transformation for one of the councils or the state government in Sydney, but if you want to do federal digital transformation you need to put the agency in Canberra. I do pay tribute to the member for Chifley for that, because he recognises—as the member for New England does not—the benefits of a national capital and the benefits of centralisation.
If you look at other areas in the world in which terrific productivity is being enjoyed—areas like Silicon Valley and wine clusters such as you see in South Australia—you will see that these occur thanks to co-location; thanks to the ability of people to quickly get together for an informal chat or, in the case of public servants, for an interdepartmental meeting. This makes sure that we do not have silos forming, preventing the cross-pollination of ideas between departments. The idea of pork-barrelling Canberra Public Service jobs to the regions means that we get less cooperation, more silos, less engagement and more barriers between departments. It is bad for the great bush capital of Canberra and it is bad for public policy in Australia. Ours is a great city, and it needs a great government to defend it.
It is terrific to be here giving a speech on the address-in-reply, the first one where, as the member for Farrer, I represent the new boundaries of my electorate, and on a day when I am inviting the food producers who make this part of western New South Wales so magnificent to come and showcase, here in the parliament, exactly what they do and the contribution they make both to the wining and dining boom and to our national economy.
At the last election the boundaries of Farrer changed, as I just mentioned, and they now take in the Murray and Murrumbidgee rivers. That, in fact, is almost all of the irrigated agriculture in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, so I like to say that my electorate is the home of irrigated agriculture. The person who has that responsibility here in this place has a very big one, because irrigation that feeds the nation and the world is not well understood by so many of Australia's citizens. That is not, in any sense, their fault; it is just that people who live in New South Wales east of the Great Divide have little opportunity to visit those of us west of the Great Divide and see what we do. Over the years, debate between environmentalists and irrigators has become very tense, as if they are polar opposites in any debate. That is not true—farmers are the best environmentalists, as I know many people have heard me say. There is no fun in living in an area of rural Australia where the environment is not well looked after.
One of the things I have committed to do is to make sure that the interests of irrigated agriculture are my No. 1 interest here in the parliament, because every community that I represent—the small businesses, the manufacturing businesses, the freight businesses—depends on farming, and most of that farming depends on access to water to grow crops, food and fibre. The complex Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the interests of so many people across a whole basin are very much brought together in my electorate, because we see the effects and we struggle with many of those effects. I am pleased that the MDBA recently announced that they would have a presence in my home town of Albury-Wodonga, which will enable their officials and their staff, I hope, to see beyond the world they live in here in Canberra and to live, work and raise their families in the areas that depend so much on the policies that they implement. I am quite excited about that; it is an important start. It would be terrific to see much of the MDBA move out of Canberra, and I know that once the message spreads about how great it is to live in rural Australia more will follow.
The important thing from my perspective is that we understand that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is here to stay but we also understand that it is not a hands-off exercise, it does not have the confidence of rural communities, it does not have the investment in it by rural communities and we are not at all certain that it does not need some fairly major strategic resetting. I want to see that happen with the support of everyone, because there has been too much division in this area for too long, but I have to say that you only have to mention '450-gigalitre up-water' anywhere in my irrigation communities to get a really negative reaction—because, from the perspective of the people I represent, they have already given up enough. The recent announcement of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council that there would be no more buyback is incredibly welcome and I support that, but we still have a job to do to manage the recovery of water for the environment in a way that does not harm agricultural producers—and I mean that in a literal sense: the recovery of water must not harm them by flooding their property—and in a way that gives them, as I said, the confidence that the water being recovered actually will do some good and provide some benefit for the environment. If we are going through all this pain, we want to know that there will be gain and that it does make sense in a holistic way for the entire basin. No-one argues that the communities that I represent have given up the most, have lost the most and have experienced the most pain, but it has to be for some gain—that is vital.
In addressing this problem, I am looking very closely at what I can do to persuade my colleagues in this place that there should be no additional diverted water above a total cap of 2,100 gigalitres, which represents the diversion target of 2,750 gigalitres less the 650 that can be provided with water-saving projects that drop that target—and that is all. Let's find a way. When we have reached that and established that it works and does what it was supposed to do, then we can look at an additional 450 gigalitres, because right now the river systems do not have the ability to deliver that. It does not work in the real world. You only have to look at the floods that we experienced late last year—which could have been an environmental flow, and some people describe them as such—and the damage they did to really appreciate that this is not something that you can do via numbers on a page and dollars that would seem to satisfy various interests. So I am watching that 450 gigalitres very closely and hoping it can be delayed until a time when we can guarantee that it can in fact be delivered. I would love to see the total cap on diversions at 2,100 gigalitres be announced in some way to give my communities confidence. The third thing that I alluded to was that there be an audit of the environmental flows to recognise that they actually are delivering what they are supposed to deliver.
I want to mention one more thing. If it rains and water has been recovered for the environment that is not needed because it has rained—and, of course, you cannot predict the rain—doesn't it make sense for that water to be delivered back into productive agriculture? Amendments to the Water Act have in fact allowed for that, but we need to get it happening. We need to have some sort of offset account that says, 'This much rain came into a particular area of the basin at a certain time and environmental water, therefore, is not needed and that environmental water needs to be traded back to agriculture.' In that way, again, we see the environment and farmers as partners. Ultimately, if we want the world to look at what we do and recognise the great steps we have taken in preserving both our environment and our farming systems, then we need to have that partnership working very well—and of course I absolutely welcome the Prime Minister's announcement about Snowy hydro 2. I used to have Snowy hydro in my electorate. It is a demonstration of a project that was built not just to generate electricity but actually to irrigate the inland and transform the inland of New South Wales.
In making those comments about my electorate and how I see it going forward, there are more things that I will say in due course about access to telecommunications, the NBN and the very real need for an inland freight route to develop the produce that is being grown in the electorate. We are quite excited about the prospect of an airport at Deniliquin to link with the airport at Toowoomba, which will allow fresh produce to be flown to Asia. All of those things bring an exciting future to our manufacturing industries. So, when you think of us as farmers, do not just think of us as growing the raw material in the paddock, important though that is; think of us in terms of the value add, which is fantastic.
I want to make some comments that relate to my own personal circumstances. Earlier this year, following intense media speculation about the circumstances surrounding my purchase of an apartment on the Gold Coast in May 2015, I asked the Department of Finance to review my travel records inasmuch as they involved travel to, from and transiting the Gold Coast, for the entire time that I had been a government minister, namely between September 2013 and January 2017. I have recently received the Department of Finance's final report and, as I indicated that I would do at the time, I am making the report publicly available at the first opportunity, which is today. To assist the Department of Finance, I provided whatever records were required or requested, way beyond what would be normal for acquittal of ministerial travel claims. In doing so, some of the information that I provided was personal and related to government processes, and, for this reason, I shall not be releasing the attachments to the report, as they are regarded as cabinet-in-confidence. However, the 15 pages of the report itself and the conclusions that were reached I shall be tabling today.
The department found that over a 3½-year period there had been one claim that was outside entitlements. This was for a five-minute car trip. Even so, to avoid any doubt, I had already repaid the entire amount in January this year. As I stated at the time, my unplanned purchase of a property changed the character of that trip from business to personal, and I repaid the total cost. As it drew so much attention, I would like to place on the record the circumstances around this purchase. I know that the notion of buying a property on impulse might seem quite strange to some and, while the purchase of this particular property was on impulse, the decision to purchase a property was not. I was in Queensland on ministerial business. I had an important announcement in Brisbane first thing Saturday morning, followed by a meeting with doctors and patients. I then had a meeting on the Gold Coast mid-afternoon, which was the reason I was travelling there. It also meant that, in the normal course of events, I had a couple of hours where I was at a loose end. I had been considering purchasing a property for some time. In mid-2014 I had received preapproval from the Hume Bank in Albury for such a purchase. On Friday night, when my attention was drawn to something suitable and when I was going to be on the Gold Coast as a matter of course, I went along to the auction. It was an entirely incidental and unplanned activity in what was an otherwise busy weekend schedule. The first time that I saw the apartment was 20 minutes before the auction commenced and the first time that I spoke to an agent about this property was when I registered, as I walked through the door.
There are two other matters that I would like to address. The first is the issue of the number of times I travelled to the Gold Coast. This has also been the subject of substantial media commentary and public speculation. During the 703 days that I was a cabinet minister, I spent 15 nights on the Gold Coast. To put this in perspective, as both a minister and cabinet minister for some 1,100 days, I spent over half of that time—684 days, to be precise—away from my home electorate. This might seem an enormous amount of travel, but it is explained by two factors. The first is that I had two very busy portfolios: health and sport—three, really, if you include aged care as part of the health portfolio. These portfolios have a very substantial number of constituent and interest groups, with whom a minister needs to be visible. This is a massive workload. I am not complaining; I loved it. I simply raise it as a matter of fact. The second factor is that, unlike most ministers, I represent a rural electorate. Flight schedules and connections make frequent travel more challenging. For example, while most ministers may be able to fly home on Saturday afternoon and fly out to another destination on Monday morning, for someone from a rural electorate, this is often simply impractical. Quite apart from the substantially longer travel time—assuming that one could get flight connections on a weekend in the first place—and the ridiculously short turnaround time when one was at their home base, there is the issue that to do so would involve considerably greater cost to the taxpayer than staying put. A minister from Melbourne or Sydney can get a six o'clock morning flight to Brisbane, a minister from Albury cannot.
To return to the issue of my overnight stays on the Gold Coast, of these 15 overnight stays, six were related to me being the keynote speaker at a conference. A moment's thought would confirm that an organisation such as the Pharmacy Guild will have more success having their annual conference—whether it be on child care, aged care or health—over a weekend on the Gold Coast than attempting to run it at Darling Harbour midweek. Another six stays were for major hospital openings and/or sporting events in my capacity as Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport. The 2018 Commonwealth Games are being held on the Gold Coast, so it is hardly surprising that the Commonwealth sports minister will be required to be there from time to time in the lead-up. Two of these six trips were specifically related to discussions around the 2018 Commonwealth Games. One newspaper article suggested that, because a meeting to inspect sporting infrastructure went for only an hour, that was the sum total of my working day. It is a pity that the person writing that article did not seek the full facts before going to print. In fact, the day in question contained a full morning's discussion of Commonwealth Games infrastructure, a working lunch and a youth mental health visit. Two trips involved no more than landing at Coolangatta airport, utilising it as a hub before travelling into northern New South Wales on parliamentary business. Regardless of these facts, the public impression was cast. In politics, I understand that the facts can get lost in the search for a good story. I would like to draw attention to the section in the finance report which notes overnight stays where I did not claim travelling allowance, and I quote: 'The itinerary of the trip was shaped in part by considerations that could be categorised as personal in nature. Ms Ley had given thought to such matters at the time of submitting her claims and did not seek to be paid travelling allowance for a number of overnight stays.'
In revisiting this period and reflecting on the standard I set myself, I determined, in the course of this review, that, while not required to do so, I have nonetheless chosen to make further voluntary adjustments, which, together with the earlier repayments and including a 25 per cent loading, amount to just over $5,000. Most of this amount is attributable to three nights accommodation for business meetings in Brisbane where an overnight stay was required and I chose to stay on the Gold Coast; two flights to get to Canberra for parliamentary sittings that originated from Coolangatta rather than my home base; a flight back home after a business meeting in Brisbane where that meeting had been followed by personal leave; and taxi fares where I had not made a diary note and whose purpose I cannot recall, totalling approximately $200. I was within the rules in claiming reimbursement for such expenses. However, I have always believed in listening to the electorate and one thing became clear to me: the parliamentary expenses guidelines did not align with the community standard. When I reflected on both the community standard and the standard I set myself, I decided that standard had not been met. Up until now, because the rules and regulations have been unclear, members of parliament could not always be 100 per cent sure when the line of public expectation was crossed. That decision-making is set to be taken out of our hands with the announced changes to work expenses, and I think that is a good thing.
I take this opportunity to comment on further allegations made against me concerning ministerial charter and my pilot's licence. I have held this licence since I was 19 and, from time to time, I fly a small four-seater single-engine Cessna in my electorate. Claims suggesting I booked a ministerial charter between capital cities in order to maintain flying hours as a pilot are ridiculous. Yes, as a pilot myself, I may have sat next to the pilot on some of these charters, and sometimes I tweeted from the cockpit. That is perfectly legitimate. The simple fact is: I am not endorsed to fly any of the aircraft that were ever booked for ministerial travel or travel to Canberra. The thought that I might have logged flying hours on such flights is laughable.
When I resigned as minister, I did so because the facts could not overcome the story. The repayments I have chosen to make entirely voluntarily are because I recognise that I have fallen short of community standards, and I want to put the matter beyond further commentary. I am releasing this report as I gave a previous commitment to make it publicly available ahead of time, not knowing what it would contain. In no way do I seek to complain about my situation or the way events played out. I simply table the outcome of the investigation, as I said I would. In doing so, I allow people to draw their own conclusions.
I accept the mercurial world which is politics today, although if I could pass on an observation that I am sure others have experienced: the front-page news and associated conclusions drawn about me talk of someone who bears no resemblance to me. Even so, I have been incredibly fortunate to serve in Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet and even more fortunate to represent the people of Farrer here in the federal parliament. I thank my colleagues and friends for their support and I thank my constituents from the bottom of my heart for the faith they have shown in me.
The member for Farrer seeks leave to table a document.
Leave granted.
I am honoured to have been elected for a fourth term by the people of Blair. The electorate of Blair covers most of Ipswich and all of the Somerset region in South-East Queensland. The region has been my home all my life. It is where I was born, grew up, went to school, married, and raised my children. I expect it is where I will grow old. Representing Blair is a great privilege. It is a great to have represented this region. I have always considered myself a working-class boy from a working-class Ipswich suburb, Basin Pocket.
Blair is a region of many working people, with a rich rural heritage. It is home still to coalmines and was home to limestone quarries before that. It is home to manufacturing. There were the woollen mills. There were big railway workshops, now much smaller. There is much meat production. Blair boasts numerous meat manufacturers, at places like Kilcoy, Churchill and Coominya, and, of course, Australia's largest abattoir, JBS at Dinmore. It is home to the largest RAAF base, soon to be the largest military base, in the country, RAAF Base Amberley, which is surrounded by a growing aerospace industry precinct, located currently on the base. I hope it will be adjacent to the base in years to come.
The region has a love of cars, and we have the Willowbank motorsport precinct, with drag racing and the V8 supercars. It is home to many resilient people, and the floods in 2011 and 2013 showed that. Indeed, the floods in 1974, which I experienced as a child, showed that. Some of the largest floods that have taken place across Australia, such as the 1893 flood, have affected Ipswich terribly. Looks can be deceiving. The beauty of the Wivenhoe Dam and the Somerset Dam, their picturesque aspect and the aesthetics of the region, can be deceptive, and we saw much devastation in 2011 and 2013.
I am humbled by the support and loyalty of the electorate. I believe Labor has a strong track record and our core values have contributed to the strong performance of Labor in our part of the world. Blair is a unique electorate, in the sense that it has nine other electorates surrounding it and, for most of the time, only the Labor electoral of Oxley has been my Labor neighbour. I want to honour my friend the former member for Oxley Bernie Ripoll. Together we fought for and delivered the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Dinmore to Darra, the Robelle Domain parklands development and the USQ building upgrades. The Mater cancer clinic was built very much because of the work that he and I did in getting the funding for it in Springfield. And the very popular Orion pool has added to profitability and employment in the region. It is a pool which is much bigger than the South Bank pool in South Brisbane.
For most of the last term, Bernie was a neighbour in this place, next door to me, and the member for Moreton was located nearby, so we called that part of Parliament House the 'Ipswich Motorway', much to the bewilderment of the members for Batman and Makin, who also had offices along that corridor in Parliament House. I want to thank Bernie for his friendship and cooperation and wish him every success in his business endeavours. I am fortunate to have Milton Dick as his successor as the member for Oxley. Milton has been a longstanding friend of mine. We share the growing Springfield region, and I have enjoyed many opportunities to collaborate with him and campaign together for infrastructure and the project needs of our local communities.
I want to mention my good friend and former senator Jan McLucas. Jan was a friend of mine before I even came to this place, in 2007. She helped me launch the first Blair Disability Links in 2010, and became well known and beloved throughout the community of Ipswich and its surrounds. I had the pleasure of seeing Jan in action on the campaign trail in North Queensland during the election, and she was in her element; she has certainly not retired from her political campaigning. She represented me in the Senate when I was the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, and she had an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the topic. I want to thank her for her commitment to Queensland, to Indigenous affairs and to disability particularly, and to Far North Queensland and North Queensland specifically.
Locally, with my colleagues in Oxley and Moreton, Labor has continued to hold strong across the western corridor between Brisbane and Ipswich—not always in good political times for Labor. It is precisely those Labor values that resonate, I believe, with the men and women of our region. Labor has long been the party advocating for and delivering on upgrades in infrastructure, particularly of the Ipswich Motorway. However, the previous Liberal government, the Abbott-Turnbull government, did not have a commitment to nation-building, and the government in its current context does not have a commitment to nation-building, to infrastructure development or to planning for the future of South-East Queensland. As a result, despite the fact that Labor delivered funding in the 2013 May budget, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade has ended at Darra, leaving the Darra-Rocklea stretch one of the most notorious car parks in the Brisbane region. It is a seven-kilometre headache and heartache for the 93,000 motorists a day—vehicles that include 12,000 trucks—that use the Ipswich Motorway. This stretch of road is not actually in Blair—it runs through Oxley and Moreton—but a good number of those 93,000 motorists come from Blair, and they have made it clear to me that this upgrade is absolutely essential. I want to thank the Palaszczuk Labor government for their $200 million commitment to kickstarting this section of the motorway.
We made the Darra to Rocklea upgrade a priority in the election campaign. We put pressure on the Turnbull government to do the right thing for motorists in the western corridor. Last year, the Leader of the Opposition, the now member for Oxley, the member for Moreton and I gathered at the Oxley roundabout to announce Labor's commitment of $200 million in funding for the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Darra to Rocklea, should we win the election. I am proud to say even the local media recognised that we forced the coalition government under the current Prime Minister to finally respond to the outcry from local businesses, local councils and residents who are tired of waiting and want the job done. Finally, in the May 2016 budget, the government committed to doing it. Construction of this section of the motorway will help create 470 jobs, provide a safer and quicker journey for motorists, and improve national and local freight movements. Before that May 2016 budget, Labor made that commitment and forced the government to do this. It is now up to this government to make it happen, and to make it happen sooner rather than later.
I will never grow complacent when it comes to the infrastructure projects and programs that Ipswich and the Somerset region need. This is not a government with a great track record of following through on its promises. One of the big infrastructure projects that I have campaigned on for some time is the upgrade of the Willowbank interchange from Ebenezer Creek to Yamanto along the Cunningham Highway. The Queensland government considers $345 million the necessary amount, and it is one of the priority projects, according to Infrastructure Australia.
We currently have a government here in Canberra that seems to be focused on wealthy metropolitan areas rather than regional and rural areas. Let me give you an example of that. I was pleased to see the Lowood Show Society receive $25,000 under a National Stronger Regions Fund grant to improve the Lowood showgrounds. It is one of seven terrific applications, worth over $7 million in funding, from my electorate. I will always welcome any investment in Blair, but I cannot understand how two wealthy, Liberal-held electorates in Sydney and Melbourne can receive $13.2 million in grants when the government is supposed to be building stronger regions. I cannot understand why the seat of Warringah would receive a $10 million grant and the leafy suburbs of Kooyong would receive a $3.2 million grant when Blair only received $25,000. This is a genuinely regional and rural area, and home to many disadvantaged people.
Recently we were excluded from any additional applications that we could make under this particular aspect of the Building Better Regions Fund. Ipswich was entirely excluded; only Somerset in my electorate could get it. I wrote a letter to the minister, Senator Fiona Nash, about it, asking that Ipswich be included in future. I cannot understand why Ipswich has been excluded.
Those opposite fail to realise the impact their disastrous budgets and mismanagement have had on ordinary people in regional and rural areas. Mobile phone reception is yet another example. When mobile phone reception in places like Manly is bad, it is inconvenient, but living in an isolated community like Moore, Linville or Somerset Dam and not getting mobile phone coverage can be disastrous. Certainly in the 2011 floods, when land lines were washed away and towns were cut off, these rural communities were without communications, often for weeks.
The coalition campaigned heavily on mobile blackspot funding. We have learnt this program is to be nothing more than pork-barrelling, so people living in isolated areas in Blair have no coverage even though some of those areas were supposed to get funding in the first round. They still have not got coverage in places like Linville, Moore and Somerset, less than a few hours drive from Ipswich CBD.
People in Blair have been hurt by unfair and unreasonable budgets. The 2014 budget of the member for Warringah is a classic example of that. It is a government which makes policies for Rose Bay rather than Rosewood in rural Ipswich. Cutting penalty rates might seem like a good idea if you are living in Chatswood, but in Churchill it sees workers lose their homes. And privatising Medicare was not a scare campaign; it has always been policy of this government if they are given a chance. The coalition has never supported socialised medicine. Scare campaigns from this government seem to be demonising unions while protecting banking and finance, and the people of Blair have told me at numerous mobile offices that they want a royal commission into the banking and finance sector.
Scandals, rip-offs and rorts are simply not good enough for this government, which seems to turn a blind eye. It is appalling to see what the government does not do in relation to the 200,000 customers of financial services when the banks charge exorbitant fees. And what is the government intending to do? Give them a $7.4 billion tax cut. It has been made clear to me by the middle-class and working-class people of Blair that they deserve a better go and a fairer go in the financial and banking sector. That is why the evidence demands a royal commission into the banking and financial sector, and I will continue to campaign in relation to that. I will never give up fighting for ordinary working people in my area.
In the previous term, I had the privilege of being Labor spokesperson for Indigenous affairs and ageing and later for northern Australia. It is a great honour and privilege to be on Labor's front bench, and I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to serve in that way. I appreciate the unity and collegiality and the number of members who also gave me assistance through that time. We came within, in rugby league terms, a field goal of winning the election, but we will continue to campaign and hold the government to account.
I want to thank the member for Lingiari, who was my deputy in Indigenous affairs and in many ways my superior because of his encyclopaedic knowledge of Indigenous affairs. We enjoyed numerous flights in small planes, visiting some uniquely beautiful parts of remote Australia. We battled where there were some of the worst examples of ineptitude. The appalling Indigenous Advancement Strategy, condemned by Labor and criticised heavily by the Auditor-General, is just one. Over half a billion dollars was slashed from front-line services. Family and legal services, diversionary programs and preventative health initiatives make a big impact.
With the member for Lingiari we listened to Indigenous people in remote areas, country areas, rural areas and metropolitan areas. They are our first people and deserve to be recognised in the Constitution. The rest of us really are new arrivals compared to people who have been here for 60,000 years. Their traditional ways are not lifestyle choices. They are part of a culture and heritage that should be recognised as one of if not the oldest living culture on the planet. That is why Labor believes we should support the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the only peak representative body to truly represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not a hand-picked advisory committee as the government seems to do.
We understand engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people requires genuine partnership. It is not always going to be comfortable, but we need to do that. We need to make a serious commitment in this country to stemming incarceration rates, ensuring Indigenous young people are free from family violence as well.
In the ageing portfolio I want to thank Senator Helen Polley from Tasmania for sharing the same passion I did. For 14 years before I was elected into this place, I served on the board of Carinity, an aged-care provider in Queensland, and acted as a lawyer for many aged-care providers in Queensland, so I had some knowledge of that space. We did the hard yards in terms of that portfolio and we held the government to account. I want to thank Senator Polley for the work she did. I also want to thank Everald Compton, in particular, for his tenacity and the wonderful contribution he made. He kept going, despite the funding cuts to the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing, which was established by Wayne Swan, a former Treasurer. I thank him for his Blueprint for an ageing Australia, delivered in September 2014, which I think provides a significant way forward in addressing the challenge of an ageing workforce and the challenges of housing and transport for the ageing. I also thank former Labor Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe for his contribution and the wise advice he gave me across that space.
I am honoured to now be the shadow minister for immigration and border protection. In the last eight months or so I have travelled to North Queensland, Central Queensland and the Hunter region, hearing about rorts in the 457 visa program and the importance of local jobs. I was proud to join the Leader of the Opposition in introducing legislation to the House to put local workers first and toughen the rules on 457s. We will make sure that local workers are ready and willing to work and that employers have to advertise, and genuinely try to fill, jobs locally before recruiting from overseas. We will also make sure businesses using a significant number of temporary workers have a plan for training local workers. We will protect Australian training standards for our trades and make sure temporary workers meet Australian skill standards before they come here to work.
I met with Australian Border Force staff working on the front lines at airports, such as Sydney International Airport, and spoke with them about the challenges they face. We have also been alive to the issues of refugee families, who have spoken to me about their experiences in relation to Manus and Nauru. Labor has initiated a Senate inquiry about serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in these places. That inquiry is due to report in the next few weeks, and it is a direct result of the single largest leak of documents about asylum seekers in offshore detention we have ever seen, known as the 'Nauru files'. I want to be clear: Labor supports offshore processing, regional resettlement and turn backs—when it is safe to do so—but we do not support this government in using Manus and Nauru as places of indefinite detention. Offshore processing centres were meant to be regional transit centres where applications for asylum could be processed and those people found to be refugees resettled in third countries. The refugees on Manus and Nauru have been there far too long because the immigration minister has failed to secure third-country resettlement options.
We support the US refugee resettlement deal, but, just this week, immigration officials have confirmed the Turnbull government is not negotiating with other countries to resettle refugees currently living on Manus and Nauru. Potentially hundreds of refugees on Manus and Nauru will miss out on the opportunity to resettle in the United States and could be left to languish in these places. It is simply not good enough to put all your eggs in one basket, and the minister should do his job and look for other third-country resettlement options for those people. Australia can and should do more. We should engage better with the UNHRC. There are 65 million people displaced around the world, fleeing war, conflict and persecution. We need to do much better in this country. We need to play a bigger role in the region and work with international humanitarian agencies to tackle this crisis while maintaining the integrity of our borders. We will always stand against this government when it has gone too far, as it has with legislation to impose lifetime bans on former refugees who have been awarded citizenship of other countries. As shadow minister, I promise my door will always be open to hear good ideas about how to protect local jobs, get refugees off Manus and Nauru, and bring transparency, accountability and trust back into the immigration portfolio.
In the couple of minutes remaining I want to thank the 250 volunteers who joined the Labor cause and supported me in my re-election. At Rosewood railway station at five in the morning, with Labor hoodies on, there were too many people to thank. I want to thank my wife Carolyn; our daughters, Alex and Jacqui; my electorate staff, who work so well; and people such as Carolyn and Yvonne, Melissa Harris, Jarod Boyle, Kerryl Harmon, Suzanne Miller and Kim Fullarton, who made many phone calls. I would also thank 16-year-old Thomas Chapple and his mum, Nicole, who were fantastic at the Ipswich pre-poll all the time; Steve Franklin and Allan McMillan from the Rosewood branch; Darren Baldwin and Ian Fraser from the Springfield Central branch; Janet Butler and Ineke Rouw from the Somerset branch, who flew the flag year-round in an area in which we were generally not too popular; Councillor Kerry Silver and members of the Riverview/Collingwood Park branch; Trevor Baker and the president of my FEC, Councillor Kylie Stoneman and her Ipswich North branch; and Nick Hughes and all the members of Ipswich Central branch. I want to thank my own branch—the Raceview Flinders branch, one of the biggest branches of the Labor party in Queensland—for their ongoing support. They are sometimes known as the 'Shayne Neumann Protection Society', that branch. We are a force locally and I appreciate the work of people like Frank Zarb and Carol Nevin, my new mobile office and country show offsider.
I want to pay tribute to a good, departed, friend of mine, Greg Turner, who passed away. Campaigning without Greg is not the same. He joined me every weekend on mobile offices, year after year, and I am very sad that he is no longer with us.
I also thank Brian Hall, who managed our sign shed, and the late Peggy Frankish, who was also a great friend of mine. I thank my mum, Joy Butler, and her husband, Rob. I also thank a good mate of mine up in Toogoolawah, a former coalition cabinet minister in the Queensland government, Beryce Nelson, who was always there to offer advice and share stories. I also thank Bill and Lyn Rose from the Fernvale Bakery, Ally from the Kai Lounge, and Harry's Cafe in Rosewood and all the small business operators who worked with me.
I thank Mayor Paul Pisasale and all the state members who have assisted me in councils here in Ipswich. Thank you very much. I will not let you down. (Time expired)
I rise also to speak about the Governor-General's address. I will outline some of the factors that I think are important following the last election. I want to take up the member for Blair on his rugby league parlance and say: it is the difference between Benny Elias missing a field goal in 1989 to hand the grand final to the Raiders and Johnathan Thurston kicking a field goal to win it for the Cowboys. It can make all the difference, that one point and that one goal!
It will be this year—I know I will have the member for Solomon's support—that the Parramatta Eels' Corey Norman will kick that field goal to win that grand final in 2017. I am looking forward to seeing that. And I know the Eels have a big part in the Northern Territory these days.
I want, of course, to express my thanks to the people of Mitchell, my electorate, who have now re-elected me four times. Amelia, Jack, Lachlan and I are so grateful to our community for the support that the community give me, as their representative, to take up the causes that matter to them here in the federal parliament. We have a great area and a great community. It is a go-ahead area of Sydney. Recent data has just shown that, of all the regions in Sydney, there are three that make up a quarter of Australia's GDP, and the hills district in the electorate of Mitchell is a strong part of all the economic growth that is driving some great results in this nation. And, while we want to see growth in all the regions and to see it spread further, the hills district is a powerhouse of economic activity and growth.
I pay tribute to the businesses of my electorate, the small and medium Australian companies—so many thousands of them—who are employing people, taking risks and creating jobs. I also pay tribute to the entrepreneurial people of my electorate who work from home. I have one of the highest proportions of mums working from home of anywhere in the country. These are people who want to work, who want to earn a living, who are doing their best for their families and their lives, and I thank them for their great support. A great privilege it is to continue to take up their causes here in parliament.
I was pleased to be able to deliver a headspace facility for our youth. Youth mental health is one of the biggest challenges faced in one of the highest family areas in the country, and I will continue to focus on it, as a representative down here, to make sure that that headspace service is well targeted towards ensuring young people get the services they need to ensure that we have less of youth suicide and fewer concerns from mental health issues dominating young people in the north-west of Sydney.
I also want to commend the state government for the $10 billion rail line that is now approaching a completion date in the next few years. It is a $10-billion infrastructure project that will enhance and further encourage the economy of my community, and it is fantastic to see a Liberal state government, backed up by a Liberal federal government, delivering an important piece of public transport infrastructure—perhaps the most important piece of urban transport infrastructure in this country's history. It will have the second longest rail tunnel in the southern hemisphere, and one of the longest rail tunnels in the world, under Sydney. It is on time. It is under budget. And it is an example of competent Liberal government delivering infrastructure for the benefit of Sydney.
We have seen the Turnbull government announce and bring forward the Western Sydney airport as well—one of the most vital decisions that the federal government has taken for Western Sydney in the last 30 or 40 years. It is to the shame of Labor members opposite that they continue to oppose what is a real economic driver of prosperity and hope, and, importantly, of utility to the communities and residents across Western Sydney. We know that the public are overwhelmingly behind the Western Sydney airport. We know that they are overwhelmingly behind the Turnbull government's approach, which is to build much of the infrastructure—the connecting roads; the necessary links—up-front. And they are obviously looking forward to the zoning and other opportunities that will come from a commercial hub, with real jobs, from an airport, with a real future for the young people there. And it will be of great utility to people in Western Sydney who will be able to get on a plane from Western Sydney, when this airport is operational, and leave for a domestic or an international destination. So we are going to continue to pursue the Western Sydney airport, because it is a real driver of jobs. It is a real driver of hope. It is a real driver of economic and other prosperity for people in Western Sydney.
I say to Labor members opposite—some of whom are new to this House: get on board with the government about this. Your spokesperson, the member for Grayndler, is clear that the Labor Party's position is to support the Western Sydney Airport. It should not be the case that Labor members in Western Sydney depart from the member for Grayndler's strong support and the Leader of the Opposition's strong support for the Western Sydney Airport. It is not good enough to say that you oppose it while in your local communities but support it when here in Canberra. Be honest with the people, get on board, acknowledge that it is going to drive those jobs, that economic future and that transportation future in a way that none of the other proposals for Western Sydney will do. So I say to my Labor colleagues in Western Sydney: now is the time to get behind it—not to support these councils opposing it—and realise that the Turnbull government is delivering for the people of Western Sydney.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to serve, since the election, as the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Similar to the member for Blair, it is a great privilege to have joined this portfolio, having a migrant background. My mother was born in Greece, and I am a second-generation person who has come through to become responsible for migration to and from and Australia. I think that is the story of Australia. People come here, their families work hard, they make good and they are integrated successfully into Australia almost seamlessly. In fact, Australia takes more people from more places around the world and integrates them into our great country in a seamless way. We should never lose sight of the fact that we are one of the best and most successful nations in integrating large volumes of migrants relative to our population seamlessly into our community. It is something that we all must take pride in.
But that, of course, does not mean that we do not have to be cognisant of the fact that immigration relies on public confidence. It relies on the fact that we have tight and secure borders. One of the greatest failings of Labor has been to unravel borders and undermine the public's confidence—the essential individual confidence—in the ability of the government to control the borders and to control migration. When we came to office in 2013, we restored public confidence in immigration and the migration program by ensuring that we have strong and secure borders.
It was good to hear the member for Blair get up to today and adopt entirely the coalition's position on strong border protection, even though, amongst the ranks of Labor members opposite, there are still people who violently oppose the strong border regime that the coalition has been able to put in place. We make no apologies for stopping the boats and for putting in place a regime that will ensure that we do not have the insidious people-smuggling trade resume, and ensure that we deal with the immigration challenges that this nation faces in a controlled way and in a way that will retain the support and the essential confidence of the public. So I want to say to the member for Blair: it is also time to get on board. He says that we are not engaged in any deals in relation to third-party resettlements. We have perhaps the most important development, since the legacy of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era in terms of boat people, on the table at the moment, and that is a resettlement arrangement with the United States. He brushes over it, but the member for Blair knows and the Labor Party know that this is a significant achievement that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration have developed to see refugees return to the United States—recognising that we are unable to and we will not take them here in Australia at any point, so that we do not see people-smuggling resume. So I want to say to the member for Blair that it is important that he speaks publicly about his support for the deal with the United States. It is again essential for public confidence.
The Rudd government, in haste and in desperation, set up the offshore processing centres as a last resort due to the mess that they had created. It is our government that has sorted out that mess and has made sure that they are able to function properly. We have closed 17 detention centres since that time. I repeat: 17 detention centres have been closed. We have had no boats arrive and we have restored public confidence in our immigration system. So I want to commend the government for what we have done. What we plan to do is ensure that we remain one of the world's generous resettlement countries and we continue to be the world's third-largest resettlement country for refugees. We will ensure that the public understand that, when you secure the borders, the dividend of good economic management and good border control, means that we will be able to have a strongly supported migration program which is primarily skilled migration—where people come here for the hope and the opportunity that this country always delivers to people who come here with the right intentions.
I want to thank the Prime Minister, the government, my community and the people of Australia for helping us with that 'field goal from Johnathan Thurston' at the last minute to make sure that we are able to govern the country and continue to govern the country. I would also note that the coalition has been elected to government more often than not over the last 65 years, and I think that is a signal from the electorate that we listen and that we do the things that they ask us to do. Delivery of key infrastructure, delivery of a strong economy, delivery of debt and deficit reduction and delivery of our energy plan are the key priorities of the Turnbull government.
It being 1 pm, the debate is interrupted. The member for Mitchell will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.
Proceedings suspended from 13:01 to 16:06
The question is that the address be agreed to. I call the member for Charlton.
Shortland, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do not worry; I trip up on it occasionally as well.
Does Charlton still exist?
No, sadly, Charlton was abolished.
That is really showing my age now.
No, that is okay. I might take an opportunity to talk about the Australian Electoral Commission and the way they manage the redistributions, but not this afternoon. Instead, I will be talking about the address-in-reply. I am pleased to speak on the address-in-reply. We are well into the 45th Parliament, and I gave my first speech as the member for Shortland in October last year, but I do welcome the opportunity now to reflect on the record of the Turnbull government as well as bring to the attention of the House the tremendous benefits Labor's needs-based schools funding model is having in the electorate I represent, and finally I will talk briefly about my shadow ministerial roles.
The Turnbull government is as divided and dysfunctional as the Abbott government was, and working Australians are being neglected whilst this government is tearing itself apart. The Prime Minister has abandoned every principle he once held dear—principles which Australians, for the most part, respected him for—in a desperate bid to hold onto power. Meanwhile, Labor has been focusing on growing jobs and wages, grappling with the housing-affordability crisis, investing in needs-based school funding, improving Medicare and our public hospitals, supporting infrastructure projects and sensibly dealing with climate change. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals and Nationals who have been more concerned about their own jobs than the jobs, aspirations and priorities of Australians. The announcement around 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act yesterday, yet again, demonstrates this government's skewed agenda.
I want to particularly highlight the government's dreadful economic management. The record of the coalition on the economy and the budget is absolutely appalling. Our country is in a much worse economic position than we were in September 2013. The budget deficit has tripled, net debt is up by over $100 billion since 2013 and more people are out of a job. There is severe unemployment and those in employment have stagnate wage growth. In many sectors of our economy, real wages are actually going backwards. Just contemplate that for a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under this government, our living standards are falling. Compare this to the record of the six years of the last Labor government, a period where the world experienced the global financial crisis, but because of Labor's stimulus plan, opposed by the Liberals and Nationals, Australia was the only country in the developed world not to go into a recession. Over a million jobs were created and there was a massive investment in health, education and infrastructure. This is a record Labor is proud of. It is a simple fact that the coalition are inferior economic managers.
I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to the positive impacts needs-based funding is having in my electorate of Shortland in schools funding and the consequences for Shortland's schools if the government does not fund the final two years of the Gonski funding model. The most important, in fact the central element, of Gonski is that it provides for funding on a needs basis. No matter whether the schools are government, Catholic or independent, it is a fair system, overwhelmingly supported by Australians. It cuts through 50 years of sectarian division between Catholic schools and state schools, and debates about how many playing fields the King's School has. It says, once and for all, that the federal government will fund schools based on need—not on postcode, not on religion; on need. It is a great tragedy that in 2013, the coalition—led by the member for Warringah—blatantly misled the Australian people by saying that they could vote for Labor or Liberal and they would still get Gonski. This was a blatant mistruth—in fact, the Liberal government cut $30 billion from schools.
I recently had the great pleasure, with the member for Sydney, of visiting St Mary's Catholic College at Gateshead, which is in my electorate. St Mary's is a relatively low-SES school which is benefiting enormously from Labor's Gonski reforms. St Mary's principal, Larry Keating, told us that the school is transitioning from a year 7 to 10 high school to a year 7 to 12 college and that, because of the extra Gonski funding, the school is spending $3 million this year alone on building a new construction and hospitality centre. This centre will be critical for the new senior years. Larry told Tanya and me that:
as a community we've benefitted so much from the funding from Gonski. And we see the difference it's making in the lives of our students. They have an opportunity to grow and develop, and develop skills in particular that will set them up significantly for future employment prospects and we're really grateful for the funding that we have received.
Unfortunately for St Mary's—and for schools all around Australia—because of the government's lie and its refusal to fully fund Gonski, they will be much worse off. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the impact Gonski is having on Saint Pius X Primary School at Windale, which is a small primary feeder school for St Mary's just down the road. Saint Pius is the poorest primary school of all schools in New South Wales, both government and non-government. It is a small school of only 45 students. Because of needs-based funding, two extra teachers have been able to be employed. These two additional teachers are having a massive impact in the poorest school in the state, and this is being jeopardised by the government's failure to commit to Gonski. Youth unemployment is higher in the Hunter and the Central Coast than the national average. The new construction and hospitality centre being built at St Mary's will obviously be a fantastic opportunity for students to engage in vocational education, and hopefully to gain apprenticeships and employment after leaving St Mary's. It was fantastic for both the member for Sydney—who is, of course, the shadow minister for education—and me to see the tangible benefits of needs-based funding, and the positive outcomes that Labor's Gonski model is having in my electorate.
Another great example of the power of needs-based funding is Northlakes High School at San Remo. Northlakes is another low-SES school; in fact, it has received the most additional funding of all of the high schools on the Central Coast. The school's principal, Merrilyn Rowley, has said that Gonski has been absolutely transformational for the school. The school has been able to implement innovative new professional development programs for staff and the Positive Behaviour for Learning Programme for students, as well as being able to upgrade the school's facilities. These extra resources put into programs are having a tangible impact on the school already. The change in the attitudes of the children has been phenomenal and there has been a 30 per cent drop in absenteeism. Let me repeat that, Deputy Speaker Claydon—because of the programs which the Gonski additional funding has resourced, there has been a 30 per cent drop in absenteeism by school students at this school. This school is an entirely different place because of Gonski. This is another good example of school students in a working-class area benefiting from needs-based funding. This is what the Labor Party is all about, and I am so very proud of this school community for the advances they have made.
The government is betraying the students of Shortland and their families by not committing to the two final years of Gonski funding. The education minister has said repeatedly that funding is not everything. Of course, quality teachers, resources and facilities are also crucial to schools. But the most basic point, which the minister does not get, is that to have these things, there has to be appropriate investment from the government—and that is what needs-based funding delivers. If the government fails to implement its Gonski election commitment, schools in Shortland will be $33 million worse off, and schools in my broader region will be $140 million worse off. These are incredibly significant figures that the government cannot ignore. And I will fight for needs-based funding every day until the next election, because it delivers real and tangible benefits to the families of my electorate.
I now want to address energy and climate change policy. We have all endured a very hot summer—in fact, I think 225 temperature records have been broken in this summer period. We have seen an energy crisis that this government have done nothing about over the last four years they have been in power. The government are completely failing to show any leadership on this issue. They attack renewable energy, promote the lie of clean coal and stubbornly refuse to implement an emissions intensity scheme, which nearly every stakeholder—and most of them are not natural friends of the Labor Party—supports.
In contrast, Labor have clear priorities: a secure and affordable energy supply and a reduction in carbon emissions. We have a clear and sensible policy to achieve this and are showing leadership on this issue. I am Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, and I have been working closely with my colleague the member for Mallee, who is chair of the committee, on an inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity network. We are working constructively together in a bipartisan way to try and take the politics out of this issue and to ensure that we have a modern and secure energy framework. Unfortunately, the summer months have confirmed the total lack of leadership from both the Prime Minister and his environment and energy minister on this issue.
In conclusion, I am pleased to provide the House with an update on some local Shortland and national issues. I cannot emphasise enough the positive impact Gonski is having in my electorate. Needs-based school funding is working. The benefits can be seen right across Australia. Liberal and National politicians should be ashamed that they deceived Australian families before the 2013 election. They should make good on the commitment they have made. It will make a massive difference to the lives of Australian families. I am proud to belong to a political party that has made this fundamental change to ensure fair funding for all schools, and I am proud to visit schools in the electorate I represent to see the impact it is having in our area.
I too rise to make a contribution to the address-in-reply debate. In my much earlier contributions in relation to the appropriations bill I spoke a lot about the election, and I would like to reiterate what an honour it was to have been re-elected and to thank the people of Richmond. It is indeed a real privilege to serve in this House. My electorate of Richmond is truly remarkable. It is very diverse, with people from many different backgrounds, which is something that we should celebrate, acknowledge and encourage as well. It is probably the most beautiful part of Australia. It was an honour to be returned after the election with an increased majority. As I have said to locals: 'Whether you voted for me or not, my door is always open. I am always here to help you.'
There were many issues of concern in the election, including saving Medicare and acting on climate change and housing affordability. There was a very positive response to our policies in relation to negative gearing reforms and capital gains tax reforms. There were also lots of concerns about the NBN and the need to have it rolled out in the North Coast of New South Wales, and also the need for proper funding for education.
Another major issue throughout the election, and one that has been around for a long period of time, is that of marriage equality. Today I intend to speak about my support for marriage equality and my opposition to the government's plans for a plebiscite. I, like others on this side of the House, oppose the plebiscite. That is why we voted against it. I also condemn the Prime Minister for not allowing a free vote in this House on this really important issue. In the last few days we have seen news reports and speculation that the government is considering a postal vote for the plebiscite, but make no mistake: this is nothing more than a non-compulsory, non-binding, expensive, damaging and divisive opinion poll. That is all it is.
I strongly support marriage equality and, like others on this side of the House, I want to see it in place urgently. In fact, there are bills in the parliament right now that would make marriage equality a reality.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
If the Prime Minister were not so weak and so beholden to the extremists in his party, he would allow a free vote. In fact, the plebiscite was, and is, just a delaying tactic—a divisive tactic by a Prime Minister who is only concerned about his leadership.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The member for Goldstein will refrain from interjecting.
These tactics have been particularly disappointing, and I especially note that the vast majority of the LGBTI community has overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a plebiscite. It surely is a measure of the Prime Minister's character that he refuses to act on this issue; instead, his dithering and weakness and unwillingness reflect his inability to stand up to the extremists in the coalition. We should get this sorted today and make marriage equality a reality.
I support marriage equality, as I believe that everyone should be able to marry the person they love—it is as simple as that. I voted for marriage equality when it came before this parliament in 2012, and I would do so again. The fact is that the plebiscite is massively wasteful and divisive for a number of reasons. We voted against it because it is essentially a very bad idea—and the postal vote for a plebiscite is also a very bad idea. Firstly, it is, quite simply, discriminatory and unfair. Why should same-sex couples be subjected to a process that is not inflicted on anybody else? Other couples wanting to marry do not have to ask millions of Australians if they approve of their marriage or get permission. It is unfair. So why are we asking some Australians to go through this process but not others? That in itself is obviously discriminatory and not fair.
Secondly, the plebiscite would just create a platform for the haters. The fact is that a plebiscite would create an opportunity for a cruel, nasty, hateful, homophobic campaign—and that is what would happen if we had a postal vote plebiscite as well. Having a plebiscite and funding the 'no' campaign was only being pushed to give legitimacy to this hateful campaign and to give it a platform. The fact is the plebiscite would unleash a very harmful debate which would punish and further discriminate against gay people, and the discrimination would be all the more widespread as a result of this debate. We have all seen the emails, the letters and the social media posts. We know what they say. Those opposite know how vile some of these cruel and nasty comments are, and that is why they should have voted against the plebiscite. They know how cruel and hurtful this campaign could be. These spiteful comments are of course hurtful to same-sex couples and particularly devastating for their children. Why should their children be victimised like this and have to face such comments and such cruelty? Why should the parents be unfairly targeted and attacked? Why should children have to watch their parents' relationship voted on by everyone else when others are not required to? That cannot be fair. This is what the Liberal and National parties have done in supporting the plebiscite. They have inflicted this emotional torment on young people. I seriously hope they reflect upon that and reflect upon those cruel, hurtful and detrimental comments.
The Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly highlighted the very strong link between this plebiscite and concerns about the mental health of LGBTI Australians, particularly the mental health of young people. I would like to focus on that for a short while. I acknowledge and thank the opposition leader for bringing attention to this very serious issue, especially when the evidence is so very overwhelming. As the opposition leader said:
It is about gay teenagers yet to come out, fearful of rejection, being told that there is something wrong with who they are and how they feel.
A study conducted by the Young and Well institute found that 16 per cent of young Australians who are gay had attempted suicide and one-third had harmed themselves—very concerning. More than four in 10 had thought about self-harm or suicide, a rate six times greater than heterosexual Australians of the same age. Up to two out of every three of these young Australians have been bullied about their sexual orientation, at school, at work or on the sporting field. As Patrick McGorry has said:
LGBTI people have a five times increased risk of suicide …
As he further said:
… this is caused by discrimination and homophobia.
As he went on to rightly say:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with people in the LGBTI community in terms of mental illness but their experiences causes the increased risk.
This should be a very confronting fact for all of us involved in this debate and something we should always be mindful of.
I would now like to reflect on this issue of youth suicide from the perspective of my former job as a general duties police officer. As police officers, one of the jobs we attended and investigated on far too many occasions was, very tragically, suicides involving young people. I know for a fact that on many occasions those younger people had committed suicide because either they were being bullied because they were gay or they were yet to come out and tell their family or friends and so were fearful of the rejection or discrimination they may face. What is most tragic about youth suicide is the lost potential, the lost dreams and the lost ambitions. We as individuals, communities and governments have to do better—we must do better.
So this is a very real debate. It is about how people will be affected; it is about young people's lives, and we should remember that all the time. That is why all of us as community leaders have a responsibility to speak out regularly and publically to support younger people and send them a positive message—to let them know that they are valued, to let them know that their relationships are valued and to let them know that their families are valued.
I would like to share some stories from my electorate in support of marriage equality. Firstly, I will tell the story of my dear friend, Wil from Mullumbimby. Wil and his partner Paul are very strong supporters of marriage equality and they wanted to be married right here in Australia, but they were unfairly denied that right because this government is doing all it can to delay marriage equality, but Wil and Paul simply could not wait. So wanting to formalise their union and be married, they made the choice to be married under the British flag at the British consulate in Brisbane on 30 September last year, as Paul is a British citizen. While we were all happy for Wil and Paul because their day was, of course, filled with so much love and joy, it also highlighted how unjust the situation is here in Australia. I wish Wil and Paul all the best for their life together and I thank them for their continued advocacy for marriage equality in this country.
In August 2015, I told the House the story of two of my constituents and good friends, Julie and Cas, who were married in the United States. In the context of this contribution, I would like to retell the House about Julie and Cas. Cas was born in America, so they travelled to Florida where their wedding took place. It was wonderful to hear all the details of the planning for the wedding day and see all the wonderful photos. It was, indeed, a beautiful ceremony. One of the most exciting aspects for them was the fact that they received a congratulatory message from the then President Obama. I would like to read that message to the House again:
Congratulations to you on your wedding day. May this special time be blessed with love, laughter, and happiness. We wish you all the best as you embark on your journey together, and we hope your bond grows stronger with each passing year.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama
This meant so much to them: the President of the United States endorsing and congratulating them on being married. As Julie and Cas highlighted, this is a contrast to the current situation Australia. As I said in the House in my previous contribution, if the White House can turn rainbow then surely this House can do it too.
In conclusion, this is essentially a debate about fairness and rights. There should not be a different rule for gay people—it is as simple as that. Marriage equality is not a responsibility we should delegate. We should have the vote in the parliament and save our country from a divisive argument about the worth and value of some people's love—it is just not fair. I call upon the Prime Minister to actually stand up for something and reject the views of the extremists, those on the right wing of the Liberal and National parties. Reject those views and actually have the vote today—we could do it. The Prime Minister has it within his power to bring about a free vote in this parliament and I call on him and the government to do just that. Reject this idea of a plebiscite, particularly this latest idea of a postal vote plebiscite, and allow a free vote on marriage equality today. This debate has gone too long and is too harmful and too hurtful. This is a very important issue in my electorate and I will continue to fight for the rights of my constituents and, indeed, the right for all Australians to have the right to marry the person they love. It is that simple: people should be able to marry the person they love. This parliament should legislate for it today and I call upon the Prime Minister to act immediately.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the address-in-reply debate. It is a great honour to represent the seat of Cowper in the 45th Parliament. This is the sixth time that I have been elected to represent this extraordinary district in the Australian parliament. I am proud of the progress that we have made in our region since I was first elected in 2001. In the early 2000s the unemployment rate in Coffs Harbour, for example, was routinely above 10 per cent. Over the last year, it is regularly below the national average, which is a fantastic result for what is very much a lifestyle destination. Areas such as the Nambucca Valley have had unemployment rates in the high teens; today, that unemployment rate is in single digits, and the economy is growing.
Over the past 15 years, we have seen massive progress on the Pacific Highway, starting with the completion of the Bonville deviation, which has saved probably over a dozen lives since it opened. We are expecting to see another 57 kilometres of dual carriageway opening, reducing travel times and saving lives in our region over the next 12 months, which is a further exciting development.
I am proud to have successfully fought for more Public Service jobs in our region. The latest figures show that the total number of positions at the Department of Human Services call centres in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie have increased from 441 in 2013 to 718, which is a really huge increase. These are new jobs that are supporting our local community, providing local jobs for local people.
Of course, the big change in Cowper has been the very significant redistribution that occurred prior to the last election. Coffs Harbour's northern beaches and the lower Clarence Valley were moved from the electorate of Cowper into the electorate of Page. It was certainly a great honour to represent communities such as Maclean, Ulmarra and Corindi in the northern beaches of Coffs Harbour; regrettably, they were redistributed out of the electorate of Cowper. But I certainly welcomed the opportunity to get to know the people of Port Macquarie and to represent Port Macquarie in this parliament.
There was much discussion about the changes in the electoral boundary that were confirmed by the AEC in 2016. People were not sure how the changes would work, and how it would work having two major regional cities in the one federal electorate. I have always argued that it is important to have a strong, vibrant electorate, and having Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie in the one electorate certainly does mean that the electorate of Cowper is very much a growth engine in regional Australia—a very strong economic unit, showing strong growth in population, showing strong economic growth and showing relatively low unemployment as compared to historical figures. We have actually seen those two major centres of Coffs and Port building the critical mass of the North Coast, which is a really exciting thing. I have thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to represent Port Macquarie, North Shore and Telegraph Point since the election, and I certainly thank those communities for putting their trust in me.
Port Macquarie is a growing region, with huge potential. Last week I attended the launch of the Sovereign Hills master-planned community in Port Macquarie. Over the next 10 years, this new community will grow to include more than 2,000 new homes. This is really exciting—living in an area that is growing as strongly as the North Coast.
In November last year, we saw the opening of the Charles Sturt University campus—a magnificent new facility which is a huge driver of growth. In the electorate of Cowper, we are certainly blessed to have a number of regional universities. We have a presence, quite clearly, from Charles Sturt University, and there is Southern Cross University up at Coffs Harbour, the University of Newcastle in Port Macquarie, and the University of New South Wales operating the rural clinical schools in Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. So the universities have a great presence in Cowper, which is certainly buttressing the economic prosperity of our region and providing training so that we have the skilled workforce that regional and rural Australia needs for the future.
In the 45th Parliament, my focus will be on delivering on the commitments that I have made to the electorate. These include the $1.25 million commitment to help fund the upgrade of Port Macquarie Airport. I am very pleased that this commitment is already well on the way to being fulfilled, with the deed of agreement for that project being signed this week at a federal level. The project is being supported by all three levels of government, and the winners out of this will be the travelling public. It is great seeing local, federal and state governments working together to provide upgraded transport infrastructure. And there will be better amenities for travellers, with a new baggage claim area—a much-upgraded facility to assist in handling the ever-increasing passenger load that travels through Port Macquarie Airport.
I am also committed to delivering the promised funding to improve sporting facilities in Port Macquarie at Oxley Oval. These improvements will build on the major redevelopment of the Port Macquarie indoor sports stadium that I recently opened with Mayor Peter Besseling. Port Macquarie has a strong sporting heritage, and this collection of improved facilities will provide the next generations of champions with better training and playing options.
Further north, in the Macleay Valley, I am continuing to work with Macleay Vocational College, a great local educational institutional that is providing opportunities for many young people who would not make it in a conventional setting, who have faced huge barriers to their learning. The Macleay Vocational College is a great facility and certainly welcomed that funding, which will assist in the upgrade or development of a hospitality training centre.
The Australian government is also funding a significant upgrade of security equipment with Kempsey Shire Council, covering Kempsey CBD, and a further expansion of CCTVs in the Kempsey CBD as well as South West Rocks and Crescent Head. It is a $300,000 investment in safer towns, more secure towns, adding to the confidence of people shopping and doing their business in those areas.
On top of these commitments we made during the election campaign, the coalition government is also delivering $2 million through the National Stronger Regions Fund to support a new cinema development in Kempsey. This will be a major driver of economic growth, buttressing the existing commercial CBD, providing greater opportunities for recreation in Kempsey without people having to travel outside Kempsey to visit the cinema.
In the Nambucca Valley the big-ticket item we are seeing at the moment is the replacement of the Macksville bridge, which is a fine piece of infrastructure—built in 1932—but a piece of infrastructure that is way past its use-by date. The bypass of Macksville, getting the trucks out of the main street and getting the bypass of the Macksville bridge, which is so overcapacity at the moment, will be great to see. The bypass of Macksville is a major part of the Pacific Highway upgrade, creating around 350 jobs in the process and creating faster travel times and safer motoring. The construction of the bridge is well advanced and we would hope to see traffic on that bridge, weather permitting, by around the end of the year.
On the Coffs Coast the government is committed to delivering $12 million for the construction of a new allied health facility at Southern Cross University. It is one of our election commitments and an important upgrade to the university's presence in Coffs Harbour. This vital piece of educational infrastructure will allow more young people to train in the region and more young people to stay in the region. It is a fact that when young people train in a regional area they tend to stay there. So that is great news for Coffs Harbour and great news for our region.
The government is also supporting, through the stronger regions program, a $4.1 million upgrade of the Jetty Foreshores in Coffs Harbour and a half-million-dollar upgrade of the international sports centre to help with its hosting of the World Rally Championships. It is a great event that brings tens of thousands of people to the North Coast and places the North Coast on the international stage. Having that improved upgraded facility at the international sports centre makes it easier to host what is a huge event for the region—and a huge event for Australia. It showcases Australia, showcases the North Coast and, particularly, showcases what is on offer in the beautiful hinterland that surrounds Coffs Harbour and the Nambucca Valley. It is a great event indeed.
We also have—as a result of the coalition winning the election—an ability to deliver the $29 million North Coast jobs package. We know on the North Coast the huge competitive advantages that exist in doing business in a regional area, and the North Coast jobs package will allow more businesses to be attracted to the North Coast and will allow provision for funding of high-quality local businesses to grow and expand. It is a great program and will have the potential to yield huge benefits to the North Coast. The local committee for the North Coast jobs package has been formed and is working to develop a localised investment strategy to administer the funds under the North Coast jobs plan. It is a great initiative and one that will create a lot of local jobs.
We have strong and growing industries on the North Coast that are driving our regional economy. Horticulture is making a massive contribution to our region with a massive growth in blueberries at the rate of around 30 per cent per annum. We also have strong growth in avocados, macadamias and other products, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars to our region each year.
In the early days of the Howard government I actually secured funding to allow the Oz Berries cooperative to build a packing shed. They were almost a victim of their own success, because, by the time the new packing facility was finished, they had already outgrown it and they needed to expand it again. They have been a huge success story, as they grows from strength to strength. They have recently moved into a former Bunnings Warehouse site, where they have around 4,000 square metres of cool rooms. It is a massive facility, allowing local blueberries to be packed and exported from the region. It is a fantastic facility, showing the massive growth in the blueberry industry and showing how horticulture can contribute massively to our local community. It is a great facility indeed. I have been a very strong supporter of the industry since day one and certainly hope that the industry goes from strength to strength.
I recently visited Indonesia as part of the Indonesia-Australia Business Week and had the opportunity to promote a whole range of Aussie products, including Aussie summer fruits and Aussie beef, and I also took the opportunity to promote blueberries. It is a superfood. We on the North Coast know that, but it was a great opportunity in Indonesia—a market of some 255 million people and on the way to growing to 300 million people—to promote blueberries to the Indonesian market as part of Indonesia-Australia Business Week.
As I said, the education sector is making a massive contribution to our region with those universities that I have mentioned. I am confident that growth in education will continue in our region. I see education as a major driver, as I see agriculture as a major driver. We see our local Norco Co-operative providing fresh milk straight into Shanghai. It is air freighted from the east coast of Australia into Shanghai. Norco is an innovative local co-op that has been growing steadily and progressively, increasing jobs and delivering good farmgate prices to farmers as a result of its ability to provide high-quality products into the local market and its ability to export.
The government has a very ambitious agenda for the 45th Parliament. We have the constant challenge of keeping our nation safe and secure, and we have the constant challenge of ensuring that, as a government, we support strong economic growth and increased job creation. We want to continue to implement important economic reforms, like small business tax cuts, to keep our economy competitive. For an electorate like Cowper, where small and medium business is the core of our regional economy, it is vital that we continue improving the business environment and continue to work to reduce red tape, to streamline paperwork and regulation and to lower taxes. A strong economy is the only way that we can sustainably provide the services and programs that Australia needs to be at its best.
In my portfolio area of agriculture, as Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister, we are continuing to implement the measures in the agriculture white paper—striving to open new markets for Australian produce and striving to streamline processes and reduce red tape in the agricultural field. We have to ensure that we continue to strive to do that. We have introduced new country-of-origin labelling so that consumers can make informed decisions about the origin of their food—a vitally important piece of information that consumers have been calling for for a long period of time. Country-of-origin labelling allows people to buy high-quality Aussie products. People around the world recognise Aussie products for their clean, green reputation—and so do Australian consumers. The new country-of-origin legislation that we are transitioning into will certainly allow consumers to make informed choices.
It will be a challenging three-year term ahead, and I have great confidence that we will continue to see strong growth in the electorate of Cowper. I am very focused as the federal member to meet the challenges of that growth and to assist the community in meetings its aspirations. I am absolutely focused on working towards the commencement of the Coffs Harbour bypass just as quickly as possible. There is significant planning work underway. The geotechnical work and test-drilling started some months back. There is still a lot of design work to do before that project can go ahead—an important billion-dollar project—and it is one that I look forward to seeing commence in this term of government. It is an honour to represent the electorate of Cowper in this term of parliament. I look forward to working with the community to further their interests, and to ensure that we create jobs and opportunities for the people of the North Coast.
I rise to reply to the Governor-General's address which occurred in the wake of the election last year, some time ago now. Nonetheless, I do wish to thank the people of Kingsford Smith for re-electing me to this wonderful position as their local member for this term of parliament. I love my job and I feel privileged to represent such a beautiful area and such wonderful people.
When people come to the electorate of Kingsford Smith, they are often struck by the great natural beauty of our area: the magnificent coastline, the wonderful beaches, the historic Botany Bay, the wide open spaces, and the beautiful parks and gardens. But I often tell people it is not the natural beauty that makes Kingsford Smith such a wonderful place to live—it is the people. It is the people, their attitude, and the fact that we look after each other and we care for each other. And that was on display during the last election campaign, and in the lead-up to it. On 5 June 2016, an East Coast Low and a massive swell hit our community and the coastline along the beaches of Kingsford Smith. That massive storm occurred on the Sunday, predominantly. I remember this very well, because it was actually the day of my campaign launch—and my campaign launch was at Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club—and it poured. The wind was howling and the surf was massive, and when I woke up in the morning, I thought, 'Oh no, no-one is going to come to the campaign launch because the weather is atrocious.' But I was quite surprised to turn up there and see that there were literally hundreds of people that had turned up to my campaign launch for Kingsford Smith. I was very grateful to the members of our community who supported my campaign during that period.
One of the casualties of the East Coast Low at the time was Coogee Surf Life Saving Club. On the evening of 5 June, the Coogee surf club was battered in that massive swell. In the morning, the damage became apparent. The whole eastern wall of the surf club—in particular where the gymnasium was—had been completely knocked over by the power of the waves. The wall is on an elevated platform that stands probably 15 to 20 metres above sea level, and it had been completely battered in. All of the heavy steel gym equipment had been picked up and smashed against the back wall. The front wall of the surf club had been knocked over. The foundations and the platform of the surf club, which sits high up above a cliff face, had been damaged as well, and there was, of course, much internal damage—to gyprock walls, to carpets and the like. I went down to the surf club the next day at 7 am, and what I saw was quite amazing. At seven o'clock in the morning, here were club officials and volunteers already at work, bracing up the walls and the floors, cleaning up, and ensuring that the foundations were safe and that the place could be quickly repaired. That day, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, rang me to express his sympathy and to say that his thoughts were with our community in the wake of the low. Within a couple of days, Bill, with Mark Dreyfus, came to the Coogee surf club. They visited and surveyed the damage, talked to club officials and gave Labor's commitment to ensure that we would do all we could to repair the surf club quickly.
What happened over the course of the next week in particular was quite amazing. The number of local volunteer organisations that got involved in the clean-up and the repair was astounding. The SES at Randwick Botany were simply fantastic. Their members spent literally hours and days and weeks not only repairing Coogee surf club but repairing people's homes and businesses in the wake of that damaging storm. The fire brigade were sensational; they were out helping in the community and at the surf club. Surf club and community members from all over the area came in to help repair the damage. On the Saturday after the East Coast Low, there was a working bee where literally hundreds of members of the community came together. I felt quite privileged to be working with those people on that morning. We were shovelling out sand from the boatshed, trying to clean it up and repair some of the damage that occurred because of the sand that had been picked up from the beach and washed into the boatshed.
The concrete foundations of the old Coogee Pier, which was taken down many decades ago, are still there and are only ever visible when the surf at Coogee is massive and wipes away most of the beach. I have only ever seen one of them before, but, in the wake of this storm, all four or five of those concrete pillars were visible on the beach at Coogee. The storm did massive damage to the promenade at Coogee, which took years to repair. It was wonderful to see the community come together to repair the damage during that election campaign. There was a dinner hosted by the Coogee Bay Hotel in the wake of that, where community organisations and businesses came together and raised $30,000. I said earlier that it is the people of Kingsford Smith who make the area so great. This was a perfect demonstration of our community's greatest assets: our people and how we care for each other. That is the approach that the electorate took and the policies that they saw as important in determining their vote in the 2016 election.
Health care was a primary concern of the people of Kingsford Smith. They certainly rejected the coalition's cuts to health care, to hospitals and to Medicare. Over the course of the last few years, the Prince of Wales Hospital has had its operating budget cut by $30 million. Staff have been made redundant and services have been closed. Staff at the hospital are under more and more pressure. The community saw that. The fact that the Turnbull government was continuing the cuts of the Abbott government when it came to hospitals was something that deeply concerned our community. I believe it was one of the reasons why they supported Labor and our better policies on health care.
With respect to education, I have a community that deeply understands the value of investment in needs-based funding and the Gonski principles for funding schools. It was great to see many teachers and parents supporting that principle throughout the election campaign. I am very, very proud of the relationship that I have with local schools and with local teachers. I will always be an advocate and a fighter for needs-based funding for our schools, because I have seen the difference that it makes on the ground to the education of kids and the opportunity for kids, particularly those from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background—which we have an active community of in the south of my electorate, around La Perouse and Chifley—and kids with disabilities. This funding makes a big difference to their educational opportunities and their outcomes in life. It was pleasing to see representatives of the Australian Education Union and principals here in parliament today and on the lawns of parliament this morning, making the case for the full funding of Gonski, and, in particular, the last two years of funding.
In our electorate we are very fortunate to have the University of New South Wales, one of Australia's leading universities and a university that gets better and better every year. I am very proud that I am an alumnus of the University of New South Wales. I am the first of my family to have had the opportunity to get a university education—something that I have no doubt my parents would have been able to achieve, but they simply did not have the opportunity because of a working class background. I had that privilege. I had that opportunity. Because of Labor governments and because of HECS, I was able to invest in a university education. But the government is proposing to dramatically increase the cost of getting an education at university. Their $100,000 degree program would see people in our community that would not be able to afford to go to university in the future, and that restricts their opportunity in life. Many in our community saw the devastating impact that $100,000 degrees would have on their children's opportunity to get a good education and voted accordingly in this election.
We are also privileged to have the TAFE college at Randwick on the outskirts of our electorate that does fantastic work in providing people with a vocational education. And, again, TAFE has been absolutely smashed by the combination of a federal Liberal government and a state Liberal government who have taken the guts out of the TAFE system. This has ensured that many of the teaching professions and many of the trades that were offered at TAFE are no longer offered, and some of those, unfortunately, have been removed from Randwick. That will affect our community and that is something that people in our area were vehemently opposed to. And, of course, the cost of child care in the electorate of Kingsford Smith is a massive worry for families and it is ever growing and it is ever expanding. We have seen today that this government was intent on making cuts to family payments and cuts to pensions to fund a new childcare package that, at the end of the day, did not offer more money or more funds or more investment to solve what is a big problem and will not make child care more affordable in our community.
The people of Kingsford Smith understand the importance of investing and providing better opportunities for their kids. They all want a better future for their kids and they understand that the effects of climate change and the threat of global warming has the potential to undermine the living standards of future generations of Australians. Therefore, they want strong action on climate change. I was very proud to be able to campaign in our community on Labor's policy of 50 per cent renewables by 2030. It is a strong commitment to doing what is right by our kids to ensure that we tackle climate change now. We, as the decision makers, must take responsibility for what we know is one of the most immediate threats to living standards and to growth in the future, and that is climate change. That is why we proposed an emissions trading scheme for our full economy to ensure that we have a price on carbon emissions that caps emissions, and then reduces over time to ensure we actually do reduce emissions, unlike this current government. When they got rid of the carbon price—guess what?—emissions started to go up again and our kids are going to pay the cost of that. We also advocated an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity industry, a baseline and credit scheme by which you have a baseline for emissions and any business that seeks to emit above that level has to buy a permit to do so, and those that install new technology to reduce their emissions have a permit that they can sell on the open market as a benefit. And, of course, new vehicle emissions standards were all part of that policy of 50 per cent renewables by 2030, and actually taking responsibility for and taking action on climate change.
Malabar Headland is a sacred piece of land in our community. For close to 100 years it has been the Anzac rifle range, and the people of Kingsford Smith do not want to see development on Malabar Headland. It is the only tract of pristine bushland that is left between Botany Bay and Sydney Harbour on our coastline. My community wants to see this protected.
During the last term of government, it became apparent, through an FOI request, that the government were considering developing Malabar Headland. They were considering selling off a portion of Malabar Headland for private housing development. Rightfully, our community were up in arms about that. The member for Maroubra, Michael Daley, and I campaigned vigorously against this proposal and, within mere hours of it being uncovered by The Sydney Morning Herald, Greg Hunt was out there saying that they would not be proceeding with development of Malabar Headland.
But then, in the lead-up to the election, with no notice and no consultation at all with the local community, the government announced that, through a dirty backroom deal with Senator Leyonhjelm, they would be entering into a 50-year lease with the New South Wales Rifle Association in respect of Malabar Headland, locking our community out of Malabar Headland for the next 50 years. They have just established a national park at Malabar Headland, but the thing about this national park is that you cannot go onto it for a few days in the week. In every week, you cannot access it. You are not allowed to go there. The reason is, for those days of the week, it is a shooting range. If you did go there, you would be at risk of being shot. This is the sort of national park that the Turnbull government has developed for our electorate! If you go down in the woods today, you might get a big surprise! That is the ridiculous nature of this—that they entered into this 50-year lease with no consultation with the community about the future of a very important natural asset, and the community will be locked out of Malabar Headland for 50 years.
Naturally our community are up in arms about it. They want the issue resolved. They want the area returned to the people of New South Wales for enjoyment as a national park, as parklands, as playing fields, as picnic areas and so that the walk to Botany Bay can continue—so you will be able to walk from Bondi Beach all the way to Botany Bay along the coastline, unhindered. That is a great plan for Sydney. It would be a great tourist attraction and something that preserves our natural environment.
During the election campaign, the New South Wales government's light rail project and the destruction of heritage trees along Anzac Parade in Randwick became a big issue. The New South Wales government saw fit to destroy close-to-100-year-old trees that lined Centennial Park and Anzac Parade in our community. Many of these trees were planted as a commemoration, a tribute, to the Anzacs. They lined Centennial Park, which was bequeathed to the people of New South Wales and Sydney by Lachlan Macquarie. This government roared up the chainsaws and cut down a lot of those heritage trees during the election campaign and before, to make way for a light rail project. I am all for better public transport solutions—I do support that—but there was no need to fell these trees for this. There were other alternatives—namely, moving the stop on Alison Road across the road to the racecourse side of Alison Road, where it should be—that would have avoided the destruction of these trees. This became a big issue during the election campaign, and I thank our community for supporting our opposition to the destruction of Randwick's historic trees.
Housing affordability was a massive issue during the election campaign, and I am pleased to see that most people supported Labor's policies on negative gearing and capital gains tax discount reductions, because they understand that, if things continue the way they are, their kids simply will not be able to afford to live in our community in the future.
Infrastructure was a big issue, and Labor pledged to duplicate the rail line into Port Botany. We also pledged $10 million to upgrade Botany pool, which is a much-needed infrastructure project.
I am very proud of the Aboriginal community that exists in our area, but there is a long way to go to reduce and close the gap and to address some of the disadvantage. I thank all of the community groups that I work with—the RSLs, the multicultural organisations, the sporting clubs, Surf Life Saving and the like. I wish to sincerely thank my staff, who have done a wonderful job. I could not do this job without them, and I have had a lot of support from them over many years. In particular, I thank very, very much my chief-of-staff, Leigh Heaney; my media advisor, Nick Moncrieff'-Hill; Kylie Brenton, who basically helps to run my life; Mitch Donohue, our community campaigner; Sam Howes for her wonderful work; and Filip Shu for the work that he does with multicultural communities.
I was also very fortunate to be assisted by an army of volunteers who did a fantastic job and really did support our campaign. This is going to take a while, but I am going to go through many of them: Dylan Parker, who worked on campaign management and did a fantastic job; Amber Wallace; Simon Zhou; Lachlan McGrath; Riley Campbell; Kate Minter; Michael Rosser; Felicity Mallans, who has done a great job volunteering in the wake of the election and on an ongoing basis; Merric Foley; Simeon Ziegler; John Harding Easson; Lorrena Conner-White; Christine Kibble; Pauline Graham; Christina Curry; Zoey Reynolds; Steve Novak; and many others. There were many others who did a fantastic job on the campaign and were basically out every day. I have two more people to thank, and they are Kaila Murnain and Pat Garcia at the New South Wales Labor Party head office. Thank you.
I thank the member for Kingsford Smith very much for his contribution. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of appropriation bills Nos. 3 and 4. Since taking office in 2013 the coalition government has been focused on making the lives of all Australians better, safer and more prosperous. The coalition government has passed some $22 billion in budget repair measures and is working to pass further savings. As part of this we have expanded the Department of Human Services fraud prevention and debt recovery capability and, by recovering welfare overpayments and those payments that have been received on a fraudulent basis, we will recover some $2.1 billion in net savings over the forward estimates. But our focus on restoring the budget surplus involves more than finding savings. Our multinational tax avoidance legislation, which we passed last year, will raise more than $2 billion in the 2016-17 financial year, and the coalition government's diverted profits tax legislation is expected to raise a further $3.9 billion over the next four years.
It is instructive—and I know my good friend over there, the member for Moreton, is always keen to contribute to the debate—that the multinational tax avoidance legislation was opposed by those opposite. I find it passing strange that, when they get the opportunity, those opposite—who complain all the time about multinationals not paying their tax—actually vote against the legislation to make sure they do pay their tax. It is the coalition government that has succeeded in passing these important savings measures and ensuring that multinational companies pay their fair share of tax in Australia. We have not stopped there. We have also recently made changes to the Life Gold Pass for former members of parliament. We have also indicated that any decision to increase spending, including all our election commitments, must be fully offset by spending reductions in other parts of the budget. What we are saying to Australians is that we will not pass uncosted, unfunded legislation—a position diametrically opposed to the approach of those opposite in their time in government. Any funding promise will be costed and accounted for, in an effort to reduce borrowing and prevent tax increases.
It is also important to focus on what we are doing locally in the electorate of Forde. The coalition government continues to deliver for the local communities in my electorate. We have proudly delivered on every election commitment from the 2010 and 2013 elections, and we are working hard to ensure we continue to deliver on the commitments made during the 2016 election. This includes getting work underway on Stage 1 of the M1 upgrades in Logan. Road quality and capacity are big issues in my electorate, and the coalition government has proudly delivered more than $40 million in Roads to Recovery funding to Logan and Gold Coast city councils. This funding is supporting our local governments to repair and maintain our local road networks. The coalition government has also delivered for the residents of Upper Coomera, with a $10-million contribution to the Exit 54 upgrade, which is now being completed.
I am passionate about supporting my local community, whether it is helping our local organisations and sporting clubs with grants, or securing funding for larger projects. I will always back our community groups, who go above and beyond. Beenleigh & Districts Senior Citizens Centre is one such organisation that goes above and beyond. I am proud to say that we have provided them with $90,000 in funding as a grant to upgrade their kitchen facilities, which are also used by our local Meals on Wheels team. They do such a terrific job, not only for Meals on Wheels but also for the many seniors that attend regular events there. It is actually one of the largest senior citizens' clubs in South-East Queensland. The coalition government's Safer Community Program has delivered more than half a million dollars for CCTV cameras, and our Solar Communities program will deliver $100,000 across six local organisations to install solar power and to assist with reducing their electricity bills.
When I speak with constituents around my electorate, the overwhelming consensus is that they want to see governments live within their means. Recently, we sent out the Biggest Survey to the entire electorate, and as I have taken time to sift through the hundreds of responses, time and again, I see that two of the most important issues are a strong economy and job security. These two issues go hand in hand—building a strong economy creates more jobs and creates job security. The only way to do this is to stimulate growth in our business community, while also getting Labor's budget deficit under control—and this has not been an easy task, but it is one the coalition government is tackling head-on.
In times like this, when we need to pass difficult legislation to grow the economy and reduce debt, it is only the coalition government that can provide the economic leadership necessary for this country. We have already proven our capabilities: a great example of this is the success of our free trade agreements. I spoke at length earlier today about the Australia-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, which has resulted in strong growth in Australia's trade and services—up some 7.7 per cent to $146 billion per annum. Our free trade agreements are driving Australian jobs and boosting our economy. Tourism has accounted for half of all services exports in 2015-16. As an electorate that takes in part of the Gold Coast—unfortunately, I do not have any beaches or surf—there are an enormous number of people in my electorate who benefit from this tourism-led growth in our economy.
But it is not only tourism. Education exports have increased some 8.3 per cent and business services exports have increased some 8.3 per cent. I also know, from talking to Teys abattoir, our largest employer in the electorate, the value they have received from the free trade agreements with Japan and Korea, in particular, and the growth that it has generated in their business. It allows them to continue to grow and develop their business and continue to keep 800 people in jobs.
Appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 underpin the government's expenditure decisions, which support a number of important government responsibilities. They will provide more than $143 million to the Department of Health to fund a range of important measures, including updating communication technology systems; supporting health, aged-care and veterans' payments; strengthening mental health care in Australia; and supporting the establishment of a national research network that will focus on improving the survival rates of childhood cancer.
These bills also provide funding to the Department of Defence to the tune $810 million as well as just under $200 million to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Department of Human Services will also receive just under $156 million for the second tranche of the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation Program.
The coalition government is providing financial support to our departments that contribute to the betterment of our nation. Under the former Howard government, Australia was in the peak of the mining boom with a $20 billion budget surplus and over $40 billion in the bank. Unfortunately, our strong financial position was driven into debt by six years of a Rudd-Gillard-Labor government. Labor's poorly planned and poorly targeted stimulus package during the GFC left us with not only lives lost under the pink batts scheme but also $900 cheques to dead people and a multitude of other wasteful spending initiatives.
Since winning the election, the coalition government has been working constructively with the crossbenchers to tackle the job of budget repair. Over the last nine months, we have passed more legislation through the Senate than we did in the three years of the previous government. This is despite having fewer seats in the House and fewer seats in the Senate.
It is the future of our nation that this government is focused on. That is what is so important about us succeeding with our legislative agenda, because everything that we are looking to do is to build a better Australia for all Australians.
As a coalition government, we will continue to focus on the future of this country, ensuring that we deliver the services and supports that we need to build a strong economy, provide long-term stable jobs but also provide welfare and safety-security nets for those in our community who are genuinely in need. I commend these bills to the House.
I thank the member for Forde for his contribution. Could I just encourage members who are having conversations to do so at a level that does not interrupt those members speaking.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, for your protection; I am sure I need it. This government came to power on a promise to fix everything and cut nothing, and they have broken both promises. They have fixed nothing and cut everything. This is the government that came to power—we will never forget that pre-2013 press conference with the then Opposition Leader, then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, promising that there would be no changes to Medicare, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to the SBS. Of course, they broke each and every one of those promises in their first budget, and things never got any better from there.
This is a bill about money, about appropriations and about how the government appropriates more money into the general expenditure account so that it can be spent on government programs. Labor will not block supply—we do not do that. We think that our job is to hold the government to account for the promises it makes. But we will not block supply, because we have seen the devastating impacts that that has on our democracy.
A money bill is all about the priorities of the government, and, over a long period of time, from the earliest days of the Abbott government to the shaky days of the Turnbull government, we have seen a government that has got its priorities all wrong. I want to take you back to those early days after the 2013 election when, in one of its very first acts, the government thought it was going to be a good idea to give some tax concessions in superannuation. You would think a government would have an eye to the importance of creating more equality in this country, and an eye to ensuring that we could encourage those people who most needed to, to put some more money away for their superannuation so as to have a dignified retirement, and that those would be the people the government was trying to encourage, at the same time as not making it any worse overall for all taxpayers. Well, it did exactly the opposite. In one of its very first acts, the government gave a superannuation tax concession to some of the wealthiest Australians—people with over $2 million in their superannuation accounts. I can guarantee you that the majority of people who work in my electorate do not have $2 million in their superannuation balance. But these people got a tax cut. And, in the same decision, the government had a tax increase for people earning under $38,000 a year. You might find that hard to believe, but that is exactly what the Abbott government did: it gave a tax concession to some of the wealthiest Australians at the very same time as removing the low-income superannuation tax offset for people earning under $38,000 a year, thereby penalising the people who needed tax assistance the very most. It did not end there. Of course, famously, the government, at the same time as crying poor, wrote a $6 billion cheque to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Shortly thereafter, it was cutting benefits and floating a whole range of proposals that I will go through shortly.
You would think that the government might have learnt from the backlash that it got in the immediate response to the 2014 budget, but that has not been the case. We understand the challenge of budget repair, and Labor will work constructively with the government on the task of budget repair, ensuring that it is fair. We must ensure that, as we are going about the task of bringing the budget back to balance, we do not hurt the most vulnerable Australians—those people who look to people in parliament in Canberra, and look to people on the Labor side of parliament, I have got to say, to ensure that we do not make life harder for them, and that is exactly what we will do. We in Labor demonstrated our bona fides by negotiating with the government to secure around $6.3 billion in budget savings—more savings than the government initially put forward in their first omnibus bill—and, in doing so, we managed to protect a few things in the national interest, such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Last year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed that the Turnbull government was still committed to many of the unfair Abbott-Hockey-era measures that I have criticised at the outset—measures such as increasing the qualification age for the age pension to 70, meaning that Australia would have the oldest qualifying age for the age pension in the developed world. You have got to shake your head at this. I mean, only a bloke who has worked in an office all of his life would think that you could work until the age of 70 and still have your body functioning in the way it did when you were aged 35. But, when I get around my electorate and talk to people who have worked in physical labour for the majority of their life, I hear that, by the time they are hitting their mid-60s, their backs are starting to give way, their knees are starting to give way and arthritis has set in, not to mention the problems with skin cancers and all the rest of it, and the people in this group shake their heads and go, 'This government simply just does not get it.' But this is still a proposition that is seriously put forward by the Turnbull government.
The Medicare freeze, which is wreaking havoc upon general practices around this country, is an initiative which had a devastating impact on the fortunes of the government at the 2016 election. The Medicare rebate freeze is forcing doctors to do something the parliament has refused to do, and that is increase the cost of medical consultations between a patient and their GP.
The government could have improved the budget and locked in Australia's prized AAA credit rating at MYEFO by doing two things—and not only would we have supported them; we would have come out and congratulated them. The first thing they could have done is axe their ridiculous, reckless and unaffordable $50 billion tax giveaway to big business and to banks, which will do nothing for growth but is going to cost Australians dearly. They should have ditched that and we would have supported them—no, we would have congratulated them. The second thing they could have done is adopt Labor's sensible negative gearing proposals and the proposed changes to capital gains tax. These are changes that not only would have improved the budget bottom line; they would have made a big difference to people who are struggling to buy their first home and struggling to get into the housing market. It would have made a contribution to the federal government's effort to make housing more affordable for struggling Australian families. They failed on both fronts.
Not only did they fail to introduce these initiatives but the debt and deficit are increasing. Every government speaker has got up in this debate and said that they are treating the issue of budget repair seriously and are working hard to deal with debt and deficit. Those very same government members have failed to point out that, on their watch, the deficit has more than tripled. Far from bringing the budget deficit down, on their very watch the budget deficit has tripled.
A government member interjecting—
I hear the honourable member opposite saying to me that we opposed a number of their measures—not all of them but a number of their measures. The answer to his interjection is this: we will not help you break your election promises. Those measures that we opposed were the very same measures that you promised not to do, and we will not help you break the promises that you made to your constituents when you went into the last two elections. We will simply not help you do it. We have given our support to the government on measures that are fair and reasonable, including on more than $6.3 billion worth of budget savings. We have offered additional savings to the government, but they refuse to take them up. But we will not help the government take an axe to the benefits of the most vulnerable Australians and we will not help the government break their election commitments.
Since the MYEFO, the Turnbull government has again reheated or rehashed unfair cuts from previous budgets in its latest omnibus bill. These include cuts to family payments, whereby one million families will be worse off. A typical family on $75,000 a year will be around $1,000 a year worse off. In addition to this, through cuts to parental leave, over 70,000 new mums will be worse off—many of those in your electorate, I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, and in mine. I see the member for Lindsay in the chamber. A lot of them will be in her electorate as well. On the subject of pensions, let us not forget that sacred promise that was made by the former Prime Minister and repeated by the current Prime Minister that they would not cut pensions, and yet this very same government is proposing to cut pension payments by up to $21 a fortnight, leaving pensioner couples up to $550 a year worse off. They are cutting pensions for single pensioners by $14.10 a fortnight, leaving them $365 a year worse off. This is a direct breach of a promise given by the coalition parties before the election, yet here they are today criticising us for failing to support it. I say again: we will not help you break your election commitments.
Budgets are about priorities. Instead of protecting the AAA credit rating and supporting families, supporting the most vulnerable in our communities, the Turnbull government is siding with multinational corporations and big banks. New figures released by the member for Rankin and our finance spokesperson have revealed a startling fact. This centrepiece of the government's economic plan—or, at least, last week's centrepiece—a $50 billion tax cut to big business, is going to cost Australians around $4 billion in additional interest charges.
Think about that for a moment. This equates to $162 for every man, woman and child in the country. This $50 billion tax cut is not only unfair it is going to cost every man, woman and child in this country $162. Can you imagine that? It will cost $162 to give the biggest companies in this country a $50 billion tax cut. Is there any wonder people in this country are shaking their heads and saying, 'This Prime Minister just doesn't get us'? I do not know where he lives. I do not know what planet he is coming from. But it is not the place we are coming from. He simply does not get what we are on about.
If ever you were in a situation of uncertainty about this, Deputy Speaker, I ask you to remember this one backflip. A week ago we had the Treasurer of this country—sometimes a comical character—stand up, look the cameras in the eye and say, quite seriously, that his No. 1 priority was to try and get wage-earners a wage increase. He had suddenly cottoned onto the fact that the very flat rate of wage growth in this country, under this government's watch, is creating a drag on economic growth and unless workers have more money in their pockets they have less money to spend in the shops and the businesses, so everybody is suffering. It has taken him a while but he has finally cottoned onto the fact that workers need a pay rise.
Unfortunately for him, he, his Prime Minister and his entire government—and all of these backbenchers here—voted against a bill that would have protected workers wages today. Far from putting in place initiatives that will give workers a pay increase, he is voting against a proposition that will protect workers' penalty rates. He says one week, 'Our No. 1 priority is to give workers a pay rise,' and the next week he comes into this place and votes for legislation that will ensure they get a pay cut.
This is a government that cannot keep an economic priority from one week to the next, and they certainly cannot be trusted to put in place the sacred promises they put before the Australian people. That is why this government has to change and that is why we have to ensure that we change the priorities of this government. (Time expired)
I too rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017. I will use this opportunity to highlight commitments from the last election campaign and where some of those are up to in the electorate of Latrobe. One of the most exciting announcements we had in the last election campaign, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, was with Puffing Billy. We had a fantastic day and I would like to thank all the volunteers. There are many hundreds of volunteers working with Puffing Billy and they have been doing a fantastic job for so many years. In fact, Puffing Billy has in excess of 400,000 tourists each year and is great for the local economy. It is great not only for Victorian tourism but also for national tourism, because a lot of people, especially Chinese tourists—in fact, over 200,000 Chinese tourists—visit Puffing Billy each year.
We have committed $5.5 million for what will be known as the Emerald Discovery Centre, which will tell not only the history of Puffing Billy but also the history of the area. This is something that I am very excited about, and I congratulate the CEO, John Robinson. I met him recently to see how they are going. They are working with the Cardinia Council and I believe they are planning to appoint an architect soon to get the project moving forward. We also discussed an initiative that I had put forward, which has become known as the 'red rattler' project. That project is to restore an old red rattler train. These used to be very popular in my school days, when you would catch the red rattler and go to the CBD. These were at one stage very annoying trains to get on but, obviously, with nostalgia, we are very keen to get the old red rattlers back up and running and bring the international and interstate tourists from the CBD right out to Belgrave, so that they can have this great opportunity to go on a red rattler. It will be great for tourism and great for the local area. It will be one of those tourist opportunities that I have no doubt those coming from interstate and overseas will participate in.
A big issue has always been the Monash Freeway. This is something that I have pushed for for probably the last two years, because we have this huge growth corridor out in Casey and Cardinia. I was speaking to the CEO of Cardinia the other day who was saying that 128 new families are moving into that area a week, which is extraordinary growth. But the infrastructure needs to keep up. When I spoke with the state Labor minister, Luke Donnellan, and raised the need to actually commit to upgrading the Monash Freeway, he thought it was a bird-brain of an idea. Yet, the good news is that he has come to see how important this is and he is, under state Labor, taking the Turnbull lead and works have started between Clyde Road and the South Gippsland Highway. I welcome those works.
I would also note that we still have $500 million on the table for this project, which, sadly, is money left over from the East West Link project. The state Labor government spent a billion dollars on not building a road. So we now have $500 million additional funding which has been committed to the Monash. Work has not started yet, but I believe—and I have spoken to ministers federally—that there are positive discussions with the state Labor government. This is a project has to be done. It is so important. The state Labor government is really fixed on the $5.5 billion Western Distributor project. I have no issue with that at all, apart from the fact that only seven per cent of the return will be invested in the Monash; yet we know that the state Labor government is very keen to toll the Monash users, which is something that greatly concerns me and local residents.
A project which is vitally important is the completion of the Beaconsfield Diamond Exchange. When this project was build it did not have on-off ramps, which are now desperately needed with the growth in that area. Another important project is the extension of O'Shea Road. I thank ministers Paul Fletcher and Darren Chester for their support on this part of what I regard as the Monash proposal. This is so important because you now have the Federation University Australia taking over Monash University. I said to Minister Simon Birmingham that the next operator of that university site—as Monash was leaving—had to be very much focused on advanced manufacturing and innovation and creating the jobs of the future, and I am very proud to say that that is something that we are looking at. When you talk to businesses who want to get involved and focus on innovation and advanced manufacturing—something I know Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is very keen on—you realise we need to make sure the roads link up to the Monash Freeway, otherwise these sorts of businesses will not make their way into the local area.
The Dandenong Ranges are a unique part of Australia and somewhere I have lived all my life. We have had a $4.2 million environmental package over the years, including the $3 million Dandenong Ranges Environmental and Bushfire Fuel Reduction Grants. There have been two rounds, and I think all the volunteer groups who applied for funding have been successful. Sadly, at the same time as we put federal funding in, the state Labor government thought they would not put any funding into the local environmental groups—and I thank all those involved in CWAD for what they do.
This is about a combination of local environmental groups who have projects which they may have been working on for years. The money we put in federally—I thank Minister Greg Hunt, who at the time was environment minister—has just been extraordinary. It is one of the most exciting projects we have, and it comes down to biological control. I committed to this back in 2007 to 2010. Finally in 2013, with the election of the coalition government, funding was made available for this biological control. I thank CSIRO scientist Andy Sheppard, who I met the other day. We are looking at releasing what is known as a pathogen smut, which will basically get in there and destroy the wandering trad plant, which is overcrowding all the local creeks. This is very exciting if you are in an environment group. This is a weed that has devastated New Zealand. The good news is that we have again committed $1 million, mainly to focus on biological control. As I said, I met recently with Dr Andy Sheppard from the CSIRO, and the great news is that potentially we have enough money to wipe out ivy in the Dandenong Ranges. This is not the English ivy; this is the South African ivy, which is the one which creates a huge fire danger. Why does it do that? Because, when a bushfire comes along, the fire will go up to the crowns of the trees via this ivy. Also, onion weed is doing a lot of damage throughout the hills locally.
There are some other big projects we have got underway. I acknowledge Casey council for the work being done on Bunjil Place. The coalition committed $10 million to this project. Again, I note the state Labor government put no money into this $120 million regional project. There is going to be a state-of-the-art regional arts centre, theatre, studio space and function centre. It is just an incredible local project. The builders are out there doing great work at the moment. We are hoping to see this open by the end of the year. It is something that all Victorians, I believe, will get very excited about when they see it.
We committed $3.835 million to the Belgrave health hub. This was through the regional grants, prior to the last election. I was driving past there the other day, and the great news is that work is well and truly underway. The multipurpose health hub is vitally important. Belgrave and the surrounds need this project badly. It is something a lot of people have been fighting for for many, many years, and it will include services such as community health, emergency relief—and I acknowledge those who have been working so hard helping other local residents—youth services and aged services. They are all very important, but this is something that has been missing in the area.
I met the CEO of Cardinia shire, Garry McQuillan, recently and we committed $1.5 million to the Emerald community hub. The project has been taking some time to get off the ground, which is sad, but I have been told now that it will continue at greater speed. They will be looking at new commercial kitchen space and facilities for the University of the Third Age, U3A; a Men's Shed; a new foyer-entry; and an art display space and local tourism information on the ground floor. To me, again, this is a very exciting project in the local area.
There are two other projects I will speak about. One is what the Yarra Ranges Council call the Ridge Walk—but I like to call it the heritage walk—between Upwey and Monterey. This will connect all the local towns. It is very much focused on the famous landscape artists and is something I have worked on for a number of years, applying for national heritage listing of the Dandenong Ranges. It is based on our famous landscape artists: Tom Roberts, Arthur Streeton, Indigenous artist Lin Onus and international artists, such as Eugene von Guerard—to name a few.
We also have Horatio Jones' house, a kerosene-tin house, which was constructed at the end of the First World War by Horatio, himself, and is where Tom Roberts and the Heidelberg Artists Society met. That is the history of the arts in the area. We want to highlight this for tourists so that when they come here they go into the hills. Very much up in the Dandenong Ranges we want to focus on tourism, and down in the south we want to focus on innovation and advanced manufacturing. That is where there is huge growth.
We also committed $1 million in funding for the completion of the walk between Cockatoo and Gembrook. This would be used by bike riders and horseriders—again, something very important for jobs and tourism. That is something the Turnbull government has been very focused on. The projects we committed to at the last federal election tie in, very importantly and crucially, with the overall game plan at a national level—that is, the focus on innovation and the focus on advanced manufacturing—to ensure that we give young people the best opportunities to get local jobs.
We also want to make sure we do everything possible to stop people coming out, in the southeast, by hopping on trains and hopping on the Monash and the Eastern to travel in the CBD. We want to create—and we are creating—a great opportunity into the future. I am talking about a vision into the future of high-tech advanced manufacturing, innovation jobs, locally, something which we will be very proud of into the future. That is the sort of government we have—a forward-thinking government creating these long-term opportunities.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017. In my contribution I want to concentrate on the appropriations to the Department of Environment and Energy, particularly outcome 2, regarding efforts to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. To set the scene, last week the World Meteorological Organization found that the record-breaking temperature rises of last year have pushed us into 'uncharted territory'—2016 was the hottest year since measurements began in 1880. In fact, there is very strong evidence that it was the hottest year in the 115,000 years since evidence of the last global warming event. In our own Australian summer, which was very hot, we broke 205 temperature records across the period.
What about in Western Sydney?
Member for Lindsay, Western Sydney is a classic heat island. There are not many trees in certain parts of it so they felt the full brunt of climate change in the hottest year on record. I see the member for Canning smiling over there, but it is a very serious issue. Nine out of 10 of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade.
The evidence is incontrovertible that global warming is occurring and it is man made. And that leads us to the conclusion that the world must take action, in concert, to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we are to combat and avoid the worst excesses of climate change. It is not just about losing great environmental items like the Great Barrier Reef, it is about the economic impact: 70,000 jobs and $6 billion of economic activity. It is the health impact. Heatwaves will lead to greater deaths. Unfortunately, Western Sydney is a significant example of that, and so is Melbourne. Heat waves lead to deaths of vulnerable people, and climate change leads to more extreme heatwaves. Therefore, climate change has a direct impact on the safety of Australian citizens, not to mention the bushfire risk and the risk of more extreme and regular cyclones.
Urgent action is needed. We need to be part of that. The Paris climate change treaty was groundbreaking in the level of commitment from around the globe and the level of concerted global action. Unfortunately, Australia's targets as lodged by this government were woeful. They are a joke. A 26 per cent reduction by 2020 is well below comparative efforts from other industrialised nations. Even then, if we look at the 2020 target for this government, which is minus 5 per cent, we will only hit that by accounting tricks based on the use of Kyoto carryover units that occurred due to the visionary policies of Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh around land clearing in Queensland. If we look at the 2030 target, the government's own woeful target of a 26 per cent reduction, the government's own figures demonstrate we will not achieve that target. There is a 1,315 megatonne gap, which, if the government attempts to meet it with their disgraceful and shambolic Emissions Reduction Fund, will cost at best $16 billion.
In contrast, Labor has a target that is scientifically responsible and that is, based on the best available climate change science, a responsible contribution from Australia. We have a mechanism to deliver it: a hard cap on our carbon pollution with an emissions trading scheme being used to deliver that—in the first instance, an emissions intensity scheme. It is an emissions intensity scheme that most of the community, certainly the environment and business sectors, have embraced. In fact, if I read the list of organisations supporting an emissions intensive scheme, they include the Business Council of Australia, BHP, AGL, EnergyAustralia, the National Farmers' Federation, Origin Energy, the Australian Energy Market Commission, CSIRO, Energy Networks Australia, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Prime Minister's own former energy adviser Danny Price. State governments Labor and Liberal, like many other energy stakeholders, have all endorsed an emissions intensity scheme as put forward by the Labor Party. In fact the only people resisting it are the Turnbull government and One Nation. They are the bed partners of the current government, and that is a great tragedy because an EIS is essential if we are to deliver the investment certainty that will unlock the next generation of investment in the energy sector.
I now want to turn to the current energy crisis facing this nation. It is an energy crisis that this government has done nothing about in its four years in power. It is an energy crisis that they had denied until about three months ago and since then they have used it in a petty and cynical attempt to gain political advantage. They have done nothing. Now their solutions are either illusory or way off in the never-never, such as the Snowy Hydro's scheme, if it ever delivers. What we need now is urgent action. What we need now is an emissions intensity scheme that will not only provide investment certainty for a generators but deliver lower power prices than the business-as-usual model. The government's own modelling, commissioned by the Australian Energy Market Commission, has found an emissions intensity scheme will lead to energy prices that are $15 billion lower than with business as usual, which is effectively what the government is proposing. That is the way forward, that is what Labor is proposing and that is what we intend to do. On top of that, we will combat the sham and confected outrage of those opposite around the rise of renewables in this country. When we look at South Australia, the increase in renewables in South Australia has been driven by one policy: the bipartisan RET. The bipartisan RET has led to the construction of all but one of the wind farms in South Australia, so their opposition to wind farms is opposition to their own policy.
There are challenges when integrating renewables into the national grid, but these challenges can be overcome and, in fact, they are already being overcome by other countries around the world. Using simple tweaks, we can arrive at virtual inertia and virtual synchronicity, which are the two main challenges around integrating non-inertia renewables into the grid. Tweaks to the network rules can achieve that. In fact, EMO admitted that simple changes to the way wind farms operate, which have been adopted around the world, would have avoided a lot of the issues that people have drawn.
Unfortunately, for the government, if you look at the future of energy generation in this country, I cannot see coal-fired power being part of that unless it is in receipt of massive government subsidies. The fact is, if you look at the levelised cost of energy in this country, AGL is writing contracts for wind farms at $65 a megawatt hour. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has found that large-scale solar farms are being constructed at around $100 a megawatt hour. In contrast to that, a new coal-fired power station in this country will cost at least $160 a megawatt hour. Carbon capture and storage, if they are ever viable, will be at least triple that at $480 a megawatt hour.
Coal will not be part of the mix on current trajectories. In fact, clean coal—which is the latest fad from the government—is a lie. Clean coal is a lie. We saw a farcical position where the Prime Minister rabbited on about it in the National Press Club. We saw that joke of a Treasurer bring a lump of coal into question time, embarrassing and cheapening his position and the position of Treasurer of this country—and it is a lie. The cleanest coal-fired power stations in our region, the newest and latest, still produce 700 kilos of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour. Let me repeat that: 700 kilos of carbon dioxide for one megawatt hour. Closed-cycle gas is around 370 kilos of CO2 for a megawatt hour, base load gas is almost half lower in carbon emissions and, obviously, renewables are completely carbon dioxide free. Clean coal is a lie; it is not the future for this nation. In fact, it is doing a great disservice to the coal communities of this country to dangle the prospect of future coal-fired generation in this country.
I have often said that there is nothing more disrespectful and low than to lie to workers. That is what the government has been doing. It is been going to coal communities around this country, including mine and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, and saying: 'Nothing has to change. You can keep performing your job. Your industry can keep behaving as it has done for the last 40 years, and nothing has to change.' That is a lie. It is dishonest. It is disrespecting those workers and those communities that depend upon those jobs. Instead, we must have a plan for a just transition, and that is what Labor is committed to.
We recognise that, even without carbon pricing, the four Hunter power stations have use-by dates. The Hunter produces one-third of the coal-fired power generation in this country, and all four of them have dates for closure set by their owners: Liddell's owner has said 2022; Vales Point—most people have said 2028; Origin have said 2034 for Eraring, the biggest power station in the country; and AGL have said 2035 for Bayswater. All four power stations are going to close down in the next 20 years, regardless of any other government policy.
What they need is a plan. Those workers in the communities that depend upon those jobs need a plan for their future, and that is what Labor is committed to. We have a plan for a just transition that takes lessons from around the world—that looks at what Germany, for example, did in rationalising their coal mining industry, where you can do this properly and do not have to have forced redundancies.
I support and applaud the Victorian government's efforts to do that for the Hazelwood power closure. They have managed to redeploy 150 workers from the 550 affected by that closure to other power stations in that region. It is great news for that community. That means 150 families do not have to uproot their lives because of something outside their control. It is really good that Labor at the state and federal level is embracing that. We need to contrast that with the coalition's inaction on structural adjustment.
The coalition have an appalling record on structural adjustment in this country, and that is because they do not care about workers. They pay lip service to caring about workers. We had the Deputy Prime Minister rabbiting on in question time about support for labourers and everyone else but it is purely hot air. They do not care. You only have to look at their actions. Look at what happened last year when the Northern power station in South Australia closed down. When those workers lost their jobs there was virtually no assistance from the government other than a CV-writing course.
You only have to look at our region to understand what happens when large industrial establishments close down under the watch of the Liberal government. When the BHP plant closed down in the late nineties, guess what was the biggest piece of structural adjustment funding the Liberal government provided? Funding for renovation of the Newcastle yacht club. Let me repeat that: we had thousands of steelworkers put out of work, and what did the John Howard Liberal government invest in? A renovation for the yacht club. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have met plenty of steelworkers in our home town, and I do not think many of them are keen yachties. They certainly cannot afford to run a maxi out of Newcastle yacht club. But that is the vision of structural adjustment from the conservatives.
Urgent action on climate change is needed. We cannot put our heads in the sand. We owe it to future generations not just to ensure they have a better environment than we have but to ensure they have an economy that is able to compete in the 21st century, compete in the era of the clean industrial revolution and low-carbon jobs. You can only do that by having an emissions intensity scheme, by having an emissions trading scheme, by having a hard cap on pollution and by promoting jobs of the future in clean technology industries. But this government are committed to going down the other path, to putting their heads in the sand and saying nothing has to change, to bringing lumps of coal into question time, and to betraying not just future generations but the current generation. One-third of jobs in renewables have disappeared under this government's watch.
When I look at my kids in the future, I want to be able to say to them that this parliament acted in their interests; that this parliament acted to ensure they had a better environment and an economy, with cleantech, low-carbon jobs, that would be able to compete in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the appropriations bill that we are debating right now is yet another symbol of this government not taking action on climate change and not trying to solve the energy crisis we are currently facing. All they care about is pandering to the conservative reactionaries in the Liberal party room, pandering to columnists like Andrew Bolt—pandering to people so out of touch with science and economics—and betraying this country.
I rise today to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017—bills that provide some vital expenditure. These bills also allow me to segue into other facets of my electorate that are supported directly and indirectly through these bills and associated coalition government policy.
Ryan is proudly home to the Gallipoli Barracks, the second largest military base in the country. I am pleased that the coalition are committed to defence, with an $810 million appropriation to the Department of Defence. The coalition have a long history of supporting and bolstering the Australian Defence Force, and we are increasing defence spending, improving capabilities and providing better support for current and past personnel.
The coalition government is also looking after those younger Australians who suffer from childhood cancer by committing $10 million to the establishment of a national research network which focuses on improving childhood cancer survival rates. In fact, it was only late last year that the Turnbull government provided $20 million to the Zero Childhood Cancer Collaboration Network to help improve health outcomes for children with cancer. The aim of the Zero Childhood initiative is for every child with cancer—up to a thousand a year—to be able to access the network's cutting-edge technology and collaboration by 2020 to push survival rates for childhood cancer towards 100 per cent. Not only will this initiative change lives; it will save lives.
As a government whose welfare mantra is about a hand-up, not a handout, I welcome the funds through these bills that will provide for the expansion of the Department of Human Services' fraud prevention and debt recovery capabilities. I acknowledge that this topic is of great contention at present, especially from those opposite, who would hand welfare out willy-nilly if they had their way. Members only need to think back to 2009, when the Rudd government's failed stimulus package paid $900 cheques to hundreds of people who were dead—because, as we know, according to the Labor side the afterlife economy was in dire straits as well.
Australians must remember that we, as a government, must ensure that those most vulnerable and in need amongst our community are cared for. To this extent, we must also maximise the welfare dollar. We are a government based on strong economic foundations, which are providing the means for the success of all Australians. We are wealth creators and see fit to do everything in our power to do what is right for each and every Australian. After 12 consecutive quarters of decline, it was encouraging to see new business investment increase for the first time in the final 2016 quarter—up almost two per cent, results attributed to the coalition's strong economic policy. To do this is often met with obstruction from those opposite, at the direction of their acrobatic leader Bill Shorten, who is better known for his flip-flop tricks, saying one thing yet doing another. Each time Labor and the Leader of the Opposition attempt to stymie the successful passage of worthy policy through this House, they are inflicting unknown havoc on hardworking Australians. One needs to look no further than the recent frivolous debate thrown around by those opposite in their blocking the necessary steps, only the coalition is taking, to fully fund the NDIS—something that Labor could not and did not do during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era.
Let me highlight some subjects that are closer to my home in the Ryan electorate and, in some, way will affect all Australians. First, I would like to discuss Closing the Gap. Let me be clear, there should be bipartisan support for anything that can be done to right the wrongs of yesteryear. Aboriginal policy must be personal not political. The Prime Minister recently noted:
Yet even with the determination of our First Australians to create a better future … with successive Commonwealth and state governments … and thousands of dedicated Australians seeking to contribute … we still are not making enough progress.
During the past month, my office and I have engaged in discussions with Lyndall De Marco, the ever enthusiastic CEO of IDEAS—an acronym that possibly has your mind full of ideas stands for Indigenous Diabetes Eyes and Screening. Lyndall began our conversation eloquently, referring to eyes as being the window to our sole. With this aptly put, Lyndall began to discuss the IDEAS Van, an initiative that is closing the remoteness and health gaps for Indigenous Australians.
Not many people are aware that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 40 years or more have six times the rate of blindness than any other Australian, or that 94 per cent of this vision loss is preventable and treatable. Considering that Australia is home to some of the world's leading optometric and ophthalmic specialists, how can this be? IDEAS Van is not just a semitrailer with basic medical facilities in tow; rather, it is a mobile and fully-equipped ophthalmology, optometry and imaging specialist centre with state-of-the-art diagnostic tools. It is bringing the care most needed by our first peoples, who do not have access to the services that many Australians take for granted. It contains everything you need to diagnose and treat eye problems in diabetics, who have suffered vision impairment through diabetic retinopathy and associated complications. On board, telehealth facilities also provide a link to the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane for endocrinology consultations. Supported initially by the Queensland LNP government in 2013, the IDEAS Van has travelled more than 186,000 kilometres of regional and remote Queensland. By visiting regional hubs around Queensland every four weeks, the IDEAS Van allows remote communities regular access to services. Commendably, the IDEAS Van is providing vision with considerable support from the private sector and the professional specialists who volunteer their time. However, there is still an underlying operating cost that needs to be funded to continue this visionary service. The IDEAS Van realises savings for the government by transporting two patients as opposed to the government subsidising expensive airfares for patients to travel to major centres like Brisbane or Townsville. I am currently working with Lyndall De Marco and my ministerial colleagues to discuss potential support for the initiative.
The coalition is supporting science, innovation, research and commercialisation in Australia. My electorate of Ryan is home to many outstanding research facilities and scientific minds, all of whom are benefiting from our commitment to the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Industry research and development are well and truly established in my electorate, which boasts some of the world's leading discoveries in research.
I have said it before in this House but I am proud to say it again: the prestigious University of Queensland, ranked 55th in the top universities of the world and in the top 10 in commercialisation, is in the heart of my electorate. UniQuest, the main commercialisation arm of UQ, is one of the world's most experienced private companies in technology transfer. I congratulate UniQuest, as they have had a direct involvement in many of the university's successes, which, in turn, have led to the betterment of humankind.
I was delighted to visit the University of Queensland recently, to meet with some of their leading researchers and for a guided tour of the university's state-of-the-art research facilities, including the Institute for Molecular Bioscience. The innovation coming from the University of Queensland never ceases to amaze me. The universal language of science draws the brightest researchers from all over the world. I was intrigued, during my visit to the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, to find out more about the Queensland Emory Drug Discovery Initiative, QEDDI, which aims to translate innovative academic research to clinical development and commercialisation by investing in partnerships with industry. By investing in further development and commercialisation, the university is ensuring that vital research is not being forgotten in the often deep academic abyss—research like that by Dr Kate Schroder, whose breakthroughs in cell biology and molecular medicine are paving the way for cures and treatments for diseases like Parkinson's. Described to me by Dr Schroder and her colleagues as being 'the potential silver bullet', they may have the efficacy to treat multiple other diseases. Dr Schroder's research focuses on the innate immune system and is leading this field in the world in understanding how immune cells launch healthy inflammation to fight infection and unhealthy inflammation to promote disease. The brilliant minds of those like Dr Schroder; Professor Ian Frazer, with his HPV vaccine; Professor Maree Smith, with her treatment for chronic pain; and Professor Mark Kendall, with his breakthrough Nanopatch immunisation technology, have placed the University of Queensland on the international map.
Let me pose a question to the House: how many members here would find it acceptable that residents of suburbs in their electorate also shared the same postcode with suburbs more than 130 kilometres away? I dare say that members would be flabbergasted to know that this is the situation in which thousands of residents in my electorate find themselves. Postcode 4306 is one of Australia Post's largest delivery zones, covering some 53 localities, including Karana Downs, Kholo and Mount Crosby in my electorate of Ryan. I have called on Australia Post to review the allocation of unique postcodes for localities which currently share a postcode with geographically separate localities. On many occasions, I have written to the Postal Industry Ombudsman to seek his intervention in this matter and, as of December 2016, I note that the ombudsman had written to the Managing Director and CEO of Australia Post to seek action. I am still waiting for their response. It seems that the CEO was too busy sledging my colleague the member for Corangamite, instead of doing his overpaid job. Australian taxpayers have recently shown their dismay at the excessive salary of former Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour, but what about the dismay of many of my constituents who are affected by what is often dubbed 'the postcode from hell'? These constituents have sought action to remedy this matter for more than 20 years, yet are still no closer to a resolution. We are not talking about an electorate as large or as spread out as that of the member for Maranoa; we are discussing a metropolitan seat within 20 kilometres of Brisbane city. I take this opportunity to again place on the record Ryan electorate constituents' disdain towards Australia Post's continual oversight of this significant issue. It affects five federal seats, and five federal members are in bipartisan unison that this must improve.
We have seen, time and time again, the ALP plague Australia with poorly-formed policy and economic mismanagement akin to an adult with mountains of credit card debt who constantly shifts debt from one card to another. Irresponsible moves by those opposite at the behest of their union puppet-masters and Greens allies jeopardise the future of this country. The actions of the Labor Party are comedic, to say the least, resembling the antics of the Griswold family from the National Lampoonseries, endlessly circling the roundabout, trying to exit. This was clearly demonstrated by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd reckless governments, and now by this current cohort, with many of the same, recycled faces, who traverse a familiar, well-worn path.
During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era we saw the establishment of the Fair Work Commission, an independent body with full independent powers. Yet Labor has the audacity to try to blame the coalition for stripping workers of their penalty rates. The decision of the commission is a direct result of the process put in place in 2013 by none other than Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile, the unions have already done a deal with big business to cut their penalty rates for their workers. Part of the deal is that the business collects the fees for the unions. No longer can they claim to look after the worker. It is no wonder the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine died!
Meanwhile, once again, it is the hard-working mums and dads in small business who are on the receiving end of Labor's attacks and unfair policy. And do not get me started on another of Labor's masterminded policies, the Energy Efficient Homes Package, which saw the pink batts debacle and the deaths of innocent hardworking Australians. It is one thing to form bad policy but to implement bad policy and to have Australians die is another. And who is responsible? The Labor government.
These bills are integral to ensure the continuity of the government's programs. As a strong coalition government we are ensuring that Australian taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. Unlike those opposite, we are creating a stronger future for Australians, for their safety, health, education and employment prospects. We are creating the foundations for investment in this country. We are reducing Labor's debt and providing for those least able to.
I can assure the House that only the coalition will provide for all Australians. We not only have a plan for today we also have a plan that ensures longevity and prosperity of the nation into the future. Just like Australians who want to provide for their families, we will continue to provide for all Australians. I commend these bills to the House.
Labor is fighting for what matters to Australians. We are fighting a local jobs, we are fighting to protect Medicare from the attacks of the coalition government and we are fighting to build a strong economy that delivers for all. If we win government at the next election Labor will build Australian first, buy Australian first and employ Australian first.
In contrast to Labor's position and Labor's approach, you just have to look at the Turnbull government to see the division and chaos that is amongst the ranks of that government, both on the front and back benches. The Turnbull government is a government in disarray. It has a leader that is caving in to the hard right of this party, who is doing it over and over again. The leader of our party, the member for Maribyrnong, on the contrary, has unified Labor and Labor is a very solid team. We are working together to create the policies to take the next federal election, to present ourselves as the alternative government of this nation. Just look at the contrast.
On the Liberal-National side you have a situation where the Prime Minister thinks he will be able to appease those on the hard right who keep trying to make more and more demands on him. Prime Minister, appeasing bullies does not get rid of bullies, it just emboldens them. Stop trying to appease the hard right. This week is yet another example of that—his decision to cave in on some demands around the Racial Discrimination Act when he should be focused on jobs, health and education. Those are the things the Prime Minister should be focused on. He should be doing something about the fact that unemployment in this country is high and that underemployment in this country is at record levels—since the records started being kept in 1978.
He should be doing something about the fact that underemployment means there are 1.1 million Australians who have some work but want more work and cannot get it. He should also be doing something about the fact that the wage price index, which measures the growth in wages, is stagnant. In fact, wages growth is at record lows since we started keeping the wage price index in 1997 in this country. So you have really low wages growth at the same time you have unemployment and underemployment very high.
The third piece of that puzzle is that the profit share of income is at a very high level compared to where it was in the late 1970s. In fact, the profit share of income has been increasing steadily ever since the late 1970s. So you have very high levels of the profit share of national income, which means correspondingly low levels of the wages share of national income. What that adds up to is that businesses are doing well and workers are not doing well. This is a government that does not care about those issues. In fact, you only have to look at their record on jobs and wages and incomes to get a sense of what this government's priorities are and what they are not.
This government's priorities have been about finding a way to give a $50 billion revenue giveaway to big multinational corporations and the big banks while at the same time approving of and agreeing with a decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of working people. This is a government that has an interest in trying to cut family tax benefits, affecting middle- and working-class families, while at the same time doing nothing to arrest the severe decline in apprenticeship numbers, which of course is going to make it much harder for young people to have the skills that they will need for the jobs of the future. This is a government so preoccupied with its own follies that it is missing the main issues that are confronting households across Australia right now, every day of the week.
In my own electorate of Griffith apprentice numbers have dropped by a third since this government was elected. It is an absolute disgrace. There have been $2½ billion in Liberal-National Party cuts to TAFE and apprenticeship support since they were elected in 2013. In real terms, what it means on the ground for real people in real households with real problems is that there have been 1,046 fewer apprenticeships taken up in Griffith. At the same time youth unemployment is very high—13.6 per cent youth unemployment—even in my local area on the south side of Brisbane, which is a relatively affluent area.
Under the Liberals, Australia has shed 128,000 apprenticeships in the last 12 months alone. Trade apprentice commencements have dropped 10½ per cent across the country. But Labor is committed to doing something about these issues. In fact, boosting the number of apprenticeships is a key part of Labor's skills and training agenda to deliver more local jobs, because we need the workforce of the future to have the skills that they will need for the jobs of the future. It is pretty simple. When we see the bottom falling out of vocational education and training in this country, it makes it pretty difficult to imagine how we are going to make sure that people do have the skills that they need.
If you want an example of how pig-headed this government has been on this issue, there was a great program running in my electorate—you will remember it, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker; it ran across the country—that had an incredible success rate of getting kids who were really at risk, teenagers who were not in school and not at work, and helping them get the skills that they needed just to be employees. They were really basic skills that a lot of us take for granted, but these kids did not have the opportunity to get them. They were in very high-risk families and domestic situations.
That program, which helped these kids get into education or work, was called Youth Connections. It was very much a value-for-money program. It was incredibly cheap for the Commonwealth to fund. It had high levels of success. In my electorate the program was being run by Boystown. I visited the program at the time that it was being run. It was doing a great job. This government came in and cut that program. Can you imagine cutting an inexpensive and highly valuable program that helps young at-risk kids in their first year at a time when youth unemployment is high and young people are desperately in need of support and reassurance that there is going to be a future for them in this country.
If you want another example, just look at the penalty rates debacle. The Fair Work Commission has made a decision that will cut the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of employees. It is not like an enterprise bargaining agreement where workers get a vote on the agreement, where they can decide whether to trade away some conditions in favour of other conditions, where there is a situation where the commission has to test the proposed agreement against the modern award to see whether the proposed agreement leaves working people better off overall than the modern award. That is not the situation that we are talking about here.
I think it has been a pretty unedifying display by the Prime Minister, who really should understand enterprise bargaining. We have had enterprise bargaining in Commonwealth law since 1993. It is not as though this is some new concept. You get productivity gains in return for increases in pay and conditions, and that means that working people, through their representatives, and employers negotiate, bargain together to find a win-win solution. That is the point of enterprise bargaining. It is certainly the case that some penalty rates may change and, at the same time, base rates may increase, or you might get paid parental leave, or you might get cultural leave, or you might get other conditions like roster changes or ratios of staff. You might improve conditions at work. It is certainly the case that enterprise bargaining works that way, but this seems to be news to the Prime Minister, who has made it pretty clear throughout question time this week, and in previous weeks, that he does not even understand how enterprise bargaining works. Nor does he understand that working people get a vote on whether to even agree to the enterprise bargaining agreement—it is not some deal struck somewhere in secret and the next thing you know you have this new set of work conditions. That is not how it works; people actually get a vote on these deals.
Maybe he is confused because, in legislation he voted for—Work Choices, back when Work Choices was introduced by the Commonwealth—there was a thing called an employer greenfields agreement that the employer just wrote and had certified; they did not need anyone's agreement for that. Or maybe he is confused by the fact that the legislation he voted for, Work Choices, promulgated individual statutory agreements that were allowed to, and did, undercut all sorts of conditions including penalty rates, annual leave loading and sick leave entitlements. They actually did undercut conditions and pay, and did not even have to pass a no disadvantage test. In fact, the Prime Minister voted for legislation abolishing the no disadvantage test that the commission was then using to make sure people were not left worse off. Maybe he is confused; he has voted for legislation that allows that to happen in the past, but he has form—and he has a lot of cheek, frankly, to come into the parliament and have a go at us for agreements that actually passed the better-off-overall test, when he voted for legislation to get rid of it altogether, to not even have a no disadvantage test.
And look what happened: if you go back into the history of those statutory individual agreements, you will find they actually did get rid of pay and conditions—of course they did. Employers made it a condition of getting a job that you signed up to these individual deals that left you worse off than the prevailing award. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister is confused. But, to be fair to him, I think he clearly does understand—even though he has been disingenuous about it—that the Fair Work Commission decision in relation to penalty rates is a cut to the take-home pay of working people. It does not leave people better off overall than they had previously been under that particular modern award.
To give you a sense of how it affects my electorate, more than 11,900 people in Griffith, or one-in-seven workers, work in the retail, food and accommodation industries, which are industries affected by the cuts. The workers who are affected by the cuts stand to lose up to $77 a week. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I do not think that you or I would be very happy with a pay drop of $77 a week. I think that would make our lives more difficult, so imagine how much more difficult it would make the lives of people who are under these awards, who are in some of the lowest paying occupations in the country.
The Prime Minister supports this Fair Work decision—he supports it. He claims it is going to lead to more jobs, but what it is really going to lead to is people having to work longer to get the same pay. It is going to affect all sorts of people, but the Prime Minister does not care about them. He has been out there defending this pay cut up and down town. Labor does not agree. In fact, Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has brought to the parliament a bill to make sure this cannot happen, to make sure the commission, when it is reviewing awards, cannot reduce the take-home pay of working people. That is what our bill does. It does not prescribe penalty rates in law, in legislation. It does not do any of that, but it does say that the commission cannot cut the take-home pay of working people when reviewing these awards.
You would think that would be pretty non-controversial legislation. You would think that anyone who is reasonable would sign up to a bill that says to the nation's Fair Work Commission—which is an excellent body, a great body, a body that has been around since 1904 in various guises—'By all means review awards, but don't cut the take-home pay of working people.' You would think anyone would vote for that legislation, and yet the Prime Minister is carrying on as though this is somehow unreasonable, as though it is perfectly fine for the Fair Work Commission to cut the take-home pay of working people. That is simply not true, and it just goes to show how out of touch this Prime Minister is with the concerns that are being talked about around the kitchen table.
The Prime Minister likes to talk about cost of living. What helps with the cost of living is not having a massive pay cut. If the Prime Minister cared about cost of living, he would want to do something about the fact that low-paid workers are having their pay cut. How can he say that these will be the last people who will have this pay cut? The opposition asked the question in question time: how can he guarantee that other awards will not have their penalty rates cut, with more pay cuts for other workers? The only way he could guarantee that would be to support Labor's plan to set in legislation a requirement that the commission does not cut the take-home pay of working people. He could back that; he could back it right now. It is a very simple proposition, and it makes economic sense.
Not in the most recent quarter just gone but in the quarter before, we had a negative quarter of economic growth in this country. Let's just think about that for a minute. What is going to help make sure that we have strong economic growth? Would cutting the pay of working people encourage them to spend more money? Would cutting the pay of working people promote more household consumption? Would that promote greater economic growth? Of course it would not. The same working people who are employees who are having their pay cut are also customers, the same customers that small businesses rely on to buy their products and services. They are also citizens and taxpayers, the same taxpayers we rely on to pay their taxes and the same citizens we rely on to be out there doing their bit for Australia to really spur on the economy.
I rise to talk in favour of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017. With these appropriation bills, there is a lot of good money being spent in a lot of areas that are needing it. In Appropriation Bill (No. 3) the Department of Defence will be receiving extra resources for some of their roles. The Department of Health is also getting extra resources, and there is some infrastructure spending in that as well.
I want to pick up on an issue that was raised earlier by a number of speakers. I am talking here about the proposed company tax rate cuts, and I think it brings up a really interesting philosophical point. As members of parliament and as members of government, one of our primary roles is to provide services to our community, whether they be in health, education or infrastructure projects. What we always have to do, and try to do, is grow the pie of available government resources for those types of projects but at the same time help grow that section of the economy, or that section of the country, that is producing the wealth of the country.
The company tax rates are a really interesting philosophical debate. For the first time in probably 30 or 35 years, we are now having a debate about this. I go back to the Hawke-Keating governments and acknowledge them for some of the things that they did. They in some ways started this whole process. The prevailing economic thought, accepted in most countries around the world, is to maintain a competitive business tax rate. We have moved into a space with globalisation and technology advancements, where countries that operate with isolationist policies, or in isolationist-type environments—and I suppose an exaggerated example here is North Korea—tend not to do well. Most successful countries trade, and they have to compete in a way that keeps them efficient. One of those ways, whether we like it or not, is to have a competitive company tax rate, because many companies now have a choice about where they operate. They can choose what part of the world they want to domicile their business in, and there is lots of competition in that.
Dare I say it, Paul Keating as Treasurer recognised that. One of the first governments in Australia to really take this on board and to lower company tax rates—not just for small business but for big business—in a massive way was Paul Keating and Bob Hawke's government. They lowered company tax rates enormously over the years that they were in government, because they understood that we had to maintain competitiveness in this field. With the election of the Howard government, that continued: the Howard-Costello government, over the 10 or so years that they were in power—again, in a modest, continual way over time—lowered the company tax rate. We went from something like nearly 60 per cent down to the current 30 per cent. We have one of the highest company tax rates in the OECD, and we have if not the highest then very close to the highest company tax rate in our region. We need to keep looking at it and we need to stay competitive on it. Even with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government there were proposals to lower company tax rates, and we are doing the same thing now—so for the first time in 30-odd years, there is a debate about this.
I want to remind the House what has happened in the past when we have cut company tax rates, because what you would think—potentially—is that when you cut company tax rates, the amount of revenue that you receive goes down. But that is not the historical or empirical evidence of what happens. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. What happens is it encourages more businesses to get established. It encourages, potentially, more businesses to move to your country. I want to quote some figures—from the ABS, of all places!—and I think we can have reasonable faith in these. To go back to what I was talking about before, company tax revenue rose—this is back in 1987-88. There was a 10 percentage point cut in the company tax rate in this period. Company tax revenue actually rose from 8.6 billion in 1987-1988 to 12.7 billion in 1989-90. So there you go, Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon—we had a company tax rate that was cut, but company tax revenue actually rose in totality. And that was because more businesses were established, more businesses were making much more money, and more businesses moved here. Also—and this is an important statistic—company tax as a share of government revenue rose. Was that a one-off? No it was not, because revenue rose when the Howard-Costello government did the same thing. Revenue rose from 26 billion in 1999-2000 to 35 billion in 2002-03. It also lifted as a percentage of the share of revenue after we had cut the company tax rate from 36 to 30. So again, we need to understand—and it has been well accepted throughout the world, and in Australia by both sides of politics—that cutting the company tax rate is important for maintaining a competitive tax rate. And, as you free up and liberate that private sector, they actually do better and will generate more money. So this is a really significant change from the Labor Party: they are talking in a way which they have not done and about something that they have not spoken about in over 30 years.
We need to look at recent history, over the last 20 to 30 years, and at exactly what has happened with company tax rates. In fact, revenue to government has increased as a result of those changes. Let us think: why would that happen? It is almost counterintuitive—until you look at the figures. We would think that if company taxes are lowered—but we are not collecting less money, we are collecting more. It goes with that whole philosophy—it encourages investment, it encourages existing businesses to expand, it encourages them to invest in new things, and it encourages new businesses to establish and other businesses to move here. It creates the bigger pie, and the bigger resource for government then to provide the essential services that it needs to. I remember there was a famous case, a well-studied case in academic circles, about Ireland. You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Ireland in the eighties was in a very poor way financially. They had a company tax rate that was very high. They slashed it to 10 per cent—I think it was from something like 60 or 70 per cent to 10 per cent. They were collecting more money in three years at 10 per cent than they were at 60 per cent. Again, why? Why did that happen?
What happened back then was that they became the centre of investment in Europe. In the eighties, obviously, one of the biggest emerging industries at the time was the IT, and everyone sent to the IT bases in Ireland. Lowering it was great for their economy and great for their company tax collections. It has been well accepted throughout the world and, indeed, on both sides of politics in Australia for 30 years, but apparently the Labor Party, unfortunately, now knows better and is ignoring empirical evidence about what has been proven over the last 20 to 30 years.
Also with the appropriations, I would like to acknowledge some of the investments this government is making. We very much understand that government play an important role not just in essential services but also in infrastructure spends—and I want to quickly run through a few infrastructure projects in my electorate. We have, through different things like the Stronger Regions Fund, made really important investments in infrastructure that are targeting job creation and jobs growth in local regions, and I want to quickly run through a few in my electorate. One is the Ballina marine rescue tower. It is very important to our fishing industry and very important to our tourism industry. The old tower was literally falling over, but it was known that, if that tower closed, vessels would not be able to enter the bar safely and both the tourism and fishing industries would be adversely affected. We made a commitment to them to fix that, and we will be opening that in the next few weeks. That is going to be good day for Ballina and, indeed, the tourism and fishing industries.
At Lismore, there is the Quadrangle project. We are going to be opening a regional standard art gallery and a cosmopolitan-type square within the library and the new art gallery. This will bring new tourists and new visitors to our region spending money, which is going to be very valuable. Deputy Speaker, I do not know if you have ever been to Kyogle. It is a great part of the world. There is a very well-visited dam called Toonumbar Dam. Unfortunately, it does not have a completely sealed road, and we have invested in making sure that road is completely sealed to encourage more tourism activity in that region. The Harwood Sugar Mill, down the Clarence, is a very important employer in the lower Clarence. We have given them some financial assistance to completely reform their logistics, which is going to make sure they remain competitive. That is also a job-creating investment.
Casino has the biggest private employer in the region for hundreds of kilometres, and that is the local abattoir—a local meatworks. They employ over 1,000 people. The saleyards, located just a little way away, needs to be upgraded to make sure that Casino remains a regional hub for the cattle industry. We are making an investment in that, with the local council. This will be a nearly $7 million investment with both parties investing, to make sure that the saleyards are upgraded and to make sure they remain a regional processing centre.
There are many more. Oakes Oval, in Lismore, is the premier sporting facility in the region. That is getting an upgrade. It is being extended to incorporate AFL. The change rooms and some of the grandstand infrastructure will be upgraded as well to make sure that we keep winning these regional sporting events so that people keep visiting our region and spending money. There is the Maclean Riverside Precinct. Maclean is a beautiful Scottish town on the Clarence River. They are upgrading the riverside precinct, and we are helping them by making an investment and really turning the town around to face the Clarence River again, with boardwalks and promenades. That will increase tourism visitors to Maclean and the economic performance of Maclean.
Kyogle has an inordinate amount of wooden bridges. It has quite a small LGA in population, but it is very productive. They have a blueberry industry, they have beef a cattle industry and they have a timber industry. And they have a lot—and I am talking hundreds—of wooden bridges that are in a state of disrepair. The financial burden on them is too great, so we, as a federal government, have been assisting them for a number of years to slowly upgrade the wooden bridges in a uniform way. We are aware that they are a very productive area of our country. They produce things, they make things and they grown things, and that is providing income not only to their region but also to the country. We are also upgrading some of the amenities in town for them, like the pool.
Woolgoolga is a great blueberry-growing area and a great tourism area just north of Coffs Harbour. There is a great Sikh community there as well. The surf lifesaving club is not in a good way and we are going to help to move it and invest again in crucial infrastructure for social reasons. There is more going on in Casino, with an amphitheatre that we are going to help to develop at the local drill hall complex. They approached me a number of years ago. The complex was surplus to Department of Defence requirements and they asked me if we would not sell it into private hands but keep it in community hands as a community space. With the Minister for Defence we did a deal that was quite advantageous to the local council and sold the drill hall to the Richmond Valley Council. It is now going to become a community space and we are going to help them make some investments into that as well.
Further on the subject of social infrastructure, it was wonderful recently to involve the Minister for Health. Like many communities around our country, Clarence Valley has been touched by mental health issues. I do not think there is a family that has not been touched by mental health issues, but Clarence Valley and Grafton have been especially hard-hit. There have been many tragedies. Every loss of life is a tragedy, but they have certainly had more than their fair share in this very sad way. It was almost having a flow-on effect—when someone did it someone else would follow. We are making some huge investments into this space. The Minister for Health was there with me recently and we announced a new headspace facility for Grafton, but also a whole array of other extra mental health services to help the community.
Lastly, the biggest investment that we are making is important not just to prevent fatalities but also for revenue and commerce revenue—and not only when it is being built by the 3½ thousand people who work directly on it. I am talking about the upgrade of the Pacific Highway. The Woolgoolga to Ballina section is very important. This government is making a multibillion dollar investment to create more jobs.
I speak in relation to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017. Labor will support supply; we always do—not like those opposite. They have not, by the way, blocked supply since 1975, but they have frustrated Labor governments repeatedly. We are always committed to supporting supply, so we support this legislation. In 2016-17, MYEFO announced $2.7 billion of net expenditure saves. Many of them, of course, were a carryover from the 2014-15 budget, which is a bit like Lord Voldemort in Harry Potterwe dare not speak its name. That budget was full of zombie cuts, and they are still there, lurking around. Even today we have seen that those zombie cuts remain. I noticed a press release from the shadow minister for families and social services today. The Treasurer, in an interview on Sky News with Peter van Onselen, made the point that those cuts continue to stand as government policy. They include cuts to paid parental leave. Seventy thousand new mums will be worse off. The government are trying to scrap the energy supplement and make a $1 billion cut to pensioners, people with disability and Newstart recipients. The five-week wait for Newstart, which will force young people to live on nothing for five weeks, will continue if the Liberal and National parties have their way. The cuts to young people between 22 and 24 years of age, pushing them off Newstart onto the much lower youth allowance, will see them $48 to $49 a week worse off. Of course, they are continuing to support the scrapping of the pensioner education supplement and the education entry supplement, and they continue to support the cut to the pension for migrant pensioners who spend more than six weeks overseas.
These cuts continue. This is the policy of the government, confirmed by the Treasurer this afternoon. They might have split the bill, but this remains the policy of the government. The government, when in opposition, claimed, in relation to the debt and deficit under Labor, that the budget was 'in freefall'. They promised to 'stabilise and repay Labor's debt'. The debt was 'skyrocketing' and 'spiralling deeper and deeper'. They identified $50 billion of savings for a reduction of $30 billion in debt and claimed that they would deliver a surplus in their first year of government and every year thereafter. That is what the former member for North Sydney, the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey famously said—apart from the fact that he also thought poor people do not drive cars, and, of course, before bringing down the budget, decided to enjoy himself with tobacco by having a cigar just before he cut the funding for pensions, young people and so many people across the board.
This is a government that promised big when it came to office. They did an audit and talked about the fact that there would be a disaster: we were maxing out the credit card, there was a debt time bomb that was terrible and there was a debt blowout spiralling out of control. And what have they done since they came to office? It is always interesting to talk about appropriations. They have tripled the deficit since 2014. Their first budget predicted that the deficit for 2016-17 would be $10.6 billion. They did not actually get that surplus in the first year or any year thereafter. It is now going to rise to $36.5 billion this year. Having promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, they predicted that for 2016-17 the deficit would be $10.6 billion and now it is going to rise to $36.5 billion. The debt has risen! The Pre-election Financial and Economic Outlook—PEFO—in 2013 is not done. Entirely independently, before we lost office, the net debt was confirmed at $184 billion. The 2016 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook—MYEFO—shows that it has blown out to $317 billion this year.
This is a government that promised big but has not delivered, and they have lost all focus. They are a government that seems to be completely out of touch. They are driven by division and dysfunction and seem to be at war with each other. It seems that every year, every month and every week when they are in government, before we return to this place there is another blowout from the member for Warringah or the putative leader, the member for Dickson. They all seem to be jostling to get the position—that is what seems to be happening. You can see the angling and the auditioning in question time, certainly by the Treasurer.
This is his appropriations bill, but where is their surplus? Where is the reduction in debt under these guys? They have just not looked at it. They gave up government funds, such as from the carbon price, which was bringing in about $13 billion per annum—they gave up that resource. They lifted the debt ceiling and they blew the debt off—with the concurrence of the Greens, I might add. So they gave away revenue sources and then decided that their big election campaign would be about jobs and growth. How they would do it would be to give away $50 billion in corporate tax cuts and by not looking at other potential areas of taxation reform that might be fair. Their logic is, 'We will give away $7.4 billion to the big banks'—that will go down well in marginal seats—'and $50 billion in tax cuts to big business,' a lot of which will go overseas in multinational tax avoidance.
At the same time, they do not fulfil their previous election commitment of needs-based funding, like Gonski funding. Remember those signs on election day that said they would match Labor's funding dollar for dollar if they won the 2013 election? They did not fulfil that. We know that in the middle of 2018, budgetary funding for education goes off the cliff. Since the last federal election, I have visited almost all of the schools in my electorate—I have close to 80 schools—and what I get from the school principals and the school committees when I visit them is that they have used the funding that we put in—which is contingent, and goes off the cliff—for literacy and numeracy upgrades to improve the standards of those kids who have been left behind, professional development for teaching and putting on extra teacher's aides. Investing in education should be the priority. The Gonski funding investment will give three times the benefit to the Australian economy as the tax cuts they want to give to big business.
Now, we had the member for Page talking about evidence and about the importance of these $50 billion in tax cuts to big business; the importance of it for economic growth, for jobs, for attracting investment into the country. But not a shred of evidence was given by the member for Page about that.
Let's look at what The Australia Institute said about the plan of the government to give $50 billion in tax cuts to corporate Australia, including up to $1 billion for companies earning a billion dollars a year. The Australia Institute said:
… that there is no evidence to suggest that lower rates increase economic growth. Secondly, a historical analysis of Australia’s own corporate tax rate shows that, if anything, lower rates have a negative impact on the kind of economic indicators spruiked by their proponents.
Furthermore, The Australia Institute said:
The evidence presented here suggests that if there are any growth dividends of lowering the company tax rate they are so weak as to be outweighed by other factors. Neither cross-country comparison nor Australia’s own history lend any support to the ‘tax-cuts-are-good’ thesis. If the aim really is increased economic growth, then Australians would be better advised to ignore the business lobby’s call for lower company tax rates and look seriously at other policies.
Let's look at what the Treasury said in their various assumptions. They looked at a number of assumptions—and we are talking about a decade or more away—and said that in the long term, employment might increase by 0.1 per cent. We are potentially talking about a 1.1 per cent increase in GDP.
This is in circumstances where we have a real problem at the moment in this country in relation to unemployment. We saw the figures that came out: the unemployment rate increased from 5.7 per cent to 5.9 per cent, the highest in more than 12 months. And that was just on 16 March this year. There were 6,400 fewer jobs last month, including a decrease of 33,500 part-time jobs. There are about 135,000 fewer apprentices since this mob came to power; unemployment is up and about 1.1 million Australians are underemployed and saying that they would like more work; and the answer to all of this seems to be to put at risk the AAA credit rating by giving tax cuts to big Australians—to big corporate Australia—and at the same time not being prepared to protect the penalty rates of about 700,000 Australians, who would lose $77 a week.
How is it possible that Australians are going to spend more money, consume more services and buy more goods if they have less money in their pay packets and if unemployment goes up? It is now higher than it was during the GFC, when we, by our stimulus, not just once but twice, managed to avoid a recession. We had negative growth not that long ago under this mob—just the previous quarter to the current one. So at risk is our economy, and our fundamentals are quite tenuous. We have high unemployment, low growth—the lowest wages growth on record—and the highest, the worst, inequality in the country in nearly 75 years. And these people think that we are going to fix it with some ideology of trickle-down economics? Honestly, these are parties—the Liberal-National parties—which pride themselves on their alleged economic experience and management. But the economy has gone backwards in so many areas under this mob—whether it is employment, apprenticeships, jobs, training or investment. Now, they do not look at proper sources of revenue, such as negative gearing and capital gains tax reform, which together cost more than $10 billion to the budget each year, they do not look at an emissions intensity scheme and they do not look at a whole range of areas which might improve equity as well as the economy of the country. Economies which are more equal are often fairer and also more progressive, and actually invest in jobs and achieve things. They do not achieve things if people are losing their jobs, if their kids are not getting apprenticeships and if people do not have the money in their pay packets to purchase items.
So how about this government finally stand up for middle-class people who are doing it tough and ditch this idea of a corporate tax cut to big Australia. But, hang on a sec, today we have seen speakers in the House making speech after speech in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Play) Bill 2016 and talking about the fact that there would be $50 billion in tax cuts for small business—small business being $1 billion in revenue every year—and thinking that this 10-year tax plan is going to be achieving a lot of things. But perhaps they were not actually in the House during question time when the Treasurer again and again refused to commit to this enterprise tax plan.
My thinking is that what will happen is that the government will have to split the bill. They will not leave the bill in its current form, because they probably will not get it through the Senate. I think they probably know that they cannot. So what they will do is gut the centrepiece, the raison d'etre, for their re-election. I said in a speech earlier today that this mob, in rugby league terms, got up by a field goal in the last minute. That is how close the election result was. In AFL terms it would probably be a behind in the last minute. The centrepiece of everything they talked about was jobs and growth. They are not achieving anything on jobs. And, if they think $50 billion in tax cuts is going to get growth, they are not listening to the evidence which clearly demands a verdict the other way.
These are interesting appropriation bills, and I am sure we will have a good debate on them in the parliament. Today I want to talk a bit about the superannuation scheme, particularly about some of the ideas that are emanating out of the government as the budget approaches and the effect that they might have on our national savings and on our economic conditions. Superannuation has been a particularly important part of this nation's economic strategy since 1983. It has been a very successful part of our economic story, to the extent that the funds under management are over $2 trillion. That is an extraordinary achievement.
In industry funds alone, there is about $500 billion under management. To give you an example of what that means to ordinary workers, if we are talking about retail workers—who are getting a lot of mention in the parliament at the moment—the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust has $39 billion of funds under management. There are two million members, Australians, and there is $39 million of funds under management. That is an extraordinary part of our national savings. This is every check-out operator, night filler, trolley collector and retail worker in department stores and the like. Their retirement savings are being put away for their benefit. These are national savings that would not have existed but for the creation of industry super and the superannuation guarantee charge.
Just to give you an idea of the returns to members, over the 10 years it has been 6.25 per cent, over the seven years it has been 8.39 per cent, and over the five years it has been 9.98 per cent. That is a great story of industry super and superannuation for retail workers. We have had a big debate about their penalty rates, but it is important to note that this has been a very successful part of securing their retirement incomes free of excessive charges and free of the profit motive. Industry funds exist for their members and not for the profit motive.
These funds have also been a very big contributor to national savings. As I said before, we have now got $2 trillion under management in the retirement income and superannuation system, and this was a very big part of the success story of giving the economy ballast, predictability and security during the global financial crisis. It was a great asset to this nation. We hear cries about foreign investment, which I know gets thrown at your party, Deputy Speaker Coulton, and mine. People say: 'Why don't we buy back the farm? Why don't we invest in our own country?' You can only invest in your own country if you have significant national savings. The reason we have since the nation's founding always been sucking in capital from overseas, first from the United Kingdom, later from the United States and later from Japan and other parts of the world such as the Middle East, is that we have had a shortage of national savings. Industry superannuation and the superannuation system, properly managed, add to that pool of national savings and give the economy great ballast. A lot of it is invested in Australian fixed shares. A lot of it is invested in Australian fixed interest. A lot of it is invested in property and the like. These are primarily funds that are invested in Australia but also give some investment profile overseas. So it has been a very successful scheme.
I do not want to drop names, but Mary Easson was launching a book in parliament: Keating's & Kielty's Super Legacy: The Birth and Relentless Threats to the Australian System of Superannuation. It is a very good book. We have a tendency, I think, to either embark on feats of nostalgia about reforms, thinking that they were easily achieved, or to take them completely for granted. I think this is certainly the case with superannuation. It is worth noting that people like Simon Crean and Bill Kielty, who got the idea of broad based industry superannuation put in the first accord, did the right thing by this country—not just the right thing by workers but the right thing by the country. One of the greatest achievements of the Hawke-Keating government is the superannuation scheme. Prior to this, superannuation was really the province of people who were professional or worked for one company for a long time. They were predominantly, though not always, men, and there were often defined benefit schemes which took you 40 years to realise the benefits and really did lock you into a company or occupation—a company more often than not. So the scheme that existed prior to this did not cover women, did not cover casual workers and did not cover people who moved jobs and thus was not a contributor to national savings and certainly not a contributor to most workers in the wages system.
What do we find? We have got this great success story. We have got this great achievement largely left alone by the Howard government, I have got to say. They did not add to it. They should have added to it. It is worthwhile noting that, if the Keating government program of superannuation increases had continued, we would be at 15 per cent for most workers today and our national savings would be correspondingly higher. It is worth noting that, if this government had kept to the schedule of the Rudd-Gillard governments, we would be at 11 per cent at the moment. Most workers would be at 11 per cent superannuation instead of nine. It gives you an indication that, most of the time, conservative governments do not meddle so much with this system. What we have found, I think, in recent days is that this government is having their internal debate out in the open. Normally, when they have economic debates—and we are debating the appropriation bills, so it is topical as we come into budget time—there is a bit of the opposition asking the government what they might do in the budget with the government playing a dead bat. Very rarely have we ever seen a government having its internal debates out in the open—it is extraordinary.
We had Mr Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, coming out—he has been given this new job and he is keen to get on with it. His first step was to tell people that they should get a highly-paid job in order to buy their first home; and the second idea that he had, off the top of his head, was to use superannuation—that a first home buyer should be able to use their superannuation to buy their first home.
This was immediately shot down—it was interesting—by the finance minister who pointed this out in 2014, apparently, that if you activated this option, you would only drive up house prices because it pumps more liquidity into the market. Interestingly enough, the member for Deakin is not happy to have one side of the debate; he is producing this idea but he is happy to have the other side of it. He says those comments are largely correct—I am quoting from the Financial Review here on March 14, 2017:
If all a government does is try to pump further liquidity into the residential housing market, inevitably, all you do is push up house prices.
So he wants to push people's superannuation into the housing market, even though he knows it will push up housing prices and thus become completely self-defeating.
But he goes on to say:
… the classic example—
this is what I love—
was the Howard government's $7,000 first homeowners grant which, he said, may as well have been given straight to developers such was its effect in pushing up prices.
Pretty extraordinary criticism of the Howard government's first buyer grant—I commend his candour. But, if you think about it: it is exactly what he is proposing but then turning up the dial, because what we would suddenly create is a completely sophisticated industry of spivs and corporate pirates. We have all seen it with the real estate spruikers in this country. Imagine if they could get access to your superannuation. Imagine the vast army of white ants that would come out to nibble into people's superannuation: you would very quickly get a very sophisticated array of people who would hold seminars, who would create self-managed superannuation vehicles and who would take large accounting fees for the privilege of raiding superannuation. I know the Deputy Speaker represents blue-collar workers in the bush. He knows exactly the people I am talking about. We have all seen them.
We have got the member for Deakin taking both sides of the argument. We have had the Treasurer rule it out but not really rule it out. We have had the finance minister being quite explicit about what he thinks of it. There is a debate going on in the government. We have had the Prime Minister considering the superannuation property plan—that was in Samantha Maiden's article; I am not sure if that was in TheSunday Mailit was Sky News on Thursday 16 March saying that he would consider it, despite having called the option a thoroughly bad idea in the past. The Prime Minister knows it is a bad idea. He knows it is a thoroughly bad idea and yet continues down this path of considering this thoroughly bad idea.
You think maybe the Senate might save us from this lunacy where we would have the nation's national savings given to the real estate spruikers. But, no, we have got the Xenophon team—Nick Xenophon is the ultimate populist, so this is a great idea; it sounds good on a radio grab somewhere. It is not very well thought-out, because Xenophon has previously promoted this and said that we should look at the Canadian scheme; it is a great idea. There is just one problem. Garth Turner, who is a former Canadian MP and a mate of Mr Xenophon's—I do not know how they have become friends—has cautioned him not to mimic Canada's policy, as reported in The Guardian:
"Nick, I'm not loving your most recent crusade—
Most recent crusade! There are a lot of crusades, but anyway—
In fact, I think you need a better research assistant because you've just messed up as far as Canada is concerned," Turner wrote in an open letter. "We're reaping the bitter harvest sown when that dumbass legislation passed.
"Allowing first-time buyers to remove tax-free money to buy a modest home they could not otherwise afford, then restore it to their long-term retirement savings makes perfect sense in theory. In practice and inexperience, just the opposite [happened]."
I do not agree with Mr Turner. I think it is a bad idea in theory. It is a terrible idea in theory. It is a ghastly idea in theory, and anybody with an ounce of common sense could see that driving your national savings, that allowing a young person to remove their retirement savings and put them into the hot real estate markets of Sydney or Melbourne, is only going to make those markets hotter.
What will happen is that the minute you allow first homebuyers to do it the pressure will come on: 'Why can't I take Mum or Dad's super and invest it in my house?' We know this is already happening around the place. There is already pressure on parents to put their savings into deposits for their children. This is a terrible idea. The government should end its internal debate and we should just put this idea in the bin, where it belongs. It is a terrible idea and it is an indictment on this government that they are even considering it, because it will be disastrous with a capital D if it is implemented. It is a disastrous idea, and I plead with the government not to do it.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:18