On behalf of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration, I present the committee's Report No. 13: Budget estimates 2017-2018.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I will ascertain when it would meet His Excellency the Governor-General's convenience to receive the address-in-reply, and I will notify honourable members accordingly.
by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for this sitting and that, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 22 May 2017, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill represents the second part, the second tranche, of the government's overhaul of the Australian company tax system, and our commitment to businesses of Australia to drive growth, provide employment and grow exports to support more and better paid jobs in this country. It is designed to make our company tax system more competitive on the international stage.
The bill follows the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 to deliver the remainder of the government's plan to cut the company tax rate down to 25 per cent for all companies by the end of the decade—over the next 10 years.
This government will not rest until we have successfully fought to implement a company tax framework that sets Australia up to have more and better paid jobs in the future and for future generations. We cannot do that until we have a company tax rate that allows us to compete globally and allows our businesses to reinvest and hire more Australians.
On 31 March 2017 the government announced that it had Senate crossbench support to cut the company tax rate for companies with an aggregated turnover of up to $50 million each. The government successfully passed that bill in the House just a few days ago.
That is a great start. It impacts around 3.2 million businesses employing over 6.5 million workers. That is more than half the Australian labour force. However, we cannot afford to stop there.
Under this bill, which I am introducing today, the turnover threshold to qualify for a lower tax rate will be progressively raised to cover companies by 2024-25, before the company tax rate is reduced to 25 per cent for all companies by 2026-27.
While the cut in company tax for companies with a turnover of less than $50 million is a good start, Australia must continue with the second tranche of this reform to make the nation's company tax rate internationally competitive.
When Australia cut its company tax rate to 30 per cent in 2001, there were 19 countries in the OECD with a higher company tax rate. Now only four OECD countries have a statutory company tax rate higher than Australia's.
Furthermore, both France and, as President Trump announced recently, the United States have plans to cut their company tax rates below 30 per cent, and, in the US, to take that down to 15 per cent. While, in France, they are expected to cut the corporate rate with the new President-elect Macron, supporting a 25 per cent rate.
These developments intensify the pressure on Australia's corporate tax arrangements, because of the rates that are existing around the world. The prospect of Australia having the least competitive corporate tax rate in the OECD is not something that this parliament should allow to occur. That is why the government continues to put forward these measures.
The company tax rate is critical because it has a significant influence on business investment decisions. A lower company tax rate, compared with other countries, will raise the attractiveness of Australian investments—making it easier for companies to attract the investment they need to grow their businesses.
More business investment, such as upgrades to machinery and equipment, would make Australian workers, and support them in their efforts and their hard work, to be more productive and generate growth in real wages. This bill is about supporting increased wages for hardworking Australians.
Treasury's economy-wide modelling suggests a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent would generate a sustained increase in the level of GDP of just over one percentage point in the long term. Legislating the rest of the company tax cuts now will allow businesses to base their long-term investment decisions on a 25 per cent tax rate.
Critically, for the workers of Australia, the majority of the gains from a company tax cut are expected to flow through to Australian workers in the form of increases in real wages. This is why the government's Enterprise Tax Plan is essential to supporting Australian jobs and wages into the future.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
And I ask that the question of the resumption of the debate be put separately.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
On the question that is now before the House, it is the view of the opposition that the next stage of these tax cuts are not affordable. The budget has made that clear. Therefore, it should be considered at a later date, rather than at the next sitting. I move:
That the words 'the next sitting' be omitted with a view to substituting '29 August 2019' as an amendment.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
The original question was that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. To this the Manager of Opposition Business has moved an amendment. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Australian public are sick and tired of the political games of the Labor Party, who are trying to stop investment in this country to support more growth for better paid jobs and more jobs for Australia. This is just another absurd stunt from the opposition, who are just not interested in engaging in a sensible economic discussion to grow our economy.
To do as they have proposed is an absurdity. It is important that Australian workers know that this parliament is getting on with the job of supporting long-term investment decisions that support wages now. The opposition does not seem to understand that if you are going to invest billions of dollars, 10 years from now you want to know what the arrangements are going to be for those investments. That is why a 10-year plan on corporate tax arrangements is the right economic policy. It is something the opposition used to support, but in their usual hacked political opportunist way they seek to undermine the investor confidence in this country in the way they have dealt with this issue.
It is pure and unadulterated hypocritical politics from an opposition that has no clue how to drive investment and support growth for more and better paid jobs in Australia. This is a pathetic stunt, and the opposition should grow up.
The original question was that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. To this the Manager of Opposition Business has moved as an amendment that the words 'the next day' be omitted with a view to substituting 29 August 2019.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Comcare and Seacare Legislation Amendment (Pension Age and Catastrophic Injury) Bill 2017.
The Comcare scheme is established by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the 'SRC Act').It provides workers' compensation coverage for Australian and ACT government employees, and the employees of 34 licensed corporations. The SRC Act also covers members of the Australian Defence Force whose injuries are attributable to certain defence service before 1 July 2004.
The Seacare scheme is established by the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (the 'seafarers act') and provides workers' compensation coverage for a small, defined segment of the Australian maritime industry.
The bill will make minor but important amendments to the SRC Act and the seafarers act. The changes will align these two acts with the age pension qualifying age in the Social Security Act and the minimum benchmarks in the National Injury Insurance Scheme (the 'NIIS') for supporting catastrophically injured employees.
The changes contained in this bill are also contained in the Seafarers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, but are now being progressed separately due to their time critical nature.
Currently, income replacement payments under the SRC and seafarers acts generally cease at 65 years of age. This means the cut-off age will no longer align with the qualifying age for the age pension, when it increases incrementally, from 1 July 2017.
The increase in the age pension to age 67, legislated by the previous government in 2008, recognises that Australians are now living longer and seeks to improve the long-term sustainability of the pension system.
The changes to pension age begin in July, when eligibility increases to 65½. Eligibility then increases by six months every two years, until it reaches 67 in 2023.
This bill will ensure that injured employees covered by the Comcare and Seacare schemes will not be disadvantaged when moving from incapacity payments to the age pension by aligning eligibility for income replacement to the increasing age pension age.
In other words, it ensures that those on income replacement payments will continue to get those payments until they reach the age when they can quality for the age pension.
Further to this, the bill will amend the SRC and seafarers acts to align with the minimum benchmarks recommended for the NIIS.
The NIIS is a federated model of separate no-fault schemes that provide lifetime care and support for persons who sustain catastrophic injuries in certain situations, including workplace accidents. This bill will also ensure that employees who are catastrophically injured are able to receive the level of benefits under the Comcare and Seacare schemes recommended by the NIIS.
The Comcare and Seacare schemes provide, and will continue to provide, generous income replacement payments until age pension age as well as rehabilitation support and reasonable lifetime medical payments.
This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that injured employees covered by the Comcare and Seacare schemes will not be left without financial support prior to the employee reaching his or her age pension age, and that those employees who are catastrophically injured are able to maintain their independence and receive the care they need.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On 2 May, the Turnbull government announced an extra $18.6 billion in recurrent schools funding on top of already record and growing funding for Australian schools over the next 10 calendar years. This will bring our total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027.
The government is committed to ensuring that this additional school funding is allocated fairly between states, sectors and schools and is based on the needs of students.
Quality Schools p ackage
We will truly implement the Gonski needs-based approach, delivering the Schooling Resource Standard that provides a base amount plus six loadings for disadvantage.
We will move to a truly needs-based approach that means that the same student with the same need attracts the same amount of Commonwealth funding in each state, territory and school sector.
By 2027, all schools will be funded on the same basis by the Commonwealth and attract consistent shares of the Schooling Resource Standard. The share funded by the Commonwealth will increase across Australia bringing it to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for the government sector and 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for each non-government-sector approved authority. This reflects our historic role as the minority public funder of the government sector and the primary funder of the non-government sector.
To support our increased investment, we have established a Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools,which will be led by Mr David Gonski AC, to provide advice on how the extra Commonwealth funding should be invested to improve Australian schools' performance, and grow student achievement.
The review will contribute to the evidence base needed to ensure funding on the ground is used in ways that make a difference to student outcomes. The review will not rehash funding calculations and distribution, but focus on practical measures that work, from Australia and around the world, to improve results for Australia's children.
Current arrangements
As the Australian Education Act 2013 currently stands, Commonwealth recurrent funding varies considerably depending on negotiated arrangements by the former Labor government with state and territory governments. This means students with the same need in the same sector are treated differently because of the state in which they live.
The Australian Education Act 2013 commenced on 1 January 2014. It is the principal legislation by which the Australian government provides financial assistance to approved authorities for government and non-government schools.
If the current legislation continued without amendment, the transition to any form of more consistent needs-based funding is not guaranteed, not even within decades, or even within 150 years in some instances.
Detail of the bill
The amendments contained in this bill are necessary and important. This bill realigns our legislative framework to support a funding model that is fair, transparent and needs based. It ties funding to reforms that will improve student outcomes and provides strengthened accountability mechanisms.
By aligning our legislative framework with our national policy objectives, this bill provides a strong foundation for achieving our long-term vision for Australia's schools.
An updated and streamlined legislative framework will also help guide a new national, collaborative approach to schools reforms, based on clear objectives and targets for performance.
To this end, a number of changes are required to the act.
The bill is presented in a single schedule divided into three parts.
Part 1. Improvements to the calculation of Commonwealth funding for schools
The amendments are intended to commence on 1 January 2018 in line with the school year.
The bill delivers a robust, needs-based system addressing the unfairness in the current funding model by removing the special deals made by the former government that have resulted in students with the same need within the same sector being treated differently just because of the state in which they live.
The amendments will enshrine a faster and fairer 10-year transition period to ensure that by 2027, all government schools and all non-government schools will be funded on the same basis by the Commonwealth and attract a consistent share of the Schooling Resource Standard.
From 2017, the Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard will grow for government schools from an average of 17 per cent to 20 per cent in 2027 and for the non-government sector grow from an average of 77 per cent in 2017 to 80 per cent in 2027.
Only 353 non-government schools are estimated to be over the entitlement of 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard in 2017. However, most of these will still experience positive growth in funding, just at a slower rate than indexation. Less than one per cent of schools will have negative growth over the next four years and the transition adjustment fund will provide support to assist vulnerable schools.
The bill updates the per-student base funding amounts for 2018 with more recent data.
An indexation rate of 3.56 per cent will be set in regulation for the first three years to honour our 2016 budget commitment and give education authorities certainty. From 2021, indexation of the Schooling Resource Standard will be based on whichever is the higher of three per cent or a floating indexation rate based on economy-wide measures to provide a minimum base and certainty for schools while ensuring that funding reflects real changes in wages and inflation costs.
As the Commonwealth will be increasing its share of the standard over the next 10 years, overall funding will grow over and above enrolment growth and indexation. This means that the Commonwealth will be providing $4.4 billion more over 2018 to 2021 than if funding just grew in line with movements in CPI.
2. Key policy amendments relating to reform and accountability
The bill also introduces a requirement for states and territories to maintain their real per student funding levels as a condition of Commonwealth funding. This will prevent cost-shifting to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not own or operate a single school, so it should not be the case that state and territory contributions to school funding decline while Commonwealth funding grows.
In addition to changes to the school funding model, the Commonwealth is seeking to strengthen the link between Commonwealth financial assistance and the implementation of evidence-based reforms to improve student outcomes. We have been clear that the delivery of reforms will be a condition of funding for states.
The bill stipulates that states and territories will be required to be party to a new national agreement to receive Commonwealth funding. This is to avoid a situation like we have now with this notion of 'participating' and 'non-participating' states with differences in entitlements and expectations for achieving national goals.
A new agreement will set out a shared vision for the development and learning of young Australians and reinforce the importance of progressing evidence-based reforms that improve student outcomes.
The Commonwealth will work cooperatively with state and territory governments to set out a relevant and ambitious long-term vision for our schools.
3. Miscellaneous and technical amendments
There are also a number of consequential and technical changes required to the act. These changes will reduce the level of Commonwealth control over the way schools are operated and the way funding is used by education authorities with the removal of requirements for implementation and school improvement plans.
Implementing and administering the act since 2014 has also shown some aspects to be ambiguous, unnecessary or otherwise administratively cumbersome, so minor amendments are being made to address this.
Regulation Changes
Amendments will also be required to the Australian Education Regulation 2013to give effect to the new funding and reform arrangements. We will be providing a summary of our proposed approach to these changes to stakeholders as part of our consultations on the implementation of the Quality Schools package and to assist with the consideration of this amendment bill.
The amendments to the regulation will cover how the new students with disability loading should be implemented to support students with the highest needs and proposed eligibility criteria for our transition adjustment fund.
We will also consult on the best way to deal with some unintended consequences in current arrangements, for instance the treatment of year 7 students in South Australian schools, where because the government sector classifies year 7 students as primary school students, students who are in year 7 at non-government secondary schools are still being funded as primary school students. We will fix this and a range of other issues through our regulatory amendments once this bill is passed.
Closing
This bill supports all Australian schools by taking action to strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian government's significant investment in education and by updating the act to ensure effective and efficient administration. I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 gives effect to decisions announced in the budget that reform the ways in which the Australian government supports higher education.
It will support the Australian government's goal for a stronger, more sustainable and student-focused system that preserves and expands access to education while achieving savings that are an essential contribution to budget repair.
In the lead up to this year's budget the Prime Minister said:
… we call on the other parties … to support us in bringing the budget back into balance. It is a responsibility that weighs heavily on the shoulders of every single member of the house and the Senate …
The 2017-18 budget contains a number of strategic decisions based on careful consideration. For higher education, the budget story begins with the reversal of all remaining measures from the 2014-15 reforms.
The road to reform in Australia's higher education system in recent years has been a bumpy one. The 2014-15 budget reforms were ambitious and they were controversial. Some measures have been implemented while others have been abandoned.
As we promised one year ago, in last year's budget, we have consulted broadly on a package of higher education reforms.
The ambitions we set were that those reforms be fair, that they drive quality and excellence, and that they ensure students have choice and opportunities to succeed.
We released a policy options paper, Driving innovation, fairness and excellence in Australian higher education, which openly, prior to the last federal election, outlined a range of possible areas for reform and action.
We listened to the debate that followed and now we are acting.
Today, we begin with a clean slate.
The first challenge is to ensure our system can respond to the impact of the tremendous expansion in student numbers.
Over the last quarter of a century domestic higher education student numbers grew at more than three times the rate of the population as a whole—from 420,000 in 1989 to over a million by 2015. That is around 150 per cent growth.
This growth has imposed significant costs on taxpayers. Since 2009 student funding by the taxpayer has increased by 71 per cent, twice the rate of growth we have had across the Australian economy.
The astounding thirst for education has been enabled by the demand driven system in recent years. But it is driven by the reality that a post-school qualification remains one of the best investments an individual can make. Graduates enjoy consistently higher employment and incomes than those who only complete schooling.
Even so, today's graduates need more than just the piece of paper that goes with a tertiary qualification. They need to build the habits that you need to succeed in a workplace and they need to gain the technical skills demanded by a changing economy. As more people pursue tertiary studies our concept of what qualifications mean has had to evolve.
On the supply side, our higher education system is exceedingly successful and has a first-rate reputation both here and overseas. Tertiary education now spans a competitive market where providers are more numerous, more diverse and more commercially oriented than ever before.
Looking abroad, education is one of our most successful exports and a major source of income for our universities. In 2016 education export income reached its highest level ever, at $21.8 billion. It is through the skills and insights provided by our current and future labour force that we will prosper in an uncertain global economic and political climate and take advantage of our proximity to the world's biggest and fastest growing economies.
The options paper canvassed scope for reform, with a genuine desire to hear from others how we should tackle the challenges facing our tertiary education system.
Because, frankly, we are all in this together.
We are all stakeholders of our education system in one way or another—as former, current or future students; as parents; as taxpayers; as educators; as administrators, providers and, ultimately, employers in businesses or service providers in every corner of Australia.
The sector and its clients responded wholeheartedly. We received over 1,200 submissions to the consultation process from higher education institutions, peak bodies, representative bodies from industry and professions, and individuals.
Informed by both public and targeted consultation carried out over many months, this bill contains an innovative, balanced and above all an achievable set of reforms that can position the sector for the future.
Schedule 1 of the bill rebalances the costs of higher education between the government and students by making a relatively modest adjustment to the relative shares of taxpayer and student contributions to the costs of courses.
There is no fee deregulation. There will be no $100,000 degrees.
Let us be absolutely clear about that. All tuition amounts are capped for Commonwealth supported students, as they have always been.
However, it is reasonable that students bear a marginally greater share of the costs of their tuition. After all, it is they who will directly benefit from gaining qualifications through better job prospects and higher earnings over their lifetime.
Maximum student contribution amounts will increase by 1.8 per cent per year for four years—cumulatively a 7.5 per cent increase by 2021. Commonwealth contribution amounts will be reduced by the same amount in each of those years.
In addition, grants paid under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme will be subject to a modest efficiency dividend of 2.5 per cent per year in 2018 and 2019.
On 1 May, the government released a report on university costs and revenues prepared by Deloitte Access Economics titled Cost of delivery of higher education. The government thanks the 17 contributing universities for their participation in and cooperation with this research. Ongoing participation in this data collection will be embedded in future funding—more on this later.
The report shows that the cost for universities to deliver bachelor level courses increased by 9.5 per cent between 2010 and 2015. Over the same period funding for university students increased by 15 per cent.
Universities have benefited financially by enrolling increasing numbers of students through the demand-driven system.
There are efficiencies that have been gained from the scale of that growth.
There are also areas that need additional support. Veterinary studies and dental studies are two fields of education whose costs of delivery are unavoidably high. This bill provides for additional per student loading for these disciplines, on the same basis as the existing medical student loading.
The demand-driven system for bachelor degrees at public universities is working and remains unchanged. Rather than place caps on bachelor-level places as some have suggested over the last year, schedule 2 of the bill contains major reforms to improve student choice in courses that complement bachelor degrees—enabling, sub-bachelor and postgraduate courses.
Today's school leavers are investing two, three, four or more years of their life into furthering their education. In most cases they will graduate with a taxpayer-funded loan to repay. Students need to be confident they are getting a quality education that will allow them to get a job and succeed in life.
We all saw what happened with the VET FEE-HELP scheme that was poorly designed and poorly implemented. It was Australian taxpayers and exploited students who had to carry the can for that debacle.
This bill puts higher education students in a stronger position to realise their aspirations and turn them into reality, without running the same risks.
A new system for the allocation of places for enabling courses will be introduced. These courses can be a life-changing stepping stone for students who need to bridge a skills gap before they commence university.
All higher education providers will be able to bid for enabling places. A more rigorous standard of academic preparation will be required for taxpayer-funded enabling courses. Providers will now also be able to levy a student contribution amount for enabling courses, ensuring that students enrolling in these courses are committed to their studies.
The amount is fixed and proportionate, at $3,271 in 2018 for an equivalent of one year's full-time study; most enabling courses take much less time than this. Eligible students in enabling courses will be able to borrow their contribution amount through the Higher Education Loan Program and will continue to face no up-front fees.
The current loading applied to enabling places will be removed.
From 2018, approved sub-bachelor courses—diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees—will become demand driven at public universities. This move is to assist students for whom a bachelor degree may not be the best pathway. These Commonwealth supported places will be reserved for students who do not already have a degree, ensuring that places are targeted to those who need them.
To be approved, sub-bachelor courses must articulate into related bachelor degrees and have been developed with a focus on industry needs. These requirements will ensure the extension of the demand driven system is sustainable and adds value to the higher education options available to students.
At the postgraduate level, the bill introduces innovation in the allocation of non-research postgraduate places, meeting a longstanding need for an up-to-date and more student centred approach.
From 2019, postgraduate Commonwealth supported places will be allocated directly to students, who will then exercise choice in their provider. Higher education providers will in effect be competing for the most promising postgraduate coursework students. This will not affect the allocation of postgraduate medical Commonwealth supported places, an issue that this government is methodically working through in a separate process involving the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Health.
Further, from 1 January 2018, schedule 2 of the bill introduces the ability for providers to receive taxpayer contributions for units of work experience that count towards a Commonwealth supported qualification. Higher education funding will now incentivise greater links to industry.
Transparency is a major theme of these reforms.
From 2018, the government is introducing a performance based element to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, worth 7.5 per cent of total CGS cluster funding—around $500 million annually.
For the first year, 2018, providers will be required to participate in the reform of admissions information and cost of teaching and research transparency initiatives that the government has announced.
For 2019 and beyond, providers will be required to meet the above conditions, but their CGS funding will also be contingent on performance against key institutional performance metrics. The formula to determine this will be developed in close consultation with the sector over the coming year.
Our performance payments will give taxpayers and public policymakers confidence that demand driven enrolments are coupled with accountability that ensures high-quality admissions practices, support for completion and a focus on graduate employment outcomes.
Australia's HELP scheme remains one of the most successful public policy innovations ever. Twenty-five years on, it is still the best and most generous—and effectively interest free—loan that you can get.
But its success has meant that the value of outstanding HELP debt has risen sharply in recent years. Outstanding loans are worth around $50 billion. Unless we act now, a quarter of new student loans will never likely be repaid.
To address this, schedule 3 of the bill introduces further measures to improve the sustainability of the Higher Education Loan Program. This government has already introduced changes to HELP that include lowering the minimum repayment threshold from 2018-19, removing the 10 per cent up-front payment discount for HECS-HELP and the five per cent voluntary repayment bonus, and removing the HECS-HELP benefit.
Australia's HELP repayment thresholds are high compared with other income-contingent student loan schemes. Borrowers under the New Zealand student loan scheme repay 12c in the dollar on any income earned above the equivalent of around A$17,500 a year. Borrowers in England repay nine per cent of any income earned above the equivalent of around A$36,000.
The time has come to bring thresholds down to more realistic levels.
From 2018-19, the non-repayment threshold will be lowered further to a level that will bring around 180,000 additional borrowers into the repayment stream. The new minimum income will be set at $42,000 but will be accompanied with a new and lower initial repayment rate of just one per cent.
That is about $8 a week.
A further 18 subsequent thresholds and repayment rates will step up in small increments to reduce income clustering and to make repayment increases smoother and less noticeable as earnings rise.
There are new repayment thresholds for high-income earners. Now, the highest income earners will pay up to 10 per cent of their repayment income towards their HELP debt. The current maximum is eight.
The thresholds have also been rising relative to earnings. Relatively fewer people are now making repayments than in the past.
From now on, the minimum and all subsequent thresholds will be indexed using the consumer price index. This will ensure repayment requirements are adjusted in line with cost of living, and streamline indexation factors used throughout the act.
The bill replaces Commonwealth supported places with HELP student loans for most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens. Any students already enrolled in a Commonwealth supported place will have their eligibility preserved for sufficient time to complete their course.
This means that Australian permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will no longer have to pay up-front for a course that their Australian peers can defer through a student loan. Up-front payment is a barrier for many students and their families, particularly if they are still establishing themselves here.
This is only possible because of the changes we introduced which commence this year and allow us to recover HELP debt from people who have moved overseas.
Australian citizens and permanent humanitarian visa holders will remain eligible for both Commonwealth supported places and HELP loans. So will the special cohort of New Zealanders who arrived here as children and meet the current long-term residency requirements introduced by this government in 2016.
Schedule 4 of the bill ensures that the highly regarded Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) is better targeted and is enshrined in legislation with a new, demand-driven loading of $985 per low-SES student. In addition, annual funding amounts of $13.3 million in performance funding and $9.5 million for the National Priorities Pool will be guaranteed into the future.
Finally, schedule 5 of the bill makes a minor amendment to the definition of higher education award to limit it to awards offered or conferred by higher education providers under the Australian qualifications framework. It also updates the names of two institutions, the University of Technology Sydney and the University of Divinity, so that the name of these providers in the act matches their current legal entities.
The measures in this bill were designed with fairness, transparency and sustainability at their core. They were informed by a broad-ranging consultation process where every stakeholder had an opportunity to contribute ideas.
No student need pay one cent up-front for their higher education.
Students will no longer face the prospect of fee deregulation and universities will not face a 20 per cent cut to their funding.
Where there is a financial impact on stakeholders it will be achieved in a way that is gradual, fair and appropriate.
The bill paves the way for much more student choice—in course and course provider. It supports the continuation of the best features of the current higher education system, underpins a vibrant education export industry, supports student career aspirations and ensures industry has a skilled workforce.
This bill brings to a close a thorough period of consultation and careful redesign of support for higher education.
More importantly, it brings certainty to a sector that is unanimous about the need for change and that has been left waiting long enough.
These reforms ensure our high quality higher education system can grow while meeting the global challenges it will increasingly face. It ensures it is fair for students who will continue to be able to access higher education irrespective of their background or financial means. They will have more choices and the Turnbull government will ensure greater transparency so that the focus of our higher education system is where it should be—on our students.
Taxpayers, whose support means no-one must pay course fees up-front, will get a better deal knowing that the Turnbull government is looking after them, as it is looking after all Australians, fairly.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 461: Commonwealth risk management: inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 18 (2015-16).
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I present the report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, entitled Report 461: Commonwealth risk management: inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 18 (2015-16).
All of the reports of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit make fascinating reading, but this report may be of particular interest to members.
This inquiry examined both the recommendations arising from the Auditor-General's report, Qualifying for the disability support pension, and also the budget measures and changes to the assessment and review processes introduced by the government after the audit fieldwork.
Recent budget measures provided for approximately 118,000 disability support pension recipients to be medically reviewed over six years.
As we know, risk management is essential for effective administration of government business. This inquiry examined two key risks in relation to the administration of the disability support pension: efficiency in departmental processes and burdens placed on individuals with disability.
The committee noted that the processes audited by the ANAO were found to be in keeping with legislation, policy and guidance.
However since the report was completed the government has made changes and introduced new processes.
Taking these changes into account along with evidence submitted to the inquiry, the committee concludes there is scope for administrative and risk management improvements to the disability support pension program.
The committee agrees with the ANAO and submitters that the publicly reported performance information regarding the administration of the disability support pension offers limited meaningful analysis of the efficiency of the assessment process. If performance information is not being monitored and reported adequately, there is an increased risk of inefficiency in administration and decreased public trust in the system.
Therefore, and in light of many concerns raised by submitters to the inquiry, the committee recommends, firstly and significantly:
That sounds dry, but this is really important as DHS would not provide the committee with the regulatory impact statement that was done to underpin the case for the reviews so the true cost to this day of the government's reviews remains a secret.
Recent data from Senate estimates a couple of months ago shows that only 1.6 per cent of people reviewed were moved off the DSP which raises the possibility that many poorly targeted, costly reviews may cost the taxpayer more than they save so we need transparency. Also:
The committee also recommended that the Department of Social Services, in cooperation with the Department of Human Services, report back to the committee on its progress in implementing audit recommendations.
With regard to reducing the burden on individuals with disabilities, the committee also made a range of recommendations:
The committee also recommended examining whether people with chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome should be granted the pension on diagnosis alone without having to establish prognosis. To provide parliament with the assurance that administration of this important national program is refined over time, the committee recommends that the Auditor-General consider a follow-up audit.
In conclusion, I would like to extend my thanks to those who took the time to submit and who travelled to Canberra to give evidence in the public hearing and the members of the committee for their consideration of this inquiry and their ongoing efforts in scrutinising the efficiency and accountability of government administered programs. I commend the report to the House and I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
by leave—I present executive minutes on reports 452, 454, 455, 456, 457 and 458 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. You will be pleased to know I do not want to make a statement!
We certainly thank the member for Bruce!
I present the report from the Standing Committee on Publications, sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
I rise to continue the contribution I was making on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, repeating that the Labor Party will be supporting this legislation but have serious concerns about its efficacy.
The Turnbull government has been brought kicking and screaming to this legislation and finally have put it into the chamber, but it is nowhere near the standard of protections that Labor took to the last election. Labor's policy addressed the multitude of instances where workers' rights are crushed. Sadly, it is a practice that has become commonplace since the coalition has been in office. They are now approaching the beginning of their fifth year in office but are still acting like they are in opposition and that somehow everything that is wrong with the world is the Labor Party's fault.
There has been a series of high-profile cases where workers have been treated appallingly by some very well-known companies—not fringe companies but well-known companies like Myer, where cleaners were paid well below award wages, were denied penalty rates and superannuation, and were working in circumstances where they had no occupational health and safety protections. The 7-Eleven stores investigated by Four Corners were shown to be systematically exploiting vulnerable foreign workers. There was horrific evidence of gross underpayment of wages, the doctoring of pay records, threats of deportation and physical intimidation. Pizza Hut delivery drivers were paid as little as $6 an hour. As I said, these are not fringe-dwelling companies; these are major companies, major Australian employers.
We have heard of some poultry-processing plants where temporary overseas workers were being forced to work dangerously long hours for very little pay, far less than the minimum wage, and were being housed in overcrowded, substandard accommodation. We have heard of agricultural workers being exploited. I have gone out with the Taiwanese community to see the Taiwanese backpackers that were being exploited both in Bundaberg and in Gatton to make sure that people were informed what their rights are under Australian law—laws that the Australian government should be upholding and speaking strongly about.
Sadly, we saw the Turnbull government do nothing to stand up for these workers who were being severely exploited. The silence coming out of Point Piper on this issue was deafening. But today we can say, finally, they have done something. It is not nearly as much as Labor would do—as a sensible, fair-minded government would do—but at least it is something. This bill is not perfect—far from it. Obviously Labor will always, like a good opposition, closely scrutinise bills put forward by the government. We do have some concerns that, due to some of the drafting, there may be some unintended consequences.
This bill has been to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and there were several issues raised by that inquiry process. Labor is concerned that there is an apparent gap in the legislation. The provision that will prohibit employers demanding unreasonable payments from employees may not capture the situation where an employer demands that prospective employees pay for sponsorship of working visas before they arrive in Australia so that the extortion takes place before the person gets on a plane.
There is a provision that would give the Fair Work Ombudsman power to compel people to answer questions, thereby removing their right to silence. As a lawyer or anyone concerned with human rights would know, that is a very difficult thing to sign away. Sadly, this bill does not contain protections which you might expect for a situation where somebody is being compelled to answer questions.
Provisions that will make franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries to employees have failed to reverse the onus of proof, so the workers that have been short-changed will still have the evidential onus of proving that they have not been fully paid. We saw in the Four Corners investigation and since that people were given a pay packet with the right amount of pay in it but then, around the back of the shop, they basically had to hand back the cash that they had paid tax on. This evidential onus of proof, I think, is a particular problem where the employer has not kept proper records. This sort of employment often has that situation. How can a low-paid worker be expected to prove that an employer has not paid them when there are no employment records available?
As you would know, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, unions do great work in this area of tracking down pay records. Sadly in some of these areas, there is a deliberate attempt to exclude unions from the workforce, to make union membership almost impossible. We know that, where people are not unionised, they will be exploited. That is a basic law of industrial relations for the last 100 or 200 years. Those sectors of the community that do not have high membership get exploited, and that is where a sensible, fair government would step up and do the right thing by employees where there is low union membership. This is especially so if you have government that has those right-wing nut jobs who are obsessed with unions. That is all that they do, those right-wing nut jobs: they are obsessed with taking down unions, forgetting all the great work that unions do in the workplace. We know that is unfair.
If the Turnbull government really understood fairness they would implement the measures that Labor took to the election and they would stop the cuts to penalty rates. If they understood fairness they would stand up for the vulnerable, low-paid workers. Fairness, sadly, is not something that the Turnbull government has any understanding of. I look forward to the day when those opposite give me a list of all the times that employers have spontaneously given benefits to workers. I am waiting for that list to be put forward, because it has never happened. If the labour movement does not speak up, it does not happen!
We see it time and time again, that this Turnbull government has not been fair. We see it in their policies in this horrific budget, giving millionaires a $16,400 tax cut while everyone else actually gets a tax increase. That is just one sign of unfairness. They fundamentally do not understand or care about fairness in the workplace. They fundamentally are not committed to protecting workers rights. We know that; we see that by the voices opposite railing against penalty rates before the Fair Work Commission handed down that decision.
So many of those opposite are from the laissez-faire school of workplace conditions: let the market rip and let the devil take the hindmost! Fairness, I point out to those opposite, is more than a word. Fairness is not an attribute that can be feigned: either you get it or you do not. You can live and breathe it, but you cannot get it from a Crosby Textor focus-group-tested, clinically constructed line. I tell you that. And it is abundantly clear that the Turnbull government does not get fairness. The Turnbull government does not get fairness. The Tories never will—after all, that is why they are Tories.
We see this desperate manoeuvre of a budget, where the Prime Minister goes out there and frames it with his log cabin narrative that he came from humble roots. The only problem is that the logs in the log cabin were made out of gold! He talks about being this humble battler millionaire, whose chauffeur was picked on by the other chauffeurs when he was at school, and how he had these humble origins. He tries to frame himself by that so that he can at least try to convince some Australians that he cares about the lower-paid and disadvantaged people. The reality is that his government—and particularly those people who have hold of him on the Right—do not care about workplace relations, do not care about the lowest-paid and do not care about those people who know that $77 a week taken from them for working on Sunday, those penalty rate cuts, will mean the world of difference. That is a problem.
I do not think that I am even going to try to top 'humble battler millionaire', but we will probably hear that again!
I have a few remarks on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. This is a typically weak response from an out-of-touch government. In reality it will do little to actually address the outrageous exploitation of vulnerable workers across Australia. Every hour of every day in every state and territory across Australia, people with little or no bargaining power in the workplace are being exploited by unscrupulous employers.
This takes many forms. It is underpayment, below award or minimum wages. It is superannuation theft, not being paid—wage theft of a different kind. It is being forced to work unpaid overtime. It is being forced to pay kickbacks to employers or to pay other illegal charges for visa fees, tools or uniforms. It is being forced to work dangerously long shifts. Young people are especially vulnerable; they may not know their rights or have fewer options. People most desperate for work are afraid to speak up. And by far, in my view, the most vulnerable group of people in our country now are temporary migrants. The government no doubt hopes that this bill will make people think that they are doing something, 'There is nothing to see here; we really care.' But the truth is that it is about as little as they think they can credibly do and get away with. Something is better than nothing, which is why we will vote for it, but this bill is grossly inadequate. So what does it actually do? The two-word summary is 'not much'.
The title of the bill is Orwellian doublespeak, because it really does not do much to address all of the numerous issues which have been raised in parliamentary inquiries in recent years. It is a weak response that the government probably does not want to do, but which they have been publicly shamed into doing by the scandals at 7-Eleven and other franchises. There are a few increases in penalties for serious contraventions, which are probably hard to prove. There is a bit of a slap over the wrist for recordkeeping failures and there is a rule against requiring workers to pay kickbacks to their employer, which appears to be badly drafted and ineffective. And the bill purports to make franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by franchisees, but even that drafting is flawed and weak and it will be easily avoided. In summary, it will not stamp out exploitation or go any meaningful distance to do so.
The government must be terribly embarrassed by the Senate committee report on the bill, which was released a couple of days ago. Even the government senators criticised the bill and recommended changes, having been forced to sit through days of hearings and hearing reams of evidence from businesses, from lawyers and from unions about the bill's deficiencies and the negative impacts on businesses. As drafted, the bill unfairly singles out franchisors and fails to cover other types of commercial relationships. As business after business said, 'We will just restructure to avoid these provisions. It is not actually going to work.' A proper bill that properly protects vulnerable workers would combat sham contracting. It would provide a national approach to license scam labour hire companies and it would stop companies phoenixing. Phoenixing is when companies are dissolved and do not pay their employees and they just pop up with the same people, the same directors and a different company name, but the directors are not responsible—apparently. A proper bill would make it easier for workers to recover their unpaid wages from employers and directors of companies.
You would think that it would not be a difficult or controversial proposition that the parliament would support laws to fix these things. I would put three simple propositions that, in my view, would pass the so-called 'pub test' anywhere in this country. Firstly, employers should pay their workers what they are owed and must act in accordance with the law. Secondly, if they do not then the law should be enforced by a strong, well-resourced regulator. Thirdly, if there are gaps in the law or the regulatory regime then this parliament and the government of the day—that is those people over there, who are the government, even though they do not often act like it—must actually act quickly and fix the gaps in the law.
Australians support fairness in the workplace and vote against extreme IR laws. Indeed, the only two prime ministers in the history of our federation ever to lose their seats in a general election—Stanley Bruce, who my seat is named after, and John Howard—lost their seats, in large part, because they tried to introduce extreme IR laws. So it beggars belief that whenever workplace issues arise the Liberals have to be dragged kicking and screaming to fix or enforce the law and give everyday, ordinary Australians a fair go.
I will make some remarks about a couple of aspects of the issue and the bill's deficiencies that hopefully will be addressed in a more sensible fashion in the Senate. The first and most substantive issue is temporary migrants. This is a weak bill that will do little to address the exploitation of vulnerable workers. There is overwhelming evidence that the worst exploitation in this country is happening to temporary migrants. Australia now has over 1.2 million people who are legally in this country on temporary visas with some form of work rights attached. There are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia who are here for years on temporary visas. They are people who pay tax and who try to follow the law. Many are making a life here and contributing to Australia but remain condemned to an insecure existence, hopping from temporary visa to temporary visa.
The truth is that they are a growing underclass in our society and they are vulnerable to the most appalling exploitation. Migration status and uncertainty is an enormously powerful threat to any worker. It is difficult for many of us who are born here to truly understand how terrifying this threat can be. In summary, they are told, 'Do what I say or I will dob you into immigration and you will be deported.' It happens to international students, it happens to working holiday makers who want a second year on their visa and it happens all the time to people on 457 visas who want an extension or sponsorship.
We have heard these reports firsthand from unions. Without a doubt, the worst issues which they see day in, day out relate to temporary migrants. There is a fine line, in fact, between slavery and severe exploitation. The old notion of slavery, of course, was forced restraint, but it is not far off to say in a modern context, 'I will take your passport,' or 'I will cancel your visa and deport you from the country.' Labour shortages are one thing, but, really, for many employers the issue is a shortage of exploitable labour. This quote sums up the attitude:
Visa holders are the best workers you can get as if they don't do what you want we'll put you on a boat and send you back.'
The 417 working holiday-maker visas are now a growing and significant issue—bonded labour, in many cases. People are reported to be paying employers to do the 88 hours of work in regional areas to get the second year on a working holiday-maker visa. These are not things we are making up; they are things that have been on TV and in parliamentary inquiries. This bill does not do anything about them. Unions also rightly point out that the focus of government and the media in the public narrative is always on the dodgy illegal workers—'We've got to crack down on the illegal workers.' Yet the reality is that there is supply, illegal workers, and demand, dodgy employers. I think we need more focus on unscrupulous, dodgy employers to provide a stronger deterrent and curb demand for exploitable and exploited labour.
We have heard reports for many years through the media about 7-Eleven and Domino's selling visas, Myer cleaning subcontractors being underpaid, and Pizza Hut drivers and Caltex outlet workers being exploited. We have heard reports of international students. We hear reports of 457 visa holders. The government has heard the reports through the parliament, most recently through the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report entitled A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders. It is shocking reading. It is noteworthy, though, that the government has not even bothered to respond to the report. We cannot find any evidence of the government implementing any of the report's 33 recommendations. Labor, of course, had legislation on the Notice Paper to address these issues 12 months ago. But, perhaps most appallingly, the government is actually set to make these problems worse with the half-baked immigration and citizenship changes.
Australia, our country, used to pride itself on being a permanent-settler-migrant society. Yet, over the last couple of decades, under both governments, we have seen incremental changes and we are now at risk of entrenching a guest-worker or serf class in our country. Minister Dutton's con job on 457 visas and citizenship changes stands to make this problem worse. As an aside on the 457 visa, fundamentally, whatever you rename it and whatever scam you pull on the lists, if there is no proper labour market testing it will be rorted, pure and simple. There is nothing in the budget papers that will implement proper labour market testing. For vulnerable workers, the topic of this bill, the new, two-year 457 visa—whatever it is called—has no pathway to permanent residence. This entrenches, in fact, an even larger guest-worker program in Australia. Even people on a four-year version cannot gain PR for at least three years, and then they have a four-year wait for citizenship.
I want to paint a picture of what will become a scenario under these changes. I used to run international education in Victoria and have quite some familiarity with these issues. We are trying at a national and state level to grow our secondary education high school market. Someone might come here as an international student to do years 11 and 12. Then they will stay on for three years and they will study and pay through the nose. They get a good return, quality education, but they pay for an undergraduate degree, so they have been here five years. Then they may look at these new arrangements and say, 'I'm going to have to do a master's. That'll take a year or two.' Let us say they have been here for six years. If you do a master's, you can have a crack at getting a 485 graduate visa and stay for three more years. You had better hope that in those three years you secure work in your chosen field for at least two years, because then you might be eligible to fill a skills shortage. We are up to about eight years, and with a four-year visa that is 12 years. After three years on that visa you might apply to be a permanent resident, so let us say you have been here for 11 years. After another four years, that is 15 years in this country. So, never having lived anywhere else in your adult life and having paid your way through education, paid taxes, complied with the law, and maybe married and had kids, after 15 years here you might be eligible to apply for citizenship. I have been hearing calls, in fact, that there is a need to explore fairer pathways to citizenship for people like this who live here all of their adult life and contribute, not make it harder. But that is a debate for another day.
Stepping back from vulnerable workers—what does this say about us as a society? If what you want is to set up a society with an exploitable vulnerable underclass then these policies to increase the number of temporary migrants makes sense. If you want to give up on building a cohesive, proud community of permanent settlers who create a life here then this makes sense. That is not the kind of society I want to see, but if that is what you want then ramping up a class of permanently temporary migrants and avoiding real safeguards against workplace exploitation is the way to go. Many people hear this as 'Oh, well, it doesn't really matter. It's some migrants. They're not me. They're not my family' but it has enormous impacts on the broader Australian community. My daughter is 21. Her generation knows perfectly well the impacts it has, because it massively changes the power balance to employers. They can prefer a cheap guest worker, a temporary migrant, to a local person with rights. As I said, it is an enormously powerful threat in the real world to withhold sponsorship over someone. There is an industry in kickbacks, deductions and so on.
The second but less obvious issue is that these non-wage incentives that are so powerful over temporary migrants have an enormous impact on everyday Australians, because wage growth for everyone else in the country is driven down by this underclass of desperate or vulnerable people who have no choice but to cop illegally low wages and awful conditions. This is a serious issue in an economy with low or stagnated wage growth. It is also noticeable—I think the shadow minister is here—in my reading of the government's announcements that the government is also refusing to index the minimum salary for temporary migrants. So, year on year, the value of it erodes, and this will open up the temporary migration scheme to lower and lower paid occupations, which makes this problem of exploitation worse.
The Fair Work Ombudsman is supposed to deal with these issues but it seems practically broken now in its enforcement. Migrants just give up. They probably leave the country by the time Fair Work might even get back to them on their case. Unscrupulous employers know they can just get away with it. There is a clear need to review and overhaul the Fair Work Ombudsman and provide it with proper powers and resources to do its job. We could have a look at that in a proper piece of legislation that is properly trying to deal with the issue of exploitation, not some little sham, fig leaf effort by the government. If the government were serious about protecting workers, they would provide a response to the Senate report about constructive improvements, such as Labor's legislation, which hangs around on the Notice Paper,to amend the Fair Work Act to make it clear that it applies to all employees, irrespective of their migration status, and implement complementary amendments to the Migration Act.
The other issue is penalty rates. The other group of vulnerable workers that the government does not care about but could use this bill to look after is people on penalty rates. We have heard about the impacts on people who are on fast food, hospitality, retail and pharmacy awards from general cuts. They are the lowest paid workers in the country. We are already seeing a flow-on effect to those on enterprise agreements and, more concerning, the potential for the penalty rate decision to set a precedent for other awards in Australia. It is a time to talk about it and at another time the legal advice which has been revealed, showing exactly why there is a risk of this decision flowing on to other awards.
I am delighted to be talking about a serious matter—a matter that has not been discussed enough in this parliament and certainly not in this term—and that is the plight of vulnerable workers in Australian workplaces, in the Australian economy. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 has a long history. In 2005 the ABC Four Corners crew ran an investigation into the exploitation of workers; 7-Eleven, an iconic business, became famous for all the wrong reasons. We heard allegations on that program of dodgy books, blackmail and the systematic underpayment of workers. The workers affected were vulnerable workers, often young students and foreign workers—people on working visas. We discovered that it was not an oversight but a business model. It was not an oversight by the company; it was a business model. And the only reason that 7-Eleven could continue to operate in that way was that their business model that systematically exploited workers ensured that those workers were underpaid thousands and thousands of dollars. It is bad enough that this occurred in an iconic Australian business, but that this problem is so rampant in the Australian economy deserves much more attention in this parliament.
Over the next 10 minutes I will tell stories of systematic abuse of workers in my own region and across the country. As I go through these stories, you will be asking yourself, 'Why was it that, at the very time ABC Four Corners was broadcasting its program about the exploitation of workers, the government's priority was to spend $46 million on a witch-hunt to go after unions instead of spending that same money investing in enforcement and investigative activities to ensure that the most vulnerable workers in our society were protected from this sort of behaviour?' In that passage of events, you see the priorities of the Turnbull government in a nutshell. They had a choice and they chose to spend $46 million going after unions instead of going after employers who are clearly and systematically doing the wrong thing.
This bill increases penalties for serious contraventions of prescribed workplace laws. It increases penalties for employer record-keeping failures. It focuses its attention on franchises and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to stop them. It expressly prohibits employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments. This is something that was exposed in the Four Corners investigations. Workers were being paid and then required by the employer, the franchisee, to pay that money back to the employer. It was a sham. The bill also gives the Fair Work Ombudsman and employees at the SES level the power to compulsorily question the person as part of an investigation into breaches of the Fair Work Act where a failure to answer questions gives rise to a civil liability.
I want to talk about some stories from my own region. I want to congratulate the Illawarra Mercury and other mastheads within the Fairfax enterprise for a series of investigations that they have been conducting into the systematic exploitation of workers, particularly young workers. The investigation was initiated by a young university student by the name of Ashleigh Mounser. I had the opportunity to speak to her at a May Day function in my electorate last week. She is 22 years of age. After her own exploitation, she started the campaign to find other workers like her in the Illawarra. It resulted in the massive Fairfax investigation finding scores of other workers just like her who had been underpaid—just $10 an hour in one workplace and $15 at another workplace well under the award. There were people like Lucy Vance, a 19-year-old young woman who was paid just $6 an hour at a local restaurant where she should have been paid $17 an hour. There was Rashid Saleem, 22, who worked for free in the promise of a job that would later pay him $16 an hour. Instead he was offered $12 an hour and was let go when he asked questions about the gap. Then there was Kiara Robinson, aged 21. She was not allowed to take time off after being incapacitated after a dental operation to have her wisdom teeth removed. There was Nathan Subanness, 24. In every job he has ever had in the area, he has been underpaid. Hannah Hughes, 23, was paid as little as $12 an hour. She was then bumped up to manager and was significantly underpaid again. Blake Roberts, aged 20, was given an unpaid trial—all too common in some of the restaurants and hospitality businesses around my electorate—and was never called back. The trial shift was actually for a full fortnight. He worked for a fortnight for nothing. There was Lachlan George, aged 21, paid $15 an hour. He should have been on at least $19 an hour. There are scores and scores of examples. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
What is tragic about these examples is that they are not one-offs; they are actually a business model. They are a business model that relies on the exploitation of young and vulnerable workers to give a particular business an edge over another enterprise that is doing the right thing. That is why it is so wrong, because there are two victims of these crimes. There is the worker who is being exploited and there is the business that is trying to do the right thing, but is being run out of town because of these unscrupulous businesses that are breaking the law. You have to ask yourself: why did the coalition government, why did this Prime Minister, spend $45 million going after the people who are trying to protect workers and not a cent investigating these egregious breaches? It is not fair to businesses and it is not fair to the workers.
When we think about vulnerable workers we often think about people in the position of those young workers that I have talked about. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. It is a sad fact that conservatism has a habit of percolating down, from this place, into every business and workplace in the country. An unscrupulous employer will feel encouraged and goaded on to do the wrong thing when the government gives the signal that this is okay by them. I have in mind, literally, hundreds and hundreds of union delegates around the country who, on an unpaid basis, stand there and look after the rights of workers in their workplaces. They sometimes take difficult messages up to an employer, or a manager, on behalf of their workers. And sometimes they have to take a difficult message from the negotiating room back to the workplace, and tell the workers something that they probably do not want to hear but often need to hear. It is a thankless task being a union delegate in this country. Often these are the people who are the first to be targeted when a government such as this gives the green light and says, 'It's not in the law, but it's okay by us.' Every signal that they are getting from this government is: 'It's not in the law, but it's okay by us.'
I reported a couple of days ago to this parliament, and I asked for the parliament's support, about a worker who was in Canberra two days ago, a fellow by the name of Dave McLachlan. Dave went down a coalmine at the age of 16. He has been working in the industry for over 30 years with an unblemished record. He is the sort of worker that politicians love to throw their arms around during an election campaign to get their photo taken with—you know, the hard hat, the high-vis gear and the coal dust on the face. Politicians always love to throw their arm around the shoulder of somebody like Dave, because it is good election shot. Now Dave is asking for their support, because his employer has done the wrong thing. I am here to inform parliament today that, on the evidence, it looks like his employer is systematically doing the wrong thing.
Dave led an imaginative protest in his workplace a little bit over a month ago. His employer had been very tardy in implementing the agreed terms of their enterprise agreement, which included the provision of protective equipment and laundry facilities on site. Anybody who has ever worked in a coalmine knows that you do not come home from work at the end of the day looking like you have just done a shift in the office—rather you are dirty head to toe and smelly. It was a reasonable, and not uncommon, provision within this agreement that laundry facilities be paid for on site. The employer had been very tardy. The union and the workers in the workplace had time and time again given them an opportunity to put this in place.
They decided to put in place an imaginative protest at a meeting before a shift started one day. Without interruption to production, the workers at this site decided to have a very short stop-work meeting. It went for about two or three minutes, I am told. They attended the meeting in their undies to make the point that the employer had done the wrong thing. On the day, nobody mentioned anything about it. In fact, I am told some of the managers on site thought it was a bit of a laugh. Dave was subsequently sacked by the employer on the allegation that he had embarrassed the company and he had done the wrong thing. I think most Australians would look at that protest and think, 'That was pretty funny.' They had been incredibly reasonable and patient with a company who had done the wrong thing. They did not interrupt production to make their point known. In fact, if anyone should have been punished in this circumstance, it was the company or the management for not implementing the agreement—not the union delegate.
Dave, a worker, is asking for the support of the government and the parliament today to ensure that he gets his job back. The Deputy Prime Minister is often heard saying in this place that he is the best friend the coalminers have. Well, Dave, a coalminer, is after a best friend today. He is after the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to pick up the phone to the employer, South32, and say: 'Do the right thing and put this worker back on the job. It's the right thing to do.' If the Deputy Prime Minister really is the best friend that a coalminer has ever had, Dave is a friend in need indeed.
What makes this situation so egregious is that it appears, on the facts of the matter, to be a pattern of behaviour. At this coalmine in the Illawarra, run by South32, Dave is the third union delegate to be sacked in the last two years. That sounds like a pattern of behaviour that is discriminating against somebody because they happen to have the job of being the union delegate in the workplace. I have described Dave as somebody who had an unblemished record in the workplace for over 30 years. I do not know each of his predecessors, but I do know the lodgers involved. I know they are incredibly responsible, they do the right thing by their workforce and they do the right thing by the company. The challenge is on, and this is the question for the employer to answer: is this business going about systematically discriminating against people who were in the position of the union delegate? The facts of the matter look like that is exactly what they have done.
This bill is about protecting vulnerable workers in the workplace. I have talked about young workers who have been systematically exploited, but there is another group of workers who need the backing of the government and the parliament in the workplace today. That is the people, who are volunteers, who take on the thankless job of being the union delegate of the workplace. They do not get paid a cent for it. It is one of the toughest jobs in the workplace. They get grief day in and day out for doing it. They deserve a hell of a lot better than being sacked by unscrupulous employers who do not respect the law and do not respect their position.
I commend the member for Whitlam on that speech highlighting the exploitation that has been happening to workers in his electorate. There are scores and scores of examples of people being underpaid and exploited. Who would have thought that we would still be telling these tales in 2017? We are still hearing stories right across the nation of workers being exploited by unscrupulous employers. What has the government been doing about it? Very, very little.
Before I start on my discussion of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, I want to remind Canberrans and those across Australia that on 2 July this year more than 13,000 Canberrans will face a pay cut as a result of the government's changes to penalty rates. There are 13,000 Canberrans facing pay cuts. They are relying on that money, they are paying their mortgages with that money, they are paying their rent with that money, they are paying their car loans with that money, they are putting food on the table with that money and they are paying for their children's school shoes and school books with that money. More than 13,000 Canberrans, as of 2 July, will face a pay cut thanks to this government.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, because Labor has fairness and workers' rights at the core of its mission. That is the Labor way. That is part of our social fabric. That is part of Labor's DNA. This bill goes some way to dealing with some of the exploitation issues that the member for Whitlam mentioned that are occurring right across the country. They are not just in his electorate; they are right across the country. They just highlight the fact that there still needs to be a lot more work done on eliminating exploitation of workers in Australia.
We are talking about 2017. The fact that these stories still exist is absolutely outrageous, particularly given the fights that have been fought by Labor for more than 100 years to get decent wages, to get decent conditions, to get an eight-hour day. Labor and the labour movement fought to get an eight-hour working day. Fights have been fought to get decent work and pay conditions for the workers throughout Australia by successive Labor governments and by the labour movement. The fact that we are having this debate on this bill and the fact that exploitation is still happening in this country are just an outrage. We as a nation should hang our heads in shame about the fact that our fellow country men and women are being exploited. That is the only word you can use when people are being asked to pay their wage back, as we heard from the member for Whitlam.
I have heard, just when going around and speaking in my electorate, about the impact of the penalty rate cuts on the community. I have been talking to people in the electorate, and they have told me not just that they are concerned about the cut in the penalty rates but also that we have people in Canberra who are being paid in cash, below the award rate, of course—being paid in cash. This seems to be a common phenomenon right across Canberra, and I am sure it is not confined to Canberra, Deputy Speaker. I am sure it is happening in your electorate. I am sure it is happening in every electorate right across the country: under-award wages being paid in cash. This seems to be a significant issue too, and I wonder what the government is going to do about that.
In the time I have, I will address a small portion of the problems as I see them—the problems and the holes—in this bill, because there are many of them, but we do not have time to cover them all. The bill does not include protections for workers against sham contracts. It does not include protections against phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities. It does not do anything to make it easier for workers to recover unclaimed wages from responsible companies, and that is a significant issue. I know that one of my constituents spoke to me about this. He ended up resigning from the company because it was all just getting too hard. He was in a daily battle, a hand-to-hand combat each day, with his employer to try to get his pay rectified, to be paid properly and to be paid back. It was just completely ignored, so he ended up resigning. What choice did he have? Also there is the question of penalty rates, which I raised at the beginning of my speech.
For years Labor has campaigned strongly to protect workers against exploitation. As I said, it goes right back to the beginning of the Labor Party. The labour movement has been working with us all these years, more than 100 years, fighting the good fight for workers, for decent wages, for decent conditions, for decent work and for safe work. As I have said many times, workers' rights did not fall from the sky. Workers' rights, the conditions, the pay and the work that we enjoy today and the safe work environments that we enjoy today are all thanks to hard-fought fights by thousands and thousands and thousands of men and women over more than 100 years. These rights did not fall from the sky. Each gain has been made through a hard-fought fight, and there are still plenty more fights that we need to undertake. The member for Whitlam highlighted the many fights that we still need to undertake as a result of the exploitation of Australian workers that is happening each and every day right throughout the country.
In 2016, Labor introduced its Rights at Work campaign, which committed to a suite of reforms to protect workers by cracking down on unscrupulous employers who exploit their staff. This bill is the government's comparative policy, but the title is where any similarity ends. The rights of vulnerable workers are not always anywhere near close to the top of the agenda for the Turnbull government in this bill. When I think about vulnerable workers and those who are really doing it tough, I think about the cleaners in this building.
I come from a working class matriarchy: three generations of cleaners. My great-grandmother was a domestic in the Western District. She cleaned the houses of the very wealthy in the Western District. Not only did she clean houses but she also did their washing, Mr Deputy Speaker. You can imagine what the washing was like in those days: it was the copper, it was boiling water. It was the stinking hot summer in the Western District, pushing all that linen down into that stinking hot water, then wringing it through, putting it on the line, pulling it off the line and then ironing it within an inch of its life and with a ton of starch. That was my great-grandmother's life. At the same time she was not only toiling in that fashion but also bringing up 13 children on her own.
Then there was my grandmother, who was also a cleaner. My grandmother left school at the age of 11 or 12 and with very limited opportunities. She cleaned three places in Melbourne: a hospital, a theatre and also a factory. Basically, she would work around the clock. She had very little time off because basically she had to put food on the table. She was a single mother, again, bringing up seven children on her own in a housing commission house in Preston.
Unfortunately, I did not meet my grandmother. She died when I was six months old, of an undiagnosed heart condition. In the fifties and sixties we did not have universal health care. Decent health care was reserved for the wealthy and she was certainly not a wealthy woman. So she had an undiagnosed heart condition and died at the very young age of 54 and had had a very hard life before that: three cleaning jobs, working around the clock to keep food on the table for her seven children.
And then there is my mother. My dad walked out on us when I was 11 and he left us with $30 in the bank—'us' being my two sisters, me and my mum. We did it very tough in my teens. In the latter part of her life, my mum went back to cleaning. She cleaned houses until she retired, again, to make ends meet and to put food on the table.
So, as I said, I have some experience in cleaning, and it is a tough job. It is a physically tough job and it does take its toll on the body. I was a cleaner when I was going to university. I cleaned the houses of the very wealthy around Canberra, in Forrest. That is what put me through university. But that was nothing like my great-grandmother had to do, toiling every day on that linen in the copper, and it was nothing like my grandmother, who did three cleaning jobs, had to do. Imagine: a factory, a theatre and a hospital!
So I really felt for those cleaners who were so shabbily treated by this government. These are the people who clean the offices of the Prime Minister and of the ministers—of all of us here who serve the people of Australia. They were treated so shabbily by this government. I met some of the women, who came in to have a chat about what the wage cuts actually meant. They were going to have a huge hit on their lives. With the cost of living going up, their wage inequality meant that every week they were having to make critical choices and decisions about how they were going to make ends meet: 'Okay, this week do I have a meal every night?' Being the daughter of a single mother I know that my mum, particularly when dad first left us with so little money in the bank, would often—every second night—go without a meal so that my sisters and I could actually have a meal. On the other nights we ate out at friends' and family's. These are the decisions in the last five years that the cleaners in this building, in this seat of democracy in the nation's capital, are still making every day as a result of the government's outrageous cuts to their pay.
I just find it absolutely gobsmacking that the government could not care about the cleaners that actually look after them and make the environment here at Parliament House a pleasant one. It just goes to show this government is completely out of touch with what the reality is for most Australians, particularly those vulnerable workers, particularly those who are doing it tough.
My colleague the member for Whitlam highlighted a number of cases that underscore the exploitation that is still taking place in Australia. We have seen many high-profile cases. We have seen media reports on it. The Illawarra Mercury did a feature. It sounds like it was an excellent feature. I do commend the Mercury for doing that piece. We have got so many examples. We have 7-Eleven stores, which were operating a business model based on methodical and systematic exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers. This model included appalling undercutting of wages and doctoring of records designed to conceal unlawful conduct. Can you believe that? They were doctoring the pay records in a deliberate, methodical, systematic attempt to exploit workers. How these people sleep at night is anyone's guess. It is absolutely appalling. And these were foreign workers. Not only were these vulnerable foreign workers methodically and systematically exploited but they were also threatened with deportation and physically intimidated if they spoke out. Can you imagine what their lives were like? Can you imagine the fear that they lived in? Not only were they trying to live on the appalling wages, trying to make ends meet in a foreign country, but they were also being intimidated and bullied by these employers. It is just appalling. Shame on those employers and shame on the government that allows these sorts of things to happen.
We have heard about 7-Eleven. We have heard about ACT school cleaners, the majority of whom were refugees from Thailand and Burma who were grossly underpaid and forced to sign contracts they did not understand. The reports are endless. There are scores and scores of stories about foreign workers being exploited, about women being exploited, about young people being exploited. This is absolutely appalling. It is a national shame that this is happening in Australia in 2017. This bill goes some way towards addressing some of these real issues but there is still plenty that needs to be addressed. We have to maintain attention on this issue. We have to maintain the rage on this issue because it is unacceptable that workers are being exploited in Australia in 2017.
I support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, which contains some elements aimed at protecting vulnerable workers but in reality does not go anywhere near far enough to truly make a difference to those workers who have been systematically targeted by big businesses to save a buck, in particular in wages expenses, by underpaying them, by forcing them to pay back money after they have been paid, by doctoring employment records and by committing what in reality should be crimes in this country regarding the underpayment of workers.
I suspect that the government's heart is not really in this particular type of legislation. It is the antithesis of what they believe in. They believe in free markets and in employers being able to employ people at will and do whatever they like in terms of the amount of money that they pay them. It is all because of some horrific cases of exploitation and underpayment of workers and manipulation of the nation's immigration and visa system that the government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the parliament, albeit at a delayed rate, to make these reforms. We have seen the horror of businesses such as 7-Eleven and Domino's being caught out actively disadvantaging their workers. 7-Eleven not only systematically underpaid migrant workers, failing to pay their employees at a lawful rate, but also coerced them into paying back money—actively forcing people to go to the ATM, withdraw money and pay it back to them—in cash once they had been paid those wages. Some of them were even underpaid those wages.
A strong, unending desire to help these workers and ensure that their exploitation does not happen again is encoded in Labor's philosophy but also in the policies that we released in the lead-up to the last election. That is why we support this bill. But we also say that it simply does not go far enough. I will go through some of the elements of the bill. I will point out their deficiencies, and I will also outline what Labor would do to make issues such as this end in Australia and also ensure that we have effective laws that protect workers from exploitation.
This Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 does amend the Fair Work Act by introducing a higher scale of penalties for serious contraventions of prescribed workplace laws. It does increase penalties for failure to keep proper records. It makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments of their franchisees. It expressly prohibits employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to pay a portion of their wages back in cash. It strengthens the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure that the exploitation of vulnerable workers can be effectively investigated.
Unfortunately, this bill, the scandal that has preceded it and the significant period of inactivity from the government on these important issues are symptomatic of its disregard for vulnerable workers and citizens, who have continued to be ripped off by corporate interests and the big end of town. The previous speaker, the member for Canberra, rightly pointed out that these sorts of things should not happen in modern-day Australia. With effective computer systems, pay systems, the availability of awards online and an enterprise bargaining system, these sorts of scandals and rip-offs should no longer occur in Australia. Where they do, and where there is active knowledge by directors of companies, they should be crimes. There should be serious ramifications for those who are involved in, or know about, the commission of these crimes. Unfortunately, we do not have that level of commitment from this government to tackling these issues and to making them crimes in Australia to ensure that there is effective deterrence for people who are seeking to undertake these sorts of crimes—in my view—against workers in Australia.
This bill falls significantly short of what Labor would do in terms of a suite of policies and legislative reforms to tackle these issues. We announced these reforms some 12 months ago, well before this Turnbull government even turned its mind to protecting workers, so caught up has it been in the ideological crusade against workers and their unions. We have seen that through the royal commission that the government instituted and through endless calls for the reduction of penalty rates and cutbacks in Fair Work protection by those opposite, who fundamentally do not believe in regulation to protect workers and would like to see a freer market for labour in this country.
The measures in this bill simply do not address the breadth of worker exploitation that we have seen run rampant under this Liberal government. The bill does nothing in relation to a range of policies which Labor took to the last election and which are directed towards things like combating sham contracting. Sham contractors are people that set up arrangements to avoid paying proper penalty rates and proper rates of pay when they contract to a major company to do work.
Labor has a policy on the licensing labour hire companies. We have seen many cases of labour hire companies ripping off workers and seeking to undermine award wages and conditions. I was recently in Gladstone with Senator Chisholm conducting a jobs forum in that town, which, of course, has faced a downturn in the wake of the construction phase of the LNG plants at Curtis Island ending and the plants moving into a production phase. There has been a massive downturn in work there. We talked to workers. We went to the local bowling club and we had a great forum talking to local workers about issues. One of the major issues that is coming up is the use of labour hire by local firms in the area that are seeking to drive down costs by reducing wages and penalty rates for workers and, unfortunately, seeking to skimp on occupational health and safety protections. By licensing these labour hire companies and by holding them to a set of regulations which ensure fair treatment of workers, we can keep an eye on these things. That is not part of this bill, but it should be.
Labor also has a policy on shutting down the practices of companies phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities. This really gets up my nose and it happens a lot in the construction industry. A company might build a particular job, underpay their workers and then move on. They move on, and when the group of workers seeks to be back paid or seeks to launch legal action against the company that has underpaid them, what do you know? The company is sent into liquidation and it is wound up. The operators of this company a few months later then set up a new company. Because you cannot pierce the corporate veil under Australian corporate law they just move on and they get away with essentially what is a crime in this country of underpaying a group of workers. They are knowingly avoiding paying the right rates of pay and then moving on because they can use Australia's corporate laws to do that. Labor will not allow that to happen if we are elected. We will introduce practices that crack down on phoenixing to avoid wage liabilities.
We will also reform the Fair Work Act to strengthen protections for workers. We will criminalise employer conduct that involves the use of coercion or threats during the commission of serious contraventions of the Fair Work Act in relation to temporary overseas workers whilst making it easier for workers to recover unpaid wages from employers and directors of responsible companies.
The other serious shortfall of the government's bill which really highlights their approach to workers across the nation is their refusal to protect penalty rates for vulnerable workers. Labor, of course, is fighting the Fair Work Commission's recent decision on penalty rates which undercuts the accepted penalty rates that have held in this country for many years. We have had close to a century of paying people fairly for working on weekends. The cuts to penalty rates will see up to 700,000 Australians lose up to $77 a week. Without the Prime Minister coming to his senses and supporting Labor in reversing these cuts, the wages of some of the lowest-paid workers will be hit. This failure goes directly to the government's wrong priorities.
In previous careers I have represented low-paid workers in disputes before industrial tribunals. I have represented low-paid workers in annual wage cases before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. There are characteristics that develop of low-paid workers—unfortunately, typically they are women. They tend to be working casual or part-time occupations and are looking for more hours each week. They are underemployed, generally. They struggle from week to week. If the car breaks down they struggle to find the money to fix it. They very rarely have holidays. They are very rarely able to afford a night out. An $80-a-week hit to their income is a big impost on their quality of life and their ability to participate in our community. That is why Labor is opposed to this penalty rate cut. That is why it is outrageous that we have got deafening silence from the Turnbull government, with Prime Minister Turnbull actively opposed to supporting Labor's plan to ensure that the take-home pay of these workers is not cut by this decision.
Labor will continue to support the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 and push it through this House of Representatives. It would stop those cuts to penalty rates because we believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
A few additional issues Labor has with this bill include provisions which give the Fair Work Ombudsman the power to compel people to answer questions and do not contain procedural protections which might have been expected to have been included in such a regime. It is no small thing to give a government agency the power to compel citizens to answer questions, removing the right to silence, and we must be vigilant to ensure that these powers are proportionate and appropriate safeguards to the exercises that are in place.
The bill makes franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or would reasonably have known the contraventions and failed to take responsible steps to prevent them. Labor's position on this issue at the last election was that the onus of proof should in fact be reversed so that accessories to contraventions of workplace laws such as franchisors are required to establish that they did not know or could not reasonably have known about the contravention. There is a subtle difference between what is proposed here and Labor's planned approach to this, which is a much stronger provision and lays the responsibility with those who are accused of these contraventions. It is up to them to demonstrate that they did not know what was going on or that they should not reasonably have known. Again, it is representative of this government's lax approach when it comes to putting in place proper regulation to protect workers.
They are skimping on this bill. There is the failure to protect penalty rates for Australian workers. These demonstrate that, as I said earlier, when it comes to protecting workers, this government's heart really is not in it and it is only because of the horror and outrage in the community regarding what has happened at 7-Eleven, Domino's and other big employers in this country that the government has been dragged kicking and screaming into this parliament to make this reform. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly far enough. If the government were serious, they would take a good look at Labor's plans on this issue and implement them.
I commend the member for Kingsford Smith for his comments and certainly agree with him that the government's heart is not truly in this bill. In speaking on this legislation, I support the amendments moved by the member for Gorton. The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 not only is long overdue but, as other speakers have said, falls well short of what it should be enacting. In fact, this legislation is like the Turnbull government's recent announcement to abolish 457 visas and replace them with temporary skill shortage visas: it sounded tough at the time, but on close scrutiny it was nothing more than a public relations stunt, more spin than substance. As it turns out, from that announcement only nine per cent of the current visa holders would be excluded under the new arrangements. That is equally the case with this legislation; it is more bark than bite.
Other Labor members who have spoken on this legislation have outlined many of the cases where worker exploitation has occurred, and I do not want to repeat those cases or other examples. They have also talked about the shortfalls of this legislation, and again I do not want to go into the detail of that but may do so at the end if time permits. I want to talk about the issue of vulnerable workers in this country. Vulnerable workers are people who because of their circumstances have no choice but to take on jobs that have no security, poor work conditions and low pay. They are mainly young people, migrants and women. Particularly vulnerable are new arrivals, working holiday-makers, overseas students and temporary work visa holders. Workers who have come from overseas are especially vulnerable, and I want to go to the heart of that point.
In an article posted on 21 April, Tim Colebatch points out that between 2008 and 2016 in net terms the Australian labour market expanded by 474,000 full-time jobs. Of those, only 74,000 went to people born in Australia—that is, roughly three-quarters of the growth in full-time jobs since the global financial crisis have gone to recently arrived migrants, mainly from India and its near neighbours. With respect to the exploitation of migrant workers, new arrivals and students, the perpetrators, sadly, are often people of the same background who bring their country-of-origin work practices here to Australia. Work conditions in overseas countries that years ago were being condemned by Australians are now being exposed right here in our own backyard. The only reason this legislation is before the House is that the level of vulnerable worker exploitation has now reached a crisis point and it is being exposed almost on a daily basis throughout the country. The government had to act.
How and why did Australia, an advanced country that has often led the world in workers' rights, get to this situation? The underlying cause can be attributed to this government and previous conservative governments over the years attacking trade unions and weakening their ability to protect Australian workers. Those attacks culminated in the Howard government's failed Work Choices legislation. Work Choices might have failed but the ideology that drove it is alive and well within government ranks.
Other tactics have been used with the support of this government to exploit workers and deprive them of their rights and of a fair go. The most glaring is the use of so-called self-employed subcontractors. Courier drivers are clear examples, although the practice has now become widespread across many other sectors. Because they are subcontractors they are considered self-employed. They are not paid overtime, they do not have a minimum hourly rate, they do not get holiday or long-service pay, they do not get sick pay or superannuation and they often work very long hours for very low rates of pay. Making people self-employed subcontractors is a legal way of depriving people of their working rights. It implements all of the objectives of Work Choices in one simple move, and that includes shutting out the unions.
What are the workers' options? In most cases there are none when the current job situation is analysed. Currently there are around 750,000 Australians who are unemployed and there are 1.1 million Australians who are underemployed. As of 30 June last year, there were 137,000 working holiday-makers in Australia, 95,000 457 visa holders, 554,000 overseas students—and that figure could even actually be 100,000 higher—30,000 asylum seekers and 4½ thousand seasonal workers. In total there were around 2.1 million people looking for jobs in Australia, not including other holiday-makers or illegal migrants who are also competing for the same scarce jobs. Not only are these people often desperate to get work and willing to work for less than standard labour conditions but also, in turn, they put pressure on people who have jobs to accept very unfair conditions. It is not uncommon for people to work unpaid overtime or work through their meal breaks or at lower rates of pay than they should be paid. The demonising of and attacks on unions in recent years have had a direct correlation with the level of worker exploitation that is being exposed. Successive conservative governments have made it increasingly difficult for unions to ensure that that exploitation does not continue.
Of course, there are other good reasons that it is in the government's own interest to bring in this legislation. The government's budget is in a mess. We heard only a couple of days ago that the deficit for this year will hit $37.6 billion. Gross debt for this budget, as we heard from the Treasurer only yesterday, will hit $649 billion and is going to rise even higher, to some $725 billion, at the end of the decade, in about 2027-28, from memory. The government needs to raise more money, but when workers are underpaid, or are paid cash so as not to report their low payments, the government collects less tax. So it is not in the government's interest to allow worker exploitation to continue at the levels that have been exposed, particularly, as I suspect, as the cases exposed to date represent a minuscule amount of what is really going on with respect to overseas workers.
Most vulnerable workers are shiftworkers and those on the minimum wage. They work shifts or for the lowest wage because they cannot get any other work. If they could, they would. They have no choice for a whole multitude of reasons, but they need a job. They need to pay their bills just like everyone else does and they need to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families. Where was the government when those same workers needed it earlier this year? It was nowhere to be seen. It turned its back on those very vulnerable workers with respect to the penalty rates decision. It did not support Labor's move to protect them. Indeed, it walked away from the workers as quickly as it could, putting the responsibility wholly back on the Fair Work Commission. Where was the government with respect to defending vulnerable workers in the minimum wage case? Again, it was nowhere to be seen. The two categories of workers who are the most vulnerable in this country, when they needed the government's help and needed the government to stand up for them, had the government turn its back on them.
I have spoken in this place previously about the effect of penalty rates. It is a matter that affects so many people around the country today, as other members on this side of the House have spoken about. I will not repeat the speech I gave here only a few weeks ago. What I do know is that even with their penalty rates these are some of the lowest income earners in Australia. These are the very vulnerable people that this legislation seeks to protect, yet when we had an opportunity to ensure through the Fair Work Commission that they did not lose any income as a result of that decision, the government failed to protect them. Yet the government has brought this legislation in, on the pretence that it cares about vulnerable workers.
I turn now to why this legislation falls well short of what it should be doing. Indeed, I suspect it has been drafted deliberately as an attempt that purports to protect vulnerable workers, when it does not. The explanatory memorandum to this bill highlights five dot points with respect to what this legislation seeks to achieve. I will read through them. The first is:
Introducing a higher scale of penalties for 'serious contraventions' of prescribed workplace laws.
I highlight the words 'serious contraventions'. That is a very subjective phrase. It is one that will be open to abuse, and which I am sure that those employers who wish to abuse the system will hide behind when it comes to being penalised or not. The second dot point is:
Increasing penalties for record-keeping failures.
Again, that is pretty wishy-washy at best. The third dot point is:
Making franchisors and holding companies responsible for underpayments by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions …
The words 'where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions' give them plenty of latitude for protection against being penalised when they do take advantage of their workers. The fourth dot point is:
Expressly prohibiting employers from unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments …
The word 'unreasonably' could mean anything to whoever wants to interpret it and, again, it will be used by unscrupulous employers to hide behind in order that they do not get penalised under this legislation.
The last dot point talks about 'strengthening the evidence-gathering powers of the Fair Work Ombudsman'. The Fair Work Ombudsman already has plenty of powers. I am not sure what else it needs in order to get to the bottom of some of the exploitation that is taking place. Even then, if you strengthen its powers, what good is that when this legislation provides no additional resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman whatsoever? I cannot see any in the explanatory memorandum. There is no cost attached to this legislation, which implies that there will be no additional resources provided. It seems to me that the first thing that ought to be done if the Fair Work Ombudsman is to be more effective is to ensure that he or she is better resourced—but, again, that is not the case with this legislation.
On the subject of phoenixing, I have had people come to my office on many occasions to raise it with me, and other speakers from this side of the House have talked about it. In instances of phoenixing, vulnerable workers lose out not just by getting paid poorly but, at times, by not getting paid at all as a result of practices of unscrupulous employers.
This was an opportunity for the government, with all of the evidence that is now being provided to it with respect to vulnerable workers being exploited, to do something constructive, truly stand up for those vulnerable workers and bring in legislation that would protect them. But, as we know, the very people who are exploiting these workers are often the people this government seeks to protect in other ways, so they are quite often the people that the government does not particularly want to target. I suspect that this legislation is nothing more than a veneer by a government that wants to be seen to be doing something in order to appease the public outcry that is out there but in its heart, as other speakers on this side of the House have said, is not truly behind what it is purporting to do with the legislation. The amendment moved by the member for Gorton at least tries to do something to fix that. I support it. Yes, this legislation is better than nothing—nobody would deny that—but being better than nothing does not make it as good as it could have been.
I thank members opposite for their contributions. I understand that, by agreement, I now have an opportunity to make a few closing remarks representing the minister on behalf of the government. The government is pleased to be delivering on its election commitment to protect vulnerable workers. While we recognise that the vast majority of employers in Australia do the right thing by their workers, the bill will more effectively deter those employers who do underpay workers and impose significant penalties for deliberate and systemic breaches and the underpayment of workers. There are too many cases of widespread exploitation of vulnerable workers in Australia. They have shown the extent of a problem within some businesses, and this cannot continue.
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 includes higher penalties to deter would-be wrongdoers. Stronger powers for the Fair Work Ombudsman mean the workplace regulator will be more effective in uncovering and investigating exploitation, with powers similar to those held by corporate regulators such as ASIC and the ACCC. The bill also provides that a person who gives the Fair Work Ombudsman false or misleading information will be penalised. The bill includes new responsibilities for franchisors and holding companies with significant influence or control over companies in their network who knew or should reasonably have known of breaches of workplace laws in their network and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them. These businesses will no longer be able to be complicit or turn a blind eye to exploitation of workers in their business networks with any impunity. It was clear from the events at 7-Eleven and elsewhere that the community expected the government to take action to strengthen workplace protections for vulnerable workers. We presented a comprehensive policy for the protection of workers to the Australian people prior to the 2016 election, and this bill implements our commitments to strengthen workplace laws.
I thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for its inquiry into this bill and all those individuals and organisations who contributed by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the public hearings. I recognise the committee's longstanding interest in protecting vulnerable workers in Australia. The government is pleased that the committee has recommended that the bill be passed. There are areas of the bill, such as the proposed new responsibilities for franchisors and holding companies, where a range of views were expressed about the proposed scope and application of the provisions.
The committee has recommended the government consider a clarifying amendment to ensure the provisions operate as intended. The government will consider this recommendation carefully. The committee also recommended that, as part of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, the government consider whether any further reforms are necessary to address issues of exploitation and liability in the context of labour hire. I am pleased to inform the House that it is clearly stated in the terms of reference that the taskforce is examining labour hire practices for companies that employ migrant workers, with consideration of particular industries or groups of vulnerable workers where there are systemic problems with exploitation and underpayment. The taskforce will continue to consult broadly with key stakeholders to better understand the issues and develop solutions. The government will be considering the views of the taskforce carefully in determining whether changes in this particular form of work are needed to address the broader issue of worker exploitation.
The committee also wants to encourage the Fair Work Ombudsman to take an appropriately targeted and measured approach to oversighting the measures within the bill once passed. The government supports this recommendation and is confident the proposed statutory safeguards set appropriate parameters for the use of the ombudsman's powers. The government also notes the Fair Work Ombudsman will play a critical role in educating business and employees about the new requirements and helping them to comply or seek assistance.
The committee's report shows that the government got the balance right with its election policy. These changes represent a balanced and proportionate response to worker exploitation. It is the reason the Australian people supported our policy at the last election and the reason that these laws should now be passed. I commend the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:
(1) Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 3 (lines 2 to 4), omit the heading, substitute:
Part 1—Contraventions of civil penalty provisions
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:
1A At the end of section 535
Add:
Note: If an employer does not comply with an obligation under the regulations dealing with the inspection of records, the onus of proof may be reversed in proceedings in relation to a contravention of certain civil remedy provisions.
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (after line 18), after section 557B, insert:
557C Failure to allow records to be inspected—reversal of onus
(1) If:
(a) an application is made under this Part in relation to a contravention by an employer of a civil remedy provision referred to in subsection (2); and
(b) a matter is alleged in the application in respect of which the employer is required under section 535 to make and keep employee records; and
(c) the employer has not complied with a requirement under the regulations for the inspection of the records by an employee, or former employee, to whom the application relates;
it is presumed that the matter is as alleged by the applicant, unless the employer proves otherwise.
(2) The civil remedy provisions are the following:
(a) subsection 44(1) (which deals with contraventions of the National Employment Standards);
(b) section 45 (which deals with contraventions of modern awards);
(c) section 50 (which deals with contraventions of enterprise agreements);
(d section 280 (which deals with contraventions of workplace determinations);
(e) section 293 (which deals with contraventions of national minimum wage orders);
(f) section 305 (which deals with contraventions of equal remuneration orders);
(g) subsection 323(1) (which deals with methods and frequency of payment);
(h) subsection 323(3) (which deals with methods of payment specified in modern awards or enterprise agreements);
(i) subsection 325(1) (which deals with unreasonable requirements to spend amounts);
(j) any other civil remedy provisions prescribed by the regulations.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where, despite all reasonable care having been taken by the employer, the employer is unable to comply with a requirement in the regulation for the inspection of records due to exceptional circumstances beyond the employer's control.
These amendments concern what happens when a worker is making a claim for an underpayment and the employer has not kept proper records of the hours that the worker has worked. The government has said that, in introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, one of the things that brought it here was the horrendous exploitation at 7-Eleven, which was revealed by many courageous people who came forward and broke their silence, a number of investigative journalists at Fairfax and Michael Fraser, an advocate who has pursued this matter relentlessly.
One of the things that became clear during the investigations, including during the Senate inquiry, was that records that were being kept by 7-Eleven businesses were not always what they seemed. In fact, there were situations in which people were being asked to work different hours to what was appearing in the records. That was one of the ways in which some significant exploitation was occurring: sign the book to say that you have worked X hours but we are in fact only going to pay you for Y hours. Often that came with a subtle threat to many of these overseas workers who were here on visas: if you complain about it then we are going to have your visa revoked and you are going to be deported.
What is crystal clear from all of this and the reason that we are debating this bill is that, in many instances, workers are being exploited in ways that involve dubious record keeping. This is one of the key ways in which vulnerable workers get exploited. Not only that; I know, as someone who before coming into this parliament spent 12 years standing up for many vulnerable workers and bringing litigation on their behalf, there may be instances where no records are kept at all. It is something that is so critical that the Fair Work Ombudsman has recently developed an app for it and has gone out publicly and promoted it so that workers themselves can use the app to record the hours of work that they keep. It has been identified as such a problem that, where you do not have accurate records, it may be a barrier to bringing a successful prosecution for getting your pay.
The Fair Work Ombudsman knows that it is such a problem that it is encouraging people to download an app so that employees can keep an accurate record of the hours that they work. When those employees bring a complaint or a prosecution through either the Fair Work Ombudsman or someone else they may have a good record—hopefully they do—but it may be the case that the employer has kept no record or that they have kept a dodgy record, and that may in fact be part of the claim. We know it is widespread that employers do not keep proper records in situations that involve vulnerable workers, and this amendment addresses that problem. It says that if an employee brings a claim and the employer has not kept proper records as required by law then the evidentiary onus shifts and it is presumed that the claim made by the worker is right, unless the employer can rebut it. That is a very sensible amendment, because it only applies where employers have not complied with the law. It does not apply in every case.
Where employers have breached the law and not kept proper records, as they are required to do, it is presumed an employee's claim is right, unless the employer can disprove it. This will encourage employers to do nothing more than abide by the law. It is imposing no obligation on them. They could discharge the effect of this amendment if they keep records as required by law. So it is a very sensible amendment that gives effect to the bill, and it is one that the government and the opposition should support, because it will allow many of the complaints that the government has spoken about during this debate, such as those that have been uncovered at 7-Eleven, to be successfully prosecuted. I remind the government that it only applies in instances where the employer has failed to comply with the law, so it does not impose additional obligations over and above that. I commend these amendments to the House.
I thank the member for Melbourne for his contribution. The amendments that the member for Melbourne seeks to move, (1) to (3), would in effect amend the Fair Work Act to reverse the onus in underpayment cases. So, where the employer had failed to keep proper records under section 535—in other words, the employer would have failed to produce employee records to the employee on request under the Fair Work regulations—the employee's underpayment claim is assumed to be correct, unless the employer proves otherwise. The amendments would say that this would not apply in exceptional circumstances beyond the employer's control. The government's position is not to accept these amendments. The government opposes amendments (1) to (3), which reverse the onus, because it does not consider that in these relevant circumstances reversing the onus, which is a very significant matter in jurisprudence of this type, is justified. In underpayment cases, the applicant bears the onus of proof, and there is insufficient justification in all the circumstances to change that very fundamental principle of justice.
In this sense, we consider the proposal is not fair, because it starts with the assumption that all employers are doing the wrong thing, and that is an assumption that the government cannot agree with. It also may encourage opportunistic claimants and would punish small businesses that have limited resources and are more likely to make genuine errors. This proposal from the member for Melbourne, unfortunately, is indiscriminate. It puts every employer who fails to keep proper records in precisely the same situation, whether the underpayments have been deliberate or not. Our assessment of the defence that is, in effect, promoted by the member for Melbourne—that of exceptional circumstances—is that that defence of exceptional circumstances is framed so narrowly that it would virtually never apply.
The government have proposed in this bill what we think is a more nuanced approach, which targets the problem of deliberate wrongdoing, where employers have opted to consciously, deliberately and systemically underpay their employees. This series of amendments, (1) to (3), is a series that the government are not going to support.
I have not yet heard from the opposition, so I do not know if the opposition is going to support these sensible amendments.
I have a question for the minister. If an applicant comes up to an employer and says, 'I want to make a claim against you,' and it turns out the employer has not kept proper records as required by law, the minister said there are other parts of the bill that strike the appropriate balance. Can the minister please point to the parts of the bill that will assist an employee to make such a claim in circumstances where the employer has basically failed to comply with the law, failed to have the proper records? If they do not have the proper records, and if they have done it deliberately, doesn't that clearly put an employee on the back foot and make it more difficult for the employee to pursue their claim, through no fault of their own?
The minister suggested that this was somehow reversing the onus of proof in a claim for underpayment of wages. It is an evidentiary onus that shifts. It is just an evidentiary onus, and one that the employer can discharge. Given that, and given that this is a well-known legal principle, does that change the minister's mind?
While the words used by the member for Melbourne were put in the form of a question, I think you were putting a proposition to the chair and I will ask the minister to respond.
I thank the member for Melbourne. Without being able to point to the precise provisions of the relevant legislation, I understand that as part of the process the government has engaged in the penalties for improper records or failure to keep proper records have been increased. They are standing penalties under the act. They have been increased. So there is a standing obligation on the person who is responsible for keeping those records to keep them properly. We think that in all of the circumstances that is sufficient.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (4) to (15) together:
(4) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (after line 6), after the definition of franchisee entity, insert:
indirectly controlled employer: see subsection 558AA(2).
indirectly responsible entity: see subsection 558AA(1).
(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (after line 16), after section 558A, insert:
558AA Meaning of indirectly responsible entity and indirectly controlled employer
(1) A person is an indirectly responsible entity for an employer if:
(a) the employer, or an employee of the employer, directly or indirectly supplies goods or services to the person; and
(b) the person has influence or control over the employer's affairs; and
(c) that influence or control includes influence or control over the conditions under which work is done by employees of the employer, the amount paid for work done by employees of the employer or the way in which employees are paid for work done for the employer.
(2) An employer for which there is an indirectly responsible entity is an indirectly controlled employer.
(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (after line 26), after subsection 558B(2), insert:
Indirectly responsible entities
(2A) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) an employer contravenes a civil penalty provision referred to in subsection (7); and
(b) the person is an indirectly responsible entity for the employer; and
(c) the person has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a contravention by the employer of the same or a similar character was likely to occur.
(7) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 29), omit "subsection (1) or (2)", substitute "subsection (1),
(8) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 30), omit "paragraph (1) (a) or (2) (b)", substitute "paragraph (1) (a), (2) (b) or (2A) (a)".
(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 10 (line 35), omit "franchisee entity or subsidiary", substitute "franchisee entity, subsidiary or indirectly controlled employer".
(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 3), omit "franchise or body corporate", substitute "franchise, body corporate or indirectly responsible entity".
(11) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 7), omit "paragraph (1) (a) or (2) (b)", substitute "paragraph (1) (a), (2) (b) or (2A) (a)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (after line 22), after subparagraph 558B(4) (e) (ii), insert:
or (iii) the trading arrangement entered into between the indirectly responsible entity and the indirectly controlled employer;
(13) Schedule 1, item 17, page 11 (line 31), omit "paragraph (1) (a) or (2) (b)", substitute "paragraph (1) (a), (2) (b) or (2A) (a)".
(14) Schedule 1, item 17, page 13 (line 3), omit "558B(1) or (2)", substitute "558B(1), (2) or (2A)".
(15) Schedule 1, item 17, page 13 (line 4), omit "franchisee entity or subsidiary", substitute "franchisee entity, subsidiary or indirectly controlled employer".
I am disappointed that I did not get support from the government or the opposition for the onus of proof amendments. They were very sensible amendments that would facilitate prosecution only in instances where the employer has failed to keep proper records. I am stunned that they were not agreed to.
These amendments go to the same point that the general bill is trying to make, about how you make people higher up the chain responsible for the actions of people lower down the chain. What we know from the 7-Eleven example, and increasingly from other examples as well, is that the people sitting up the top, who are the ones who ultimately make the money, use contracting chains to shift risk and responsibility further down the chain, ultimately to the worker who performs the work, while the money and the profits flow up to the top, to head office. That underlays the whole 7-Eleven scandal and the others that are unfolding at Caltex and at Domino's, to which the government has referred while introducing this bill.
This bill is not headed the 'franchisee bill'; it is the 'protecting vulnerable workers bill'. We know that vulnerable workers exist right across the board. I spent many years bringing cases to the Federal Court on behalf of outworkers and their unions. Outworkers are the people who get paid $2 or $3 an hour to make clothes in backyard sheds in cities right around the country. They do not get paid annual leave, they do not get workers compensation and they do not get sick leave; they have to look after everything themselves. Those clothes that they get paid $2 or $3 an hour to make get sold for $200 or $300 in the main streets of our cities.
The Fair Work Act recognises that this is a problem in the textile, clothing and footwear industries and there are provisions in the Fair Work Act that deal with outworkers. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that this kind of behaviour, as this bill exemplifies, is not just confined to the textile, clothing and footwear industries; it is happening right across the board. It is happening in transport. It is happening in industries that previously people might have thought would be immune to it. We are finding that the head office increasingly puts distance between itself and the people who ultimately do the work so that sometimes the small business who is closest to the employee in question ends up carrying the can.
This set of amendments takes the basic principles of the bill—that is, head offices need to take more responsibility for the conditions under which work is performed by the people who perform work for their benefit or under their name—and says 'Let's expand it across the board.' If it is good for what is happening in franchises, it is good for other workers as well. The effect of the amendments would be that if you can follow the contracting chain all the way up from the worker who performs the work to the ultimate beneficiary and controller of that then it does not matter how many legal niceties and intermediate steps the employer has put in between them and the worker who ultimately performs that, the person at the top is going to hold some responsibility. This is the principle that is at work in this bill. In a sense, it is a principle that is at work in the Fair Work Act when it comes to the textile, clothing and footwear workers, and this is an opportunity to expand it.
We know that the use of contracting chains is one of the key ways in which workers are made to become vulnerable—when they do not know exactly who their ultimate employer is because there is a series of intermediate companies, some of which might be shell companies, between them. This will mean that the worker, when they are exploited, if they are vulnerable, can go to the top of the chain and get some redress. If the person at the top of the chain wants to then follow it back down the chain, all well and good. But it will put the worker in a stronger position because the person doing the work—maybe it is because they are wearing a uniform or maybe it is because they are working in a shop that is branded with them—will know that they can go back to the head office, back to the head contractor, and seek redress. These are good amendment that address a growing problem, and I commend them to the House.
I thank the member for Melbourne for his contribution. The government's position with respect to amendments (4) to (15) is that we are not inclined to support them. What these amendments would do, in effect, is extend the proposed franchisor holding company responsibilities to something that is described as 'indirectly responsible entities'. So the entity would have responsibility for an employer if the employer or an employee directly or indirectly supplied goods or services to the entity, or the entity has influence or control over the employer's affairs and that influence or control could include the conditions under which the work is done, the amount paid for the work done by employees or the employer or the way in which the employees are paid for work done by the employer.
The reason that the government opposes these amendments is that they must surely be recognised as regulatory overreach. There is certainly insufficient evidence at present to support very broad amendments of this type, which would have incredibly broad effects on the overall economy. The bill certainly addresses specific issues that have arisen in the context of defined business networks, like franchise businesses, for which a clear case for intervention has been made. The proposed amendments (4) to (15) are very broad, with almost all businesses transacting with many other businesses on a daily basis. It is simply not clear how far the proposed responsibility would extend or to how many other employers. We consider it very much the case that insufficient thought or consultation has been undertaken as to who will be impacted and what will be required.
Just looking at the amendments, to say that an entity would have responsibility for an employer if the entity directly or indirectly supplied goods or services seems to me to encompass such an incredibly broad and ill-defined range of circumstances that it would be almost unworkable as a matter of jurisprudence in practice. So these are not amendments that the government will be supporting.
Question negatived.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1, version 2, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (lines 11 to 16), omit subsection 558A(2), substitute:
(2) A person is a responsible franchisor entity for a franchisee entity of a franchise if:
(a) the person is a franchisor (including a subfranchisor) in relation to the franchise; or
(b) the person:
(i) is a related body corporate of a franchisor (including a subfranchisor) in relation to the franchise; and
(ii) the person has a significant degree of influence or control over the franchisor (or subfranchisor).
(3) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 29), after part 2, insert:
Part 2A—Recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees
Fair Work Act 2009
17A Section 12
Insert:
apparent responsible franchisor entity: see subsection 789GE(2).
franchisee employee: see subsection 789GC(1).
franchisee employer: see subsection 789GC(1).
franchise -related work: see subsection 789GC(1).
17B Section 12 (definition of unpaid amount )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
unpaid amount:
(a) in relation to TCF work performed by a TCF outworker: see subsections 789CA(1) and (4); and
(b) in relation to franchise-related work performed by a franchisee employee: see subsection 789GC(1).
17C After subsection 9(5B)
Insert:
(5C) Part 6-4C provides for the recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees.
17D After paragraph 789BA(1 ) ( f)
Insert:
(fa) Part 6-4C (recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees);
17E After Part 6 -4B
Insert:
Part 6 -4C—Recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees
Division 1—Introduction
789GA Guide to this Part
This part provides for employees employed by a franchisee entity to recover unpaid remuneration from the responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee entity.
789GB Meanings of employee and employer
In this part, employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer.
Division 2—Recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees
789GC When this Division applies
Franchisee employees not paid for work in certain circumstances
(1) This division applies if:
(a) a franchisee entity is the employer (the franchisee employer) of an employee (the franchisee employee); and
(b) the franchisee employee performs work (franchise-related work) for the franchisee employer for the purposes of business activities carried on by the employer under the franchise; and
(c) the franchisee employer does not pay an amount (the unpaid amount) that is payable, in relation to the franchise-related work, by the employer:
(i) to the franchisee employee; or
(ii) to another person, for the benefit of the franchisee employee;
on or before the day when the amount is due for payment; and
(d) the unpaid amount is payable under:
(i) a contract; or
(ii) this act, or an instrument made under or in accordance with this Act; or
(iii) another law of the Commonwealth; or
(iv) a transitional instrument as continued in existence by schedule 3 to the Transitional Act; or
(v) a state or territory industrial law, or a state industrial instrument.
(2) Without limiting paragraph (1) (c), the unpaid amount may (subject to paragraph (1) (d)) be an amount of any of the following kinds that relates to (or is attributable to) the franchise-related work:
(a) an amount payable by way of remuneration or commission;
(b) an amount payable in respect of leave;
(c) an amount payable by way of contributions to a superannuation fund;
(d) an amount payable by way of reimbursement for expenses incurred.
789GD Liability of responsible franchisor entity for unpaid amount
(1) Each responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer is liable to pay the unpaid amount.
(2) If there are 2 or more responsible franchisor entities for the franchisee employer, those entities are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the unpaid amount.
(3) Subject to subsection 789GG(2), this section does not affect the liability of the franchisee employer to pay the unpaid amount.
789GE Demand for payment from an apparent responsible franchisor entity
(1) The franchisee employee, or a person acting on behalf of the franchisee employee, may give an apparent responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer a written demand for payment of the amount that the franchisee employee reasonably believes the entity is liable for under section 789GD in relation to the franchise-related work.
(2) An entity is an apparent responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer if the franchisee employee reasonably believes that the entity is a responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer.
(3) The demand must:
(a) specify the amount, and identify the franchisee employer; and
(b) include particulars of the franchise-related work to which the amount relates, and why the amount is payable by the entity to which the demand is given; and
(c) state that if the specified amount is not paid by a specified time, proceedings may be commenced against the entity under section 789GF.
(4) The time specified for the purpose of paragraph (3) (c) must not be less than 14 days after the demand is given to the entity.
789GF Court order for entity to pay amount demanded
(1) If:
(a) in accordance with section 789GE, an apparent responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer has been given a demand for payment of a specified amount; and
(b) the amount has not been paid in full by the time specified in the demand;
a person or organisation specified in subsection (2) (the applicant) may commence proceedings for an order requiring the apparent responsible franchisor entity or the responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer to pay the specified amount.
(2) The proceedings may be commenced:
(a) by the franchisee employee; or
(b) on the franchisee employee's behalf, by:
(i) an organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the franchisee employee; or
(ii) an inspector.
(3) The proceedings may be commenced in:
(a) the Federal Court; or
(b) the Federal Circuit Court; or
(c) an eligible state or territory court.
(4) Subject only to subsections (5) and (6), the court may make an order requiring a responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer to pay, to the franchisee employee or to another person on the employee's behalf, the specified amount (or so much of that amount as the applicant alleges is still owing).
(5) The court must not make an order under subsection (4) in relation to a responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer if the entity satisfies the court that the entity is not liable under section 789GD to pay any of the specified amount.
(6) If a responsible franchisor entity for the franchisee employer satisfies the court that the amount of the entity's liability under section 789GD is less than the specified amount (or is less than so much of that amount as the applicant alleges is still owing), the court must not make an order under subsection (4) requiring the entity to pay more than that lesser amount.
(7) In making the order, the court must, on application, include an amount of interest in the sum ordered, unless good cause is shown to the contrary.
(8) Without limiting subsection (7), in determining the amount of interest, the court must take into account the period between the day when the unpaid amount was due for payment by the franchisee employer and the day when the order is made.
(9) Proceedings cannot be commenced under this section more than 6 years after the time when the unpaid amount became due for payment by the franchisee employer.
789GG Effect of payment by entity (including entity ' s right to recover from franchisee employer)
(1) This section applies if an entity pays an amount in discharge of a liability of the entity under section 789GD, or pursuant to an order under section 789GF.
(2) The payment discharges the liability of the franchisee employer for the unpaid amount, to the extent of the payment. This does not affect any right that the entity has to recover an equivalent amount from the franchisee employer (under this section or otherwise) or from another person, or to be otherwise indemnified in relation to the making of the payment.
(3) The entity may, in accordance with this section, recover from the franchisee employer an amount (the recoverable amount) equal to the sum of:
(a) the amount paid by the entity as mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) any interest paid by the entity in relation to that amount pursuant to an order under section 789GF.
(4) The entity may recover the recoverable amount:
(a) by offsetting it against any amount that the entity owes to the franchisee employer; or
(b) by action against the franchisee employer under subsection (5).
(5) The entity may commence proceedings against the franchisee employer for payment to the entity of the recoverable amount. The proceedings may be commenced in:
(a) the Federal Court; or
(b) the Federal Circuit Court; or
(c) an eligible state or territory court.
(6) The court may make an order requiring the franchisee employer to pay the entity the recoverable amount (or so much of it as is still owing) if the court is satisfied that:
(a) this section applies as mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) the entity has not otherwise recovered the recoverable amount in full from the franchisee employer.
(7) In making the order the court must, on application, include an amount of interest in the sum ordered, unless good cause is shown to the contrary.
(8) Without limiting subsection (7), in determining the amount of interest, the court must take into account the period between the day when the recoverable amount was paid by the entity and the day when the order is made.
(9) Proceedings cannot be commenced under this section more than 6 years after the time when the entity paid the recoverable amount.
789GH Division does not limit other liabilities or rights
Nothing in this division limits any other liability or right in respect of the entitlement of the franchisee employee to the unpaid amount (or to have the unpaid amount paid to another person for the employee's benefit).
(3) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 25), after item 19, insert:
19A Application of the amendments—recovery of unpaid amounts for franchisee employees
Part 6-4C, as inserted by Schedule 1 to the amending Act, applies in relation to an amount that is payable by a franchisee employer if the franchise is entered into on or after the commencement of this part.
This is a very important set of amendments that closes a huge loophole in this bill. It is a set of amendments that I would hope the opposition will support and that I hope that the government, on reflection, will support as well.
What has become crystal clear as we have looked at the exploitation at 7-Eleven is that the way the exploitation in the system works is this: the head office sits at the top and controls pretty much everything that the franchisees do. It is why when you walk into one 7-Eleven shop it looks pretty much like every other 7-Eleven shop. The head office controls how stock is displayed, it controls the signage and, what we found out through the course of the inquiry, it also controls the payroll records and gives directions about rostering and the like.
What we know is that that is the way the franchise system operates. The head office, the head franchisor, wants all the franchises to look the same because that then builds the business. Then, when they want to have specials and the like, they often have—as we found out in the case of Domino's Pizza—significant direction. They can tell the franchisee how much they are going to sell a particular pizza for. They can dictate what kinds of posters go up in a window and what the shop is meant to look like. In short, the head office makes its money by controlling what happens at the store level.
Now, the one area that they turn a blind eye to is how much the workers at that store actually get paid. So they are happy to control everything else, but what we found out is that they do not then take that the next step and say, 'And we also want to control this and make sure you are paying your workers properly.' In fact, in the 7-Eleven incident we found out that it was even worse than that; they were complicit in it. It was the payroll system of the head office that was effectively being used to facilitate all these underpayments. So the head office was completely implicated in that.
What we need to do, if this bill is to have any teeth at all, is to make the head office take some responsibility, not only for the cleanliness of the store, how the stock is displayed or whether the chewing gum is in the right place but also whether the workers are being paid correctly. What this amendment will do is to close the loophole that the government has allowed in its legislation where a head office can get out of any responsibility for what is happening under its name simply by saying, 'Oh well, we couldn't reasonably have known about it.' The government has given the head offices a big out, in the legislation. If a head office, for example, gets the franchisee to sign up to a contract, to promise that they are doing the right thing, to say all the right words and to put all the right words down on paper, then when their poor old employee turns around and finds out that they have been underpaid and done over, and they come along and they say, 'Oh, the government has passed a protecting vulnerable workers act; I've got the rights to go to the head office, complain and get some recompense,' they will front up to the head office and potentially bring a legal case, only for the head office to then rely on the words of the legislation and say, 'Well, we couldn't reasonably have known that was what was going on in our name.'
Those words and the lack of responsibility up the chain will allow the 7-Eleven head offices of the future in the future scandals to get off the hook, potentially. Because it is ambiguous, we need to fix it up. What we also need is to make sure that the vulnerable worker—and we are dealing with vulnerable workers here; that is the point that the government is making—is not forced to go and have the argument about what the head office could or could not reasonably have known. How is someone who is getting paid a few dollars an hour in a position to litigate about what was going on in the boardrooms of 7-Eleven or elsewhere? They are just not going to be able to do it.
This puts in place a very, very simple, straightforward process that ought to give effect to what the government is saying is the intention behind the bill. Under this process, the employee who feels that they have been underpaid will be able to go to head office and make a claim. If it turns out, according to law, that they have been underpaid, then the head office pays them the difference. A 7-Eleven head office would have paid the people directly, as they said they would do when the scandal was brought to light. The head office can then turn around and claim the money back from the franchisee, but it then becomes a matter for them, and the worker is not left in the lurch. The worker is not left having to prove, as they may have to under this bill, who knew what and whether this was part of some overall coordination or not. No, if you work and get underpaid in a 7-Eleven store, and you do not get justice from your immediate employer, you can go to head office. Head office is obliged to pay you if the claim is proved legally, and then head office can turn around and recoup it.
This will do two things to give effect to the intent of this bill. The first thing it will do is allow vulnerable workers to actually get some justice. This process is not asking for the employees to get more than what they are entitled to. They will only get their legal entitlement out of this, but they will be able to get it. They will be able to get it because it is the head office—as the government has said in introducing this bill—that bears some responsibility. They will not be able to use the loopholes in this bill to get out of it. Head office will have to front up and then turn around and claim it from their franchisees.
The second thing that this will do is to minimise future exploitation, or the opportunities for future exploitation, because head office will now have an interest in not only checking whether the chewing gum is straight on the shelf and not only checking whether or not the posters are in the right place in the window but also in checking whether people are being paid properly. When—as we know they do, because we found out through the Senate inquiries—7-Eleven head office or any other head office of a franchise go in and do their regular store checks and audits, they will have an interest in auditing the wages books of the franchisees, because they will know that they might have to front up in the first instance and stump up the difference if there is an underpayment. It will create a culture of compliance. It will not leave the poor old vulnerable worker in the lurch, having to watch a fight take place between the franchisee and the head office.
What the amendments are also going to do is stamp out head offices of franchises putting small business franchisees in the invidious position Allan Fels found that 7-Eleven franchisees were in, where the only way they could make any money was by ripping off their workers. That is what Allan Fels said about the 7-Eleven arrangement. We are finding out that this arrangement is happening elsewhere, under names we walk past every day. What we are finding is that by using franchise contracts they are putting the subcontractor—the franchisee or small business—in the position sometimes where the only way the small business operator has any chance of making any money is by not complying with the law and not paying employees the appropriate amount.
These amendments would remove the incentive for that to happen. This does not just put the worker in a better position and ensure there is a culture of compliance; it puts the small business operator and the franchise in a better position because then they are not going to be put under these contracts where they are forced to underpay people's wages. That was a huge complaint that many 7-Eleven small business operators came forward with. They said, 'This is the only way we can make money because this is what we are being required to do.' This will remove any incentive for a head office to do that because they are going to have to stump up for some or all of the underpayment.
I can anticipate some of what the government might say about this. They might say, 'It's not the head office's responsibility.' If things are not the head office's responsibility, why are they introducing this bill at all? They are introducing this bill because people have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to recognise the injustice at the heart of this system at the moment that allows so many people to get underpaid. I say to the government: if you are going to do it, do it right. Do it in a way that will actually give some justice to these people. At the end of the day, I remind the government and the opposition that all this will do is allow a worker to get their legal minimum entitlement—no more, no less—and it will mean the operation itself has to argue amongst itself as to who is responsible.
I thank the member for Melbourne for that contribution. Again, these are not amendments the government will be accepting. Amendments (1) to (3) in fact replicate matters raised in the Greens' Fair Work Amendment (Recovery of Unpaid Amounts for Franchisee Employees) Bill 2015, which is presently listed as not proceeding. What they do, in effect, would allow franchise workers to make underpayment claims directly against the franchisor rather than their employer, which is of course the franchisee. They then give the franchisor 14 days to settle the claim before court proceedings might be brought by the franchise worker, a union or the Fair Work Ombudsman for the recovery of the amount. The franchisor would, under the amendments, have a right to recover the amount from the responsible franchisee.
The reason the government is not accepting these amendments is that they would impose what could be described as a joint employer responsibility on both the franchisor and the franchisees. In other words, they would impose employment responsibilities on the franchisor and the franchisees in precisely the same way, where in truth there is only one employer in those relevant circumstances. The bill specifically recognises that franchisors and franchisees are separate entities and that they do have separate responsibilities. As employers, franchisees have a responsibility to meet their employment obligations under the Fair Work Act and remain responsible for their own wages bill. The franchisors are in a different position and they must take reasonable steps to prevent contravention they either know is occurring or ought reasonably to know is occurring. The government does not support imposing direct liability on franchisors for their franchisees' wages bill. The franchisors that take reasonable steps to prevent contraventions of the workplace law should not be subject to further regulation. That is, in essence, the reason we will not be supporting amendments (1) to (3).
I am disappointed, again, that I do not have the opposition's support for these amendments, because they are very sensible amendments. I hope that changes by the time we go to the Senate and deal with these.
I wonder if the minister could enlighten us, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what 'reasonable steps' might mean. In the 7-Eleven instance, that was in fact the kind of defence that was used by the head office: 'We couldn't have known this. We had an arrangement with our subcontractors.' It is the defence that is regularly used in all of these cases of exploitation. It would seem to many of us who have been following this very closely that exactly what the minister just said about no liability being imposed on franchisors who take reasonable steps means this bill may well be null and void. It may well be of no effect. Could the minister illustrate, for example, whether he considers what happened at 7-Eleven or Caltex to have had reasonable steps taken? Were their actions such that they would fall foul of this provision and the head office would be directly liable?
I am reminded of the famous dictum in criminal law matters on issues such as this. There is an evergreen truth in matters of the law that 'each case turns on its own circumstances'. What 'reasonable steps' might be would very much depend on the individual circumstances of the matter. The reasonable steps provision is triggered once it is confirmed that the franchisor knew that something was occurring or ought reasonably to have known. As the member for Melbourne would know, that is reasonable steps. The two triggering events—that they either knew or ought reasonably to have known that things were occurring—are very well versed and used legal phrases, but their meaning, of course, would depend on the relevant circumstances of the case.
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I have received a message from the Senate. The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution agreed to by the Senate today:
That paragraph (1) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement be amended to read as follows:
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement, be established to inquire and report by 30 June 2017 on the following matters:
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
I move:
That the resolution of the Senate relating to the amendment of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. We are only four months away from the Liberal-National Party government starting their fifth year of government, and I still find it very difficult to find a government agenda coming out of this parliament, but it is easy to see where the priorities of those opposite are. They are not concerned about fixing the economy; we saw that on Tuesday night with the continuation of debt. They are not concerned about creating jobs; we saw that on Tuesday night. They are going to fall way short of their target, and we are going to have more unemployed, according to their projections. They are not concerned about standing up for the vulnerable or for low-paid workers. Instead, they have turned to them as some form of revenue. No, this government is just interested in obfuscating when it comes to addressing the real issues.
What does this bill before the chamber do? It implements just three of the 79 recommendations of the Heydon royal commission, recommendations made more than 12 months ago. The government has had a year to legislate recommendations from the Heydon royal commission but in that time it has actually done nothing. It was a super-urgent political exercise before the election back in 2015 but since then there has been nothing. Thankfully, at the same time, we have had a response from the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten, who brought in a private member's bill to preserve take-home pay and protect penalty rates. Sadly, this legislation before the chamber does nothing in terms of making sure that Australian workplaces are fairer.
What does this bill do? As I am sure anyone would know, the Labor Party abhors corruption in any form. We will not stand for corruption whether it is in unions or any organisation. I find particularly repugnant the idea of low-paid workers' union fees being misused by any union official. Thankfully, they are rare and rogue and punished by the union movement and the criminal law, as they should be. We will support legislation that is properly drafted and applies to companies and registered organisations. But this bill creates new offences for so-called 'corrupting benefits'. The one concern I have about this bill is that there are different tests of intention for making or receiving a bribe, depending on whether you are a union official or an employer. It appears that the legislation would make it easier to prosecute a union official rather than an employer. That does not happen with similar offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
Another concerning aspect is that the bill appears to possibly limit the ability of unions to provide training to employees because that would be seen as a benefit and so be excluded by the legislation. This government does not have too many union members in it. This government fundamentally fails to understand the work of unions and the benefits that all workers reap from unions being allowed to protect workers and make sure their workplaces are safe. It is not just for those who voluntarily give up their wages to be in a union who benefit, but all workers benefit. Unions are responsible for many of the workplace entitlements that we take for granted today. They were responsible for sick leave in the 1920s, annual leave in the 1930s, the eight-hour day in the 1940s, unfair dismissal protection in the 1970s, banning asbestos in the 1980s and domestic violence leave in the noughties. The weekend—the thing that Australians value terribly—is, sadly, currently under threat by the decision to reduce penalty rates, but I will come back to that in a minute. I cannot overstate the importance of having strong unions to protect our Australian workforce; in fact, all Australians benefit.
I want to speak briefly about asbestos on worksites, because there are more than 980,000 construction workers in Australia and some of these workers are being unknowingly exposed to asbestos on their worksites. Seven hundred Australians still die every year from asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos has been banned in Australia since 2003, so no Australian should be exposed to asbestos in any new materials. Sadly, that is not the reality. Building materials containing asbestos are being illegally imported into Australia from other parts of the world where it is not illegal. This poses enormous health risks, not only to workers on new building sites but also to all of us if we later live in or work in buildings that contain this product.
Asbestos is an insidious substance. It is impossible to know that you are being exposed to it until the damage has been done and it is too late. The asbestos fibres are so small that they appear like a pinprick on a magnified follicle of human hair. Exposure to asbestos can cause asbestosis and mesothelioma; both are deadly diseases and there is no cure for either of these diseases. As an example of the value that unions provide to workers and that their training of workers provides benefits, I will share a story told to me by Andrew Ramsay, who was a workplace health and safety coordinator with the CFMEU. Sadly, Andrew is going to retire soon, and I thank him for his incredible service to the CFMEU and to the broader labour movement. Andrew tells me that he was at home one weekend when he received a phone call from a building site in Brisbane that is now the Executive Building in William Street. The person on the other end of the phone said they thought there was asbestos on this building site, a Queensland government project. Andrew was a little disbelieving. Knowing that asbestos was banned in Australia and illegal to import, he could not imagine how asbestos could recently turn up on a building site.
Investigations were made. Sadly, it was confirmed that indeed there was material on the site that contained asbestos. Their particular material contained 60 per cent asbestos. Just to put that in context, the old fibro sheets that some of us might have had in our backyards contained about 10 to 15 per cent asbestos. This material, being used by workers today and trimmed with a power saw because it did not quite fit the specifications, had 60 per cent asbestos. The material had been imported from China and manufactured to the specifications to fit a particular situation, but it did not fit and then the workers took to it with a power saw. What did Andrew do? He immediately shut the site down. Obviously, it is unfortunate. If you know what a construction site involves—the number of people involved and the jobs lined up because of that—then you know to shut it down is a tough thing.
It is unfortunate that this illegal substance somehow made its way past border control and into Australia under the watch of Minister Dutton. Shutting down the building site when asbestos is suspected is necessary to protect the health of all workers. It was the diligence of the union delegate that ensured that the banned substance was not being used in that building site. We are informed that there are 69 job sites across Australia that have had material containing asbestos delivered to them. That is appalling. A few days later, after that discovery, we then had the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection actually blaming the CFMEU for driving developers to use illegal and dangerous products on their building sites. Those were actually the words that came out of Minister Dutton's mouth.
Instead of continuing that obsession with union bashing, Minister Dutton needs to do his job and protect our borders, which seem to be completely porous when it comes to legal and dangerous products. Tightening up our borders would not only ensure that workers are safe from these dangerous products but that ensure our buildings will not be time bombs when they start deteriorating in years to come. We also need to promote safe Australian products that are asbestos free. That then creates local jobs, rather than jobs in other countries.
The Turnbull government has been completely incompetent when it comes to managing these imports. The Turnbull government needs to act now to stop these imports and significantly increase the penalties for those who are guilty of putting Australian lives at risk by importing these deadly products. But I have not heard any words come from those opposite to thank the unions who put in place the training to make sure that the worker was aware enough to say, 'Maybe this is asbestos.' That sort of training—where they are able to recognise something that is very, very dangerous—would be removed by this legislation, despite that training being something that would have actually protected the construction workers and those who will use the building in the future.
I think this government is completely impotent when it comes to protecting workers. They have not stood up for the 7,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers who will face a pay cut of up to $77 a week. We know that these cuts will actually disproportionately hit women. The people in my electorate will have to work longer hours for less pay. We know the Prime Minister could stop these cuts if he wanted to, but sadly too many opposite support these cuts. How can a government that claims to be fair give millionaires a $17,000 tax cut with one hand and then take $77 a week from the lowest paid workers with the other? How could you pretend that was fair? How could the word 'fair' pass your lips if you were doing deeds like that? If you cared, you would do something. Instead, you are wrapping your mouth around words that you are saying but not doing. Only a government completely out of touch could do both of those things. We going to see that occur on 1 July.
Penalty rates are not a luxury; they are a necessary part of the equation when it comes to putting food on the table and paying bills. It is unions who were part of that process that made sure Australian workers could have weekends to spend time with their families. Workers who work weekends should be compensated for not having that time with their families. I know what it is like. I am married to someone who worked every second weekend doing shiftwork, and also I was raised as one of 10 children by a single mum who had to do a lot of shiftwork just to put us through school and feed us.
I also know that young people will be particularly hard hit by these cuts. University students have always relied on weekend work and penalty rates to fund their studies. I was told by Lucas Kennedy, the President of the Student Representative Council at Griffith University—Nathan campus is in Moreton—that cuts to penalty rates will force students to work more hours during the week. This will take them out of classes and study sessions that they should be attending during the week, and this at a time when they have also had an announcement in the budget that they will be paying more HECS fees and paying more HECS fees earlier when they start working, at $42,000.
These cuts to penalty rates will not stop with hospitality workers and retail workers. You know that is the agenda of those opposite. We heard it from nearly 70 or 80 of those opposite before the independent umpire handed down that decision. I think there is a risk to workers in clubs, to hairdressers, to beauticians and to restaurant workers, who will also have their penalty rates cut. That will be another 323,000 workers affected. And it will not be long before the employees in those industries that have nurses, aged-care workers, teachers, community disability workers, cleaners and construction employees are all at risk of having their penalty rates cut.
Labor supports workers being compensated through penalty rates for working on weekends and public holidays. We know that these workers rely on penalty rates for their everyday living expenses. If the Prime Minister cared about protecting workers, he would be supporting Labor's bill to stop these cuts to penalty rates. He would protect the take-home pay of people who rely on penalty rates every week to live. Sadly, the silence coming out of Point Piper is deafening.
The narrow focus of this bill before the chamber is a reflection of the Turnbull government's ideological drive. It will not do anything to stamp out corrupt payments between companies. The Turnbull government needs to listen to all Australians who are concerned about their jobs rather than just having a Prime Minister worried about his own job.
Today it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Turnbull government's Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, most particularly because yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on our Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 as well. They are both proof of the focus of the Turnbull government on protecting workers and being a true friend of workers right throughout this nation.
On 22 March 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull introduced this bill to the House to criminalise the giving, receiving or soliciting of corrupting benefits between employers and trade unions. This bill, then, bans such 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.
Those opposite would have Australian workers believe that there is no need for such legislation, that there is nothing to see here, that unions are guaranteed to always act in the best interests of members, but sadly and unfortunately we know that that is not always the case. It reminds one, I must say, of the Charles Dickens character Mr Pecksniff, a man who liked to take the moral high ground, always pompously setting about the appearance of being involved in the betterment of society whilst actually doing very little. Isn't that what those opposite do here on a daily basis? They strive to maintain a facade of representing workers but repeatedly fail to do so. Perhaps the Labor Party should come out and admit the wrongdoing and tell the truth about the way that some of their leaders and union mates actually treat union members and workers.
Let us start to have a look at what has been really happening in recent times. The Heydon royal commission uncovered a raft of payments between unions and employers that were designed to ensure that companies got favourable treatment from those unions. The commissioner called those payments 'corrupting benefits'. Some officials were paid private kickbacks that they used for personal gain. Some officials used threats to extort money from employers to simply bolster the union coffers. Others extracted payments to bolster their status and power, particularly within the Labor Party—as we learned through the evidence presented.
As the Prime Minister has very clearly outlined in this House on repeated occasions, Thiess John Holland paid AWU Victoria $300,000 plus GST while they built the EastLink freeway extension in Melbourne's eastern suburbs for services that were never provided and nor were the payments disclosed to AWU members or employees. ACI operations paid AWU Victoria around $500,000 while they laid off workers at their Spotswood glass manufacturing facility, and it was predominantly used to offset a loan to renovate the union's Victorian office and for other general union costs. Clean Event paid AWU Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and stripped them of penalty rates and shift loadings over time—again, never disclosed to those cleaning workers.
Unibelt paid the now opposition leader $32,000 to fund his 2007 election campaign manager while they were negotiating an enterprise agreement with the AWU, of which of course he was national secretary at the time. Chiquita Mushrooms paid AWU Victoria $24,000 while it was casualising its mushroom-picking workforce—again, never disclosed to the workers. Winslow Constructors paid AWU Victoria around $200,000 and provided lists of employees names that were secretly signed up to the union with the payments hidden behind false invoices—such was the evidence that we saw presented to the commission.
The government is rightly focused, therefore, on ensuring full disclosure of any payments and most definitely on banning illegitimate payments as the key objectives of this bill. The Heydon royal commission called them 'corrupting benefits', as I said, and recommended that they be outlawed. We are therefore amending the Fair Work Act to make it a criminal offence to give, receive, offer or to solicit such payments. This prohibition will apply to unions and employers.
The Labor Party, I believe, should support this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits and payments because the writing is obviously on the wall. Independent research confirms that national union membership is on the decline, and I would suggest that is little wonder. Australians are wary of the stories of corruption and pocket lining and of those opposite who want to condone such behaviour and intimidation. In contrast, we on this side of House should not have to stand here and lecture the Labor Party about the role of union leaders but clearly we need to remind them to put their union members first.
Union leaders are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly should trust will be the first priority of their union. We on this side of the parliament stand for: a fair go, endeavour, working hard, doing the right thing, backing small business and workers right across the nation. It is time therefore to end these secret deals between unions and employers to ensure transparency of any payments because we are committed to the interests of workers and to the rule of law right throughout this great nation.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Corrupting Benefits) Bill and in favour of the second reading amendment in relation to protecting take-home pay.
What a load of sanctimonious, self-righteous claptrap we just heard from the member opposite! It is just ridiculous to think that. They come in here and give us lectures all the time. They never send in a piece of legislation that promotes workers' rights that they will not vote against—again and again! This is the party of Work Choices, and they presume to give us a lecture about workers' rights. When it comes to workplace health and safety they never stand up for workplace health and safety. And look what is happening on 1 July this year, when 700,000 Australians are going to lose up to $77 a week. These people will not lift a muscle or move an inch—they will not lift a finger, they will not legislate and they will not do anything—to help the lowest-paid workers in this country. And then they give us this nonsense from over there that they are standing up for workers' rights. Honestly! It is the party of the ideologues—the Right-wing ideologues over there who cannot see what they really are or what they stand for. The Australian public will work them out. They work them out from time to time and they vote them out. I have confidence that they will do that next time at the federal election.
This particular piece of legislation is a cover, a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen in relation to what is happening and their failure to protect the take-home pay of vulnerable workers. At the same time we hear the Treasurer getting up at the dispatch box and giving literally tens of thousands of dollars to the highest-paid income earners in this country and they think it is fair. They have the audacity—the arrogance—to call it a fair budget, and to use 'fairness' in the title of their budget. It is ridiculous. This piece of legislation is once again a smokescreen—a cover, a mirage—to actually protect their position.
The Heydon royal commission was an attack on the trade union movement and the workers' representatives who are standing up for working men and women every day in the workplaces of this country. It took them about 12 months or so to do anything about it. Where was this legislation earlier? It came about and was rushed into this parliament, ill-conceived and poorly drafted, because the Prime Minister wanted a cover. He wanted a cover and to be seen to be doing something. We just debated it, the vulnerable workers legislation before this chamber. It is a half-baked, half-hearted and lukewarm response, not doing anything about resourcing Fair Work Australia or the Fair Work Ombudsman properly and not doing anything in relation to protecting workers. We have seen the egregious examples of exploitation by 7-Eleven, Caltex, you name it, and they will not do anything about it.
Again, migrant workers are the most vulnerable people in this country. How many more reports are there going to be from the Fair Work Ombudsman? How many more Senate reports do we want to see? But they come in and produce this sort of legislation before the chamber.
We are against corruption and criminality in any form. It should be stamped out, whether it is in business or in unions or in any part of the economy, any part of our community or any part of our society. But they come in here and lecture us about this stuff, as if somehow they are the great mates of the workers. They will never see a pay rise that they will not oppose.
At the moment, we are seeing damage to the budget. Why? Because wages are at an historic low. We have had very high unemployment in this country and high underemployment. One of the facts in this country is that wages are too low, so budget revenues are not getting up there. That is the impact on the budget. We see it in the budget papers that were handed down on Tuesday night. The trouble in this country is that those opposite do not see what they really are—the ideologues opposite. Often those people—Liberal and National Party members—who have been elected and who come into this chamber get captured by the ideologues, the hard, Right-wing conservatives, and so pieces of legislation get passed in this place, whether under John Howard, under the member for Warringah or, in fact, under the member for Wentworth. Or they attempt to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the economy, of the community or of workers' rights.
This timing of this particular legislation is so political. It is clearly the case. Where was the urgency in the last 12 months? Where was it? It did not happen. The mentality of this government in terms of this antiworker legislation is so clear. Even when antiworker legislation was the justification for dragging this debate onwards, the government cannot see what they really stand for. They just cannot see it. Their priorities are out of touch—constantly out of touch.
In the last few months and in the last budget we have seen the disconnect this government has with the working people of this country. Those opposite cannot admit the fact that they cannot understand that working people are going to suffer from 1 July in this country. That means that they will be struggling to pay their rent, struggling to pay their mortgages, struggling to pay their school fees and struggling to pay the education costs for their kids. Instead of devoting their attention to the needs of working people, the government seem desperate to stop fighting amongst themselves and to pass legislation that might pick them up in the polls—even to pass a budget that might help them in a Newspoll every fortnight. That is what they are on about.
At the same time, we have this legislation before the chamber. We have seen legislation giving big tax cuts for big business, for multinational tax corporations. In fact, we have seen tax cuts for the banks that they claim they are supporting. They are taxing them $6.2 billion but they are giving them tax breaks of about $8.4 billion. The government say, 'We are so tough on the banks,' but they are giving them big tax cuts in the legislation that the Treasurer introduced today. That this bill has been rushed into this place after such a prolonged stretch of irresponsible and ineffective governance is beyond belief. It is not simply a coincidence. The government are hell-bent on wasting the parliament's time. They are rushing in legislation and not tackling the problems that actually affect workers and their families. If they devoted more time to governing than to attacking the Labor Party and the labour movement, they would actually be able to address the challenges facing this country and do something about them. We would see some progress in the economic debate and on the economy of this country.
Instead, we have a missed opportunity by the government to develop lasting and considered legislation to improve the situation in this country and to tackle corruption. If they were serious about tackling corrupt behaviour they would not try to force legislation through the chamber without any consultation and without any review at all. If they were serious about tackling corruption, they would consult employers, unions, industrial experts and experts on criminality and criminal behaviour, and then they would achieve longstanding and lasting reform that might endure. In the space of a matter of weeks we have seen this legislation announced and introduced, and today it is on for debate. Their legislation is compromised, effectively. This is all about another attack on the union movement.
Let us be clear, we will never stand for corruption in any shape or form nor for any criminal behaviour at all. We are simply against it. We will never oppose properly considered legislation that takes concrete steps to crack down on underhand behaviour and criminal activity, wherever and whenever it occurs. Whether this legislation achieves what it hopes to is open for real, serious debate. The consequences of the government's hurried approach are obvious in the legislation. It is so poorly drafted it is unlikely to strike a blow against corrupt companies and organisations. It is likely to make life more difficult for those people who are trying to do the right thing. The so-called corrupting benefits offences are largely similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, of bribery of a foreign official and of corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official. There are very important differences in the circumstances.
First, the bill establishes a different test of intention for the act of making or receiving a bribe, making it easier for a union official to be targeted. This bill is all about targeting union officials while protecting the employer, as they always do. For an offence to be registered against the company, it must be proved that the company that is paying a bribe intends to influence a union official or act improperly. In contrast, officials of registered organisations need only ask for a bribe intending that the company believes that the official will tend to be influenced to act improperly, regardless of what the official's actual intentions are, for that person to be convicted. By direct comparison, in the equivalent corrupting benefits Commonwealth officials offences in the Criminal Code, the test of intending to influence applies equally to both the party giving the corrupt benefit and the party receiving it.
The bill makes it an offence for employers to provide cash or in-kind payments to either a union or a person nominated by the union, while also preventing unions from requesting or receiving such payments. The offences created under this bill do not even require the person making or receiving a bribe to be acting dishonestly. That is a real flaw in this legislation. Unlike the equivalent Commonwealth Criminal Code offence, which requires evidence of dishonesty, it is unclear that this element would have to be proved in offences under this bill. I do not think it will. Therefore, it lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution of union officials, which is what this legislation is all about.
What is particularly concerning in relation to this is the issue of dishonesty. It is entirely possible under this legislation that a union official who approaches an employer on behalf of a worker that he or she represents, a worker who has just been made redundant and might be seeking a payment of a lawfully owed entitlement under, say, an enterprise bargaining agreement or an award, could be guilty of an offence under this legislation. That is simply astonishing. A union representative going about his or her work—seeking to assist a worker, a member of their union, lawfully seeking a redundancy payment as part of their entitlements in an EBA or an award—may find themselves in a position where they could be prosecuted. I think the absence of dishonesty in relation to it is a really serious problem in relation to the legislation. This is ridiculous. It is outrageous. It is unnecessary. It is an overreach of government power. It prevents union officials doing their most basic duty.
Those opposite say they want union officials to go about and do what they need to do—that is, honestly, appropriately and regularly representing their workers, their members—but they make it hard for a union official to actually do his or her job. The bill mandates that unions and employers disclose any benefits that they or related entities may receive following the outcome of an enterprise agreement. If the government spent less time focusing on the ideological attacks and more time listening to the people, then they would know that these types of disclosures are already made by unions to their members throughout the enterprise bargaining process.
I just think those opposite do not get that enterprise bargaining process. We hear it at question time, we hear it in speeches made by those opposite. I repeat: we have no patience with and we have no time for anyone who tries to subvert the system to cheat workers and union members. We know, through hard experience in the Labor Party and the labour movement, that the offences created by this particular piece of legislation are, at best, confusing—they are clearly unclear—and, at worst, they create an uneven system that penalises union representatives and helps employer representatives. It means that for union officials, representing their workers, the power imbalance is tilted against them even more as they negotiate with large companies. Really, it is preventing them from carrying out the core duties that they do. It is breathtakingly hypocritical of those opposite to attempt to frame this bill as being for the benefit of workers and their representatives in the trade union movement.
We know that people are doing it tough at the moment. We fought hard to protect family tax benefits and pensions. We fought hard to stop what have been described in the media and across this parliament as the zombie measures in legislation. If the government is about genuinely tackling corruption in Australia, why is there no mention of corrupt payments between companies? And why aren't they doing something about that, when the corruption perceptions index reported that corruption in Australia was on the rise, placing us on the international watchlist? Why aren't they doing anything about that? We have had report after report detailing individuals associated with some of Australia's largest and most well-known companies making corrupt payments to facilitate dodgy business arrangements. And thanks to a recent Deloitte investigation into business practices, we know that while corrupt practices in businesses are widespread, instances of self-reporting are dangerously low. Corruption hurts consumers, it undermines market forces, it reduces trust in Australian businesses. That is why we need proper legislation in relation to this, not this half-baked form of legislation before the chamber.
The government should stand up for workers. They should stand up and stop people who are working in the retail, hospitality and fast food industries from losing their penalty rates from 1 July. They should work with the Labor opposition to get forward serious, real, bona fide legislation that deals with corruption. They should stop these ideological attacks. They should stand up for the people that they claim they represent, not just small business but also the workers in our economy.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill and also to support the amendment moved by the honourable and hardworking member for Gorton. It will come as no surprise to anyone here that over a year ago Dyson Heydon handed down his recommendations from the royal commission—the same royal commission that was estimated to have cost over $46 million—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Perth will get to complete the next 14½ minutes of his speech at a later time.
I want to thank the hundreds of Canberrans who have sent me their broadband speeds as part of my campaign to get Canberra prioritised for the rollout of the NBN. Today I am going to share some of those speeds and remind everyone who is listening that this is what Canberra businesspeople live with each and every day, this is what Canberra students live with each and every day and this is what Canberra families live with each and every day. I remind them that we are in a nation's capital and I remind them that we are in the year 2017—so brace yourself. Noel in Theodore has download speeds of 0.52 megabits per second and upload speeds of 0.42 megabits per second. Jenny in Lyons had the worst speeds last month: a 0.03 download speed and a 0.04 upload speed. David in Fadden had a download speed of 0.33 and an upload speed of 0.94. Ruth in Barton had a download speed of 1.19 and an upload speed of 10.29. Bill in Chisholm had a download speed of 0.48 and an upload speed of 3.85. Andrew in Isabella Plains had a download speed of 0.45 and an upload speed of 3.56. Steve in Kingston said, 'The last time I had internet this bad was in Oman, when I worked there four years ago, and before that the dialup in the UK in the nineties.' These are appalling speeds. We want to be on the prioritisation list. Send me you speeds, Canberra. (Time expired)
This week is National Road Safety Week, and I wear my yellow ribbon to confirm my absolute support. In 2016 1,300 people were killed on our roads. It was a 7.9 per cent increase on the 2015 road toll. Recently, the Bruce Highway north of Gympie has claimed seven lives. This is unacceptable. These crashes devastate families and communities and leave a lasting impact on all involved. Since the 25-kilometre sections A and B of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade have been completed, what was once the most deadly section of highway in Australia has now become fatality free. With the construction of section C well advanced, we now need federal and state governments to fund construction of section D, where detailed designs and land acquisitions are well underway. Upgrades need to continue north to Maryborough. People are dying in the electorate of Wide Bay and it must stop. Infrastructure money needs to be spent where it will save lives. If at any time I believe that our infrastructure spend is placing urban convenience over lives in rural and regional areas such as Wide Bay, I will come out strongly against any such proposal. I stand shoulder to shoulder with my local community, media and road safety advocates, who are calling for these Bruce Highway upgrades today, which will save precious lives.
We are back. I am waiting for someone to shout out, 'groundhog day', except, instead of Bill Murray we have the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, a less than pale imitation, but maybe with a similar hairline.
I remind the member for Brand to use the correct title.
The Treasurer, as I said. Just like the movie, where every single day was the same as the one previously, albeit with slight changes in detail, the same can be said of this budget. It is slightly different in certain details, but it has the same unfair and cruel cuts as the 2014 budget. This is all under the guise of making the right choices for Australia. But, unlike Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, the Treasurer has not even learnt to play the piano. We are back to 2014 and the unmade sequel, 'Back to the Future IV'. The Treasurer has done a Marty McFly with the Doc, Prime Minister Turnbull, and travelled back in time to try and erase the mistakes of the past. It is a poor sequel, if you ask me. At the moment we have former Prime Minister Abbott 'lite' advocating for light 'Gonski lite', 'Medicare lite' and 'NBN lite'. It is a lightweight government. It is lite on banking reform, lite on housing affordability, lite on education, lite on health and, of course, lite on political approval. Speaking of 'Gonski lite', this government's version of needs based funding will see schools get $22 billion less than they would have under a Labor government. It is a $22 billion cut to schools that will mean that on average each school across this country will lose $2.4 million. Yesterday we saw this government had a crack at disowning its 2014 budget. But, like a bad remake of a 1980s George A Romero movie, these zombie measures will come back again under this government.
I am very pleased with the positive feedback from the Groom electorate in recent days in relation to the federal budget. I meet regularly with local agencies who are vitally interested in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Our regular Toowoomba community services breakfasts convened by Jonathan Crisp of the Mental Illness Fellowship Queensland provide tremendous opportunities for discussion. Available since 1 January this year, the NDIS has been welcomed in our community. It is significant that the Turnbull government has guaranteed the full funding of NDIS once and for all in the budget handed down on Tuesday this week. In contrast, Labor promised an NDIS on over 100 occasions but left it with a multi-billion-dollar yearly funding gap. Our commitment to fully fund NDIS once and for all is further proof that it is the Turnbull government providing essential services that our communities rely on. That is important in Groom. It is important through the NDIS. It is important through regional Australia and the entire country. I and my electorate celebrate this significant commitment from the Turnbull government.
I rise very proudly to say that today the women's budget statement was released by Labor. You might remember it from the classic in 1983 when it was first launched. It was ended by your former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, in 2013, when ironically he was also the Minister for Women. The reality of why women can never ever take a backward step in our fight for equality and to be treated fairly and equally is exactly the reason I have just described. This Liberal government is full of making sure that women never, ever get ahead.
I am going to run through, very briefly, my top three lowlights from this year's budget when it comes to women. The government has still not restored the $44 million in cuts to homelessness shelters under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. Those that are getting any benefit from this budget this year will be more men. The wealthiest two per cent of Australians will receive a tax cut. Three-quarters of those benefits will flow to men. And possibly the worst one is that, after three years of arguing that change was not necessary, the government has finally accepted the Productivity Commission's recommendation to stop alleged perpetrators in domestic violence cases cross-examining victims. However, you have not managed to back it up with one cent of funding. It is a shame and a disgrace.
What great news in the federal budget—this Liberal government's commitment to WA jobs and to build the Perth Freight Link remains. This government will provide $1.2 billion to build Roe 8 and Roe 9 for the Perth Freight Link to any future government which proceeds with the project. This commitment is formalised as a contingent liability in the budget papers. Labor's opposition to safer roads and local jobs in my community is disgraceful. Labor in WA should put families first. They should put jobs first and get on with the job and build this vital project. And those Labor members opposite should do the right thing by WA jobs and tell them so. But, because Labor has refused to build the Perth Freight Link, the federal government has stepped in and negotiated a road and rail infrastructure package for WA that will create 6,000 local jobs and build 17 infrastructure projects that we need now.
A big win for Tangney is the extension of Roe Highway past Kwinana Freeway to provide better and safer access to Fiona Stanley Hospital and the Murdoch Activity Centre. The Roe Highway will be extended. This extension will mean fewer vehicles on local roads, including Farrington Road, South Street, Murdoch Drive, Karel Avenue and other local roads. There are more wins for Tangney with upgrades to Karel Avenue to improve access for locals to Roe Highway and a smart freeways project between Roe Highway and Narrows Bridge.(Time expired)
It beggars belief that those on the other side can talk about fairness in funding in this budget when they are content to slash $22 billion from schools yet at the same time give big business a $50 billion tax cut. That is $22 billion less than students would have received under a Labor government over the next 10 years. That is $22 billion that would employ teachers. It would provide speech therapists. It would put into schools the supports that benefit students and teachers alike. That is an average of $2.4 million less per school.
For my Catholic and public schools in Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and in the Hawkesbury over the next two years alone, the difference under Labor's fully funded plan and the Liberals' sham is horrifying. I have seen the figures. Over the next two years alone, schools like Windsor High School, Winmalee High School, Warrimoo and Wilberforce will be hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off. Under a Labor government, by 2019 every school in New South Wales would have achieved 95 per cent of their schooling resource standard. That meant a level playing field for students and a strong base for our economic future. Under the Libs, they might never get there, and then the price that we as a society pay for that failure to invest in education is going to be extremely high. Those opposite should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
I want to talk this afternoon on the budget and the coalition versus Labor. The difference is very clear. The coalition is the only team in this place that builds infrastructure, keeps us safe and funds programs that make a difference to the most vulnerable. We are serious about strong borders. Labor had a border security disaster. 'Stop the boats' was a slogan back in 2013, and we made that into an outcome. We have not seen an illegal boat on our shores since the policy was introduced in 2013. We have secured our borders. We will continue to secure Australia with a $321 million boost to the AFP and 300 more personnel. Labor saw 52,000 illegal arrivals in Australia in their period of 2007-2013, allowed 1,200 desperate people to drown in the seas between here and Indonesia. The public do not accept people smuggling and neither does the coalition.
Lower business taxes drive small business and better jobs for all Australians. It is not government that drives the economy; it is small private enterprises that drive our economy. They are the people who employ people, and we must give them assistance where we can. The US tax rate— (Time expired)
I tell you what. You thought the measures in this budget were bad. You thought they were no good. When it comes to what is being handed out for Western Australia, the zombie measures in this budget look like Olympic-grade triathletes! Not only is there no new money for Western Australia, regardless of what the member for Tangney would like to have us believe; but we go backwards. There is no new money for infrastructure, no new money for rail and none for road. We lose $500 million from education and health over the forward estimates. Sure, we might get a measly top-up of 226 for the GST. It is not even a drop in the bucket.
I encourage the Treasurer to get out his calculator and listen to this number. That sends Western Australia backwards by $274 million. Not only does it send us backward in relation to health and education; but it sends us backwards in relation to the overall cuts to education. There is $2.4 billion ripped out of Western Australian education systems over the course of the next 10 years. This mob should hang their heads in shame.
Not only that; they have squibbed it on the banks. They have squibbed it on housing affordability. They have squibbed it everywhere you look in this budget. We do not have a damp squib here; we have a messy, sodden, soaking hot mess. That is this government. That is this budget. (Time expired)
Mr Robert interjecting—
The member for Fadden will resume his seat.
I have to say today the opposition are sounding a little bit desperate.
A government member: On the ropes.
They are on the ropes, aren't they? I think the opposition might know that the Australian people are onto them. But rest assured, tonight they will put on a theatrical show as their fearless leader stands for the delivery of his budget reply speech. They will be screaming out, 'Hear, hear,' in camouflage of the truth, and that is that their wonderful emperor has no clothes. The Labor Party has nothing. They promised the NDIS, but they did not fund it. They championed Gonski, but only made false promises. They talked tough on borders, but then 1,200 people died at sea. They promised to help working families, but failed to reform child care. They got excited about energy policies, but only drove up electricity prices. They said they would protect the little guy and then denied tax cuts for small businesses.
Compare that to the coalition: NDIS—fully funded; schools—the real Gonski; border protection—secure; child care—flexible and affordable; power prices—lower; and small businesses—less tax and more jobs; because with the coalition it is a budget that delivers security, opportunity and fairness. (Time expired)
On Sunday, I was again privileged to join our local Bangladeshi community at Mascot Public School for their Good Morning Bangladesh morning tea, raising funds for the Cancer Council. This event has been going since 2001 and, over time, they have raised over $150,000 for cancer research and treatment. Local political leaders and community leaders came together with our Bangladeshi community to raise money for the Cancer Council, but also to celebrate multiculturalism in our community. The wonderful colours of traditional dress and the fantastic dishes such as roti, paratha, curries, tangy chotpoti, pea soup, masala tea and, of course, Bangladeshi sweets were flowing quite freely. The event was attended by around 400 people and raised $8,000 again this year.
It was particularly pleasing to see members of the family of the late Dr Abdul Hawke, who unfortunately passed away earlier in the year but was instrumental in establishing the Good Morning Bangladesh morning tea and organising it every year. I pay my respects to his family. I once again thank Azad, in particular, Sirajul Haque and, in particular, Sheik Rahman for their efforts in organising this wonderful event—a great celebration of multiculturalism, raising funds for a great cause.
I rise to speak on energy policy, an issue that is high on the agenda of every South Australian sadly labouring under the state Labor government. This debate has ultimately become an ideological one that has resulted in a higher costs of living and fewer jobs. The simple fact is that Labor is on an ideological crusade that is resulting, effectively, in higher electricity prices and unreliable supply. Nowhere is this more apparent than in South Australia. We are the canary in the coalmine with higher taxes, charges and electricity prices, and now we have unreliable supply as well. It is no wonder that we suffer from the highest unemployment rate in the nation. High costs for business translate to fewer jobs.
Mr Champion interjecting—
They do not get that, particularly the member for Wakefield over there, who is chiming in. Former South Australian Premier Mike Rann set South Australia on this devastating course. Eight years on, we overwhelmingly have the highest electricity prices in the nation. This is because they are pursuing an unrealistic target of 50 per cent renewables. They are at 41 per cent now. Every constituent in my electorate gets it—it is sad that the member for Wakefield does not—and they understand who is driving it. In contrast, the coalition cares about jobs. Under our government and, indeed, a Liberal government in South Australia, electricity prices will be lower, supply will be reliable and businesses will be able to get back to employing people.
I have been wondering just how many times those opposite have tried to press the reset button since coming to power. The iterations are extraordinary. They came to government with a budget emergency mantra. I remember that one well. Then we had their 2014 cruel, unfair budget, with lots of lifters and leaners. That was the rhetoric of the day.
Who could forget when good government was going to start? It was going to start. We are still waiting for this good government. That was nearly the biggest reset but then the government pressed the button. They went through a new Prime Minister and a new Treasurer. We got the new mantra—'the taxed and the taxed not'. We needed to get rich parents. If you were a rich parent, you needed to shell out. Then they pressed the reset button again and it became 'blame Labor'. 'Blame Bill' became the mantra.
The federal government was going to walk away from state education, then housing affordability was going to be the big thing and then jobs and growth was going to be the big thing. What we are left with today is a disappointing Prime Minister and a disappointing budget, a disappointing coalition 2.0 and a very disappointing government.
I rise to speak on the federal budget, a budget that I believe has the power to heal some of the old wounds and reset our country going forward. This budget has finally delivered the school funding model that Western Australians have been crying out for. I note that the Labor Party, during all of their 27 special deals, did not deliver any special deals for the most disadvantaged students in Australia—namely, regional and remote students in Western Australia.
It is so typical of the member for Sydney and her colleagues to rob Western Australia blind and then start kicking and screaming when we call them out. They cut special deals in their electorates over there on the east coast and they hung the west out to dry. But cleaning up Labor's mess and getting on with the job is what this government does best. Western Australia, please watch your Western Australian Labor colleagues very closely to ensure that they back our education reforms. If they do not, it will be shameful, and be it on their head.
The incompetence of those opposite when in government should be avoided. They get the rolled gold medal for defending workers' rights by attacking the proposed removal of the deficit levy. But they conveniently ignore the fact that they did not bother to properly fund the NDIS, a funding gap the deficit levy would not even put a dent in. Thankfully, the adults are back in charge.
I rise to acknowledge a deep loss to our Top End community with the very sad news that one of our soldiers from 1st Brigade was killed in a training accident in the Northern Territory yesterday. My heartfelt condolences go to his family, his friends, his comrades. It is a tragic reminder of the dangers faced by those who serve us, whether that be in the Army, Navy or Air Force. Currently we have members of our Defence Force who are part of our community in Darwin and Palmerston serving us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Gulf, over the skies of the Middle East and in other countries. It is dangerous work and the training can also be dangerous. There will of course be an investigation into this incident. I have been in touch with 1st Brigade and they are providing the appropriate psychological and pastoral support to the mates of this young Australian soldier, who obviously would be doing it tough right now.
We should always commemorate those that pay the ultimate price serving us, serving our country and serving our community, whether it be in uniform or on the front line.
That was a very sombre speech to follow, and I thank the member for Solomon for those words. I can assure you that all in this House feel the same way. Unfortunately I am not speaking about a subject so harmonious today. I am speaking about electricity in South Australia—what a mess. The state government in South Australia, unfortunately, could not run a raffle, much less an electricity grid. In fact, at the moment we feel like we have had a raffle and the South Australian electricity grid was the last prize left on the table. We have the most expensive electricity in Australia and the least reliable. The state government keeps compounding this problem by approving new intermittent—that is, renewal—supplies onto the SA grid. There is nothing wrong with renewables. We should all be in favour of them, and we are. But at this stage they provide 41 per cent of South Australia's electricity and that is what has imploded—the base load generation business case. The more units we bring online, the more it erodes the Torrens Island and Pelican Point power stations and threatens to put them offline. The big game in town at the moment is storage. We must develop storage of our renewable electricity grid, which is why the Turnbull government is investing in developing new pumped hydro projects and looking very seriously at the project in Port Augusta. I am very hopeful that project will proceed.
Over the last 48 hours, we have witnessed the unlikely spectacle of our merchant banker Prime Minister trying to make himself over as a bank basher. It is the most improbable identity change since the action movie classic Face/Off, but unfortunately the Prime Minister does not have the acting chops of Nicolas Cage or John Travolta that are needed to pull it off. It is like watching someone trying to reboot Wall Street with Gordon Gekko as a social justice warrior. It just will not work: a leopard will not change his spots and a merchant banker will not change his suits.
The Prime Minister is attempting to mount a hostile takeover of the concept of fairness. He wants to strip the assets; he wants to strip all meaning from the word. But just like when you are dealing with the banks, when you get a glossy new advertising brochure from a freshly rebranded bank you have to check the fine print to see where the catches are. The Prime Minister's cunning plan to impose a $6 billion tax on the banks will be passed onto customers faster than a Western Bulldogs handball.
The Prime Minister will not stop them, and the banks have made that clear. There is $6 billion in new fees and in increased interest rates for mortgages in the mail for Australian consumers. In six weeks time, the merchant banker Prime Minister will give all of the bank bosses a $100,000 income tax cut. CBA boss Ian Narev's taxes will be cut by $171,000. All the while, the merchant banker Prime Minister will be protecting the banks from a royal commission that would end the rorts and the rip offs. Do not be fooled: the Prime Minister was a friend of the banks before. Once a merchant banker, always a merchant banker—you can bank on it!
This budget once again demonstrates the Liberal-National government's commitment to strong and effective border security. It has been over 1,000 days since the last successful illegal boat arrival in Australian waters courtesy of the vile people smuggling networks. This House needs little reminding of the over 800 boats drawn to Australia because of Labor's failed policies, over 1,200 deaths at sea and in excess of $15 billion in costs. Labor's policy and management of this was truly a national disaster.
Under the coalition, the boats have been stopped. More importantly, our humanitarian program is now growing in a controlled way. This budget delivers more: Labor's 457 blowouts have been abolished, Australian citizenship requirements have been strengthened, there is $95.4 million to support new technologies at our borders, there is $59.9 million to enhance biometric storage and processing capabilities, there is $35.4 million to explore new technologies to help to design and build a visa processing platform system that will better manage risk and there is $52.6 million for the International Organization for Migration's work in Indonesia as part of our regional cooperation to combat people smuggling.
The dividends of strong borders because of the coalition's strong policies are easy to see. We are now seeing a new temporary sponsored parent visa, providing for a stay of up to five years, and our humanitarian program intake will increase by 2,500 places. The coalition is delivering on strong borders.
This budget has seen the Prime Minister's pantomime war on banks. First of all, we have seen the supposed bank tax, which day by day is being turned into a consumer levy through government incompetence. We have seen a free pass given by this man to the banking sector on the question of a royal commission. There is no transparency and no accountability. We have seen a tax cut given to all of these bank executives. Whether they gather in Sydney or Canberra—wherever they are gathered for their little powwow—they will all get a whopping great big tax cut out of this. Some of them, the ones on an $8 million a year base salary, will get a $170,000 a year tax cut. They will be really, really upset with this Prime Minister! They will be really, really upset with this pantomime war on the banks!
Prior to the budget, there was a leak to Sky News which wiped $14 billion off bank shares' values, and we had the member for Durack this morning on Sky News saying, 'Oh, it's a good time to buy bank shares, profit out of this fake crisis and benefit from this pantomime that is going on.' This Prime Minister was created by banks. This Prime Minister was nurtured by banks. Once a banker, always a banker. This pantomime war on banks is a fraud against the public interest.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Education has written to the principal of every public school in New South Wales stating the Commonwealth budget leaves 'a shortfall from our existing agreement of $1.8 billion'? Is the Prime Minister aware that the email also refers to information sent out by the Commonwealth education minister saying, 'You should not rely on these figures for future planning or budgeting purposes'? (Time expired)
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
The honourable member will be aware that, under the Quality Schools package that is part of this budget, government schools in New South Wales will have total funding over 10 years of $31 billion, an 83 per cent increase in funding over 10 years. The question for the honourable member and her colleagues is: do they actually have a schools policy at all? She says she has 27 contradictory and secret deals.
Government members interjecting—
Funny money—Monopoly money, $22 billion she was not prepared to commit to only a few days ago. What we have done is fully implement the Gonski recommendations of nationally consistent needs based funding.
Opposition members interjecting—
Honourable members complain. Certainly David Gonski was there when we announced it. He endorsed it, because he knows that what the Labor Party did was to corrupt his recommendations. They did not deliver the model that he provided at all.
The reality is this: we are committing an additional $18.6 billion to schools over the decade, a 75 per cent increase right across the nation, across government and non-government schools, and we are bringing them to this—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Sydney on a point of order—and she will state the point of order.
Yes, Mr Speaker. It is on relevance, because there is an email and letter that—
The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question.
I seek leave to table this—
No, you cannot seek leave to table when you have risen on a point of order. You can seek leave to table at the conclusion of the answer.
We are delivering over the decade a 75 per cent increase in funding. We are delivering for government schools 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard right across the nation, because of course for these government schools the primary funder is the state or territory government. For non-government schools, we are delivering 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, adjusted in accordance with their SES and, of course, added to with loadings for various matters: disabilities, low-socioeconomic background, English as a second language, Indigeneity and so forth. So it is a very thorough model.
The question for the Labor Party is this: if they say more money needs to be expended, are they saying that the federal government should pay a larger share of government schools' costs or of non-government schools' costs?
Are they saying the Schooling Resource Standard is not high enough or the loadings are not high enough? It has got to be one of those.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
So Labor needs a policy. Twenty-seven secret deals, 27 secret betrayals of Gonski's vision, is not a policy; it is an embarrassment.
Before I call the member for Sydney, the member for Ballarat is warned. I understand the member for Sydney is seeking leave to table a document.
I am, Mr Speaker. I am seeking leave to table this email that went to every principal in New South Wales saying, 'You can't trust the Liberals on education.'
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's fair and fully funded budget is delivering opportunity and security for 24 million Australians, including those in my electorate of Banks?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that, in his electorate of Banks and in the electorates of all honourable members, there are many parents with children who are disabled who are grateful that at long last the parliament appears to be on the point of honouring the commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and fully funding it. That is what we are doing. The Labor government left the National Disability Insurance Scheme unfunded. We are rising to the challenge and ensuring it is funded.
I ask one question for the opposition leader: will Labor support the increase in the Medicare levy to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme? It was only a few years ago, when Labor increased the Medicare levy to partially fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, that the Leader of the Opposition, in a passionate call for bipartisanship, said, 'No-one could be that dumb to put politics before this critical reform.' The question is: will he play politics on this reform? The member for Warringah, at the time the NDIS was announced, as leader of the coalition said, 'This is a reform whose time has come,' and now the time has come to pay for it. The time has come to fund it. The time has come to be fair and honest to all Australians and recognise that we should put the money back in that important policy—that important insurance scheme.
It is fair, vitally fair, to be able to say to all Australian school students, 'You will receive Commonwealth funding consistently, fairly and based on needs, totally transparently, with everything disclosed—not with 27 secret deals conflicting with schoolchildren in one part of the country receiving less than children in another but totally transparent.
Again, it is fair and honest to fully fund and guarantee Medicare to restore indexation and to create a Medicare Guarantee Fund so that every year from 1 July all Australians will see, in priority, the moneys are placed in that fund to fund Medicare and the PBS. Again, we ask whether the Leader of the Opposition will support that measure. Will he do that? After all, he talks a lot about Medicare. Will he back our fairness, our support, for the NDIS, for a fair schools policy and for the guarantee of Medicare?
My question is to the Prime Minister. Just this morning, the Treasurer reintroduced a bill to give big business a handout. Can the Prime Minister please tell Australians what is the updated cost of the government's full 10-year company tax cut?
I thank the honourable member for the question because it brings to mind another important matter that he should note for his stirring address tonight, and that is this: the tax cuts for small and medium business, which employ collectively nearly half of all of the Australian private sector employees, are law—they have been passed. And they cost, over the 10 years, $24 billion, around half of the total of the Enterprise Tax Plan.
So, is the Leader of the Opposition, having spent that $24 billion, tonight going to say that he will repeal it? Is he going to say, to all those hardworking family-owned businesses, that the Labor Party is going to increase tax on them? Is he going to say to them, as they take the incentive and the encouragement to invest and employ, 'Oh, that tax cut was a handout'? Note the language; it is very insightful. He says that a tax cut is a handout. What that means is that the view of the Leader of the Opposition is that every dollar earned by a business actually belongs to the government, and such portion as the government allows the business to retain is a handout.
The Manager of Opposition Business, a point of order?
The question is specifically asking for a 10-year costing on a bill that was introduced to the parliament today. He is not being relevant.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
The question asked quite specifically about a costing on their own legislation—an updated costing for the House. It is a reasonable question and he should be relevant to it.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order. It was a short question, and it did specifically ask, as he says—it did have a short preamble to it as well—and the Prime Minister is on the policy topic of the question, which the Manager of Opposition Business acknowledged, is my consistent ruling. I am listening closely to the Prime Minister, but he is in order.
I regret that the honourable member was not listening closely, because, had he been, he would recall that I said that the business enterprise tax cuts already passed have a 10-year cost of $24 billion, which I said was around half of the total package, and I am reminded by the Treasurer that the second part of the package would have a 10-year cost of $26 billion. So, it is around half of the $50 billion package.
But the fundamental point is this. If we want to ensure that our children and our grandchildren have jobs, if we want to ensure that our businesses can compete, if we want to be sure that people will invest in Australian businesses, then we must have a competitive tax rate. Now, nobody has more eloquently spoken of the need for this than the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that a lower company tax rate means more investment, more productivity, more employment. So motivated and inspired by this eloquence was the member for McMahon that he wrote a whole book about it. The fact is that the Labor Party cannot be trusted on this or any other issue. They promise to do one thing and they do the reverse, just like they promised to fight for the schoolkids bonus every day up to the election. Well, they abandoned it just before the election, as we remember, and they abandoned their commitment to tax reform. They abandoned their commitment to investment, to employment, to Australian workers, just as the Leader of the Opposition used to sell his own members down the river when he was running the AWU. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the right choices the government is making with respect to future taxpayers in ensuring that the government lives within its means?
I thank the member for his question and his keen interest. He knows, like all members on this side of the House do, how important it is for a government to live within its means. When we came to office we inherited a debt that was growing at three times the rate it is today. We inherited expenditure that was growing at some 3½ per cent and more, and as a government we have continued to be able to ensure that that growth in expenditure retains a level of less than two per cent, which is a prudent thing to do in terms of constraining expenditure—a strong fiscal outlook that provides a strong foundation for our nation's finances to be able to guarantee the services that Australians rely on and to give us the ability to absorb future shocks when and where they may come. So, as a result of the budget that we have handed down, on the fiscal side of the equation, Australia continues to be in a better position as a result of the economic and financial management of the Turnbull government.
We have legislated and implemented some $25 billion worth of additional budget improvements since the last election. It included measures those opposite opposed. Mr Speaker, in this budget, as you know, we started from a point where we were $13½ billion behind because of the constant obstruction and frustration of our measures to get expenditure even further under control by those who sit opposite. Despite the obstruction by those opposite as they jeer, sneer and carry on with their usual political games, we have not been distracted from the task we have. The task we have is to bring that budget back to balance. It remains projected to be in balance by 2021.
By the year 2018-19 we will be in a position where the government is no longer borrowing to pay for everyday expenditure. A Treasurer has not been able to say that for a decade. It is very important that when the government borrows it borrows for important new infrastructure. It also borrows, in this case, looking out over the medium term, to ensure that we do not touch and draw down from the Future Fund. Our decision to not draw down on the Future Fund and to ensure we meet those unfunded superannuation liabilities, which will be done through the borrowings because we will borrow at a lesser rate than the Future Fund, is earning for this country. That means that, whilst the gross debt over the next 10 years will be higher for that reason, we are not drawing down on the Future Fund, which will save taxpayers literally for a century, ensuring that we protect the Future Fund. If those opposite had been elected at the last election they would have raided the Future Fund like bandits. (Time expired.)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the additional budget year, what is the updated cost of the Prime Minister's full 10-year company tax cut? Is the Prime Minister asserting it is still $26 billion?
I confirm the answer the Prime Minister gave previously in relation to the original plan. The full cost is $36.5 billion from 1 July 2017.
My question is to the Prime Minister.
You just added $10 billion!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for Indi will resume her seat. The member for McMahon is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting. The member for Indi has the call and she is entitled to ask her question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I would like to congratulate you and your government on the significant investment in rail infrastructure and your commitment to the $100 million upgrade to the Victorian North East line in the budget. My community, led by the Hume Corridor Rail Group and the Border Rail Action Group, have lobbied long and hard for this. They are eager to know: will this funding mean the end of the blame game? The success of this project is dependent on strong collaboration between all levels of government. My request, Prime Minister, is: will you please lead this collaboration and call together all the stakeholders so that the communities of north-east Victoria will actually receive faster, more reliable rail services sooner rather than later?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I want to acknowledge her advocacy and also the advocacy of my colleagues the member for Farrer just across the border and, of course, the member for Murray, the member for Mallee and all of our Victorian MPs and senators who have campaigned so hard to see this substantial infrastructure investment in the honourable member's state.
As part of a $500 million regional rail package for Victoria, my government has committed $100 million to upgrade the North East line running from Melbourne to Albury. My government has listened to the concerns of communities in Seymour, Benalla, Euroa, Wangaratta, Wodonga and Albury, and the coalition has delivered. We know that people want to use the rail more but do not because it is unreliable. We know that the trains go slower than they should because the track is ageing and needs repair. We know that communities want more frequent services. Our $100 million will fix the track. We will re-sleeper, make drainage improvements and other track enhancements to improve the reliability of services and remove speed restrictions. The minister will be there over the next month talking to communities about the project and how to make this important upgrade a reality as quickly as possible. The investment will grow the honourable member's region, better connect people to those towns and centres and to jobs services and opportunities. They will be able to make a doctor's appointment in Melbourne reliably, on time, and they will be able to catch the train to the footy knowing they will be there in time for the kick-off.
We are also providing $8.4 billion into the ARTC to build the Brisbane-to-Melbourne inland rail project—a project that will also benefit the communities along the North East line. The inland rail will improve the national land freight network, reducing transport costs for farmers in Indi and Murray, linking those regions to all of the opportunities of domestic and international markets. It will take thousands of trucks off the roads, making all of our highways and, in particular, the streets of Indi and surrounding areas safer.
We are doing more to ensure, as the honourable member is well aware, that the benefits of growth are shared in her electorate. Our Regional Jobs and Investment Packages are helping regions to diversify their economies and grow sustainable employment, including $20 million in the Goulburn Valley. We have also committed $10 million to road upgrades in Indi and, as a telecommunications enthusiast, the honourable member will be delighted to be reminded that we are rolling out 38 mobile phone towers in Indi. There are more than 57,000 premises in Indi that can access the NBN. So our record investments in her electorate and in all honourable members' electorates are creating jobs, growing the economy and, in particular, growing regional economies. You do not need to look further than regional Australia to see our commitment to jobs and growth. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the right choices the government is making to ensure the Australian economy continues to grow to secure more and better paid jobs?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease interjecting.
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. On budget night, I announced the additions to our national economic plan to drive jobs and growth in this country. It is going to support more and better paid jobs because of the growth plan that this government has been pursuing—the growth plan that was endorsed at the last election and the growth plan that we have been implementing as a government: 160,000 full-time jobs in the last six months in the most recent data. This government is committed to the growth that delivers more and better-paid jobs.
Adding to that growth story is a $75 billion investment in infrastructure that boosts the Australian economy right across the country, whether it is in regional Australia or in our major capital cities. Whether it is runways or whether it is roads or whether it is rail, this is a government that is investing in nation-building infrastructure. This includes investing in energy infrastructure such as the national landmark of nation building infrastructure, the Snowy Scheme 2.0. And we continue to invest in our defence industry plan, with some $90 billion in a naval shipbuilding program. When those opposite were on this side of the House they could not even build a boat in a bathtub, because they could not even bring themselves to procure anything when it came to naval shipbuilding
We are backing in small business again with the instant asset write-off, giving them a tax cut. The question for the opposition leader tonight is: is he going to increase taxes on small business by reversing the business tax cut for small- and medium-sized businesses? If he does not do that, he is staring at a $25 billion black hole over the next 10 years, which means, once again, that we know that whatever he promises he can never pay for—just like it was when they were in government before. They would make these big promises about big spending, with no dollars behind them. It is a cruel and vicious hoax.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney!
We have already delivered tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million—that is 3.2 million businesses and that is 6.5 million working Australians who are now working for businesses that are under the burden and will be under the burden of a lower tax rate as a result of the decisions, the right choices, that have been made by this government to secure the better days ahead.
It is true that today we have reintroduced the remainder of our enterprise tax plan. Yes, it will cost $35.6 billion over the next 10 years, and that is an investment in Australia, because we know that, if we can lower the tax rate, that will draw the investment into this country—something those opposite used to believe in. I know the only two people— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I have twice asked the cost of the 10-year company tax cut. Initially the Prime Minister said an extra $26 billion. Then the Treasurer said $36½ billion. Given that $10½ billion was added from one answer to the next, how much is this government actually planning to give away to big business? What is the total cost of corporate tax cuts from 1 July 2017, both legislated and proposed to be legislated by this government?
65.4 billion.
The member for Durack has the call.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides! Members on my left are delaying question time.
Honourable members interjecting—
No, I have called the next question. Members on my left, I will have no choice. I am being as even-tempered as I can be, but I will lower the volume by lowering the number of people in the House of Representatives. To the Treasurer: once you have sat down, once you hit the bench, that is it. The member for Durack has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Health.
Honourable members interjecting—
Member for Durack, resume your seat. The member for McMahon and the member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for McMahon and the member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Will the minister outline the government's commitment to the mental health of all Australians? In particular, how is the government taking action to make sure that Australians receive the essential mental health care that they need?
I want to thank the member for Durack, who has been a passionate advocate for extension of mental health services through rural telehealth to the members of her great electorate. As part of that process, the government committed in the budget $9 million to the extension of rural health services through telehealth and mental health to those people in rural Australia.
In addition to that, mental health is something that I believe brings together people on all sides of this chamber. There are four million Australians—people in every electorate, in every corner of the country—who suffer from mental health issues: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, and manic depression. Most tragically, these often end in suicide, with 3,000 losses a year. As part of that, we have seen over many years the support in a bipartisan fashion for mental health services from different ministers, such as the member for Sturt and the member for Port Adelaide.
This budget continues that tradition with a commitment of $173 million for extension and expansion of mental health services. We have seen $11 million for prevention of suicide at suicide hotspots, something which the Prime Minister himself championed given the tragic experiences in his own electorate.
In addition to that, there is $15 million for mental health research targeted at different states, beginning with Victoria and the work of Pat McGorry and Orygen looking at youth mental health services. There is $5 million for the Black Dog Institute and the Hunter Institute of Mental Health in New South Wales. In Queensland, in the member for Fairfax's electorate, for the Thompson institute and Sunshine Coast university there is additional funding for anxiety and depression in the youth community. In particular, through the veterans health package, we announced $58 million for looking at veterans' suicide and assisting in preventing that terrible scourge. Perhaps most significantly in this budget, we have provided $80 million for addressing psychosocial services outside of the NDIS. This will go to ensuring that there are stronger community support services for those who face the challenge of psychosocial conditions which mean that they simply cannot function on a day-to-day basis.
The NDIS has been fully funded. Outside of the NDIS, now we have committed $80 million to support mental health services and to assist those who would otherwise be suffering, and we are doing it on the basis of matched contribution and funding from the states. This is an important topic that touches every member and every family. I am delighted that this budget, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, continues in the past traditions.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has just announced a $65.4 billion handout to business, including big business. How are you going to pay for it?
I will firstly clear up what appeared to be some confusion on the other side. The government's Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan began last year, on 1 July 2016. The cost over 10 years is, as I described, $50 billion, of which a little less than half, $24 billion, is the cost of the legislated saves—that is, legislated reductions—and that is companies with a turnover of less than $50 million. The balance, of around $26 billion, is for the larger companies that are unlegislated. In terms of 10 years from 1 July 2017, the cost is $65 billion—of which around $29.5 billion is for the legislated saves already, for reductions, for savings for business costs of the budget but legislated reductions—and $35 billion for the balance. Let us be very clear, the answer I gave was absolutely correct: it is a Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan and it began on 1July last year.
Stick a fork in him. He's done.
I'll do it now to you. Leave under 94(a), member for Wakefield.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
I raise a point of order on relevance. My question was: how is the Prime Minister going to pay for the $65½ billion corporate tax giveaway?
All of the costs of the reductions in company tax are fully funded and set out in the budget. They are fully funded. The budget goes into surplus in 2020-21 and remains there over the medium term. That is all set out in the budget papers, and honourable members know it. That is unlike the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which the honourable members opposite did not fund. We are funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are funding our educational commitments. We are funding the guarantee of Medicare. We are funding a reduction in company tax. And we are doing that because we know Australian companies have to be competitive. The fact of the matter is, if honourable members seriously think Australian business can compete with a tax rate of 30 per cent, when other comparable countries are at 20 per cent or 18 per cent—the United States is heading to 15 per cent—they are dreaming. Australian businesses need to be competitive. They need the incentives to invest. They need the incentives to employ. The cost of the company tax cuts are fully calculated, fully taken into account. Those cuts are vital to retaining the competitiveness of Australian business, of Australian workers, to ensure that they get the investment and the jobs they need.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on defence spending in the 2017-18 budget? How will this budget assist the growth of the Australian defence industry and the supply chain to support and create jobs in my electorate of Leichhardt and for many other hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. The member for Leichhardt represents Cairns, as you would know, Mr Speaker, and he has done a terrific job advocating for Cairns in the defence space, in the defence industry, particularly in shipping and sustainment and maintenance of the patrol vessels. Next week, in fact, the Defence Roadshow comes to Cairns, being run by the defence department, to explain to businesses in Cairns how they can get more involved in the global supply chain of these large primes and companies that are setting up in Australia and how they can interact better with defence in order to create jobs, grow their businesses, improve their investments and take part in what is essentially a renaissance in defence industry in this country as a result of the Turnbull government's decisions in defence.
Before we came to power, Labor had reduced defence spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP—as I have said before, the lowest level since 1938, the years of appeasement. In this budget that the Treasurer handed down on Tuesday, defence funding as a share of GDP will hit two per cent in 2020—three years earlier than we promised at the 2013 election. They go very quiet while we actually start telling them the facts about their record versus our record. In 2013 we promised that it would be 2023. It will be 2020 when our share of spending on defence as a percentage of GDP will hit two per cent. In fact, it will exceed two per cent. In this year's budget it is laid out that we are increasing military capability, the largest increase in our peacetime history, by $200 billion over the course of the next decade.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro likes to interject. He was part of a government that did not make one decision to build a ship in Australia in six years—not one—and we are building 54. He should be ashamed to be a member of the Labor Party, which reduced our defence spending so dramatically.
In the next 12 months we intend to reach a number of very important milestones. In the third quarter of this year we will choose the combat management system for our new future frigates. The preferred tenderer for the offshore patrol vessels will be announced in the next few months. That will be chosen, starting at Osborne and then moving to Henderson. The preferred design of the nine future frigates: a $35 billion program will be decided in the next 12 months, early next year. And we expect to make the decision about which company will build the iconic combat reconnaissance vehicles, known as the LAND 400 project. On all of these decisions we are ahead of schedule—creating jobs, encouraging investment and bringing businesses to Australia, like Marand in Victoria, benefiting through the Joint Strike Fighter program, and Taylor Bros in Tasmania. The list is endless, and it is just good news.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Just in question time today, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have said that the cost of the government's 10-year corporate tax cut is $26 billion, $36½ billion, then $35.6 billion, then $65.4 billion, and in their latest answer it was back at $35 billion. Prime Minister, how much will the 10-year figure cost taxpayers at the next election?
What that question reveals is the Leader of the Opposition's persistent, desperate manner of misrepresenting everything that he has been told. He asked me what the cost of the Ten Year Enterprise Tax Plan was from its beginning, from 2016—it began in 2016. Then he asked what it will cost 10 years from 2017. In each case he was given the accurate answer. The fact of the matter is this: over the first 10 years of the enterprise tax plan, which began at the beginning of the current financial year, the cost to the budget of the legislated cuts is about $24 billion. That is legislated. Now, tonight, is the Leader of the Opposition going to announce that those reductions in company tax for small and medium companies will be repealed? That is the first question—because they employ collectively around half of the private sector workforce, and those workers depend on their businesses investing, growing and employing. He is going to have to tell us whether he is going to repeal those legislated tax cuts.
The reality is that to remain competitive we need to have a competitive company tax regime. All of our tax changes are fully funded, fully costed and set out in the budget. They are all there, unlike Labor's, and by 2020-21 we are in surplus to the tune of $7.4 billion. So that is why our budget is fair. It is fair to Australian workers; it is fair to Australians facing disabilities; it is fair to Australians needing to have their guarantee of Medicare and the PBS; it is fair to schoolchildren, who need to be assured that Commonwealth funding is needs based, fair, consistent and equitable right across the nation; and it is fair to build the infrastructure we need for the 21st century—and to do all of that and to live within our means and not throw a mountain of debt, as Labor would, on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. That is the big difference. This is a fair budget and it is a responsible budget. It delivers the economic growth, it delivers the opportunity and it delivers the security that Australians deserve.
Before I call the member for Dunkley, I would like to recognise, in the southern gallery, the Rotary Adventure in Citizenship students from right across Australia, who have been in Canberra all of this week. I welcome them on behalf of all members.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is for the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on the government's investment in major projects right across the country? How is the government's $75 billion infrastructure package going to boost productivity and increase livability in our states and territories, including in my electorate of Dunkley?
I thank the member Dunkley, who has a strong interest in infrastructure. I well remember being with him to announce the $4 million commitment for a study into the electrification of the Frankston line. With his commitment to infrastructure, he will welcome the $75 billion commitment to infrastructure spending in this budget. It is an infrastructure package that delivers benefits for our nation: in Western Australia a $2.3 billion package including nearly $800 million for the Thornlie and Yanchep lines extensions, subject to business cases being assessed by Infrastructure Australia; a billion dollar package in Victoria including over $500 million for regional rail, including the Geelong line; and $30 million for a business case into a rail connection between Melbourne city and Tullamarine airport. If there is rail from the city of Sydney to Sydney Airport, rail from the city of Brisbane to Brisbane Airport and rail being built from Perth to Perth Airport, then a city like Melbourne, a major city, deserves a rail connection to the airport. That is why we have committed $30 million for business case funding for this project. This is a national government committing to national infrastructure projects including $8.4 billion for the Inland Rail and a national rail—
The member for Lyons on a point of order.
I raise a point of order on relevance: the minister is talking about infrastructure for the national program, but he has not mentioned Tasmania.
The member for Lyons will resume his seat. It is a frivolous point of order. If he repeats it, he will be ejected from the chamber.
A $10 billion national rail program, with money starting to flow from 2019-20, that recognises that in our major cities around Australia there are rail projects that have the capacity to move people more efficiently and quickly and are city shaping. This is a major commitment to Australia's cities and to their surrounding regional areas. Of course, Western Sydney airport is a $5.3 billion equity commitment for a project that stayed in the too hard basket for too long. This government is committing to build Western Sydney airport with a $5.3 billion equity commitment.
Mr Speaker, you are seeing a significant shift to a greater use of equity and loan investment in this budget, in our approach to infrastructure. You are seeing a commitment to national priorities that no one state government can deliver, such as the inland rail running right along the eastern seaboard—running inland through Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland—and supporting a mode shift in freight from road to rail. National infrastructure priorities are being delivered in this $75 billion infrastructure spend. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Just on this $65.4 billion 10-year big business handout, Prime Minister how much will flow to overseas shareholders?
To deal with some of the matters, including the ones raised by the Leader of the Opposition: the government's tax plan, which delivers the incentive in our economy for businesses to invest in the country, including attracting foreign capital to invest, which deals with the matter the member opposite has raised, is also subject, over the medium term, to a tax-to-GDP cap of 23.9 per cent. What I am suggesting to the opposition, in how this measure is funded, is that our government is also committed over the medium term to ensuring that our tax-to-GDP rate remains below 23.9 per cent.
But the question that the opposition leader has to answer tonight is will he commit to the same thing, or will he allow taxes as a share of the economy to grow and grow and grow and grow? He has already spoken on the subject of tax, which he has raised in his question—on tax issues he has raised in his question. He has also made some bleatings about the deficit levy. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, and I particularly remind the shadow Treasurer on this issue, that he said—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Just before I recognise the Leader of the Opposition—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney, on cue, interjects—and for those interjecting: those who interject persistently are going to be dealt with. I have given fair warning. A couple have gone already. Do not be surprised if you interject and you are out of the chamber straight away. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
On relevance: I simply asked the Prime Minister or the Treasurer—in fact, anyone over there—if they could answer how much of the $65 billion corporate tax break is going to foreign shareholders, full stop.
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition, as I have to many others making points of order on relevance, that the question had a preamble. It did have a specific question. The Treasurer is on the policy topic. He is in order. The questioner cannot demand that the minister answering the question answer it in the way they would like them to. He is on the policy topic, and he has the call.
So the Leader of the Opposition needs to confirm if he will commit to the 23.9 per cent tax-to-GDP cap. Will he confirm that he will reverse $29.8 billion in small- and medium-sized business tax cuts? Will he reverse those and will he increase taxes on small businesses tonight and, as a result, cost jobs in small business around the country? And will he go back and, in particular, will the shadow Treasurer go back on his word when he said in relation to cutting the personal income tax rates that were put up with the deficit levy in 2014-15:
We don't like it and we don't support it.
He said:
Paul Keating … started the process of reducing those marginal tax rates to make us more competitive as a nation in a globalised world. That's the direction we should be heading in.
So the question for the Leader of the Opposition tonight is: is he going to go in the opposite direction to that which Paul Keating said the country should go in?
He has already said that they want to go in a different direction on company tax than the one which Paul Keating said they should go in. Tonight, is he going to commit to lower taxes or do what the Labor Party always does and jack up taxes? There are only two groups that seem to be unhappy when it comes to the government's budget: the Labor Party and the big banks.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is supporting jobs in regional Australia, particularly in the agricultural sector? And is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to existing and future jobs in regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Dawson?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As we know, we have a substantial investment in regional Australia. There is Inland Rail at $8.4 billion, to make sure that we can move the product around that is part of a nation that has increased its agricultural production by 31 per cent since the coalition government has been in power. Under the coalition government we have seen 23.7 per cent growth in agricultural production to December last year, and the coalition government has seen free trade agreements with Korea, China and Japan.
But the member also asked the question about if there are any threats to any further jobs, especially in regional areas, such as Dawson. And we have one—Indigenous land use agreements. Indigenous land use agreements have been deemed by a court case in Western Australia not to be able to be upheld unless they have a unanimous decision against all participants, which is completely different to what the democratic process of having a majority decision is. This is something that we know everybody believes is unfeasible and that we have to get changed.
In fact we have even seen statements by the Leader of the Opposition that clearly state that they do not believe in this and that legislation has to go through to redeem this situation, and to make sure that we go into bat for the steelworkers at Arrium and for the coalminers of Central Queensland—because we believe in coalmines. But what is happening instead is that we can all hang around tonight to listen to the Leader of the Opposition babble on. We can all listen to him, but what the people in Central Queensland want to hear, what the coalminers want to hear and what the steelworkers at Arrium want to hear is that he will resolve this issue with regard to Indigenous land use agreements.
He can do it right now. Today, in the chamber in the other place, they have had a vote for extension of hours. The Labor Party is doing everything in their power to stop helping labourers. The labourers want to go to work on Friday but the Labor Party does not! The labourers want to go to work on Friday, but the Labor Party does not—they do not want to stand up for the steelworkers. They do not want to stand up for the coalminers. They do not believe in coalmining anymore. So much so that we have the Australian Workers Union leaving the Australian Labor Party—they are leaving you!—because the Australian Workers Union recently realised that the Australian Labor Party does not believe in labourers anymore. There is no longer a belief in labourers!
And what does the member for Hunter do? Is he standing up for his coalminers? No! What does the member for Shortland do? Is he standing up for his coalminers? No! What does the leader of the Labor Party do?
Opposition members interjecting—
Turn around, old trout! Turn around and have a listen! Are you going to stand up for your labourers? Are you going to stand up for the people of Central Queensland? Oh—
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is now warned! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
I do not really have a point of order; I just thought he needed to take a breath.
Honourable members interjecting —
The Deputy Prime Minister will not seek to instruct me from the front bench. He is warned! The Manager of Opposition Business will need to leave under 94(a).
The member for Watson then left the chamber.
I accept your admonishment, Mr Speaker. But the question is whether the leader of the Labor Party is going to stand up for labourers tonight? Is he going to stand up for farmers? Is he actually going to stand up for the steelworkers at Arrium, because he has not stood up for them today? He has left them hanging today. He will not go back to work on Friday for the steelworkers. He will not go back to work on Friday for the coalminers. He does not believe in labourers any more than the Labor Party. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the answer to the same question, the government has given five different answers to the full updated cost of its big business handout. Why didn't any of these numbers appear in the budget papers or the Treasurer's speech on Tuesday night?
The Leader of the Opposition thinks he can get away with this consistent misrepresentation of everything. He will not stick to a promise. There is not a word that he will not break. There is not a statement that he will not misrepresent. The Treasurer and I have accurately described the 10 year cost of the Enterprise Tax Plan from 2016, which is when it began, and then the Treasurer updated that for a decade from 1 July 2017. It is a ten-year Enterprise Tax Plan which is in operation and began on 1 July last year. So the answer I gave was absolutely accurate and consistent with what the government has produced. The Leader of the Opposition's pathetic attempt to misrepresent this is pathetic. It is so desperate.
The real issue here is, do you want Australia to be competitive or not? Do you want Australian businesses to invest? And do you want foreign investors to invest in Australia? Because we are a massive importer of capital and if we do not have a competitive tax rate then we will not see investment in Australia. We will lose jobs and we will lose opportunities. The sheer hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this point and the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to deny everything he has stood for in the past—this is a man who 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.
Well, what has changed in the last six years?
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. He will simply state the point of order.
My point of order is on relevance. I simply asked, 'Where does the $65.4 billion or any figure appear in the budget?'
The Prime Minister is completely in order. I caution the Leader of the Opposition. He has latitude as a leader, he knows that, but I have said to him on a number of occasions that it is not an opportunity to repeat the question.
The budget is presented with both the four-year forward estimates and the medium-term projections, consistent with the practice of many years. The honourable member understands that. The fact is that the honourable member, the Leader of the Opposition, is attempting now to eat every single word he has ever uttered when he was in government about company tax. This is a man who said:
Friends, corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.
Of course, his colleague, the member for McMahon, said:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.
And, he said in 2013, 'Our company tax rate is now above the OECD average at 30 per cent. It is how the rate compares to that of our competitors that counts.' That was true in 2013, it is even more true in 2017 and it will be even more true in the years to come. The truth is, we need to allow our businesses to compete and they need a competitive tax rate— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney-General. Will the minister update the House on how the government is securing Australia's economic future by making changes to the Native Title Act? How will these amendments create jobs and opportunity for Australia while giving certainty to native title rights holders?
I thank the member for Capricornia for that question and her interest in this issue. As the Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, Indigenous land use agreements provide job opportunities, infrastructure and economic developments for hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Australians. They also facilitate vitally important projects which create thousands of jobs for the wider community. We remain firmly committed to Indigenous land use agreements. But a recent decision in McGlade, a decision by the Federal Court, has resulted in massive uncertainty throughout Australia for all native title and industry stakeholders. This uncertainty will affect at least 126 Indigenous land use agreements, creating continued uncertainty for tens of thousands of our fellow Australians. It is absolutely vital that this parliament moves quickly to protect the opportunities and the projects that are made possible by the ILUA system, and it is absolutely vital that this is done in a timely manner.
Just to give you an example from my home state of Western Australia of what is at stake here: the agreement which the court decision related to was a single Noongar settlement, which has put at risk $1.3 billion in benefits to 30,000 Noongar people across Western Australia. This is opportunity that this community needs. To deal with this, we have introduced urgent amendments to the Native Title Act to resolve the legal uncertainty that has been created by the courts. This uncertainty can only be resolved by the expeditious passage of this bill through the parliament. We provided the Senate with the opportunity this morning to pass this bill quickly—to pass this bill this week. We asked for the Senate to sit until this bill passed so we could resolve the uncertainty for literally hundreds of thousands of Australians and members of the Indigenous communities around the country.
The Labor Party have said that they will support our changes in this bill. Every significant stakeholder is urging this parliament to take action, including the Queensland Labor government, which has written to the Prime Minister begging him to take immediate action to deal with this. Inexplicably, in the Senate today, Labor Party senators refused to debate the bill this week. What this means, because we have Senate estimates intervening, is that the Senate will no longer be able to deal with this until the middle of June. So the billions of dollars in investment, the tens of thousands of jobs and the futures of Indigenous Australians all around the country remain in limbo because Labor Party senators refused to work on Friday. That is what is happening. Labor Party senators will not work till midday tomorrow and as a result have created this future uncertainty for our fellow Australians. It is an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House what gross debt is projected to rise to in dollar terms by 2027-28?
I refer the member to page 7-9 of the statement, which says:
The total face value of CGS—
Commonwealth government securities—
on issue is projected to rise to $725.0 billion by 2027-28.
The face value of CGS on issue is projected to rise to a within-year peak of around $649 billion in 2021, which is what I confirmed to the House yesterday. It is important to understand, on these figures, that from 2018-19 the Commonwealth will no longer be raising new debt to pay for things that are everyday expenditure, because from 2018-19 the net debt peaks and comes down. I confirm that the net debt at the end of that period is projected to fall to 8.5 per cent of GDP, or $255.8 billion.
When the Howard-Costello government paid back Labor's debt, they paid back the $96 billion in net debt. That was the debt that was paid back by the Howard-Costello government. It was the former Treasurer, the member from Lilley, who began the process of revving the debt up again. We have been able to get the debt that we have inherited, which was growing at three times the rate that it is now, under control.
Under the budget I announced on Tuesday night, the net debt will fall. It will fall to just 8.5 per cent of GDP.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned!
Within one year from now the Commonwealth will no longer be paying for everyday expenditure by raising new debt. Importantly, around $85 billion of the debt that was referred to for the 725 is to ensure that we do not raid the Future Fund. As a result, a century of taxpayers will not have to pay additional tax to meet our unfunded superannuation liabilities.
The other additional debt that is represented there is to pay for important infrastructure projects—infrastructure which is building our nation, infrastructure which is growing our economy and infrastructure which is supporting more and better-paid jobs. The only debt those opposite are interested in is the debt from putting everyday expenses on the credit card. From 2018-19, the Turnbull government will not be doing that. The Turnbull government will be reducing our net debt, just like the Howard-Costello government was doing, and we are doing it by keeping our expenditure under control to less than two per cent of GDP. The rate of growth in gross debt has fallen by two-thirds under this government. This is a government that can be trusted with our nation's finances. The member opposite needs to tell the Australian people how he is going to fund his empty promises. It is another cruel hoax on the Australian people. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. How will the government's reform to skilled visas grow jobs in our economy?
I thank the honourable member for his question and the hard work he does in his electorate, supporting young people, in particular, into work. At the heart of every decision that this government makes, we want to support Australians into work. We want to make sure that we can help those young apprentices. We want to make sure that we can help people across society get a job, because that will provide a better future not only for them but also for their children, their families and our country.
We announced the abolition of the 457 visa program, which had ballooned under Labor. Labor's dodgy 457 visa program saw all sorts of rorts and rackets presided over by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the then employment minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments. At the same time he was pretending to be a friend of the Australian worker, he was bringing foreign workers into our country in the tens of thousands. That is what this Leader of the Opposition did.
Today we see another demonstration of the slippery approach of this Leader of the Opposition, who will seek to misrepresent any fact. That is what he did when he was a union leader as well. We know that his dodgy approach to the truth has not started just today. We know that this has been a lifetime of practice by this Leader of the Opposition, and it frustrates those people opposite, behind him. In particular it frustrates the member for Grayndler to a point where I think we need to watch the member for Grayndler over the coming few weeks. I think he has got his eye on this Leader of the Opposition. I think that is what is happening here. I think it is pretty obvious what is going on here. He realises that this dodgy Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted by workers. The Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that when he ripped off workers through dodgy union agreements. He demonstrated that when he was employment minister, when he said to the Australian workers, 'I want to put you first.' At the same time he was doing deals with McDonald's and other employers to bring foreign workers into those jobs which should have been filled by Australian workers. We saw it time and time again in question time, as we saw demonstrated today.
This budget is about getting more jobs and supporting Australian businesses to employ more Australian workers. We support small business through tax cuts because we want them to employ more workers. We want them to be profitable, to set up more businesses around the country and to provide support to local communities. That is what this government has done, and no words misconstrued by this Leader of the Opposition will change that outcome. The Australian public, just as workers and just as Labor members opposite have quickly worked out, know what this Leader of the Opposition is about—and I predict this: he will not change his spots.
My question is to the Prime Minister. If the deficit levy on high-income earners was necessary when the deficit for the coming year was $2.8 billion, in Joe Hockey's first budget—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is warned. I want the member for Rankin to ask his question without a barrage of interjections so I can hear it. Start again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. If the deficit levy on high-income earners was necessary when the deficit for the coming year was $2.8 billion, in Joe Hockey's first budget, why isn't it necessary when the deficit for the same year is $29.4 billion, or 10 times bigger, in this budget?
I thank the honourable member for his question. When the temporary deficit levy was first proposed, in 2014, honourable members opposite opposed it root and branch. They described it as a 'deceit tax' and said it was a shocking idea. They finally came around and voted for it on the basis that it would expire after three years. And now they are saying that, in this budget, we are abolishing the deficit levy. That is absolutely untrue. The deficit levy had a term of three years, which expires on 30 June this year. So, as a matter of principle, consistency and integrity, the opposition have to recognise that the deficit levy was one they opposed and denounced as a deceit; they then voted for it on the basis that it had a three-year term; and now they want to make it permanent.
The deficit levy raises a little bit over $1 billion a year. It is no substitute for increasing the Medicare levy by half a per cent, which raises, on current numbers, around $4 billion a year. It is not the answer to funding the NDIS, because, simply, there are not enough taxpayers earning over $180,000. Of nine million plus tax filers in Australia, around 700,000 file returns with incomes of $180,000 or more. So the temporary deficit levy, whatever its merits at the time—contested, of course, by the Labor Party—is not the answer to the long-term funding.
I want to make a point about the long-term funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, because this is related to the issue of fiscal viability. The Leader of the Opposition tonight will no doubt say that Labor will not proceed with the rest of the Enterprise Tax Plan and claim that that will somehow or other enable them not to increase the Medicare levy. Let us be quite clear about this. Labor has already spent the proceeds of the Enterprise Tax Plan. They have already spent every cent and they were still $16½ billion further in deficit—an important point. The second important point is: does anyone seriously imagine that, in an environment where one country after another is reducing their corporate tax rate, we will be able to have, 10 years from now, a company tax rate at 30 per cent, perhaps double that of the United States? Does the Labor Party seriously want to put every Australian business out of business? The reality is we have to make our tax system competitive. Labor used to understand it— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister outline to the House how the government's $75 billion of infrastructure investment over a decade will benefit my electorate of Wide Bay and all of Australia? Are there any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Wide Bay. As a former police officer, he well understands the importance of investing in good infrastructure. He knows that good infrastructure will change people's lives and save people's lives, particularly on our roads. I congratulate him for the work he is doing on behalf of his community.
The government is investing $75 billion over 10 years in infrastructure across our nation. I am delighted to be the minister who is delivering this record infrastructure spend around our nation. As part of the Turnbull-Joyce government I want to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer for the budget they handed down this week, which will deliver right across Australia.
In relation to the member's own electorate, the Bruce Highway is an issue he is particularly focused on. This budget continues to deliver on our record $6.7 billion investment in the Bruce Highway over 10 years. We are getting on with the job of delivering those projects right along the coast of Queensland.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler interjects. The member for Grayndler continues to interject and suggest that somehow we are spending less than he did on the Bruce Highway. But his own press release from 24 April 2013 says, 'with this latest announcement taking our total commitment to this vital economic lifeline to $5.7 billion'. That is $5.7 billion in 'A Ten Year Plan for a Better, Safer Bruce Highway'. We have a 10-year plan where we are spending $6.7 billion—$1 billion more than the member for Grayndler ever intended to spend under his 10-year plan for the Bruce Highway.
The member for Wide Bay asked about projects in his own electorate. The budget included $11.2 million for the Bruce Highway and Wide Bay Highway intersection, which he will be very pleased about. It included $530 million for the Pine River to Caloundra Road upgrade. I know the member for Petrie is very proud of that, as well as the members for Fairfax, Fisher, Dickson—they are all very happy. The member for Longman—she is happy as well. The member for Longman on the other side is very happy with the upgrade. Of course, the member for Petrie will be very excited about the $120 million for the Deception Bay interchange upgrade which was also announced in the budget. On top of that, there is $182 million for the Bruce Highway safety upgrade. This week of all weeks—National Road Safety Week—that upgrade will help to save lives and reduce road trauma, which I am sure all members join me in recognising.
The Treasurer released a fair budget. It is a budget that will help to change lives and save lives with our infrastructure spend. He has made the right choices. There is a lot more in this budget than perhaps those opposite have recognised yet. There is $20 billion for the rail program: $8.4 billion for investment in inland rail and $10 billion for the national rail program. We will be working with the sates to improve connectivity across our nation. There is more than $5 billion to deliver the long-awaited Western Sydney Airport. We are creating jobs right across Australia. We are delivering a safer, stronger, better Australia where everyone can get ahead. We are building for our future while others are whingeing about it.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That further statements in relation to the death of Mark Colvin be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I have two statements to make to members. On Tuesday, as you would recall, I outlined housekeeping arrangements for the budget speech and reminded members of the usual arrangements and, importantly, courtesies that applied to the Treasurer's speech later that evening and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply this evening. Can I say that I think the House conducted itself well during the Treasurer's speech. With respect to this evening, as with all proceedings of the House, I remind members that the member with the call, the Leader of the Opposition, is entitled to speak without interruption. I remind members again that should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94(a), in accordance with the same arrangement for the Treasurer's speech the member will be advised by written note and should leave the chamber immediately.
I also have a statement regarding the Address-in-Reply presentation to the Governor-General for information to honourable members. I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply at Government House at 5 pm on 23 May. The sitting will be suspended at 4.30 pm. I will be glad if the mover and the seconder, together with other honourable members, accompany me to present the address.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 49 of 2016-17 entitled Apprenticeship Training—alternative delivery pilots: Department of Education and Training.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government delivering a Budget lacking fairness.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
For this side of the House, fairness is not something that you learn from Crosby Textor. It is not something that you just say. It is not something that you just repeat over and over again in the hope that somebody will believe what you are saying. It is not a slogan. It is not something to try and get you through your internal political problems or to try and pump up a Newspoll. On this side of the House, fairness is something that we believe; on this side of the House, fairness is something that we cherish; and on this side of the House, fairness is something that we fight for.
We are witnessing the pitiful political existence that those opposite live and that they go through, where they have spent all week pretending to be something that they are not. We heard more of that today, with the usual over-rehearsed and poll-driven lines about fairness, security, opportunity and better days ahead. But what we really know—and, more importantly, what the Australian people understand—is that when this Prime Minister says 'fairness' he means a tax cut for the top end of town and a tax hike for people who work and people who struggle.
The government are desperate for us and the Australian community to believe that somehow they have changed and had some kind of big conversion and that all of a sudden they have learned that Australians cherish that fair go as much as we do on this side of the House. But for as long as that big tax cut for people on the highest incomes and that big company tax cut for multinational corporations are in the budget, as they are, we know everything we need to know about this budget and about this government and how they always preference the top end of town over people who work and struggle in this country. They have said over and over again that budgets are about choices, and we agree: budgets are about choices. In this budget, this Prime Minister, this Treasurer and all of these people have chosen millionaires and multinationals over people who work and struggle in this country.
The good news is that I think Australians see through this faux fairness thing that the government is trying to push. I think that Australians understand, when they read about this budget and hear about this budget, that it has the tax cut for the top end of town and for multinationals and it has the tax hike for battlers. But they also understand that this budget contains cuts for schools, cuts to universities, cuts to training, cuts to pensions with the removal of the energy supplement, and all of these sorts of things that make this such an unfair budget.
They also know that, when there is $21 billion in new taxes in this budget, that is the price that they are being asked to pay for four years of debt and deficit blowouts and four years of division, dysfunction and incompetence on that side of the House. That is the price that Australians are being asked to pay—that big tax bill—but the people who are excluded from that effort are the people at the top end—people who earn more than $180,000 a year. Millionaires get $16,400 a year in a tax cut. Australians know that the multinational corporations are excluded from this; they get a tax cut too, and I will come back to that tax cut in a minute. They know that it is the battlers in this country, the people who battle, who are being asked to carry the can.
We heard from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer four different explanations today for how much this company tax cut costs. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer jumped up and had us all wondering who the third stooge was. When they gave these four different answers, they tried to pretend that they were all to different questions, but they were to one question, and the Australian people deserved an answer to this question: how much is the ordinary Australian worker being slugged for this tax cut the government want to give to multinational corporations? Finally we have an answer: over 10 years, the government want to give a $65 billion tax cut to multinationals at the same time as they want people who earn 30, 40 or 50 grand a year to pay more tax. This is the Prime Minister's definition of fairness. Only a Prime Minister as out of touch as this one could possibly think that that is a fair outcome and describe this budget as fair.
When Bill Shorten stands at this dispatch box tonight—and we are looking forward to the speech that the Leader of the Opposition will be giving—he will propose to extend that deficit levy, and I think that is only fair. If you want to talk about fairness, fairness means not allowing millionaires to pay less tax while this Prime Minister asks workers to pay more tax. That $21 billion in extra taxes announced from that dispatch box on Tuesday night would not be necessary were it not for the mess that this mob has made of the budget. The deficit for the coming year is 10 times bigger under the current Treasurer than it was predicted in the Liberals' first budget under Joe Hockey for the coming year. The deficit for the coming year was $2.8 billion; now it is $29.4 billion. The current Treasurer has done the impossible and made Joe Hockey look like a genius.
Those opposite do not like to talk about the other facts that are in the budget. These facts were not in the budget speech; they were not in the budget papers, just like the $65 billion figure that we learned about today for the company tax cut. The deficit for the year that we are in, that is about to finish, has more than tripled. Net debt has blown out by over $100 billion for that year. Gross debt will hit $725 billion in the 10-year horizon of this budget.
Last night when the finance minister was on the Andrew Bolt program he was asked six times: what is the gross debt number? He would not answer that very simple question. You would think the finance minister would be prepared to answer that. I will read out only two of those answers. Bolt said: 'I am after the figure that you would have in your mind as to what that figure would be.' Cormann said: 'Well, what I am saying to you is that we are working to keep gross debt as low as possible.' Bolt said: 'I do not doubt it; I am just after the figure. I do not know why it is a secret. I would like the figure, that is all.' Cormann said: 'The Treasurer has made the administrative judgement that he has made.' That was his answer to the question, what does gross debt reach at the end of the 10-year period? We finally learned today from the Treasurer that there is three-quarters of a trillion dollars in gross debt. That has never happened in the history of this country. This is record gross debt under this mob, who like to claim that they are the superior economic managers. We are talking about three-quarters of a trillion dollars in gross debt.
The finance minister obviously was too ashamed of this record to even mention the gross debt figure. It is good now that the Treasurer has put that on the public record. We already knew, of course; we watch these things very closely. That is a mountain of debt and there is a whole range of other figures in the budget which trouble us greatly. When it comes to net debt, we will have record net debt for the next three years. All of these figures, including the interest bill on the debt, are extraordinarily high.
Before Crosby and Textor told them to start talking about fairness, they used to talk all the time about 'jobs and growth'. The inconvenient thing about that of course is that in this budget all the key measures for jobs and growth have been downgraded, so we have GDP growth downgraded, wages growth downgraded. The Treasurer has the nerve to say 'I have been listening to people who are worried about their wages'. The wages are at record lows. The wages number in this budget has been downgraded. All of these key figures are worse now than in the budget just last year. I think perhaps the most damning number in the budget is the one that says on the government's own figures that they expect there to be almost 100,000 fewer jobs in our economy over the forward estimates than they expected just one year ago. And they have got the nerve to stand up and talk about jobs and growth while they quietly downgrade their expectations for jobs and growth.
As the member for Jagajaga says—and the member for Jagajaga is always right—they have just changed their slogan, just like the 'jobs and growth' slogan was a total sham from beginning to end. They tried to perpetrate that whole fraud on the Australian people that they were for jobs and growth when we had record underemployment. We have got unemployment as high as it was in the GFC. Everyone over here knows these key indicators, because they are the people-facing part of the economy. These numbers measure the parts of the economy that people feel—underemployment, wages, unemployment and all of these sorts of things. But as the member for Jagajaga said, 'jobs and growth' was just a slogan, and we know that 'fairness and opportunity' is just a slogan as well. We know it is just something that Crosby and Textor typed out and handed to them. To the Prime Minister's great surprise, he learned that the Australian people care about fairness and they care about opportunity. But this 'fairness and opportunity' slogan is just as big a sham. It is just as big a hoax. It is just as big a con as the slogan it replaced, that 'jobs and growth' slogan.
The Australian people want a budget where fairness is more than a slogan. The Australian people do not just want budgets about fairness; they want this parliament to believe what it says about fairness, like we do on this side of the House. That means better schools. It means access to university. It means decent training. Australians want a budget where fairness is more than a slogan. That is what we on this side of the House will deliver, and we will hear more about that from the Leader of the Opposition tonight.
As the member for Hunter, who is just leaving here now, knows well, I grew up in a small country town not far from here. Like most kids, we talked at school often about what was fair and what was not. We would talk about having a fair go, a fair crack of the whip, but not once—not once—did that mean taking the fastest runner and making them run slower. Not once did that mean taking the smartest kid and forcing them to play dumb. Not once did that mean taking the richest kid and taking away their money. No, it meant simply giving everyone a fair go. In fact, as one of the most revered leaders on the other side of the House in recent years once said, it is about giving them a fair suck of the sauce bottle so that everyone has their opportunity to be the best.
It turns out that Labor used to think that giving everyone a fair go was the right thing to do. Hawke and Keating believed that tax cuts—almost halving the company tax—were about giving Australians a fair go. More recently, exactly three years ago today—it was exactly three years ago today—
Mr Watts interjecting—
Could the assistant minister take his seat, please. The member for Rankin was heard in silence. I expect the same courtesy. There is a general warning.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying before I was interrupted, it was exactly three years ago today that the Leader of the Opposition said in this chamber:
I invite you to work with me on a fair—
note the word 'fair'—
and fiscally responsible plan to reduce the tax rate for Australian … business from 30 per cent to 25 per cent—not a 1½ per cent cut; a five per cent cut.
He used the word 'fair'. And other luminaries from the other side agree. One in particular recently wrote:
Small business represents aspiration.
Aspiration—that is what we believe over here. He went on:
It represents people who want to break away from a salaried job …
He then went on to argue for tax cuts. He said, 'A cut in company tax would be a good thing.' In fact, as we just heard, he went on to say it is a Labor thing. Of course, that member was the member for McMahon, in his book——which is worth a read, for all of you over there—called Hearts & Minds.
It was back in 2015 that I went to a tax reform summit hosted by the AFR. I asked if he accepted former Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson's statement that company tax falls hardest on workers. The member for McMahon told the summit:
It's a statement of fact, which I agree with.
That is fair: more for workers. So the member for McMahon used to think that reducing company tax rates was fair, but no longer, it seems.
In fact, what we have seen in recent years is a Labor Party that have lost their moral compass. They no longer believe in giving Australians a fair go. They have called out to the crass calls for pure equality, not fairness but equality, from people like Corbyn and Sanders. Indeed, we just heard an extraordinary speech from the shadow finance minister where he announced a tax increase after railing for four minutes about how bad higher taxes are. They are stoked by intellectuals like Piketty who want to tax aspiration and businesses into oblivion. In fact, this situation is so bad that you have a leader in the Labor Party who thinks it is fair to cut workers' penalty rates. We know that Bill Shorten's idea of fairness is to sell out workers—
The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
We know the Leader of the Opposition's idea of fairness is to sell out workers on penalty rates while he claims, to their faces, that he will look after them. We know that in the case of Cleanevent it took the royal commission to uncover the deal, which was then terminated in 2015 on the application of employees because, in the words of the lawyer from the AWU:
… the only purpose that it—
that is, the Cleanevent agreement—
is currently serving is to deny employees, particularly casual employees, access to penalty rates.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that he believes in and stands up for fairness. Just ask the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms about the Leader of the Opposition's idea of fairness. He saved Chiquita Mushrooms millions from the abolition of overtime rates, amongst other savings. We know that the moral compass of the Labor Party has gone a long way south in recent years.
Turning to the coalition's policy and view of fairness, we do want to give everyone a fair go. That means fully funded programs for our kids at schools and universities. It means fully funded programs for the disabled. It means genuine programs to make housing affordable. We know that, when the Labor Party talks about fully funded programs, it is vapourware. If I turn for a moment to the NDIS, we have said that the Turnbull government will guarantee the NDIS is fully funded by legislating a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. That will provide certainty for NDIS participants. We know that. In contrast, despite a lot of promises, we know the previous Labor government failed to fully fund the NDIS, leaving a funding gap in 2019-20 of $4 billion—a gap which grows each and every year and, in fact, increases to north of $7 billion.
Labor like the claim—and I am sure the shadow finance minister would claim this—that they clearly identified enough other long-term savings to pay for the NDIS. But, when you look at the actual budget papers, they did not link any savings to the NDIS funding. In fact, it was only in a glossy in the 2013-14 budget that we find any funding commitments to the NDIS. I have the glossy here. It looks very impressive; it is called DisabilityCare Australia. In it, under 'Meeting the costs of DisabilityCare Australia', there is a category which is basically the biggest part of the funding for the NDIS, and it is called 'Other long-term savings'. It is a very nice blue colour. It turns out that, in Senate estimates, Treasury officials were asked whether those measures could be listed in detail. The Treasury officials' answer was, 'The short answer is no.' It was totally unfunded, but to 'Other long-term savings' were hitched the hopes and dreams of disabled people across Australia. Many of the other savings that Labor supposedly allocated to the NDIS had actually been announced long before and assigned to other purposes, without any mention of the NDIS whatsoever. I have bad news for those opposite about budgets. You can only spend your money once—not two times, three times or four times. Unfortunately, disabled people across Australia had their money—the money that was supposed to be spent on the scheme to which they had hitched their hopes and dreams—spent many times over by the Labor Party.
In contrast, our additional increase to the Medicare levy will apply from 1 July 2019 and will raise, initially, $3.6 billion, and increase from there. Importantly, as a fairness measure, because this is about fairness, low-income earners will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and will not be impacted by the increase. Because it is a universal insurance scheme, everyone should pay their fair share and contribute to it through the Medicare levy. Australians who can afford to will pay for this scheme. (Time expired)
Fairness should be at the heart of a budget, but you cannot dress up an unfair budget with a three-word slogan. This budget is not fair. The rhetoric does not match the reality. It delivers more for millionaires than it does for the families. It delivers more for multinationals than it does for workers or those seeking work. And despite the government's claim, this budget does not guarantee Medicare. In my region on the Central Coast of New South Wales, less than half of the students there have the opportunity to complete high school. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high at 16.6 per cent, well above the national average. There are close to 10,000 children living below the poverty line. And in pockets of my community around one-third of households have a combined income of less than $600 per week. Communities like mine deserve a fair budget.
I spent most of my working life as a pharmacist in Wyong hospital, working in mental health. I have seen firsthand the harsh reality of inequality and injustice. Is it fair to be discharged from a mental health ward to a caravan or a car or a cave? Is it fair to be lying for hours on a trolley because there are no beds? Is it fair to have to choose which medicine you do not take because you cannot afford to have your prescription filled? Professor Sir Michael Marmot, one of the world's leading public health experts, tells us the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live, work and age matter. Sadly, I see this every day, like with Steve, who spent his final days fighting lung disease on a hospital gurney in the annex of his caravan. His son, who gave up what casual work he had to care for him, was forced to sell his only asset, his own caravan, to pay the park fees. Is it fair to live and die with the pressure to make ends meet? Is it fair that the Central Coast, one of the fastest-growing regions in the state, does not have a palliative care hospice? Is it is fair to spend your last days in the rain in the annex of a caravan?
This budget does not guarantee Medicare. The government will not reverse its unfair cuts to Medicare for three years. But the government's own figures show around 15,000 people on the Central Coast say they have delayed seeing a doctor because of cost, and around 30,000 have delayed or avoided filling a prescription due to cost. Increases in upfront fees and out-of-pocket expenses and delays in processing rebates are hurting people. I have heard from doctors of the impact of the Medicare rebate fees on their patients. This freeze must be reversed immediately. Under Labor's plan, New South Wales' public hospitals would have been $630 million better off, with investment aimed at reducing ED and elective surgery waiting times. Is it fair that Wyong hospital in my electorate is facing privatisation because Liberal governments will not commit to properly funding public hospitals?
Education is the ultimate fair go, yet this budget contains cuts of $22 billion from schools and cuts of $3.8 billion from universities across Australia. Needs-based funding is making a difference in schools, and it must not be at risk. Around half of the students at the University of Newcastle are mature age students, juggling study with the demands of family, work and commuting. They are some of the first in their families ever to have the opportunity for higher education. These cuts hit the regions harder.
In my electorate, the number of people who leave school to pursue a trade is 10 per cent higher than the national average, and yet under this government courses have been stripped from TAFE and there has been an appalling lack of regulation in the VET sector. I heard from Brendan, a keen musician, who is vision impaired. He was enticed to study with Evocca College, but the coursework was clearly not designed for people with disability. After a short period he was forced to withdraw from the course. Years later, he was shocked to discover the experience had left him with a debt of $18,615. Is this fair?
Budgets are about choices, but choice is a privilege. This budget is not fair. The rhetoric does not match the reality—not on the Central Coast nor across Australia. (Time expired)
From some of those stories that the member opposite told it sounds like she should be very happy to see the details in the budget—for the listing of new medicines and for housing.
With the modern Labor Party it is always a case of looking at what they do, not just at what they say. And so it is with fairness. It is actually so fitting that this MPI today was moved by the member for Rankin, who, as we know, was sitting at the knee of the then Treasurer, Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley, when he promised this nation four surpluses that never eventuated when Labor blew the budget, spent the nation's savings and shouldered the next generations with so much intergenerational debt.
I observe that these days the member for Lilley appears to be trying to reinvent himself as some kind of modern-day Australian Bernie Sanders. He wants nothing more than the opportunity to once again run that odd socialist test as to whether it really is possible ever to run out of other people's money. To use the word 'fairness' when what they really mean is old-fashioned class warfare does not really wash in today's Australia. Maybe the member for Lilley will actually be the next Leader of the Opposition. Maybe we will see what happens tonight.
The Labor Party likes to drape itself in the name of 'fairness'. But they are a hollow husk of that Labor Party of old, which used to stand for something. Now they just stand for hypocrisy. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there is nothing fairer than telling Australians the truth—
You must be really proud of your budget; you've spent two minutes talking about us!
The member for Rankin was warned during question time. His speech was listened to in silence; I would expect him to offer the same courtesy—certainly at the same level of volume.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there is nothing fairer than ensuring that Australians are told the truth about the public finances of their country and ensuring, as we have done in this budget, that there are funds committed to deliver the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Who is fairer? The Labor Party, that make big promises but never put the money in place for the NDIS? Or this government, that delivers the funding and the certainty for people with disabilities, their carers and their families? Who is fairer? This government, that has just delivered tax cuts for Australia's small- and medium-sized businesses? Or the Labor Party, that I suspect we will see tonight seeking to reverse those changes and just jacking back up the prices and the taxes on small businesses which would otherwise continue to drive this economy and to create so many jobs and opportunities in the years ahead? Who is fairer? The Labor Party, that bastardised the Gonski review and the Gonski name by coming up with 27 different secret deals around the country, not visible to any parents or to most schools? Or this government, that finally delivered the consistent and transparent approach to school funding that Gonski originally intended?
I have 46 schools across my electorate of Brisbane, and under the school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget well over 40 of those schools will be getting an incredibly significant funding increase. I have a handful of local schools that will receive approximately the same funding going forward, and I do have one local school that will receive a cut of about one per cent in future years. With all of those facts in mind, I encourage all parents around Brisbane to check out the online estimator and to see for themselves how much better off their school will be—in fact, to look at the funding for so many different schools around Brisbane and how that will change.
I know that the school funding announcements made by this government and funded in this budget are eminently fair. We are creating a system that is equitable and needs based, as David Gonski originally intended, whereas Labor had such little confidence in their school funding model that they kept the numbers secret. The transparency of school funding we are providing is the key. It demonstrates the fairness for all to see and it stands in stark contrast to the unfair approach of Labor when it comes to school funding.
With the modern Labor Party you cannot just listen to what they say; you have to look at what they do. What was their record on fairness when they had the responsibility of being in government? No more surplus and no more savings—all gone, thanks to the class warfare of those opposite. Thanks to the member for Rankin, who was with the member for Lilley, the then Treasurer, all the way. Labor set Australia on this course where the next generations will be saddled with their mistakes. And they talk about fairness? We will see tonight.
I thought that there were going to be 26 billion reasons why this budget was unfair, but then during question time that blew out to 36.5, 35.6 and then ended up at 65.4 billion reasons why this budget was unfair. I guess we are glad that question time ended, because that spendometer was about to blow up because it just kept rolling along. Then I thought to myself, where has this term 'fairness' come from? Where is this lightbulb on the road to Point Piper conversion? Then the member for Rankin drew to my attention a wonderful article in TheDaily Telegraph.
Did they sit around at the harbour and did they sit around on the yachts, thinking, 'I think we need to be a little fairer?' No, they did not. They wrote a cheque to Crosby Textor for $200,000 and said, 'You need to tell us what we need to put in the budget.' In TheDaily Telegraph on 8 April all was revealed.
The Daily Telegraph has learned the Liberal Party commissioned research firm Crosby Textor to help Mr Morrison formulate his second Budget, at a cost of—
a lazy $200,000—a round of drinks for those opposite.
Mr Morrison drew on the research to help him convince Mr Turnbull of the likely public support—
wait for it—
for meaningful changes to housing affordability in the Budget.
… … …
The research indicated that Australians were focused on future job growth for their children and were concerned their wages growth appeared to be flat …
This is a government that does not walk in the same shopping centres that we do. They do not go to the same pubs and clubs. They do not hang out at the same coffee shops and talk to the real workers in the community—the 'shoppos' out there. What they do is pay a cheque for $200,000 from the donors, from the member for Mackellar, who is in the chamber, and then turn around and say: 'Fairness? What is this term "fairness" that you talk about? Where are we? Where art thou, great term of "fairness"? We must put it in the budget!' That is the definition of 'fairness'.
Those members of the government who are sitting here today think giving a millionaire a tax cut of $16,400 is fair—that is what they think—while someone who lives in Redbank Plains, in my electorate, earning $65,000 will be hit with a tax hike of $325. Families in Forest Lake will be part of the 100,000 families who will be worse off thanks to your cuts in family tax benefits. A pensioner living in Springfield Lakes will now have to pay $355 more per year. Millionaires living on the north shore in Point Piper, near the ocean, will then get a huge, huge tax cut, but those living in my electorate can slug it through the nose. That is your definition of it. Get up and defend that. Stop the carry-on about what Labor did in government and defend your own pathetic budget.
We know that under this government more Australians will pay the highest amount of tax in our Commonwealth's history. We know that under this government record net debt will peak over the next three years—gross debt equivalent to $20,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Compared to last year's budget, GDP growth is down, employment is down, wages growth is down and, as we heard from the shadow finance minister, 100,000 jobs have gone under your watch. Do not lecture anyone about your economic credentials. Do not get up in this chamber and talk about fairness in any way, shape or form.
We know about the Queensland context. I listened to the member for Brisbane, waiting with bated breath for him to talk about infrastructure, of course. Like those opposite he remained completely silent when it came to Cross River Rail, which would benefit his own constituents. There was not one dollar allocated whatsoever. They are not interested at all. They are not interested in allocating funds. They are not interested in public transport. He is not interested in helping his residents. He is only interested in one thing: defending the millionaires in Australia and the multinationals, time and time again. When it comes to this government and when it comes to the member for Brisbane, the member for Robertson, the member for Mackellar and the member for Moore, we know that millionaires and multinationals come first, second and third. Medicare, schools and working families are always last. That is what you support. Just have the guts to get up and actually defend what you are doing to the Australian community. We know Labor is the party of fairness. We know Labor was built on fairness, and tonight you need to take a good lesson from Bill Shorten and Labor to hear what fairness is all about. (Time expired)
We have sat here and heard about the virtues of the Labor Party and how fair they are. I ask them: how fair is it to not give the most vulnerable Australians the confidence of a fully funded and secure NDIS? Where is the fairness in that? Where is the fairness for the most vulnerable people in this country? I would have thought that each and every one of us who grace this place—the men and women who come into this place—would stand with dignity and fairness and support the most vulnerable people, who need protection in our nation, and give them the confidence of that. That is our responsibility as elected officials, not to play political games at their expense. The member for Lilley might sit there and laugh, but while he was the Treasurer there was a $4 billion deficiency in the funding.
I am not going sit here and attack the member for Lilley. I want to move forward with dignity and respect for the most vulnerable people of this nation. We support them and we will work together to give them confidence. I ask Bill Shorten and all these people on that side to stand with us and support those people, the most vulnerable people in this nation. I would say that there is no Australian in this nation who would not be in support of a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy to support those people that we need to protect. That is the fairness that each and every one of us should be supporting. We should support the $200 million that we are going to put in to help those great professionals that are out there across this nation building the workforce to support those with disabilities. That is what you should come in here and support. You should be supporting the Cheryl Daltons of this world. She is with SBcare in Kingaroy. You should support the Nina Templetons of this world. She is with South Burnett CTC; I have met with her. I have sat in their offices with their staff and with their patients and listened to their heart-wrenching stories and about the support that they provide. Those professionals need the support of a fully funded NDIS. Forget the politics; forget the vitriol; this is about real people's lives. It is not about the next election. Think about that and think about the people who have these disabilities. Go and look them in the eye and give them a fully funded NDIS.
A gentleman just rang me from Roma, reaching out for support. He was reaching out for support and he knows that he will get it because, if we have an NDIS that is fully funded into the future, we will be able to give him the support so he can have a fully-functioning life in a rural community. A young lady from Allora, a small community of just 800 people, came and saw me with tears in her eyes. Her daughter has profound disabilities and was only put on the NDIS in the last couple of months. With tears in her eyes, she told me that she saw a future for her children, not only while she is here but when she has passes on. Her child may live because of the services we provide those young people. That is our responsibility, not the vitriol and childish games that we are seeing here today. This is about you standing up tonight and helping those with a disability—those most vulnerable Australians. Put the politics aside and stand with us, shoulder to shoulder, walk out of this place and say to each and every one of us that we have done the right thing—not play politics. That is fairness. If they are the virtues of fairness that you want to come in here and espouse then let's roll the dice and do it together. Let's do it together as Australians who can walk proudly supporting the most vulnerable. We did that. When Julia Gillard—on your side—brought this to parliament, the member for Warringah supported it. That is what we did. That is what this place should enact: that we should walk out of here supporting those policies that protect the most vulnerable—not sitting here with vitriol and personal attacks but walking forward with those people who support it, because do you know what? Every Australian deserves that, but above all the most vulnerable Australians deserve respect and fairness from each and every one of us. If we do not uphold that then, unfortunately, we have failed not only those people but also the people of Australia. I cannot stand by and let that happen.
What we just heard is four minutes of an absolute lie. Let's go back; you see some of us were here. While you were sitting there waffling on—
The member for McEwen will withdraw that word.
Lie? All right—untruth. Shall we use the term 'mendacious claim'? That is parliamentary. We are allowed that. The National Party and the Liberal Party fought against the NDIS at the start. We have just heard these stories being prattled about. They should read their own budget papers from 2014. It was fully funded—every single bit of it. If people in your communities are only getting access now, that is because for the four years you have been in government you have sat on your hands and done everything you could not to deliver an NDIS. So do not come in here with your faux outrage and pretend that you care, because the evidence shows clearly that you do not. It is—
The member for McEwen will address his comments through the chair.
I am not saying anything about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you were here at the time! I am not going to have people come in here and tell absolute untruths and keep sitting there squawking like some weird little parrot about things that are untrue. He did not—
The member for McEwen will take his seat. The member for Maranoa.
That is unparliamentary.
It is not unparliamentary. Read the book. Truth is so important in here. That is what fails on the other side. What we have seen is this government not even standing up for their own budget. It is two days old and they cannot even stand up for it. Why can't they? Let's just have a look at some of the measures that have been put into this budget—they are absolutely disgraceful. This lot over here, every single one of them, gets a minimum of a $5,000 tax cut while pensioners receive one payment of $75 because the government are squibbing the winter energy concession. In fact, if you look at their budget papers that they so proudly talk about—but none of them want to talk; none of their economic team are here—pensioners are $366 a year worse off while each one these gets a $5,000 tax cut. So you tell me what is fair in that! What is fair in that? The prince of Point Piper sits there and gets his $8,000 tax cut. He is a multimillionaire, so he really needs that! The price of white truffles has gone up and it is painful for him. What we have seen, when they bring out their economic geniuses, is that this lot—fair dinkum—could not make money selling sausages at Bunnings. They are absolutely hopeless.
Let's go back to the NDIS—Mr Cockatoo over there—and what we see is $2 billion in administration. Why aren't you helping people with that? They will not do it because they know they cannot. It is not in their blood. Their DNA is that they do not want to help everyone. That is why they have increased the Medicare levy for people earning low incomes. Not everyone is like them and can afford truffles every week. The people out there who are trying to scratch a living, trying to stay in front and keep their heads afloat—
Mate, you are the one who knows the price of truffles.
Oh, please, have a listen! Freedom Boy gets his undies out! He is off! He is out! He is the defender of fairness, our Freedom Boy, until it comes down to what we have seen. This is a government that backed multinationals and millionaires over Australians. That is why in question time they could not answer how much money in taxpayer funds is going overseas to international companies and international investors. Do you know why? Because that is who backs them.
I back people with disabilities, mate.
Fair dinkum! You couldn't back anything; you're a moron—seriously! Let's be serious: Littleproud by name, Littleproud by nature. This is the intellectual giant of the National Party. It must be embarrassing, just embarrassing, if he is the future. He comes out with the little glasses and the bright skin and the little suit factory—has no idea about the real world. You have never had a bit of dirt under your fingernails in your life. We have the little private school collection come in here and talk about fairness!
The member for McEwen will address his speech through the chair or I will sit him down.
Certainly. Unlike the traditional members of the National Party, the new breed come here with no dirt under their fingernails. They have never seen a day's hard work in their life. Their idea of fairness is to make sure they have champagne and red wine on the table when most people are trying to pay the bills and make a living. What we have seen today in this example is not one of the so-called economic teams of this government. If you look across at the frontbench— (Time expired)
I must say that it is somewhat hard to rise to the challenge after the somewhat erudite contribution that we heard from the member for McEwen, but I will try, because I have to say that the fairness of this government's budget was seen by all on Tuesday night. It is a budget that will help to grow the economy, secure more and better-paying jobs and guarantee the services that people in my electorate of Robertson, on the Central Coast, will rely on. It is also something that families and businesses in my electorate demand so that our region and the region of the member for Dobell is able to thrive, grow and succeed as it deserves.
Let us talk about what really is unfair. When I first became the member for Robertson, in 2013, people across my electorate had experienced the impact of several unfair Labor budgets and six years of chaos under local Labor members Belinda Neal, Deborah O'Neill and Craig Thomson. It was a government that many opposite were a part of. They were dark, dark days for the Central Coast. As a candidate running for election at the time, I was told by local people all the time how unfair Labor's policies were. They told me that the Labor Party was not providing fairness and opportunity for our region, but they did note the many press releases that had little action and little substance and that left cities like Gosford desperate for the rejuvenation of jobs and infrastructure, jobs and infrastructure that the coalition government is now delivering in spades.
Just how unfair were those Labor budgets and just how fair is this year's budget? Let us start with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, something of which I personally am very supportive. It is estimated that the NDIS will support a better life for almost 2,900 people in the Robertson electorate when it is fully rolled out, and it is already underway, including a local NDIA office in Gosford. Yes, the NDIS was announced by the previous Labor government, but, despite its promises, Labor left a massive annual funding gap of almost $4 billion from 2019 to 2020. How fair is that? It failed to fully fund the NDIS and that, I would say, is desperately unfair.
In contrast, this budget, announced by the Turnbull government, will guarantee that the NDIS is fully funded, by legislating a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. This will provide certainty for NDIS participants and their families and carers, to ensure their needs will be met. This is absolutely fair. It is the same for another health issue of critical importance in my electorate: the lack of access to GPs, particularly on the peninsula. We were confronted with this crisis left by members opposite when we first came to government, and we acted quickly by securing the additional 26 suburbs across the Central Coast to become a district of workforce shortage, opening up new opportunities for more doctors to get on the front line. Despite six years of talking about health care in my region, the peninsula was let down badly by Labor, so today we announced a vital injection of funding to help the local primary health network engage with local health professionals, recruiters and the community to get more GPs in surgeries on the peninsula as soon as possible, plus a long-term strategy that has never been in place before.
In this year's budget we are also boosting schools funding to record levels; delivering on our local election commitments, such as roads funding and the Gosford regional performing arts centre; backing small business; guaranteeing health funding through the Medicare guarantee fund; and delivering affordable, accessible child care for families with a simplified childcare package.
When the question comes back to my electorate on whether this is a fair budget, can I just say that I think it is only fair that people on the Central Coast be given the same opportunities in employment and education as those elsewhere in Australia. It is this government that has delivered $45 million towards a world-class, new Central Coast Medical School, including an extra $12½ million in this year's budget. This will help to attract and retain world-class health professionals in Gosford and create hundreds of new jobs and new opportunities for our young people and commuters. In contrast, Labor failed the people of the Central Coast in this area, as they did in many other areas. They have been near silent on this issue since the budget, despite the fact that this is such a major investment. So, with this deafening silence from Labor, let me just say that the people of Robertson are speaking up very loudly about the impact of our package to ensure more local jobs, better infrastructure, world-class health care and education for people on the Central Coast.
Usually, being the last speaker on an MPI is a pretty hard gig because everyone has already covered everything. But I have to say that if you are talking about fairness in this budget, or the lack thereof, we could be here all afternoon. We could be here day, after day, after day for weeks. I think it is fair—picking up a cue from the member for Fenner—to assess any budget against the challenges that our country faces. So, let's think about a few of them.
Inequality: we live in an Australia where the top one per cent already have 22 per cent of our national wealth. We live in a country where the two richest people have more than the bottom 20 per cent combined. We have a housing crisis, with home ownership at record low levels. We have a productivity and sluggish growth problem. We have employment and wages growth at low, verging on pathetic, levels and we have an infrastructure deficit. This budget fails every test.
Let us have a look at inequality. There are tax cuts for the top—for us, as we have heard—of at least $5,000 for everyone in this chamber, but tax rises for everyone else. There is a tax cut for everyone in this chamber, but university fees are up and repayments are earlier. There is a tax cut for everyone in this chamber, while penalty rates are cut from 1 July—the very same day we get more in our pockets. There is a tax cut for everyone in this chamber, while pensions and family payments are cut. The rich get richer.
I can say one good thing about the 2014 budget: at least it was honest. It did not pretend to be something that it was not. This is a deception. It is sneaky, and it is dishonest. I think the member for Moreton this morning talked about the humble battler millionaire that is the Prime Minister. Only in Turnbull-land could you say that this is fair: 95,000 fewer jobs. At least we will not hear much more about jobs and growth.
If we look infrastructure—and I will take a Victorian lens on this, because it needs to be said: the great state of Victoria is three per cent of our land mass, 25 per cent or more of our economy, 25 per cent of our population, the fastest-growing state and has the fastest-growing capital city of Melbourne. This is a good thing for the economy, but it brings challenges—particularly infrastructure for growth. So, what do we see? Victoria's share of infrastructure funding in the forward estimates is eight cents in every dollar. Eight cents! Nothing has changed. There is this great table in the budget papers that puts out the new spending for Victoria. It goes 00000. I do not even know why they put it in there.
But they have actually achieved an even better feat. They have managed to cut $500 million from zero. We were owed $1.45 billion from the asset recycling, but we are only getting a billion. So, all of those little regional rail lines, many of which I agree are very important projects, are actually been funded by a cut. Work that out. That is almost worth an achievement award. Labor invested $201 per head for every Victorian in infrastructure, but it is $92 under this mob. And, even better, their so-called infrastructure boost is a $1.6 billion cut this financial year, falling off a cliff to $4.2 billion.
I will tell you what else is unfair: this budget sees the start of the privatisation of Centrelink. It may sound extreme, but it is not. We have seen 5,000 jobs cut already under this government. We have seen staff suffering with not one per cent, not one dollar, in a pay rise over years. And 1.2 thousand more jobs have been announced to be cut from Centrelink, plus goodness knows how many from the efficiency dividend. They have quietly slipped in, 'a trial' of outsourcing 250 jobs to a call centre. Do you want to know how much that costs? So do I. It says 'NFP'. That does not mean not for profit; it means not for publication because it is commercial in confidence. So we have a mystery provider that is going to come and take 250 jobs—it could be in the Philippines; who knows where?—dealing with people's most personal, most private information, while they are cutting close to 2,000 more jobs. This is a disgrace. This is on top of the robo-debt, the DSP saga, age pension claims being delayed, and families literally spending hours and days trying to get through. Apparently, poverty is a crime under this government. The drug testing for welfare recipients will be a conversation for another day, but I presume we will also hear more about the drug testing regime that will come in for millionaires claiming outrageous tax deductions. We could talk about housing, but time does not permit. But I do encourage those opposite to listen quietly to Bill Shorten's speech tonight, when you will learn what fairness is really about.
Labor do not have the best interests of Australians at heart. They have their own interests. Everything they do or say is designed to get them over to this side of the House. 'Politics before people' is their modus operandi and mantra. Any spirit of bipartisanship is lost on them, particularly on matters where it counts. A constituent of mine in Chisholm recently said to me: 'Julia, no matter the good things that the government does, I am sure I am not the only person in Australia who is sick of the combative response that Labor have to everything. Everyone can work out their response, because it will be negative before they say it themselves.'
The Turnbull government's budget offers fairness, security and opportunity to 24 million Australians, including those Australians who are impacted directly or indirectly by disability. No matter the combative nature of Labor and no matter how people vote, what I know for sure is that the thing I am most proud of about being Australian is that we all help when help is needed. Yesterday, the Treasurer spoke about the heartwarming and emotional story of his brother-in-law Gary—a good, honest, hardworking Australian family man who worked as a fireman and was, sadly, diagnosed with progressive MS. Out of all the speeches, lines and statements that have been made this week in this place, Gary's words, as spoken to the Treasurer, are the most compelling. He said:
It's not flash, being disabled, it's not flash. But if there is anything good about it, it's that you're disabled in Australia.
Australians have big hearts. Crisis, hardship and helping those in need, particularly those who are suffering either directly or indirectly from a health perspective, who have special needs or who are intellectually or physically disabled, are when the true Australian spirit comes to the fore. I saw it for myself only last week with the wonderful people of Burke and Beyond in my electorate in Chisholm. It is one example of where many volunteers provide services to those in need.
The NDIS is totally supported and will be totally funded by this side of the House. But, as with all things under Labor, the ability to pay for things is fictitious or confected. Labor takes its approach of, 'She'll be right on the day,' or whacks something on the national credit card—confected numbers, hoping that the money will appear from somewhere. Despite a lot of promises, the previous Labor government failed to fully fund the NDIS, leaving a substantial annual funding gap of almost $4 billion from 2019 to 2020—a gap that grows each and every year. What does Labor say to all of those people who go to bed at night worried about the future of the NDIS? Labor likes to claim that it clearly identified enough other long-term savings to pay for the NDIS, but how can it make this claim when its actual budget papers did not link any savings to the NDIS and that proposition only appeared in the 2013-14 budget glossy? Importantly, many of the savings Labor supposedly allocated to the NDIS had actually been announced long before and assigned to other purposes, with no mention of the NDIS whatsoever. Savings Labor now claims it made to help fund the NDIS went into consolidated revenue and were never set aside to fund the NDIS. That is the same response it had for the funding gap for the NDIS. Where there was a clear funding gap, Labor in government simply loved to fuel the funding wars rather than come up with practical, real outcomes and solutions. It is politics before the people—'Let's fuel the funding wars.' That is what Labor talks about with the NDIS.
The Turnbull government will guarantee the NDIS is fully funded by legislating an additional 0.5-percentage-point increase in the Medicare levy. This will provide certainty for NDIS participants, their families and their carers that their needs will be met, and ensure that the scheme remains available for all future participants. The additional increase in the levy will apply from 1 July 2019. Importantly, low-income earners will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and will not be impacted, so this increase actually represents a little over $1 a day for the average Australian income earner.
Australians help each other. Millions of Australians at some stage of their lives will be affected by disability either directly or indirectly. I am sure that Australians would like the Labor Party on this occasion to put people before politics so that those directly or indirectly affected can be helped and so that the uncertainty surrounding the NDIS can disappear.
The discussion has concluded.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
The government supports the amendment made by the Senate, which provides that a review be completed by the Minister for Employment into the operation of the Youth Jobs PaTH program two years after the commencement of this program. A copy of this review will then be tabled in each house of parliament within 15 sitting days after the completion of the report. I commend the amendments to the House.
While this bill is very likely to go through the House and this new program has already commenced, Labor will take every opportunity to highlight its deep concerns about the way this youth internship program has been set up by the government, and we will hold them accountable for the things that we are genuinely concerned are likely to arise under this new internship program. We cannot make it any clearer than this.
Business in Australia is about to get free labour injected into the labour market. Businesses will get access to people without making any contribution of their own. Right from the beginning, they will be given a subsidy to set up the introduction of this intern into their operation and then they will potentially get another subsidy at the end. They will not pay for the labour of that person on the way through.
The young people that are involved in this will be the typical victims of conservative ideology, which is this: if you want a job, you have got to give something up to get that job. In this case, it is that you give up the chance to get paid at the equivalent rate of the national minimum wage. You will be paid less than that on the promise or suggestion that possibly you will get a job at the end of this. There will be this rotation occurring of young interns going through these businesses providing this free source of labour with this Youth Jobs PaTH program.
My issue with this, on top of the concerns that I have already raised, is that, when you look at the 750,000 people who are currently unemployed in this country, you realise that, outside of Defence, the biggest area of procurement for government is the jobactive program at just over $9 billion. If you look at the businesses in Australia that take on people from the jobactive programs from all those jobactive providers that are trying to find people work, the ones that never step in in large numbers to help people get a job are big businesses. Small and medium enterprises do a great lifting of the load, but not big business.
And who are the big champions of Youth Jobs PaTH internship program? The very people who will not take on people out of the jobactive system who are trying to find work? No, it is big business championing the introduction of interns—big businesses like Subway, who are very keen to get involved in this program and bring on interns as, as they describe, 'sandwich artists' under the PaTH program.
This is the thing that we have said. Internship as it is understood in the broader public's mind and internship in the way that it is being sold by this government mean two different things. Most people will want a job program being run by the government to get people into work. We do not want people sitting on their hands. But a lot of people would think that a big company like Subway using a government program where they are being paid to put someone on to do the work at a Subway outlet through an internship program that is costing hundreds of millions of dollars does not add up. It is not a pathway to a long-term, sustainable employment future. That could have already been provided by Subway. They could take those people on right now.
This is the thing that is going to be a bigger and bigger concern in the mind of the public. The way this program is working does not meet the fairness test. It does not seem to be quite right. We think that the way this is being set up is wrong, that people should not be working for less than the national minimum wage and that they should be given a fair dinkum pathway to employment. (Extension of time granted) We think that the investment should be made in fixing job programs that are currently being run by the government.
The challenge in this country is great. We have unemployment recently recorded at the same level as at the height of the GFC. It is nearly 10 years later and we still have unemployment this high. The budget papers themselves say unemployment is expected not to move much in the next 12 months, and the job programs that the government has in place already do not work. People talk about compliance measures in this budget. They already have an activation measure that they use and that has been in place for a while: Work for the Dole. Ninety per cent of the people that go through that do not get a full-time job three months after they have finished. From one of the stats I saw, it probably contributes two per cent to the potential employability or attractiveness of that person.
So now we have PaTH, designed to give people a chance to get a job through a form of work experience. We already have a work experience program: the National Work Experience Program. It is currently under review. Midway through the review, without having the benefit of the advice from the review, in this budget the government is expanding the number of places that are in there. We do not know whether or not the National Work Experience Program is working the way it should and if any of the learnings from there are being applied to PaTH, but a whole lot of money is going to be spent on this program that will pump into a labour market that is weak and characterised by having record high underemployment, where people cannot get enough work and want work, and by having record levels of low wages growth, where people feel that their wages are not getting ahead. This program will pump 30,000 interns into that weakened labour market every single year. People are wondering whether or not they will be able to hold onto their job while they are working alongside people whose wages have been, effectively, subsidised by the government. Business gets them for free. These people wonder whether or not they can hold onto their jobs, hold onto their shifts and hold onto their conditions while the government is pumping 30,000 of these interns into a weakened labour market.
We heard that after one month of this internship program being in place there are apparently 59 interns that have gone through. Bear in mind that 30,000 a year are supposed to come into the labour market. So far the monthly rate would roughly equate to 2,500 interns, and we have only had 59. I will be interested to see whether or not the government picks up the pace on this, because it is a voluntary program.
But here is the prediction: I would not be surprised if this does not get traction. The reason why? It is because people are going to sniff the stench around elements of this program. People are going to detect that this is not an internship program that will be genuinely improving the employability of young people. The more people think that this program is simply providing a platform for young people to be exploited then the less people will go into this program—particularly when they sense they are getting less than the national minimum wage for it.
This amendment that is being considered by the House is about a review. Our concern, and we have already flagged it, is whether or not this will be a thorough, independent review and whether or not it will actually go into the systemic issues of this program that we have concerns about. We as an opposition have flagged that we are more than prepared to have a Senate review, a review by the other place, into this. We believe this will be necessary to ensure a thorough, arms-length, independent review of this system.
As I indicated at the outset, the Labor opposition have very, very deep concerns about this. We have seen already some examples of interns being used not as interns but simply as cheap labour. It is not a fair dinkum way to skill people up and put them on a pathway for long-term employment. We will be watching this program like a hawk and we will be pouncing on every single instance where there has been exploitation of young Australians.
Question agreed to.
I was speaking in this debate before being interrupted by 90-second statements and a very entertaining question time, where I must say we saw the government in disarray like we have rarely seen before—plucking numbers out of thin air, but those numbers did not get better. They went down, down, down—or up, up, up depending upon your view of the world. But wasn't it a sight?
I will move to another slow-moving train wreck of a policy development from this government, and that is the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. Let us talk about this new focus group notion of 'fairness' that the government likes to trot out every now and again. I tell you what; we really see it in sharp focus when we look at the bang for our buck we got with the Dyson Heydon royal commission. Let us look at the numbers themselves. If you want numbers that do not stack up, check out these rippers! The cost of the royal commission over the course of 12 months was $46 million. That is a lot of zeros. My calculator barely accommodated them all. What did we get out of that $46 million spend? We saw 79 recommendations from former Justice of the High Court Dyson Heydon. For those who are playing this at home, that equates to approximately $582,278.48 per recommendation. That is what 79 into $46 million gets you.
Up until this point in time, almost 18 months after the event, we had not seen pen put to paper on any of those recommendations. This is the first time that the government has even really indicated it has read them, let alone acted on them. Even then, what do we see? No, not 78 of the 79 recommendations being implemented in this bill. Not even 70 or 60 or even 50. It is not even a double-digit number in relation to the recommendations that are being implemented by this government as a result of that very expensive royal commission. We see three. Three recommendations form the basis of what was a double dissolution election, what was seen as an incredibly so-called important exercise brought about by the government to try to shine a light on what it thought was systemic corruption in the trade union movement. And here we stand today reduced to a paltry three recommendations as a result of this bill that has stemmed from $46 million spent on a royal commission.
Let us do the maths again. Let us keep looking at this value-for-money notion that the conservatives like to hold so tightly and so dear. Again, plugging these numbers into your calculator, how much are these recommendations worth? $15,333,333 per recommendation. How does that sound like value for money? Forty-six million dollars was spent and countless hours, days and weeks were spent going over the evidence, trying to find that smoking gun and trying to find that needle in a haystack. What we find here are three recommendations, the subject of this bill, to the tune of over $15 million per recommendation.
What a waste.
What do we see here? A waste, as I hear my good friend and comrade, the member for Brand, say. I am happy to answer the question, assuming that it was put as a question and not a statement. I will take it either way. What a waste indeed. Let us talk about waste. Let us talk about waste in terms of inactivity after the review process. I tell you what: if there is one consistent theme that comes from this government, that is morbid inertia following review. As they say in the classics, let me count the ways.
Let us start with the small amount credit contract review. That was an incredibly important review undertaken months, months and months ago into an incredibly important issue. It is the way in which payday lending and consumer leases, commonly known as rent-to-buy leases, impact upon vulnerable people in our community. Those vulnerable people take advantage of what is being sold to them—often on terms they do not really understand—and become hopelessly entrapped in more and more debt to the point where they just cannot get themselves out of a hopeless cycle of debt. It mounts up day after day, having taken goods and services under terms and conditions that they just simply had no idea about. It was a very important review.
Where has a small amount credit contract review actually taken us? It has taken us to a whole number of recommendations that had bipartisan support. The community quite rightly cries out for an environment where both sides of politics reach across the table, join arms and join forces in relation to subject matter that can actually result in legislation that has bipartisan support. The small amount credit contract review is that review. But it is stunted, it is stagnant and it is going nowhere under this government. Legislation that was promised to us before the end of the financial year has not seen the light of day. In the other place, Senator Gallagher revealed in Senate estimates, after some torrid and forensic questioning of the department, that pen has not even been put to paper in relation to this vital legislation that could actually make a difference to the lives of thousands and thousands of vulnerable consumers in our country.
We have also seen it with the Conde review into MPs' entitlements, where it has taken over 12 months for this government to respond. Even then, with a half-hearted ban on the life gold pass, we are only starting to see some traction now, some of which does not even affect the Prime Minister's parliamentary colleagues. We see it again in relation to the Productivity Commission review and the review into the Australian Consumer Law. In my portfolio, we see a raft of non-contentious, practical and pragmatic recommendations that we are told are under consideration by this government, but I would not hold my breath for one second in terms of seeing this talk converted into action.
On reflecting on the government's current review inertia, I try to find a way to adequately capture the sorry state of affairs that we see ourselves in right now. I will not pretend to be so witty, clever or intelligent as to put it better than it has been put before. I find myself reaching into classic song lyrics. I reach into the song lyrics of the King; no-one less than the King. That is not Queen, but the King:
A little less conversation, a little more action …
Let me continue: if you thought just one line was apt, it actually gets better as you dig down into the lyrics.
Oh, no—keep going!
I am glad you asked. I will not sing it, but I will articulate it because it is so apt and I could not have said it better than the King. I will refrain from the movements that go with the song and I will refrain from singing the song, despite, perhaps, some demand from my great friend and comrade, the member for Fenner! But it goes like this:
A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me—
or anyone else, I might say—
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Well, wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be nice in this instance, in relation to the Heydon royal commission, in relation to the small-amount credit contract, in relation to the Conde review and in relation to reforms to the Australian Consumer Law?
But let me be clear: this side of politics will never stand for any form of corruption in any way and in any shape. We will support legislation that is properly drafted that applies to registered organisations. But you have to be very sceptical about the Prime Minister's motivation here. Quite frankly, this is a do-nothing or, at best, high-taxing, highly squibbing government which has shown form in this as recently as the budget the other night. It took no action to respond in this case to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution election and not after it, and not even when this parliament was debating the two antiworker pieces of legislation that were the Prime Minister's justification for taking this nation to the polls.
The Turnbull government, this Prime Minister's government, did nothing in response to these recommendations—nothing, that is, until they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely. They were on the wrong side entirely when it came to cutting penalty rates. Some who are more cynical than I might have the temerity to suggest that such a move might be an attempt at a smokescreen to distract everyday Australians, working people and also the trade unions representing them from what we really see here. They are a government that are entirely content to leave the top end of town, businesses making millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in turnover, alone or, even worse, not even leaving them alone but handing them a tax cut to incentivise them to continue the practices that they are currently undertaking—without the threat of a royal commission, I might add.
One has to ask: is this just cynicism writ large? We see a government, without the blink of an eye, happy to commit $46 million of taxpayers' funds to uncover nothing, perhaps, but to distil 79 recommendations to the three recommendations that are the subject of this legislation. It is willing to fork out $64 billion—I think that is what we are up to—in relation to tax cuts to the big end of town, an all-time high. Luckily, we are finishing up today or it might be more tomorrow! This is in relation to appeasing them about continuing to undertake the practices they are undertaking at the expense of workers, who are copping a pay cut every Sunday that they go to work and every public holiday that they go to work—every time they actually try to do their bit to put food on the table for their families.
Is this the sort of government that really has fairness at its heart? It is really interesting that, before spending $200,000 on a focus group to tell it which way it needs to aim in terms of its values, we did not really hear much about fairness from this government. If anything, we heard precisely the opposite and we saw even worse. You just cannot help but wonder about the political motivation driving this Prime Minister when, faced with Labor's private member's bill to preserve take-home pay and to protect penalty rates, he is all of a sudden struck with an urgent need to present and introduce this bill. Extraordinarily, this bill was introduced and brought on for debate one week after Labor's bill. There was no action of any description for more than 12 months and then suddenly this government gave this bill priority. The question becomes: what has this government shunted to the back of the line to make way for this bill? It is very clear. I have already alluded to the plethora of reviews that are sitting there growing old, gathering dust, that should be the subject of legislation straightaway. If we ever needed any more confirmation that this government is more concerned with saving its political skin than standing up for vulnerable and low-paid Australian workers we have it here writ large.
There has been pitiful consultation in relation to this bill. The terms of the new offences differ from the model legislation recommended by Dyson Heydon. They differ from existing bribery and corruption offences relating to public officials in the Criminal Code. And because they are different one really wonders how much confidence one can have in this legislation and how sure one can be that it does not unfairly target workers. The questions then become: Who is next? Who lines up next? Who is in the frame next? It is certainly not big business, it is certainly not the banks—despite the rhetoric that this government tries so desperately to wheel out day and day again. We know who is next. It is schools—they are next. It is hospitals—they are next. It is mums, dads, kids and the elderly who are delaying seeing doctors, and delaying seeing specialists because there is not a lift on this Medicare freeze. It is those who would otherwise be in receipt of benefits under the NDIS—they are next. We see the proof of the pudding in this budget. We see the proof of the pudding in this legislation. We will not see any sign of things to change until we see a change of government.
I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, which seeks to protect the interests of working Australians by introducing disclosure requirements, similar to those currently required by the contemporary governance standards for elected members of local government, parliament and boards. The legislation essentially requires potential conflicts of interest to be made more transparent, while introducing greater accountability for those involved in the process of negotiating or enterprise bargaining. The bill requires that any financial benefits obtained, by an employer or union, during enterprise agreement negotiations be disclosed to employees before they vote on the agreement. If any payments are exchanged between an employer and a union then both parties have an obligation to transparently disclose these payments to their employees and members respectively. The Turnbull government seeks to raise the standard of governance in the workplace relations sector to match that of corporate Australia, effectively applying the same high standards, responsibilities and fiduciary duties to union officials as currently applied to company directors.
The Turnbull government has recently introduced related legislation: the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, which prohibits cashback demands, where employers make employees pay back a portion of their wages in an attempt to circumvent minimum wage laws. That legislation aims to prevent cases of widespread underpayment of workers, as has been discovered with a number of national franchise chains. The government is committed to ensuring that the workplace relations sector is fair and that the legitimate employment conditions of vulnerable workers are protected.
Workers who pay regular membership dues to unions to represent them in workplace negotiations are entitled to expect that the union officials will act in good faith, putting the best interests of their members first, to obtain the best possible working conditions. Consider the opportunity cost of paying several hundreds of dollars per year in union membership dues. Workers could instead make additional mortgage repayments, reduce high-interest consumer credit card debt or make additional contributions to superannuation. These measures would add up to tens of thousands of dollars in accumulated wealth over a lifetime. That is why it is so important to ensure that union officials fulfil their obligations to their members after having charged membership fees.
By way of background: the measures proposed in this bill are in response to findings by the Heydon royal commission, which uncovered a series of payments between employers and unions which were designed to ensure that companies received favourable treatment from unions, often to the detriment of the employment conditions of workers. Justice Heydon referred to these payments as 'corrupting benefits'. The payments were often disguised by false invoices marked as payments for training or similar, made as part of a deal in enterprise agreement negotiations or accompanied by lists of names of employees, who were made members of the union without their knowledge.
The royal commission found that some officials were paid private kickbacks that they used for personal gain. The royal commission heard evidence that former CFMEU Queensland official Dave Hanna used free building materials and labour to renovate his home in Brisbane. The AWU's Bruce Wilson used funds to buy an investment property and renovate former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's residence.
Some officials used threats to pressure employers to pay them money in order to bolster union coffers. Testimony revealed that the former CFMEU ACT official Fihi Kivalu demanded cash for work in Canberra. The New South Wales CFMEU demanded that employers pay 'donations' for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation fund, money from which they secretly misappropriated funds for their union. Other extracted payments bolstered status and power, particularly within the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition and Cesar Melhem were very effective at this, regularly signing employees up to the union without their knowledge and securing ongoing payments for the AWU in Victoria.
In return, employers expected to gain more flexible or cheaper employee pay or conditions, win work or avoid strikes and other industrial disruption.
The Heydon royal commission revealed that these payments have arisen in many cases involving the AWU in Victoria. Thiess John Holland paid AWU Victoria $300,000 plus GST whilst they built the EastLink freeway extension in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. The AWU issued false invoices to disguise the payments as training, back strain research, AWU magazines and advertisements, forum tickets and conference sponsorships, but none of these benefits were actually provided. The payments were never disclosed to AWU members or employees.
ACI Operations paid AWU Victoria around $500,000 while they laid off workers from their Spotswood glass-manufacturing factory. The AWU invoiced the payments as paid education leave, but the payments were predominantly used to offset loans to renovate the union's Victorian office and for other general union costs.
Cleanevent paid AWU Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and stripped them of penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings. The payments were detailed in a secret letter between the AWU and Cleanevent and never disclosed to cleaning workers. Level 1 casuals working at events were entitled to 176 per cent more per hour under the award than under the agreement sealed by these payments.
Unibilt paid the now Leader of the Opposition $32,000 to fund his 2007 election campaign manager while the company was negotiating an enterprise agreement with the AWU, for which the Leader of the Opposition was then the national secretary.
Chiquita Mushrooms paid AWU Victoria $24,000 while it was casualising its mushroom-picking workforce. The AWU falsely invoiced the payments as paid education leave and never disclosed the payments to Chiquita employees.
Winslow Constructors paid AWU Victoria around $200,000 and provided the union with lists of names of employees, who were secretly signed up to the union, but AWU hid these payments behind false invoices for occupational health and safety training, workplace inspections and similar.
In response to these findings of serious misconduct, the Turnbull government is introducing legislation to ban illegitimate payments and to require full disclosure of legitimate payments made to unions. The Heydon royal commission recommended outlawing secret payments. The government will amend the Fair Work Act to make it a criminal offence to give, receive, offer or solicit such payments. This prohibition will apply to unions and employers. Certain legitimate payments will be allowed, such as payments to unions for genuine services that are actually provided. Where legitimate financial benefits would arise in a workplace deal, the government's changes will also require these benefits to be fully disclosed to employees before they vote on a deal.
The Leader of the Opposition, and the Labor Party, should now support this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits and clean up the unfair, secretive and often corrupt payment systems that have tainted Australian workplaces for decades. How can any fair-minded person condone these blatant conflicts of interest? Under this legislation the penalty for offering benefits intended to corrupt a union official will be a maximum of 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $900,000 for an individual or $4½ million for a company. Penalties for other than legitimate payments or benefits, such as a payment for a genuine service actually provided, will be two years imprisonment or a fine of $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a company.
Our workplace relations and industrial relations system does not operate in isolation but in the context of increasing global competitiveness from emerging nations in our region and beyond. Our industrial relations and workplace relations system must be competitive with our major trading partners yet offer reasonable protections for Australian workers. Employment conditions must be matched with productivity—the long-established mantra of 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work'. When these are in equilibrium our economy is strong. When they get out of kilter then either workers are exploited or Australian companies go out of business and jobs are lost to overseas competitors.
When I started my early business career we manufactured pressed metal components and pipe supports in our Bayswater and Belmont factories, with Australian workers. When things got tight, my family, including my father and mother, worked long hours in the factory, at the presses, to fill orders. Those were the good old days, nearly 20 years ago—when we washed our hands in Solvol! As the years progressed, intense competition from overseas meant it was unviable to manufacture in Australia anymore as our products could be purchased from suppliers in Taiwan at little more than the price of the materials. So we were forced to change our business model to warehousing as opposed to manufacturing. This has been the case in many industries across Australia.
The government is committed to restoring integrity and fairness to workplaces. This starts with requiring employers and unions to act with integrity and fairness in negotiations. Professional associations have codes of ethics. If you hire a real estate agent, you expect to get the best price for your house; obviously you would be unhappy if, after the sale, you discovered they had taken a secret payment from the buyers. If you hire a lawyer, you expect them to act in your best interests, not take secret payments from the other party. It should be no different for workers who join a union; union bosses have a responsibility to put their members first, not themselves.
Through the Heydon royal commission, evidence has emerged that a raft of secret and corrupt payments in recent years between businesses and unions have collectively been worth millions of dollars. Often these payments were for highly questionable purposes disguised by false invoices or marked as payments for training or other services never provided. Some secret payments have been made for personal gain. As I mentioned earlier, a former CFMEU boss was recently arrested after allegedly receiving more than $100,000 worth of renovations to his home, paid for by the company employing his union workers. Some secret payments boosted union coffers. For example, the recent royal commission uncovered evidence of the CFMEU demanding donations for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation fund, from which money was misappropriated.
Other payments were accompanied by lists of names of employees who were secretly joined to the union without their knowledge to boost influence within the ALP. In some cases, unions received payments while members sacrificed their benefits and conditions of employment. For example, the deal between Clean Event and the Leader of the Opposition's AWU stripped low-paid cleaners of penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings while providing the union $75,000 in undisclosed payments. In other cases, companies made payments to unions while making workers redundant. These secret payments are a blight on our workplace relations system. Surely, workers should have confidence in negotiations between their union and employer and that they are conducted honestly and fairly, without conflicts of interest.
The Turnbull government is taking action to stop improper payments between employers and unions. It will become an offence to secretly make corrupt payments between businesses and unions, and any legitimate payments will require disclosure. In future, only specified legitimate payments such as genuine membership fees will be permitted, and these will need to be disclosed. For payments or benefits provided outside these rules, serious criminal penalties will now apply. The proposed legislation will apply equally to employers and unions. Whether in receipt of or paying a benefit, or soliciting or receiving it, both parties will be held accountable. This legislation will help clean up the unfair, secretive and often corrupt payments. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, which is an interesting piece of legislation. The intent of this legislation is to make it an offence to engage in corrupting- or bribery-type behaviour between employers and those within the union movement and employees. This bill is effectively based on about three of 79 recommendations from the Heydon royal commission. If this is the strike rate that we are going to see from the government on implementing recommendations from a royal commission such as this then it really further highlights the base political motives that sat behind the holding of the royal commission in the first place, not to mention that it has taken the government over 12 months to bring forward this piece of legislation to implement these recommendations.
I would like to say that this piece of legislation has really engaged my mind as a new member of parliament, because prior to entering this place I worked in the legal profession as a specialist in the area of anti-bribery and anticorruption. It is something that I know a little about, having gone out to many employer organisations and corporates around Australia to train them, to develop policies with them and to engage with them to prevent bribery and corruption both within Australia and internationally. So I am quite passionate about making sure that we stamp out bribery and corruption in this nation and bribery and corruption that may occur between people in this nation and those from overseas, whether it be private or with foreign officials.
Something that we should not forget in debating this legislation is that we need to do more on the enforcement side when it comes to bribery and corruption as a general concept in this country. Over a number of years now, under the watch of this government, Australia has slid down the rankings when it comes to looking at those countries which are the least corrupt across the globe. Australia's rankings have fallen. We are apparently getting worse at dealing with corruption instead of getting better, and no amount of legislation is necessarily going to fix that. We need to have law enforcement engaged, trained and given the specialist resources, or given the resources at all—and here I refer just by way of an aside to the cuts to the AFP that we have seen in this budget. They are losing around 150 personnel. When it comes to the prioritisation of the work of our federal law enforcement officials, we need to make sure that we have personnel with the specialist expertise to engage in stamping out corruption of all forms in the Commonwealth and also to deal with those from Australia who are involved in foreign corruption. If that is occurring, we should make that stop. But this is still important legislation because it is important that we make sure that we are very clear as a nation that we are against all forms of corruption wherever they may occur.
This legislation effectively criminalises certain behaviour—corrupt behaviour, as you may generally describe it—which is actually already a crime. Under the criminal codes and crimes acts of the various states of this great Commonwealth, you will find that it is an offence to commit fraud against your employer, and you will find that there is an offence generally described as a secret commission. If you look at the intent of the legislation—I will get to the drafting in a minute—there is nothing in the intent of what is proposed to be criminalised. In fact, if you look at the recommendation of Heydon, he says secret commissions should be outlawed at a Commonwealth level, but they are already illegal under state law, which brings me back to my previous point: if this was going on, it should have been picked up by police and other law enforcement agencies and run with. In any event, one could never be critical of making something that is already a crime a crime. There is no harm done, at any rate.
As I said, I would like to come to the drafting, because this is Commonwealth law; this is going to be a Commonwealth crime. Anyone who has taken the time to pick up the Commonwealth Criminal Code, as I have many a time in my life as a former federal prosecutor, will know that Commonwealth crime is the most complex criminal law in the nation. We have taken the approach of adopting the great work that was done several decades ago of trying to harmonise criminal law and setting out a model criminal law that could be used around the country. The Commonwealth Criminal Code is based on the Model Criminal Code, and it completely codifies the concept of crime. The thing about doing that is it makes the drafting very difficult. That is what we can see right here in this legislation. We can see some particularly complex drafting has occurred here. Unfortunately, the government may have stuffed it on the way through. What we have is that the terms of the new offences that are being created here differ from the model legislation that was recommended by Heydon, and they differ from existing bribery and corruption offences that are already found in the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
Part of this may be due to the rushed way in which the government have brought this forward. As I said, it seems to have taken them over 12 months to bring the legislation in, but the drafting instructions going to the department and the production of the bill coming into this chamber all happened within about a month. I can tell you that is probably a high-risk game when it comes to creating further criminal offences for the Commonwealth statute book. But the lack of consultation as a result means that even organisations such as the Ai Group said to the Senate committee that was reviewing this legislation that they were quite concerned that there were important changes being made to this bill and that they should be properly reviewed before the legislation proceeds. However, as you know, we have no difficulty with the intent of what the legislation is proposing. But it does tell you something when the Ai Group is criticising a Liberal government for legislation such as this.
When I turn to the complexity of the draft of this legislation, we have different tests for intention that arise in different parts of the offences that have been set up in this bill. We seem to be missing one of the crucial concepts—that of dishonesty—which seems to create some offences that are much broader than was actually intended to be provided for in legislation such as this. It is desperately important when we create criminal law in this parliament—more than any other law—that we avoid unintended consequences. We hold an honoured and humble position in this chamber, and it is especially so when we create criminal law. Not only do we potentially take away the ability for the citizens of this country to do something but we also impose a criminal penalty for doing it. It is not to say that we should not create the crimes or the criminal offences, but we need to be very careful when we do it. And here we seem to have created or are proposing to create some criminal offences that are not necessarily going to survive that law of unintended consequences. I think we have some very broad offences. I can understand why we have broad offences, but what they seem to be critically missing is properly dealing with the concept of dishonesty in what is being proposed to be a criminal offence. The conduct that is being criminalised is that which is being done in a way to rip off a union, to rip off an employee or to rip off an employer. There is some sort of corruption involved, as opposed to just criminalising certain acts, which may, in certain circumstances, be entirely legitimate.
The drafters have attempted to deal with that by setting out a litany of certain things that the legislation is not designed to prohibit. That is a good start, but it would have been a much cleaner approach if it had included concepts such as dishonesty, or a similar concept from the criminal law, to make sure that we did not have this potential for unintended consequences coming from the legislation. In fact, what would have been good is if they had looked at the offences for bribery and corruption that exist in the Commonwealth statute book and said, 'Look, these have been interpreted by our courts already and we know how these will be interpreted when they are put into Commonwealth law so why don't we take that framework and move it into this piece of legislation so that everyone who reads it has an understanding of how it will operate?' We have a body of laws that exists already, but within this one bill we have about three different types of offences that are being created.
As a former federal prosecutor, one of my favourite pieces of policy guidance that has been created by a government department is the 107-page and beautifully named: A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers. This document makes great reading any night of the week—especially if you have trouble sleeping. But, if someone had bothered to read that document, they would have seen that we have other bribery and corruption offences that could have been used as the basis for the framework of the ones that are being considered in this piece legislation. While, of course, the intent of the legislation is admirable in that we do need to stamp out all forms of bribery and corruption in this nation, I think there are some things that could have been fixed up in this legislation. It could have been made cleaner and it could have been done better, if the drafters were given the time to do it. I do not criticise the drafters, because they were given a very short time to turn this around—probably with some dubious instructions at best—but there was no opportunity to consult when this legislation was brought in so quickly, and yet it has such breadth, which is also of serious concern.
The other thing I would point out, as I mentioned at the beginning, is that the intended conduct to be criminalised here is already an offence under state law. It makes sense in one regard, given that the Commonwealth has effectively taken over all legislative responsibility for the relationship between employees, employers and their representatives, that the offences that relate to that conduct would also exist in the Commonwealth statute book. The question that then arises is: why only focus on the narrow focus of this conduct and not look at corrupt behaviour between corporations generally, which is also a specified Commonwealth power? Those areas of corruption have not been brought onto the Commonwealth statute book. Quite frankly, our stature internationally, in terms of dealing with bribery and corruption, would benefit greatly and would be improved if they were to also come under the auspices of review of the AFP, ASIC, APRA and the other law enforcement bodies, such as AUSTRAC, in the Commonwealth that should have the specialist expertise to deal with this.
I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 and the amendment to the bill. Australia is recognised as being generally honest. It is an honest place to grow up in. It was certainly an honest world that I grew up in. I do not think I knew what corruption was, to be quite honest. I still live in a community where people neglect to lock their doors and leave their keys in their car. We have an inherent trust in people—a man's handshake is a deal. We trust that other people will treat us the same as we treat them. We trust that they will not rip us off. I often say when I am speaking to constituents and people who feel as though this nation's parliament may not serve them as well as they would hope that we should be very proud that in this parliament—that I am aware of, at least—we have never had what I would describe as a major corruption scandal. Sure, we have had people that have done the wrong thing with their travel benefits and their work expenses claims. We have had people that have done the wrong thing with colour TVs and teddy bears, if my mind goes back to the right era, but one would hardly call that a corruption scandal. We have not seen huge Defence contracts led on a wink and a nod. We have not seen process frozen out. And those that have transgressed, even at that lower level, have generally paid a great political price—they have lost their careers. We set a very high bar and it is one of the reasons we should be proud of the parliament and proud of the job that generally this parliament does for Australians.
Corruption is cancer. It is the disease that stops the advancement of so many nations. It is why Australia has an important part to play in the developing nations within our region. Australia is trying to help them to learn from our experience how to manage their parliaments. I remember a family holiday in a South-East Asian country—that shall remain nameless for the point of this exercise—with our children 15 years ago. I can remember my children were aged at that stage about 15 and 21, so they had an appreciation of the world at least. We were on a tourist bus and were pulled over by the police. The driver stopped to talk to the police for a while and then the driver reached into his pocket. They reached a suitable arrangement and we moved on. The kids said, 'What was that?' The driver said, 'We had to pay the police to continue on the road so that we did not get defected or arrested or put off the road.' My kids said: 'They can't do that. They are the police.' I said, 'Unfortunately that is the case we are dealing with in much of the world.'
In Australia we need to kick back against those corruptions. We need to ensure at every level we try and stamp it out. That is why many of the findings of the Heydon royal commission are in fact so disturbing, because they go to that very point of trust that we have in the people who are supposed to work for us and with us when in fact they have been taking advantage of the workers in this particular case. Unions should be able to cut a deal with businesses and with the employers, and it may even entail trading away wages or certain benefits for other certain benefits as long as it is a good honest deal, a quid pro quo.
For instance, if you were to say to a worker, 'We are going to take $5 an hour off you but the kickback is we are going to help finance your children's education,' that might be a good deal that the workers might approve of—they might not but they might. If they cut a deal that said, 'We will take $10 an hour off and at the end of the year every one of the workers will get a new BMW,' that might be a good deal or it might not but the workers should know about the deal that is being cut on their behalf. It might entail a deal that sees them greatly increase the company's superannuation contributions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were employed in a workplace and I said to you, 'What if your $10 were to go off and contribute to a $300,000 payment for unspecified services that the union was supposed to provide but in fact never delivered upon?' I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would feel pretty upset about that. But the Heydon royal commission told us that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had been working in that workplace, would not have known about it. I think the issue here is the secrecy. It is the secret deals, the kickbacks. What can we expect from officials and companies that reach deals that workers do not know about? The way to fix this is to shine the light in, to provide some sunshine, to offer full transparency, and that is what this legislation is about.
The story is if you want to know what is going on here, if you want to know if these are corrupting benefits, we need to follow the money trail. The money trail always takes you to the real cause, the net effect and net benefit. When we see who might benefit from these deals, it really starts to expose how corrupting they can be. Did members of the AWU, for instance, really want to trade away their benefits in order that the member for Maribyrnong could have a $32,000 benefit to his election fund? I think they should have been told about that. I think that would be the answer. Perhaps every union member would like to have done that—it is quite likely they would have—but they certainly should have known about it, and they certainly should have known what it is they lost for that to happen. This bill will make such secrecy a criminal offence. We are not actually targeting one particular sector of the community, even though the legislation has come about as a result of the findings of the Heydon royal commission, we are trying to stamp out corruption generally. That will force unions and companies to tell their workers what they are doing with the workers' money. We are letting the sunshine in.
There are a number of things this legislation does. The criminal penalties will apply equally to employers and unions. I think that is a very important part. The penalties and payments for benefits intended to corrupt a union official will be a maximum of 10 years in prison. We are not pussyfooting around; this is a serious penalty. If you are talking serious amounts of money you need a serious deterrent. So it will be a maximum of 10 years imprisonment or a $900,000 fine for an individual or $4½ million for a company. I would think that those kinds of penalties should make most individuals and most companies think again before they undertake that kind of activity. The penalties for other illegitimate payments and benefits will be up to two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a company.
I think most importantly, the bill will also require that any financial benefits obtained by an employer or a union through an enterprise agreement negotiation be disclosed to the employees before they vote on the agreement. That really must be the most important part. There is nothing particularly wrong with people making sensible agreements that benefit all parties—in fact, it makes sense. This parliament, this government, is committed in another sphere to developing free trade agreements, for instance. One of the things that free trade agreements do is benefit all parties. So it should be that when agreements are made within the workplace, if it benefits all parties, if people come to a good, mutual understanding, they should be able to strike that deal, but the negotiators absolutely have to tell the people on whose behalf they have acted exactly what has been done on their behalf and what has been traded off to achieve that deal. If money changes hands between the employer and the union then both parties have an obligation to honestly disclose these payments to their employees and members.
On balance, I think this bill rings well with some of the lines we have heard in relation to the budget in the last couple of days. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that everybody gets a fair go. That is certainly one of the great slogans of Australia, that we believe that everybody gets a fair go. If somebody is going to do a deal on our behalf then a fair go is that we know what it is. I absolutely commend this legislation to the House and I look forward to it making a real difference in our workplaces and to it not just affecting workers but setting an example to the rest of our community that says, 'This is the standard by which we live in Australia. It is the standard we expect all Australians to meet.'
When we are talking about the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, we are talking about a prime example of what this government is all about. It is the government of the meaningless gesture and the government of the political agenda. It is a shameless political agenda of trying to destroy the Australian trade union movement. We have heard talk in this last speech about fairness and about superannuation issues. We will come back to that. We will talk about whether this government is really interested in fairness and in prosecuting criminal behaviour and establishing the rule of law.
My good friend and colleague—the member for Burke, who is actually an expert on a lot of these legal issues—quite rightly pointed out that the alleged criminal behaviour that is to be addressed in this legislation is already tackled by existing crimes law. I am not sure what the window-dressing here is all about. We do know that instead of spending $60 million or $80 million on a royal commission, which obviously had a shameless political agenda, that money would have been better spent on enabling our police and criminal investigators to actually do their jobs in prosecuting the law. Of course, the Labor Party is more than supportive and willing to back measures that deal with crimes in the union movement, as we are in any sphere of Australian life. But it would have been a better result to enable our law enforcement agencies to actually get out there and do that job instead of engaging in meaningless gestures, like this sort of legislation, where laws for these crimes already exist.
We could talk about wanting to deal with vandalism, harassment in the workplace, issues of tracking the dubious transfer of money, allegations of relationships with the mafia and these sorts of things. That actually describes a lot of the allegations that have been directed towards the federal parliamentary Liberal Party and describes the way the Liberal Party in New South Wales has operated. We know all about how the Free Enterprise Foundation worked to launder money from developers to the New South Wales Liberal Party. The Liberal branch in my own town of Queanbeyan was central in that process. Developers were literally handing brown paper bags to the head of the Liberal branch in Queanbeyan, who then drove them up the highway to Sydney.
There is all sorts of activity that goes on out there that is worthy of attention, but this is about the choices this government makes. When it talks about 'the right choices', it makes highly political choices that are directed at a particular agenda. That particular agenda is the destruction of the union movement. Talking about the sorts of issues that are out there in the workplace and out there in industry—corruption and the rule of law—why was there no interest in setting up a royal commission into the banks and why was there no interest in looking at the vast array of examples that have been exhibited recently about the underpayment of workers? We have heard those sorts of stories about 7-Eleven, Domino's, Crust pizzas, McDonald's and Caltex. There are all of those stories out there that are all worthy of some sort of analysis from the point of view of systemic violations.
We recently found out something thanks to the National Union of Workers. We heard these references from the previous speaker on superannuation. Again highlighting the need for unions and why they exist, the National Union of Workers ran a process of analysing superannuation through an online wage calculator and uncovered that thousands of workers—not just one or two but thousands of workers—are being absolutely ripped off in relation to their superannuation. Based on the data that was coming in back in November last year, where nearly 20,000 workers' pay details were entered into this fair pay campaign calculator over three weeks, the calculator revealed that more than half of all restaurant industry submissions showed that staff were being denied minimum rates of pay.
These are systemic issues that are worthy of deeper analysis, investigation and perhaps royal commissions. But there is no interest from the government. What is the message that is being sent that we heard from the previous speaker? It is a message that says: 'It's all fair in love and war if you're a business. That's okay. Go for your life. People are only widgets. They're only part of the production process or the business calculation. You can do what you like with them.'
Well, that is not how we think. I have often heard the Prime Minister come in here in many question times, look at the Leader of the Opposition and slander him mercilessly. We heard some more of that previously in relation to enterprise bargaining arrangements and whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is at all interested in the welfare of cleaners. Let me tell you he is, and was and still works tirelessly in their interests. But when you hear the Prime Minister talk about cleaners—his very toilet in his own office is cleaned by workers who are being ripped off blind in this building, whose wages have been frozen since 2012, who are struggling to put food on the table and who are being squeezed like pips to do more work for less in this very building, cleaning his room, his toilet—does he care about them at all? Does he even see them as humans? The hypocrisy of this man is unbelievable. Pointing to a man who has worked all of his life to look after the interests of those sorts workers, he said that penalty rates have been given away by the unions. Well, they have not been.
The issue here is that in an enterprise bargaining agreement there is a trade so that some aspects of productivity arrangements will be entered into in exchange for benefits for workers. They may raise the general level of the wage of workers to compensate for loss of penalty rates or they may create a safer workplace. A lot of the examples we have heard mentioned are about money that has gone into assisting developing safer workplaces.
These are not bad things. It is not a bad thing that a union takes the approach that they want the enterprise to benefit, to be profitable and to be productive, and that they are prepared to talk to their employees and employers to enter into those sorts of arrangements. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. We want to encourage enterprise bargaining arrangements of that nature. To slander and slag them like the Prime Minister does is totally disingenuous and frankly dishonest. What they are doing now is more evident too in their approach across the board to every issue in this space, such as penalty rates.
Of course we know that the government has completely vacated the field on penalty rates. They basically said: 'Fair Work Commission, we are not going to give you the benefit of government modelling, government analysis and government submission on this. You just fly blind and just listen to whatever submissions you may get from business. But we are not going to help with this because we do not care. In fact we want penalty rates to go.' And they backed that in. They supported the decision, as they announced, and made no submissions whatsoever. Then, to compound that, they went out there when we were talking about the minimum wage and the Fair Work Commission and said: 'We do not think that should go up either. In fact, we are happy to see that continually erode through inflation and lack of pay rises.' Of course, what we are seeing in that process is a steady erosion of the working conditions of Australians and record low wages growth. They are more than happy to sit back, fat, dumb and happy, and watch that process roll itself through and watch workers suffer.
In all of this, we have never seen one piece of modelling that shows that there is going to be more employment or wages growth through any of these measures. There has been no modelling whatsoever. The Treasurer is never able to answer those sorts of questions on any of these issues. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that any of the theories of trickle-down economics will work in any respect.
I have talked about the impact, for example, of penalty rate cuts on a region like mine, and of course rural and regional Australia in general. We know that 700,000 Australians in the lowest-paid workers category are going to lose significant elements of their pay, but the deep effect on rural and regional communities like Eden-Monaro is amplified much more. The McKell Institute analysed that impact. When we are talking about retail and hospitality workers in rural and regional areas, it is 18 per cent of the rural workforce. We also know that under their analysis, retail and hospitality workers in rural Australia losing penalty rates will lose between $370 million and $1.5 billion each year. What does that do to our regional economies? No amount of shuffling departments out of Canberra and across the nation will address the impact that just cutting penalty rates will make on rural and regional areas. It will reduce disposable income in those areas between $174 million and $748 million, the McKell Institute reveals to us.
In Eden-Monaro, retail is the second-biggest industry, employing 12,000 workers. Food and hospitality is the fifth-largest industry in my region, employing 5,286 workers. We are going to lose $16 million of disposable income in my region. That is going to hurt. Compounding that is the fact that this crazy decentralisation policy that the Nationals in the coalition are pursuing is going to devastate my region even further. We are suffering—as is the rest of the nation—from the casualisation of our workforce. We in Eden-Monaro are one of the most intense victims of that process. Look at that in the context of penalty rates: for someone who is working two or three days a week, it is the penalty rates that are putting food on the table and helping to pay the rent. Casualisation, penalty rates removal, decentralisation—it is all killing my region. All of the small businesses that benefit from the driving holiday makers from Canberra are suffering a hit. All of the workers that live across the border and in the conurbation that goes from Yass to Bungendore, Queanbeyan and Cooma are suffering from this crazy proposal.
The worst of that, as a person who is deeply interested and concerned about farmers, is that we are seeing the farmers losing support for what they have to do. They do not want the APVMA, for example, to be sitting there in the paddock next to them; they want them to be coming up with solutions to their issues. If you take the APVMA away from the CSIRO and the ANU, they are only going to get hurt in their capacity to deliver those answers. What we have seen is that most of the scientists—the people at the engine of the APVMA—will not do the move or will not be part of the organisation anymore. Not even the CEO will do the move. This move will cost $60 million during a time when we are supposed to be exercising budgetary restraint.
This decentralisation policy is just another example of the shameless political agenda and pork barrelling. As we know, Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, is obviously the first beneficiary of the move of an instrumentality. It is clear that that is not a good idea. It is just moving jobs from one place to another; it is not creating new jobs. The sorts of processes we need to engage in in rural and regional Australia—the policies that need to be put in place to generate new jobs and new economies in the regions—are not even being considered and looked at effectively.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if you were a young person, how would you feel about this government in all of this process? They are not tackling climate change, so they are burning your future. They are ripping out the school funding. They are hurting you through the family tax benefits cuts. I mentioned the penalty rates situation. A lot of young people in my electorate—it is they who are going to be hurt most by that, along with women. You ask them and they will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In all the surveys done in Eden-Monaro, 60 per cent support the retention of penalty rates. In Queanbeyan it is even higher, at 79 per cent.
As for Newstart, that is now off the agenda because we forced it to be off the agenda, but we know that the government want to go there again and they keep it in their back pocket. They will do it whenever they get a chance. With casualisation you know as a young person that you may never get a full-time job under this government. Obviously, that means you have no hope of ever being able to take out a mortgage. Of course, because the government will not tackle housing affordability, you have absolutely no prospect of ever being able to own your own home under this government. Along with all of that, the government also want to raise your pension age to 70. They still want to do that. That is a great prospect for our young people as well.
As a young person, if you want to go to university you are going to get slammed. Your university is going to get penalised, so it will not be able to provide you with an affordable education. If you want to grow the new economy you have be investing in the knowledge infrastructure. Not only is that being attacked but the participants from our rural and regional communities are being prevented from getting there through these measures. And, of course, we are not having the NBN out there to support you either in your need to do online studies or the rest. (Time expired)
I am pleased to rise and to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017.
It is quite a simple principle: secret payments are corrosive to institutions that ultimately require public confidence to function effectively. This bill basically deals with the secret payments made to unions and to union officials. The corrosive influence of these payments has been laid bare time and time again by numerous current and former union officials. We have seen evidence before the Heydon royal commission uncovering a raft of payments between unions and employers that were designed specifically to ensure that companies received favourable treatment from the unions.
Our government is committed to restoring integrity, fairness and transparency into the workplace in relation to these deals. It starts with requiring employers, union officials and unions to act with integrity, with fairness and with transparency in their dealings—especially for the workers to know exactly what those deals are.
We learnt a great deal from the Heydon royal commission about the secret side of these union deals. 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 response at all from the union. Another example revealed by the royal commission was the $300,000 that Thiess John Holland paid in relation to the EastLink freeway in Melbourne. This was an agreement between the AWU and Thiess John Holland, and according to the royal commission it involved false invoices.
A common thread throughout these deals is that the union involved was the Australian Workers' Union, and its leader at the time that these deals were done was of course none other than the Leader of the Opposition. Why was the AWU negotiating for workers building a freeway? You would think that the CFMEU would be working in the interests of those workers. However, we do know that the AWU basically muscled onto the CFMEU's turf, to build up its membership in order to bolster the influence of the member for Maribyrnong.
But that was not the last deal we heard about during the trade union royal commission. There is a wealth of information and documentation as part of that royal commission. As the Prime Minister referred to in his second reading speech, ACI operations paid the AWU in Victoria around $500,000 while they laid off workers at their Spotswood glass manufacturing factory. And what was that payment for? Well, the royal commission discovered that the invoice issued by the AWU was for 'paid education leave'. But actually, predominantly, it was used to offset a loan to renovate the union's Victorian office and other general union costs. It was not quite paid education leave.
What we do see here is a pattern of behaviour, which is why this legislation is so important. What we did see was yet another example of the AWU making shady deals. Another important one was the one they made with Clean Event. This was a deal where Clean Event paid the AWU $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid their cleaning workers well below award wages and actually stripped them of their penalty rates. Now, penalty rates are something that we have heard a lot about, including from the previous speaker. Of course these are low-paid workers initially, and yet their penalty rates were traded away without their knowledge.
The Heydon royal commission basically said that there were savings to Clean Event. And of course the AWU did not just receive their $25,000 per annum payment. Probably what they wanted most was what they got in exchange: Clean Event provided lists of 100 purported members. We have heard so much from the Leader of the Opposition about penalty rates in the past that this particular case is extremely ironic. The payments were detailed in a secret letter—not one shared with the workers or the cleaners—between the AWU and Clean Event, and this letter was never disclosed to the cleaning workers. That is a prime example of a secret payment.
This is clearly a pattern; that is what the Heydon royal commission found. It was a pattern of behaviour. That is why the legislation before the House is so important for those workers and for the issues around transparency and fairness. This pattern of behaviour has very serious implications for unions and their members' confidence in their leadership. How could those Clean Event workers trust their union leaders when this is the deal they did without their knowledge, without transparency?
Figures show that just one in nine employees in the private sector are union members, so how can anyone in this House be surprised when we and employees hear about these types of deals? They would ask, 'Why should we join a union when we see what happened to those Clean Event workers?' They were some of the lowest-paid workers in the nation and they were literally sold out by the union that they were members of and by the leader of that union. The ACTU may wonder why membership is so low; well, there is a prime example.
The royal commission uncovered even more evidence of secret payments, and of course the AWU was involved in these again. As I said, it is a perpetuation of the pattern. Winslow Constructors was caught in the AWU's web of secret payments. In his final report, in a chapter entitled 'AWU and Winslow Constructors', Justice Heydon sets out in great detail the payments made and what they were for. And this actually was an arrangement that went from back in the 1990s right up to 2000. Justice Heydon set out the false invoices stated by the AWU as 'training' but entered into the AWU's own accounting system as 'membership income'. Evidence given by witnesses from Winslow Constructors indicated that no training was provided during the time in line with the information in the invoices.
The former state secretary of the AWU and the chosen successor of the Leader of the Opposition gave evidence that there was 'no sound basis for concluding that no training was provided' and asserted that, because the AWU provided training, 'one would not conclude that it was not provided to Winslow'. In other words, because the AWU provided training, it was provided to Winslow as a matter of course. That is a very interesting hypothesis!
The royal commissioner found:
These submissions are all unpersuasive. They are at odds with the contemporaneous evidence …
'Unpersuasive'—that is very strong language for a former High Court judge. The commission found that the successor of the Leader of the Opposition was instrumental in creating the false invoices. The evidence was accepted by Justice Heydon that Mr Melham was involved in the secret payments from Winslow to the AWU. He personally directed the creation of knowingly false invoices and maintained this practice from the time he was secretary of the Victorian branch.
This legislation will make these types of deals illegal. Given the history, it is not before time. It is not before time for the workers at Clean Event. It is not before time for each of the workers in the cases I have mentioned. The Winslow Constructors payment incident and others are clearly a pattern of behaviour. That is why the legislation is so important. It is to break that pattern and to give the employees and the union members confidence.
Employers participated in these arrangements, and the commission clearly draws the inference that companies participated for a number of potential reasons: because they expected to gain more flexible or cheaper employee pay or conditions, to win jobs or perhaps to avoid strikes and other industrial disputes. I think this is what in the movies is termed a 'shakedown'. Companies pay these secret deals to get either a cheaper workforce or industrial peace. Clearly, in light of what we saw in the royal commission, there is an urgent need of reform, which is why this bill is so important.
This legislation is a direct outcome of the royal commission. In volume 5 of the report, chapter 4 is entitled 'Corrupting benefits' and sets out what it believes should be reformed to ensure that these practices are eradicated. The commission said: 'The problems are longstanding. They are inherently intractable. There is every incentive to preserve secrecy.' The report summarised the targeted reforms: '(1) that registered organisations and branches be required to disclose certain payments made to them; (2) that a Commonwealth corrupting benefits offence in relation to officers of registered organisations be enacted; and (3) that employers be prohibited from making any payments to an employee organisation, including certain classes of payment.' This is precisely what the legislation we are debating here does, along with the Registered Organisations act.
These laws will equally apply to employers. Whether you are offering or paying a benefit, or soliciting or receiving it, all participants will be accountable, as they should be. It is about fairness. It is about transparency. The penalties in this bill are certainly part of what we need to achieve. The legislation will help clean up the unfair, secretive and often corrupt payments that we have seen come to light in the Heydon royal commission. It will go to restoring integrity and fairness to workplaces. It is going to give some confidence to a whole lot of workers, which is what this is about and should be about. As I said at the start of my speech, it is quite a simple principle: secret payments are corrosive to institutions that ultimately require public confidence to function effectively. Our government wants to restore that public confidence in these institutions and ensure that they are run fairly and in accordance with the rule of law.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 9, government business, be postponed until the next sitting.
Question agreed to.
This is a budget and a government that wants to bury its past and rewrite its history. The Liberals want Australians to forget four wasted years in which wages growth has hit record lows, unemployment is up, underemployment and casualisation are at record highs, living standards have stagnated, inequality has widened. This budget is an admission of guilt, a signed confession. It is proof that the Liberals have frozen this nation and hurt our economy. And now they have the nerve to come in here and talk about fairness and opportunity.
There is nothing fair about making middle-class and working-class Australians pay more while millionaires and multinationals pay less. There is nothing fair about a $65 billion giveaway for big business while you are cutting $22 billion from Australia's schools. There is no opportunity in the Liberals' war on young people—their education, their penalty rates, their chance to buy a first home. This budget fails the fairness test and it fails the generational test. It does nothing for families' cost of living and, where it seeks to imitate Labor policies, it fails miserably.
There is a powerful difference between my united team and this divided, out-of-touch government. Our policies are the real deal because they spring from our values. They were not cooked up in a panic to try and neutralise a political liability. And the great irony of this budget is that, while it does not measure up to our values, it does not keep faith with traditional coalition values. It is a budget of big government, higher tax and more debt. In fact, it is a budget devoid of values altogether.
But make no mistake: this is not a Labor budget. A Labor budget would protect penalty rates, not cut them.
A Labor budget would fund schools properly, not rip money away.
A Labor budget would invest in universities, not jack up fees to discourage working-class kids from going to university.
A Labor budget would respect pensioners, not tell brickies and nurses that they have to work to 70 before they get the pension.
A Labor budget would level the playing field for affordable housing, not protect tax breaks for property investors.
A Labor budget would protect workers in labour-hire firms, not give their employers a tax cut.
A Labor budget would close the gap, not cut $500 million from Indigenous services.
A Labor budget would rescue TAFE, not cut courses and close campuses.
A Labor budget would invest in renewables, deliver an emissions intensity scheme and take real action on climate change, not just pass the problem onto the next generation. A Labor budget would stand up for middle-class and working-class families, instead of taking their money in raised taxes and giving it to millionaires and multinationals in reduced taxes.
And a Labor budget will always protect Medicare. This means reversing the unfair Medicare freeze immediately. The truth of this budget is that the Medicare freeze remains in place and will not be fully eradicated until 2020. Every day between now and then Australians will be paying more for their health care than they should be. In the past four years the Liberals have cut Medicare, taxed Medicare and tried to privatise Medicare. Now they want to pretend it was all a misunderstanding—not because they have changed their minds or got the message but because they are trying to save their own skins.
The thing about this Prime Minister is he only discovers his heart when he feels fear in it. He does not believe in what he is doing. The people behind him do not believe it either. Australians do not trust a word he says on Medicare. It is the most basic question in politics: who do you trust? Who do you trust to protect Medicare? Is it a Labor Party that knows Medicare speaks for who we are as a country, for the idea that the health of any one of us matters to all of us? Is it the Labor Party that built Medicare and saved Medicare or a Liberal Party which has spent 34 years trying to dismantle Medicare as we know it? As for the so-called Medicare guarantee, the only guarantee with the Liberals and Medicare is this: as soon as they get another chance, they will cut Medicare.
Labor will not stop the Liberals' new tax on the banks, but we are deeply sceptical of a banking culture that takes every opportunity to hit customers with higher fees and charges. And we are worried that the weakness at the core of this government will turn a $6 billion tax on the banks into a $6 billion charge on every Australian with a bank account or a mortgage. The big banks know they can run right over the top of this weak Prime Minister. He is giving them a levy with one hand but a tax cut with the other and a free pass on bad behaviour.
I will give them a royal commission. It will be a proper, considered examination of the results of the accepted economic power of the banks and how to respond. Let me make this clear tonight: if the banks pass on a single dollar of the government's tax to Australian families then that should be the end of this Treasurer, this Prime Minister and this whole government because their weakness will be there for all to see.
The government would love Australians to believe they are doing something on housing. But they are not reforming negative gearing and capital gains. We are. They are not undoing the tax breaks which give every investor a head start and every option, but we are. They are not serious about tackling the crisis in housing affordability. We are.
Let's look, though, at the one new idea that housing in this budget—a poison pill in the superannuation well, just to make houses more expensive. The sad lesson of First Home Owner Grants is that any extra cash in the pockets of people looking to buy is eaten up by price rises. When you study the detail you see that this program offers microscopic assistance for young people. If you divide the cost of this program in the budget by the number of first homes sold each year, the government, with great fanfare, is allocating $565 for each home. What a joke! What an insult. It will not even cover the costs of the removalists. This is not a solution; it is false hope for people who do not have rich parents. Labor will not support this cruel hoax. But we will deliver on our plan for affordable housing, driving the construction of 55,000 new homes over three years and creating 25,000 jobs every year. We will commit to more public housing including for women and children fleeing family violence.
I am pleased to advise, Mr Speaker, that since budget night Labor has already identified $1 billion of government measures that we will not support, and savings that go back to the bottom line. The United States has killed off the Trans-Pacific Partnership so why waste $162 million of taxpayer money to try and revive the deal? Unlike the Liberals, we will not spend $40 million of taxpayer money on government advertising congratulating ourselves on our own tax policy. We will not waste $300 million paying the states for regulatory reform they should be doing already. We will not support setting aside $170 million for a divisive plebiscite nobody wants when this parliament should do its job and get on with making marriage equality a reality in Australia. There are some government measures that we will support: we welcome the overdue changes to the Family Court because no survivor of family violence should be cross-examined by the perpetrator, and, of course, we support the new initiatives to support our veterans.
On Tuesday night the government's massive tax giveaway for multinationals did not actually get a mention. Today we found out why. Last year, the Prime Minister's 10-year handout for the top-end of town was estimated to cost $50 billion but, on July 1, this cost will blowout to $65.4 billion. This is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. It is a threat to Australia's AAA credit rating and, therefore, a threat to every Australian mortgage holder. The only defence that the Liberals have mounted is that it will lead to an increase in workers' wages. Now, on the government's own numbers, we are talking about an extra $2 a day in 20-years' time! These are the crumbs from the Prime Minister's policy table: $65 billion for big business and $10 a week for workers in 2027. There has never been a more exciting time to be a multinational in Liberal Australia, and the giveaways for the top-end of town do not stop there.
This Prime Minister is so determined to deliver a tax cut for millionaires that he has declared mission accomplished on budget repair. He is not renewing the deficit levy so that he can deliver a marvellous tax cut for high-income earners. But this year's deficit is 10 times bigger than the Liberal's first budget predicted. Tonight I make clear that Labor will not support spending $19.4 billion on the wealthiest two per cent of Australians.
The Liberal's new income tax increase will affect every Australian right down to an income of $21,000. A worker on $55,000 will pay an extra $275 a year. For someone on $80,000, it is an extra $400 a year. When wages growth is anaemic, when insecure work is on the rise and when the cost of essentials and energy continue to increase, Labor cannot support making people on modest incomes give up even more of their pay packets, especially when this budget goes out of its way to give taxpayer money to millionaires and multinationals.
We will back the government's 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy but only for Australians in the top two tax brackets. Costings from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office show that our plan will deliver more revenue than the government over the medium term without putting the burden onto families on modest incomes. This is a fair and responsible way forward and this is a promise Labor makes to 10 million Australians tonight: we will do our level best to protect you from the Liberal Party's tax increase.
Let me be clear about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor did not just create the NDIS; we fully funded it, we budgeted it, and Treasury confirmed it. And after three years of Liberal cabinet leaks questioning the cost and the value of the NDIS, we will not have our commitment challenged by those opposite. Working with Jenny Macklin, Julia Gillard and, more importantly, tens of thousands of people with disabilities and their carers to design and deliver the NDIS is one of the great greatest privileges of my parliamentary career. I will never forget the promise that we made to those elderly parents of adult children with severe and profound disabilities, awake at midnight anxiously wondering who will love and care for their child when they no longer can. For me, for Labor, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is an article of faith. Labor fully funded it in government, we will fight for it in opposition and we will never see the people who rely upon it go without the money they need.
Taking money off the middle class and spending it on millionaires is not tax reform. But there are ways to make our system better. Too many multibillion-dollar multinational companies who do business in Australia avoid paying tax in Australia. That is why Labor will close the loopholes that let big companies shuffle money around the world to hide the true state of their books. Our plan will deliver an extra $5.4 billion to the budget bottom line over the decade. That is what we mean by budget repair that is fair.
But multinational companies are not the only ones exploiting holes in our tax net. In 2014-15, 48 Australians earned more than $1 million and paid no tax at all, not even the Medicare levy; instead, using clever tax lawyers, they deducted their income down from an average of $2.5 million to below the tax-free threshold. One of the biggest deductions claimed was the money they paid to their accountants, averaging over $1 million. Those individuals are not just counting cards in the casino, they are bringing in their own dealer and their own deck. Loopholes for millionaires means middle Australia pays more. That is why a Labor government will cap the amount individuals can deduct for the management of their tax affairs at $3,000. This affects fewer than one in 100 tax payers and will save the budget over $1.3 billion over the medium term. The days of earning millions and paying nothing are over, no matter who you are.
The same goes for anyone minimising their tax by hiding money in offshore tax havens. Panama, the British Virgin Islands and the Caymans have become a refuge of choice for trillions of dollars in global wealth. Labor will introduce a new set of laws to target those who aggressively minimise their tax and leave the heavy lifting in our tax system to the middle class and working class, who cannot pick and choose their tax jurisdiction. There is only one reason people hide their money in tax havens, to avoid paying their fair share here. So instead of beating our chests about welfare crackdown 9.0 and setting robo-debt collectors loose, Labor will get tough on the people who earn and owe big dollars—that is fair.
The next time the government lectures Australians about fairness or debt and deficit, consider these decisions: they are ignoring negative gearing and capital gains—that is $37 billion; they are letting multinationals and tax minimisers off the hook—that is$36.7 billion; they are giving the top two per cent of Australians a tax cut—that is, $19.4 billion; and they are clinging onto their handout to big business—that is $65.4 billion. This is $128 billion the Liberals could use to pay down the debt and deficit without holding the NDIS hostage, without cutting schools or jacking up uni fees, and without increasing taxes on the middle- and working-class people of Australia.
The budget fails the test of the fairness, but it fails the future too. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating changed Australia from industrial museum to a modern, outward looking, competitive economy. Australia cannot live off their legacy forever. We need to set a new direction. Amid the burgeoning opportunities of Asia, Australia's future lies in human capital—in skills, education and training. The scale of India and China is like nothing we have ever seen. To win, it is about being clever. The alternative—the low-skill, low-wage road—only leads to a low-growth future. Fundamentally, our future prosperity depends on investing in education and training. We do not just want to compete with our neighbours; we want to create value in our relationships. To do that, we have to bring something with us: our education, our skills and our people.
The terms of trade measure the gift of global growth. It is the luck that the world gives us when countries pay for the things that we dig out of the ground, but we cannot rely on that alone or forever. The luck we make ourselves is called a clever society. It is called education and training. It is how we carve a comparative advantage for our industries. It is how we boost productivity, create jobs and increase wages. It is by putting a premium on our human capital and helping our people move up the production and services learning curve, whether that is architecture; engineering; health care and aged care; agriculture, farming and food; or advanced manufacturing. But this opportunity will not last forever. Unless we aim to be the best in the world, then we are selling our future and our young people short. If Australia does not think big, we will end as small.
Building a rail line to move freight from Brisbane to Melbourne is a valuable idea. But educating a generation is how we will prevail in our changing world. That is up to government and to individuals: a government creating opportunities in schools, universities, training and apprenticeships; and individuals then making the most of these opportunities. Great education should start when you are three and four years old and be available to you throughout your whole life. When every country in our region has made education the No. 1 priority, Australia cannot afford to slow down, to compromise or to settle for second place or second best.
Yet at the very moment that the hallmark of a new Australia should be creativity, skills and education, the Liberals are cutting money from the lot: $22 billion ripped from schools and $4 billion from universities, making Australians pay more for a degree and faster, and nothing for TAFE and apprenticeships but cuts. The Prime Minister used to talk a lot about innovation, but we cannot be an innovation nation unless we are an education nation. This budget is worse than a handbrake on our national potential. It actually drags us back in the global pack. Every time we settle for second best in education, it gets harder for us to catch up.
Three years ago, having promised no cuts to schools, the Liberals ripped away $30 billion. Last week, they told the parents and students of Australia to be grateful that they are now only cutting $22 billion. To borrow a comparison from a former Prime Minister, who is politely following this debate, it is like the arsonist turning up after the fire and expecting a thank you. In the Labor Party, we believe every child in every school deserves every opportunity for a world-class education. There are 2½ million students in our great public schools and 1.3 million students who go to a Catholic or independent school. We understand that parents who pay their taxes to Canberra have a legitimate expectation that some of that money will be reinvested in their children's education. We understand on this side of the House that not every parent who send their child to a local Catholic parish primary school is wealthy.
Look at the mess that the government has made of this policy. You have to ask: whatever happened to the Liberal Party that once supported choice in education? Of course, there is no genuine choice if our public schools are underfunded and students and teachers go without the resources they need. I do not want Australian schools in the middle of the pack. Labor wants Australia to have the best public education system in the world—the best. The kids deserve nothing less.
That is why tonight I can promise that a Labor government will restore every single dollar of the $22 billion the Liberals have cut from schools, right down to every last cent: better schools, better results and great teachers that are properly paid. Tonight, I can confirm that Labor will oppose the Liberal cuts to universities, the increase in student fees and the change to the repayment threshold that hits women, Indigenous Australians and low paid the hardest. We will never cheat hardworking young Australians out of the chance to get a degree, because we believe that a university education is an opportunity you earn, not a privilege you inherit.
When my brother and I were growing up, Mum and Dad always told us that we could choose to learn a trade or go to uni and they would support us either way. I suppose that is what you get from being raised by a teacher and a fitter and turner. And as the Prime Minister I will give the same promise to young Australians. Whether you choose university, TAFE or an apprenticeship, the government of Australia that we lead will give you every chance to be your best.
This begins with a new focus on training Australians instead of importing skills. So far, all the government has done about exploitation and rorts in the work visa system is rename 457 visas and yell at us. Their much-hyped changes only affect eight per cent of visa holders. I congratulate the Prime Minister on getting tough on foreign antique dealers and foreign goat farmers! We just need to do a little bit more than that. That is why Labor will train more nurses, cooks, carpenters, carers, electricians here at home and help them fill the jobs we know that our country needs.
And here is a free tip for a government looking for a policy: workers will believe you are fair dinkum about stopping visa rorts when you have independent labour market testing. Otherwise, don't bother wasting their time; they are busy working.
In the last three budgets, Liberals cut $2.8 billion out of training. Australian apprenticeship numbers have fallen by 130,000. And on Tuesday night another $600 million was cut. A Labor government will reverse the government's new cuts to TAFE and training. We will reverse the trend towards privatisation, because it is time to put public TAFE right back at the centre of our vocational training system. And tonight I pledge that a new Labor government will allocate two out of every three dollars raised of public vocational education funding to public TAFE.
And after years of Liberal neglect campuses in our regions and outer suburbs have fallen into disrepair. Some have even closed. It means locals cannot access the courses they need in the communities where they live. That is why Labor will create a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to renovate the classrooms, the workshops, the kitchens and the ag science centres. We will deliver world-class facilities for a world-class training system. And this rebuilding work will begin where it is most needed: in areas of high youth unemployment around the country.
Now, rebuilding TAFE goes hand in hand with backing apprentices. That is why a Labor government will make a new rule: the one-in-10 rule. For every major infrastructure project funded by the Commonwealth, one in every 10 people employed must be an Australian apprentice. That means, when we invest in public transport for our cities: Cross River Rail in Brisbane, Western Sydney rail link, Melbourne Metro, AdeLINK, Perth METRONET; when we back the good local projects, like the third crossing over the Shoalhaven north of Nowra or better water security for Townsville; when we make sure that Victoria finally gets a fair share of funding it deserves; when we modernise and build our energy network with new pipelines and updated interconnectors; and when we develop the north for tourism infrastructure, we will also be investing every time—every time—in Australian jobs and Australian apprentices.
Labor will hire Australian and will buy Australian too, maximising local content in Australian steel in our infrastructure and delivering Australian gas first-priority to support blue-collar manufacturing jobs in Australia.
There was a time when the public sector was one of the biggest employers of apprentices, but contracting out and privatisation have undermined this. To turn this around, Labor will apply our one-in-10 rule to government business enterprises like the National Broadband Network, Defence procurement, the Australian Rail Track Corporation. We will work with government departments to improve apprentice and trainee recruitment.
Labor will always back good programs that lead to good jobs. As shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I am pleased to announce that we will double the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers. I, like many here, have seen the pride that comes from wearing the ranger uniform—people working for this country on their country and their waters, combining the latest environmental science with traditional knowledge. These rangers benefit the environment, tourism and develop new enterprises. It is a privilege to support their work.
A Labor government will set the example on job creation, but we are going to need help from business too. Tonight I ask the employers of Australia: take on an apprentice. Step up your commitment to training our future workforce and join us in this national effort. Your company will benefit and the nation will too.
The government have said that this is a budget for better days ahead. What they mean is better days for millionaires and multinationals, better days for property investors and tax minimisers, better days for the big end of town but bad news for battlers. The Prime Minister has said that this budget is about helping Australians realise their dreams—unless you are a working-class kid who dreams of going to university or a small-business owner dreaming of a proper NBN or a young couple who dream of owning their first home. This Prime Minister of many words has learned a new one—fairness. He says it as often as he can. But repetition is no substitute for conviction. Fairness is not some slogan you can borrow. It is not a domain name that you can register. It is not a shelf company where you can strip out the assets and keep the brand.
This is not a Labor budget and it was not a fair budget because we are not you, and you will never be us. Fairness is not measured by what you say; it is revealed by what you do. There is only one party in this parliament that believes in fairness and delivers it—fair funding for education, fair protection for Medicare and the safety net, a fair deal for Australians with disability, a fair chance at a job, a fair wage at work including penalty rates, a fair start in the housing market, a fair deal for the generation that follows us, taking action on climate change, equal pay for women, tackling inequality, closing the gap, building a country as generous and as courageous as Australians themselves. Prime Minister, if this the best you can do, your best is not good enough for this country. Building a country to achieve better days ahead needs a better government, a fairer government, a Labor government for all Australians.
House adjourned at 20:03
I rise to speak today on the Turnbull government's attack on hundreds of thousands of Australian workers through their failure to prevent cuts to penalty rates from 1 July this year. I speak for the cleaners, the nurses, the paramedics and the ambulance officers who have spoken to me at the many mobile offices I have conducted across my electorate, who all think they are in the gun next, that they are next on the list of attacks the Turnbull government will perpetrate on the people of Blair. There are about 27,000 families in my electorate, many of whom rely on penalty rates to pay the bills, put fuel in the car and keep food on the table. Without them, people will be much worse off. These are people who have been disgracefully let down by the government's failure to protect penalty rates and the fact that, in this budget, the government thinks it is appropriate to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires and to big business at the same time as not protecting penalty rates.
I want to commend the work done by the SDA, the shoppies union, in Queensland and the Queensland state secretary, Chris Gazenbeek, for the work they are doing to bring this to the attention of people across Queensland. I urge people across Queensland, particularly those in my electorate, to get behind the campaign of the SDA, particularly in respect of protecting penalty rates. To do so, they can go to: www.protectpenaltyrates.org.au. As Chris Gazenbeek has said, hardworking retail and fast-food employees stand to lose between $2,000 and $6,000 every year due to penalty rate cuts, which are fully supported by the Turnbull government. Whether it is a direct cut to take-home pay or a reduction in conditions that underpin EBAs, it represents a pay cut that retail and fast-food workers cannot afford and do not deserve.
The Turnbull government's failure to stand up for working families is evident at every opportunity. It is so evident in the budget we have seen in the last couple of days. They continue to turn their back on Australian workers, who are struggling with record low wages growth. The SDA and the labour movement generally and the Labor Party in particular will support those hardworking people across this area. This is a time when inequality is at a 75-year high, wages growth is the lowest on record and both unemployment and underemployment continue to rise, and still those opposite see fit to undertake a protracted campaign over several years targeting the lowest paid workers and the take-home pay of hardworking Australians. It is simply astonishing and extraordinary.
Over 60 members of the government, including the Prime Minister himself, have called for penalty rates to be either cut or abolished altogether. Some have gone as far as to describe them as a gift to young people. It is simply not good enough. These are the cuts the government wants to undertake—cuts to penalty rates—and the government has the power to stop them. Either they are not listening or they do not care. They do not care about hardworking people in my electorate in Ipswich and the Somerset region. We know that cutting penalty rates will hurt families, but it is also clear that it will hurt the budget, as the budget papers clearly indicate. I support the campaign of the SDA, the labour movement and the Labor Party to protect penalty rates— (Time expired)
It is vitally important that Australia's regions are supported with modern infrastructure—infrastructure that makes a real difference to regional economies and creates jobs. From the 2017 budget, there is a massive opportunity in my region to develop the Port of Bundaberg. There is $10 billion on the table for railway infrastructure. State and local governments need to be on the front foot to investigate the possibility of developing the inland rail through to the Bundaberg port, which could then be developed as a container facility. The government is establishing a $10 billion national rail program to fund rail projects that will improve regional rail services to better connect our communities. The program would allow the government to partner with state governments to plan and deliver key rail infrastructure projects.
While I have been talking about additional opportunities at the Port of Bundaberg, I am calling on the Queensland state and local government to fight for the significant expansion which will result in jobs—thousands of jobs—in Central Queensland. There are already some fantastic things happening in Bundaberg. The ex HMAS Tobruk is berthed at the port while it undergoes preparatory work to be scuttled as a military dive wreck. I must thank the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, and her valuable staff for their assistance in securing the vessel for the Wide Bay Burnett region. It has the potential to pump millions of dollars into the local economy in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay and to attract thousands of divers to the region. Already the project is creating jobs for locals, and more will come online as the project progresses under the management of the Queensland state government—although I would like them to get on with it a bit, I must say.
The $70 million Knauf plasterboard manufacturing plant is under construction at the port right now and is expected to create around 70 permanent positions. The facility will be the company's third in Australia, with manufacturing plants also in Sydney and Melbourne. The project will include gypsum handling and processing facilities to support plasterboard production and for the sale of gypsum to our very important local agricultural sector. The Bundaberg region is one of the largest horticultural producing areas of Australia. We are the biggest producer of heavy vegetables, so to have a company that can import lime directly and make it into a pelletised product at a much reduced cost will be a large benefit for our local growers. The construction of the $19.8 million, 28 kilometre Bundaberg port gas pipeline was completed by Australian Gas Networks earlier this year. One of its key functions will be supporting the Knauf facility.
Also announced in last night's budget was the establishment of a regional growth fund. The fund will include $272.2 million to provide grants of $10 million or more for major transformational projects which support long-term economic growth and create jobs in Australia's regions. The government is investing in regional Australia by delivering infrastructure that will drive economic growth and secure more and better paying jobs. I plan to meet again with state and local government representatives when I return to the electorate to gauge their interest and discuss what we can do with these two fabulous announcements. The $10 billion for rail infrastructure is an opportunity for us, and I intend to see that we take every single opportunity that is put in front of us.
'A national tragedy'—not my words but the words of the University of Melbourne's Professor Rodney Tucker in describing the member for Wentworth's failed National Broadband Network. It is a description that would be endorsed by many people in the great electorate of Isaacs and, particularly, in the suburb of Patterson Lakes. I was recently contacted by a resident of Patterson Lakes in my electorate. This resident has, for eight years, been forced to access the internet through a USB dongle. Her family runs a painting and decorating business. Her son is a university student. Their last monthly internet bill for 12 gigabytes of data was $700.
In 2013, Prime Minister Turnbull promised that all Australians would have access to the NBN by 2016. He said he would do this for $29.5 billion. This cost has now doubled to $56 billion and in most places the network will use obsolete copper wiring. Patterson Lakes is not expecting an NBN rollout until at least mid-2018. The blame for this disaster falls squarely on Prime Minister Turnbull. It was Prime Minister Turnbull who dismantled Labor's plan for the NBN, which would have delivered optic fibre to 93 per cent of homes and businesses, providing speeds of up to one gigabit per second on a network easily scalable to much higher speeds in the future. It was Prime Minister Turnbull who promised an NBN that was 'fast, affordable and sooner' but then failed to deliver.
When it comes to nation-building, the Liberal Party cannot be trusted. From the Snowy Mountain Hydro scheme to Gonski needs-based funding and all the way to the NBN, the only thing that Prime Minister Turnbull has been capable of is tacking cheap three-word slogans or '2.0' onto Labor's visionary ideas. In the last three years, Australia has plummeted from 30th in the world for internet speeds to 60th. We are now behind most of Europe. We are behind the United States, Canada and New Zealand. We are even behind Romania, Russia, Poland and Slovakia. Prime Minister Turnbull's second-rate copper NBN is holding Australia back. Our competitiveness as a nation will suffer as the Liberals continue to roll out last century's technology, and opportunities for Australian enterprise and innovation will be lost to overseas markets—and the jobs will follow.
Just a week ago, I visited Monterey Secondary College, south of Patterson Lakes, to speak with their VCAL students about the jobs of the future. One of the main themes underlying my conversation with the students was the fact that the internet and our online interconnectedness will significantly shape the nature of employment in the future. Prime Minister Turnbull's mismanagement is not merely a botched effort of rolling out a bunch of cables underground; he is robbing students like the ones I spoke to of the opportunity to seize the best of what the future holds. Only Labor will deliver on that promise.
I would like to talk this morning about the record funding the Turnbull government is providing to our schools, particularly schools in South Australia. In my electorate of Boothby alone, we are seeing a $269 million increase in school funding over the next 10 years. Every student in southern Adelaide will be better off under this plan. We are finally fixing the mess that the Labor Party left us with, which has been made possible because of our sound financial management over the past five years.
In Aberfoyle Park, the Meridian School is receiving an extra $3.9 million to 2027, and Pilgrim School is getting $4.2 million. In Mitchell Park, Hamilton Secondary School is receiving a further $9 million. Down in Seacombe Heights, Seaview High School will get $4.8 million. Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, where my great-grandmother and my grandmother both taught, in my electorate, will receive an extra $4.4 million over the period to 2027. The combined increase in funding to Catholic schools in Boothby is also unprecedented. Among the 10 Catholic schools in my electorate an extra $62 million will be provided by the Turnbull government. South Australia overall will see an extra $16 billion of funding from now until 2027.
One of the really exciting pieces of news to come out of our Quality Schools package is the funding that Suneden Special School will receive. Suneden is just a few minutes from my electorate office. The team there, led by Principal Anne Martin, really does an incredible job caring for children, some of whom have some very severe disabilities and need a lot of support. I was privileged to help them celebrate their 50th anniversary last year, and it was wonderful to be able to visit the school and see what they do firsthand. Over the next 10 years the school will receive an extra $11.9 million of funding, which represents an increase of around $20,000 to $54,000 per student, to support the wonderful work that they do.
I want to congratulate Minister Simon Birmingham for the work he has done on this package. As a South Australian he knows that, under the previous government and the deal that state and federal Labor did, South Australia was in a terrible position. The landmark fair needs-based funding model that we have introduced will see the Commonwealth apply the same formula to funding every student, whether they are in government, Catholic or independent schools, within just 10 years. Funding is going from $17 billion this year to $30 billion by 2027. Again, I congratulate Minister Simon Birmingham and I am really looking forward to getting out and about to the schools when I get back to my electorate to talk to them about our plan and how this is going to benefit students and their families as well as teachers in my electorate of Boothby.
The Commonwealth government has an important role to play in investing in local infrastructure, particularly in regional areas. When we talk about infrastructure we too often think of large-scale road and rail projects in our capital cities, but medium- and small-scale infrastructure projects in regions like the one I represent are also fundamentally important for our economic prosperity and for the wellbeing of our communities. So I was very pleased to meet with the CycleSafe Network's steering committee last week to discuss their Charlestown to Coast proposal, which would see Charlestown as the major commercial centre in Lake Macquarie linked to the Fernleigh Track and Whitebridge and Dudley. The Fernleigh Track is a fantastic shared pathway that follows a disused coal haul rail line between Adamstown and Belmont and is used by cyclists, runners and walkers alike. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Jill Hall, for her hard work and commitment in securing federal funding for the track, which was also supported by the New South Wales state government and the Lake Macquarie and Newcastle councils.
The idea behind the proposal is to link the shops and significant public facilities in Charlestown to the Fernleigh Track and nearby suburbs with a new bi-directional track. And of course the more of this type of infrastructure that makes it easier for people to exercise, the healthier our country will be, and it is great that the Heart Foundation is supporting the proposal alongside the NRMA. The CycleSafe Network is working with Lake Macquarie City Council on the proposal, and I thank them for the fine work they are doing for our community. I have ridden along the Fernleigh Track many times, and it is a magnificent piece of infrastructure.
I want to briefly discuss the most significant infrastructure project in the Hunter region, the Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange, the first stage of which will open within a few months. In the budget handed down on Tuesday, the government has again ignored this project. Labor has a proud record of supporting this interchange, and we have consistently supported it because we know how important it is to our region. When we were in government we provided $13 million to the project. When the Liberals were elected they cut $1 million. This interchange will create 10,000 local jobs and unleash huge economic activity for the entire region.
In fact, every dollar of government investment will unleash $94 of private sector investment. If the Liberals were serious about jobs and growth in the Hunter, and not just in their marginal seats, they would have committed the relatively modest $13 million to this fundamentally important local infrastructure. This project has the support of all 11 Hunter councils. It is very rare for councils to support a project outside their immediate area, but all 11 Hunter councils say that this is the No. 1 infrastructure priority for the entire Hunter region. It will unlock 10,000 jobs and drive huge amounts of private sector investment. In failing to fund this interchange, the Liberals have again demonstrated that they care nothing about the people of the Hunter. It is very disappointing. Along with all my Labor colleagues I will continue to fight for this very important project.
It is my great pleasure to rise to celebrate the Turnbull government's $100 million investment in the Geelong rail duplication project, as announced in our federal budget. This is a fantastic investment for our region. It is a project for which I have fought very hard for the last two years, and I am absolutely delighted that the Commonwealth is stepping up and delivering on a project that will deliver faster and more reliable trains from Colac, Warrnambool and Geelong through to Melbourne. Of course, we do need to see a budgeted commitment placed in the Victorian budget so that we can ensure that this project is delivered. We would also like to see the Victorian government commit to the East West Link, because, as we who live in Western Melbourne and Geelong all know, it is a terrible situation that we find ourselves in—$1.24 billion of taxpayers' money wasted as a result of the cancellation of that project and absolute congestion, which can be fixed only by a proper western road link.
The commitment to the rail project puts us in the box seat to secure a city deal for our region. I am very proud that last Friday I convened a workshop with the G21 organisation, local mayors, the Committee for Geelong, the Geelong Chamber of Commerce and the parliamentary secretary to the Victorian Treasurer, Daniel Mulino. Together, we worked on a blueprint for a city deal. There was much consensus in the room and I think the meeting was a great success. There is, of course, a lot more work to be done, but I am delighted that Angus Taylor, the member for Hume, as the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, joined us about six weeks ago to start that process.
City deals are absolutely vital to bringing the Australian government, state governments and local governments together to form a plan and work together on a joint investment. We are working very hard for our region. If we can secure a city deal, I believe this will help drive funding commitments for major infrastructure projects, such as a convention centre in Geelong and the final stage of Simonds Stadium. I believe it is critically important that the city deal, if we can secure one, include an independent development corporation that is required to fast-track and leverage private sector development.
In its budget, the Turnbull government very proudly allocated $472 million in regional infrastructure funding, including a second round of the Building Better Regions Fund, and we will be working very hard to secure some of that funding. So I call on Daniel Andrews to prioritise the Geelong and Great Ocean Road region as the first regional city deal. I too am working very hard for a city deal for our region.
I would like to again extend an invitation to the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, and the Treasurer, the member for Cook, to visit Darwin and the Top End. We are a welcoming bunch and, most importantly, we want the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to see firsthand our massive potential. We also want them to understand the immense level of need, as well as the fantastic opportunities and skills available in the Northern Territory.
I do not want to be negative. I commend the funding boost for veterans' mental health and suicide prevention, and the additional money for mental health overall. But the only thing this budget does for us is confirm the gutting of the Northern Territory, with a $1.17 billion cut in Commonwealth payments, as a result of GST amendments. It is tearing the heart out of the Territory. So imagine just how disappointed we were on Tuesday night, optimistically hoping for at least some infrastructure investment for the Territory to help ameliorate the vicious GST cuts. But there was nothing. There is nothing in this budget that commits the federal government to working with the NT government to build and develop our cities, towns and regions. I just do not understand why the federal government has turned its back on the Northern Territory. We kept looking at the budget—maybe there was something in there—but the reality is this budget kicks the territory where it hurts. There is a lot of talk about developing the north from this government, but we have not had one dollar—not one dollar—out of the north Australia infrastructure funding, and we see very little in this budget.
Tourism is a major part of our economy, but what have we seen there? More cuts. Our economy is transitioning, as most of Australia is, out of the mining boom. We have impacts in the NT—winding down the construction phase—so we need to focus on tourism. But not only are there these cuts; there is nothing for the Territory—no new money and no infrastructure funding.
The only mention of Darwin I could find in the budget is a plan to reduce the size of the Australian Electoral Commission's office in Darwin and relocate it interstate to a capital city. I just do not understand that. A recent report about the Territory election showed that of those who are enrolled—and we have very poor voter enrolment—just 74 per cent turned out for the Territory election. The federal government is moving members of the AEC out of Darwin—which is struggling with population—interstate. It is the opposite of decentralisation— moving it to a bigger capital city—and it shows that Senator Fiona Nash's talk about decentralisation is an absolute furphy. Finally, I want to talk about the new tax arrangements. They are unfair. (Time expired)
The Maclean Show was held last week, and what better person to officially open the show than Joyce Watson. Joyce is 93 years old and has been involved in the show for most of her life. At an early age, she competed in the equestrian events, later becoming a judge and competitor in the pavilion. She is also the show's longest serving secretary, from between 1971 and 1997. Joyce still enters exhibits in the pavilion and this year she beat her daughter to claim the crown of crochet champion. Her family's involvement also includes her twin daughters, Narelle Phelps and Cheryl Watson, granddaughters Tina Ross, Tracey Moran and Leanda Phelps and great-grandchildren Shannon, Jarrad and Abi Moran, all continuing the wonderful family tradition.
I would also like to congratulate the winner and entrants of the Miss Showgirl competition. The entrants of the Senior Miss Showgirl were Colbie Cameron and Taneal McConnell, along with the winner, Nicole Cowling. The winner of Miss Junior Showgirl was Georgia Everson and the runner up was Kylie Vickery
I also thank the show's executive: President Brian Ferrie, who was this year made a life member—congratulations, Brian; Jackie Sykes; John Robson; and Rob Sutherland. I also thank the other committee members: Leigh-Ann Messer; Colin Marsh; Bruce Green; Jacelyn Bebb; Brian Farrell, who was also made a life member—congratulations, Brian; Warren Apps; Tracey Moran; showgirl coordinator Tina Ross; Narelle Green and Mel Robertson. Well done, and congratulations on another wonderful show.
The Far North Coast Baseball Association is celebrating its 80th birthday. The association has had great success over the last 80 years, with 39 players representing Australia. I congratulate the current executive Paul Latta, Melinda Clark, Robyn Youngberry, Andrew Carroll, Darren McMahon, Greg Healy, Brad Donald and Natasha Tardew, who are doing a great job of making the sport even more popular on the Far North Coast. But they have had lots of help as well, from people like David McLelland, who has given 15 years of service to the association; Gwen Robb, with 25 years as a scorer; Geoff Baxter, with 40 years of service; and Rick Healy, with 50 years of service. There is also the persistence of people like Bill O'Sullivan, John McKee and Terry Moulder, who have helped the club to fund a clubhouse. I know there are countless others in the community who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to make the club so successful, and I thank each and every one of them. I am looking forward, with my state colleague Thomas George, to soon announcing a significant upgrade of the Albert Park complex to develop it into a world-class baseball facility.
The Prime Minister said this would be a budget to help Australians realise their dreams. On Tuesday night, the Treasurer targeted welfare, health and education spending as bad debt but infrastructure as good debt. But where was the infrastructure? Certainly not in Victoria, my home state. Victoria is getting less than 10 per cent of this government's planned infrastructure spend across the forward estimates, although we have 25 per cent of the population. The government is withholding $1.6 billion from the Victorian government, which held up its end of a deal and leased the Port of Melbourne under the Asset Recycling Scheme. Victorians are owed that money. That money was planned to be spent on regional rail, and my electorate would have been a winner under those plans with the regional rail link running through my electorate. This is politics at its absolute worst. We need a calculator for the government—$500 million is not $1.46 billion. Victoria is still owed money by this government. This is going to hurt Victoria. It is going to hurt the development of jobs. It is going to hurt congestion. It is going to stop people from my electorate getting to and from work in the city if that is where they need to be.
The Prime Minister also said budgets are about choices—and of course we all know that they are. We in Victoria are concerned that the budget still contains $50 billion worth of tax cuts. It still contains tax cuts for millionaires, with the deficit levy coming off despite the deficit having tripled and debt being expected to reach half a trillion dollars. Victorians deserve their fair share. They deserve a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who are considering Victorians.
I want to make one last point about the electorate of Lalor. Lalor is in a growth corridor. With over 230,000 people, 6½ thousand housing lots were approved in Wyndham's areas between January and July 2016. If you extrapolate that, how many people are moving into our community? Under the Building Stronger Regions program, magically our community has been cut out. So there is one more way that we could have attracted some federal dollars into our community to help support jobs, to help support infrastructure, to help us get on with living meaningful lives in our electorate. But we have been locked out of the $200 million for Building Better Regions. The people of Wyndham are not happy with this budget and neither am I.
Today I rise to speak about the important initiatives by the Turnbull government to tackle the challenges of brain cancer. A few weeks ago, I had the honour of attending the launch of the fifth annual Connor's Run, a charity event organised by the Robert Connor Dawes Foundation in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. The foundation was established by Connor's parents after his battle with terminal brain cancer. Liz and Scott Dawes have channelled Connor's positive fighting spirit into an event to raise money to combat childhood brain cancers. Connor's personal mantra during the ordeal was: 'I will be awesome!' I love that. And this determination to overcome and be awesome is reflected in the idea of the annual fun run from the bay to Melbourne. This year I will take part in the 10-kilometre section running from St Kilda to the city and ending at the banks of the Yarra. I have already started training, as have many people in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein. They know that brain cancers are one of the most fatal of all childhood cancers.
The awesome work of the RCD Foundation has helped it raise over $1.7 million for 63 projects. One of the key projects they have been working on is helping the Royal Children's Hospital and youth with brain cancer. The federal government, the Turnbull Liberal government, helped support that in this budget. I will quote directly the message from the RCD Foundation in celebrating this wonderful achievement:
The Australian government announced $1.4 million milestone funding of paediatric brain cancer research, including the AIM BRAIN project, which is an initiative of the RCD Foundation with the Australia and New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group. So why should we all be so excited about that? Because this is a government acknowledgement that paediatric brain cancer research is important and needs more funding. It is significant that the Australian government has chosen to partner with the RCD Foundation. The charity is only four years old but has already worked to uncover the greatest opportunity to help children diagnosed with brain cancer. The AIM BRAIN project will impact every child in Australia and New Zealand diagnosed with brain cancer. We know it is important, and now the government agrees.
I could not agree more with the RCD Foundation, because this is a significant contribution by the federal government to tackle the challenges ahead. I am very proud to have been able to speak to Liz Dawes as part of that, and also at the recent launch of Connor's Run, and to express my very sincere support for the incredible work that she and her team do and that the foundation continues to do.
It is not only the work of the Dawes family that inspires us and inspires the Turnbull government to make a contribution and commit this funding; it is also a reflection of the incredible efforts of the Goldstein community and their spirit. What happened with the RCD Foundation is that we took a terrible tragedy and worked together to develop a project that everybody can unite behind.
It being 10.30, I understand it is the wish of the Federation Chamber to continue with constituency statements for approximately 90 minutes. If no member objects, we will follow that course of action.
The Treasurer touted this budget as being about fairness, security and opportunity from a government that is innovative and agile. I see none of that. I see a budget that takes some Labor ideas and skews them to suit the Liberal agenda. Where are the ideas like the NBN, the NDIS, Medicare and superannuation? I hear those on the other side say, 'What about Snowy Hydro 2.0?' Well, to be fair, Snowy Hydro 2.0 was an innovation—those who designed and built it were innovators. They were made of sterner stuff. Snowy Hydro, incidentally, was an initiative of Ben Chifley and the Labor government. Help us if buying Snowy Hydro all these years on is an innovation.
Where are the good ideas, the policies, the instruments to help people? We should be helping young people have a great education through properly funding education. We should be helping people in all phases of their life so that they are able to buy a home or at least rent somewhere that does not gobble up most of their income and so that they are able to have a meaningful job or train and educate themselves. Are we really going to penalise some of the brightest people in our society by charging them more to go to university? These people are the innovators. Universities are the centres where things are created and thought out, and we are going to make it harder for people to be the innovators of the future. What about people who want to have enough superannuation for their retirement—if they get there at 70, such a long time to have to wait to get a pension—or have a decent life on the pension? All of these things are the tenets of a good life.
This budget will not go down as a great, innovative budget. It will fade into history as some sort of desperate lurch by a desperate Prime Minister and his government to hang onto their jobs. It does not do anything to help people have a better life in Australia. In my electorate of Paterson, the government came to the table kicking and screaming and gave us funding for Testers Hollow, which has taken 90 years. I am pleased for that funding, but it is just a tiny sliver of what our region needs. The government has offered some small solutions to the people who have been contaminated at Williamtown by PFAS, but it is still not enough to help those people who want out.
As my colleague the member for Hunter highlighted, the budget funded some things, but not enough. It did not go far enough. There is not enough for our region in the Hunter. There is not enough for my seat of Paterson, and the people of Paterson will see through this budget for what it is. It is a poor effort, a 2.0 version of what could be really great.
Last Sunday, 7 May, I attended the presentation day for the East Hills Baseball Club at Panania Diggers. It was fantastic to be there and to see all the great achievements of the club in the most recent season. East Hills Baseball Club has been around since 1965 and has had players represent at the state, national and indeed international level and players who have played in the major league in the United States. It is the strongest baseball club in the Bankstown region, and there is clearly a great sense of camaraderie and spirit in the club. Many of the volunteers who make the club run have been doing so for literally decades. I would like to thank the club for their hospitality on the day and congratulate Peter Archer and the whole committee on the success of the 2016-17 season.
On 15 April I attended the Easter Eggstravaganza event, which was a great day of family entertainment, hosted by three churches in the Padstow area: iShine, Lifegate and St John's Anglican church. The 'eggstravaganza' was held in Playford Park in Padstow, as it was last year. There were a wide range of food stalls, live performances and entertainment from the church community. The highlight of the day was the Easter egg hunt, where apparently 10,000 eggs were found. That is clearly a lot of eggs! The night finished with a screening of the family-favourite movie Finding Dory on the big screen. It really was a tremendous event, so thank you to Pastor Paul Jabez from iShine, to Nathan Green from Lifegate at Padstow for everything he does—not only for the Easter Eggstravaganza but for the community more generally—and to Reverend Richard Blight from St John's Anglican at Padstow.
On 24 April I attended the Revesby Probus club meeting. It is a very strong and active Probus club in our area, with more than 100 active members. It was good to draw the raffle on the day and to chat with members about the activities of the club. I would like to thank Peter Smart from Revesby Probus for inviting me along on the day. I look forward to meeting with the group again in the future.
Earlier in April I attended the Happy Singing Group in Hurstville. They are a longstanding entertainment group in our area, and it was great to be there for their performance, which consisted of a whole range of Chinese and Western songs. Thank you to Karen Ni for inviting me along, to the kids who performed and the adults who performed. There are some very strong singers in the Happy Singing Group. They are a great part of our community, and I look forward to visiting the Happy Singing Group again in the future.
I am sure all of those within this chamber will be familiar with the adage that life begins at 40. Having ticked over into that phase of my life in the last year or so, I could not feel more strongly about that being the case. Whilst 40 might only be getting started in human years, there are not many community groups that can say they are going to celebrate their 40th birthday this coming year, but that is very much the case for the Mount Lawley Society, a wonderful community group in the heart of my electorate.
They were formed in October 1977, when flares, turtlenecks and desert boots were all the rage. Just as those things come back into style, I can tell you one thing: the Mount Lawley Society have never gone out of style. They are going stronger than ever, led by their current president, Mr Paul Collins, and his merry and dedicated committee members. I will speak more about their patron shortly. I also have to make an appropriate disclosure to say that I was a very proud committee member and former president of the Mount Lawley Society back in the day.
The Mount Lawley Society are not only dedicated to preserving the heritage of our wonderful suburbs in Mount Lawley and their surrounds; they also get the balance right. They acknowledge that there is a need for development in the appropriate measure and there is a need to make sure that we manage our ongoing urban sprawl by having a balance of infill, where appropriate, to keep our streets, cafes and shops vibrant while also preserving our heritage. One of the ways in which that balance is currently under threat is in the way in which approvals are currently being managed under what is called the JDAP process—the Joint Development Assessment Panel. There are some developments that are going through that process that are clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to striking the balance between maintaining the heritage of a site and ensuring that we have appropriate levels of density.
The Mount Lawley Society are running a great campaign, led by Barrie Baker, to make sure that balance is right. I would like to use my remaining time to acknowledge Barrie Baker, the current patron of the society, who has also been a member since 1979. Barrie has toiled tirelessly, leading from the front in Mount Lawley and its surrounds, to make sure that the preservation of this wonderful suburb is carried forward for future generations, for my children and, hopefully, my grandchildren.
I will finish on this with one of the sayings that has underpinned the Mount Lawley Society:
How will we know it's us without our past? …They sat and looked at it and burned it into their memories.
That is John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath. Well done, Mount Lawley Society.
This week is National Volunteer Week, and I thought it fitting that in today's debate I acknowledge the tremendous job that so many volunteers do in my southern Gold Coast community. These are the people who are the backbone of various charities, sporting clubs, community and advocacy groups, RSLs, chambers of commerce and other social and support networks. Each year I host the McPherson Community Achiever Awards as a way for our local community to say thank you to those special people who are always willing to lend a hand. Award recipients are nominated by grateful community members, and it is truly inspiring to see the glowing references that are provided each year.
Last week it was my privilege to conduct the 2017 McPherson Community Achiever Awards. I would like to read into Hansard the names of the recipients of the various award categories.
McPherson Community Achiever Award recipients were Liz Bailey, Ronnie Broadbent, David Cameron, David Cocks, Robert Collier, Violet Devers, Philip Di Giorgio, Graham Dutton, Joan Farmer, John Ferian, Paige Gaudrey, Shireen Geddes, Ian Grace, Michaela Grant, Rob Greenwood, Holly Hardstaff, Tracie Heaton, Terry Hobson, Fran Jamieson, Lee-anne Johns, Ian Keel, Carlita and the late Brian Keene, Vic Knowles, Lauren Kocass, Trish Mason, Annette McLaren-Kennedy, Tina Nenadic, Frances Nichols, Simone Patterson, George Pharmacis, John Thannhauser, Dan Tully and Sara Walsh.
The recipients of the McPherson Young Community Achiever Awards were Alexandra Cardamone, Shelby Craik, Lisa Plessius, Harrison Tippett, Sarah White and the members of the Elanora State High School Leo Club. I would particularly like to acknowledge those who were able to be there at the awards ceremony: Kiara Bird, Amy Fletcher, Erin Logan, Faith Reid, Cain Leech and Anthea Young.
The recipients of the McPherson Surf Lifesaving Community Achiever Awards were Chris Bindley, Nicole Bowers, Scott Burgess, Scott Byrnes, Pat Gillett, Colleen Gordon, Phill Hammond, John Hamrey, Gavin Jordon, Belinda McAuliffe, Erica Read, Michelle Slattery, Luke Smith, Paul Smith, Jeff Smith and Vaughn Thomas.
I thank all of these local volunteers again for their time and dedication. I would also like to congratulate the 17 volunteer organisations on the southern Gold Coast that I recently announced would share in more than $69,000 in Volunteer Grants funding.
Finally, it has always struck me as a little unfair that National Volunteer Week usually falls during the budget week, when the media is focused on the federal budget. But there is no hiding the fact that volunteering is very much at the centre of our national character. Around 5.8 million Australians—31 per cent of the population—regularly volunteer their time, and in so doing they make an estimated annual contribution of $290 billion to our economic and social good.
Thank you to all our volunteers.
My electorate of Macquarie lies 80 kilometres from Bondi Beach, but we have our own beach. In fact it is a really lovely stretch of beach, but it is under threat thanks to an appalling plan to build a bridge across the Grose River, which flows into the Hawkesbury River near Yarramundi.
Do not get me wrong. I want a third bridge to cross the mighty Hawkesbury River. I was at the Hawkesbury Show at the weekend giving out 'I'm for a third crossing' bumper stickers. But have no doubt, this two-lane bridge is not the third crossing. Instead, this proposal is a way for a developer to allocate a $24 million contribution related to the construction of a massive housing development on the western side of the Hawkesbury River that will create additional traffic congestion in an already congested local road network. The plan plonks an ugly concrete structure through the Navua and Yarramundi reserves. This is a place where the sand is golden, there are flats that children can wade in, and other spots where the water runs deep. It is beautiful and one of the few places people from Hawkesbury and lower Blue Mountains can escape the heat in the middle of summer. And this bridge will not actually solve the traffic problem—there is a little two-lane bridge that you need to travel down narrow country lanes to access, and once on the other side you have to cross a second bridge, which is well-known to flood with a few drops of rain. I will not even waste my breath talking in detail about the roads that lead from that point, suffice to say that they are all single carriageway and not designed to be major thoroughfares.
The biggest tragedy would be if the New South Wales government decides as part of its much-vaunted local infrastructure push to throw in some millions to make this Navua bridge a reality rather than treating the people of the Hawkesbury with the decency they deserve. The real spending that we need to see out of the New South Wales government in its next budget—spending that the Treasurer, who is meant to be the member for Hawkesbury, should be backing—and spending we did not see from this federal government in its budget is for a local road study that would set out a sensible plan for road and bridge improvements that do not destroy what we already have, whether it is natural heritage or colonial heritage. Of course, when I talk about colonial heritage I am referring to Thompson Square, which the state government's Windsor Bridge replacement project is set to destroy unless we can stop it, and the community certainly wants to see it stopped.
We urgently need to determine where a real third crossing of the Hawkesbury River would work best for the people who live in the area, who have, justifiably, run out of patience with the way Liberal governments have treated their infrastructure needs year after year.
I welcome the $8.4 billion injection into inland rail in the budget handed down this week. 'Budget bonanza: rail deal rolls on with hefty $8.4 billion' and 'Inland Rail steams ahead' were the headlines in yesterday's Toowoomba Chronicle in relation to the Turnbull government's unprecedented infrastructure commitment. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Minister Darren Chester on this commitment. This is a nation-building project that for us will serve to complete what our Mayor Antonio refers to as the trifecta: Toowoomba's second range road crossing; Toowoomba's Wellcamp Airport, developed by the Wagner family; and now inland rail. Together they will render our region the logistics powerhouse of regional Australia.
Across the Darling Downs we must now finalise the proposed corridor from Yelarbon, near the New South Wales border, to Gowrie, just outside Toowoomba. We have four potential routes under consideration: the so-called base case through the Millmerran, Brookstead and Mt Tyson areas; a proposed diversion from that route past the Wellcamp Airport, which was not in place when the base case was developed; a more easterly route via Karara and then Leyburn and Felton; and, finally, a route further east via Warwick before heading north to Toowoomba. Each of these is being considered by a project reference group appointed by Minister Chester, and the group's report will be considered by him in the coming weeks. I have compiled other issues and concerns from the Southbrook, Mt Tyson and Felton areas for his advice as well, and I know that he will continue to consult with the department and other experts before finalising his decision.
There can be no doubt that this significant infrastructure project and others like it in regional and certainly metropolitan areas—such as developing tunnels and freeways in cities—can have impacts on local communities. I have been working and will continue to work diligently with the minister's office to ensure that this project will be based on a route of least impact for landholders, families and businesses in our region, but I acknowledge that the decision is his to make.
Everyone in my region supports inland rail. We need to make sure that it has the correct route characteristics required by our community, particularly across the flood plain. There can be no doubt that this project is happening. It is proceeding, and it will enhance the enormous small-business, export and economic development potential for our region and right across the Darling Downs.
If the people of Tasmania needed any more proof that the Liberals could not give a stuff about them, the evidence was presented on Tuesday night. The Treasurer did not mention Tasmania once in his budget speech—not once. In the government's most important speech of the year, where it outlines the financial roadmap for the nation, the nation's island state did not even rate one mention from the Treasurer. There was nothing about fixing Tasmania's health crisis, nothing about addressing Tasmania's poor education outcomes and nothing about providing Tasmania a fair go when it comes to our share of national infrastructure investment. When you read the budget papers, it is easy to see why Tasmania was left out of the speech: because Tasmania rates hardly a mention in the budget overall. While this government crows about the claim that it is investing $70 billion in infrastructure, there is no new infrastructure planned for Tasmania. This government has billions for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane but nothing for Hobart and Launceston, let alone the many regional towns and communities of my electorate.
This budget fails Tasmania in every way. It gives a $16,000 tax cut to millionaires. Well, there are not many millionaires in Tasmania, and the few we have are centred on the harbourside mansions of Sandy Bay. There are not many millionaires in the towns of my electorate, in Bridgewater, Sheffield, Deloraine, New Norfolk, Campbell Town, Nubeena, Beaconsfield, Triabunna, Sorell or countless others. There will not be many of my constituents with a $16,000 smile on their face on 1 July. There will be no tax cut for these people, but they can expect a tax hike. A budget that manages to reward millionaires with a big tax cut while slugging working Australians with a tax hike and pensioners with a pension cut is really something. This is a budget that is giving $25 billion in tax cuts to corporations at the same time that it cuts $22 billion from Australian schools. Right there, in that one sentence, is this government's agenda writ large. This is a budget that makes it easier for CEOs to buy corporate jets and harder for teachers to buy school supplies. The Liberals' education funding failure leaves Tasmanian schools $84 million worse off over the next two years. Tasmanian school kids cannot afford these cuts.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
You might laugh, Mr Van Manen, but it is not a laughing matter, I will tell you. We have all heard those opposite trot out the approved lines about the corporate tax cuts improving investment and competitiveness, but their own papers prove the lie.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to recognise the fabulous efforts of many, many volunteers in the recent floods. When Mother Nature throws her worst at us, it truly brings out the best in the Australian community. Whether it is cyclones, floods or fires, whenever disaster knocks us down, we can always count on the compassion, resilience and support of many others in our community to pick us back up again. Since the disastrous floods that hit my electorate of Forde at the end of March, every day I have seen the strength of the victims, the compassion of people willing and ready to help, and the bravery of emergency service personnel and volunteers who risk their lives to help those in trouble. I was truly heartbroken when I visited a number of the worst hit areas, particularly in Halls Road at Luscombe and Albert Street in Eagleby, where a number of homes in both of those communities were inundated by the Albert River and one was completely swept away. To see the pieces of what was once a home stuck in the top of a tree kilometres down the road, it is hard to fathom just how high and how quickly the water rose and, now, how these families will recover from such devastation.
What can only be a silver lining to the tragedy is the community support that has helped these families begin that long journey of healing. My office had calls from all over the country from people willing to help out our region and our community, and we are so grateful for that support. I want to give my sincerest thanks to all the amazing volunteers who showed up, ready to clear out flood-damaged homes, remove debris and provide food and water or even just a shoulder to cry on for those who lost so much.
From finding a palliative care bed for a couple of families to buying some hay for stranded horses and doing loads of washing for households whose homes were flooded, I want to thank the many volunteers, both individuals and businesses, who have helped so many. For the families who lost so much, there is still a long road ahead. Please be assured that we will do everything we can to assist where necessary. It is heartening to know that there are so many people out there willing to lend a hand and offer support to others when times are tough. The strength and resilience of people, as well as the kindness and compassion of others, is a true reflection of what Australia is all about.
Geelong is home to a wealth of hidden history and heritage. You only need to look down Ryrie Street in the CBD to see the story of Geelong right there in front of your eyes. Our town was the wool capital of the country and a great manufacturing hub and is now emerging as a leading health and research destination.
You can tell a lot about a town from its old buildings, from the town hall to the old post office and Cunningham Pier. Each marks a point in time which tells a story, but I have also noticed something that tells another tale about our city—our clocks. I know many people spend their time watching their phones, which have always-accurate clocks, but, when you look up from your phone, in the middle of Geelong you can see old clock faces scattered throughout the city and, indeed, Greater Geelong.
Functioning public clocks have actually been the foundation stone of working local economies. They tell us when it is time to start. They have also been at the heart of our local culture. Standing on the corner of Moorabool Street and Ryrie Street to see the men come out and ring the bell of the T&G clock has been a source of delight for Geelong children, me included, for decades. Yet public clocks that do not function make the opposite statement about a place, which Geelong cannot afford. They are a sign that something is wrong and broken. Unfortunately, too many public clocks in Geelong do not work.
The clock that hangs on the corner of Moorabool Street and Malop Street does not work. The clocks near South Geelong station on Yarra Street, in a lovely Victorian terrace, also do not work. My office has spoken to the owners of Thomas Jewellers in Geelong, who care for a clock in the heart of the city. They are determined to get their clock running on time but have been really frustrated by their inability to do this, despite exhaustive efforts to try and get the clock working. It turns out it is actually quite a specialist activity.
I have approached the City of Greater Geelong to find a way to have the clocks that do not work around our town fixed and maintained. I have met with members of council's strategic planning and heritage departments, and it turns out that there is an expert who looks after the public clocks in council buildings. Steve Young from Young's Clock Repairs in Bendigo comes down the road to do just that. I want to establish an easy way for private owners of significant and historic clocks across Geelong to access the same clock maintenance—Steve from Bendigo—in the way that the council does, because you can tell a lot about a city from its clocks. You can tell the extent to which it is working, functioning on time and getting about its business, but, unfortunately, a negative message is sent when those clocks do not work, and it is time that we get the Geelong clocks working.
I rise today to talk about the quite traumatic flood that happened in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales recently. It has been a very sad, traumatic time for our community. The levee in Lismore, which is set at about 10.6 metres, overtopped. It went to 11½ metres. We have seen the worst and the best of a community. It was very traumatic. Between 3,000 and 4,000 residences and shops were inundated with water, including my own office, which had around a foot of water in it.
This has really psychologically damaged our town. We had a lot of people who had water in their homes, and obviously there was a lot of cleaning up and work to do. From this, we also saw the best in people. We saw community help community; we saw volunteers come from everywhere. There was a great set-up at South Lismore train station, which was a grassroots community effort where people were just walking out and being told which houses to go to and which businesses to go to to help them clean up. This went on for a number of weeks.
Obviously, the government got involved. We sent in a Centrelink bus to help people get the emergency payments which we initiated straightaway. There was $1,000 for people who had water in their houses. Also, there was a government grant of $15,000, which happened from category C.
I would like to thank the SES volunteers, the RFS, all the volunteer organisations, the local Lifeline, which has done a lot of work, and the council workers, who were amazing. They worked beyond the call of duty. There was an amazing amount of rubbish that had to be collected from the streets and that was all done with a minimum of fuss and very quickly. I would like to thank the people who literally left their homes to volunteer to help neighbours, which was very important.
The rebuild will happen. We will recover from this. We are a very resilient community and I know that we will be stronger and better for this. But, make no mistake, this has been a real blow to our community. Physically, we need to recover. Shopkeepers need to rebuild their shops and the equipment and stock they have lost. But I know the community and I know that people from the wider community are coming to the CBD to support it, to spend money and to help them rebuild. We were given support not just from within our local community but from people across the state who came to help—people who sometimes just got in their car and drove to our community to help us—and indeed from the wider country. I thank everyone involved in the clean-up. I thank the local chamber, who were wonderful in getting category C funding and helping me to achieve that. I thank our community. As I said, we will be better and stronger, but it will take us time to rebuild.
Recently Botany pool, located in our community, again closed for the winter months and will not open again until early October. Local families who want their kids to continue swimming lessons during the winter months are forced to go elsewhere. With every single swimming school in our community packed to the rafters, kids will miss out. There are not the available spaces for the kids who have to leave Botany pool because it closes during the winter months. Locals around the Botany area who want to keep fit swimming and doing aqua-aerobics and the like during the winter months also miss out.
The days of Botany, Mascot, Pagewood, Banksmeadow and Eastlakes being quiet suburbs are long gone. They are now part of the bustling metropolis that is Sydney. Recent statistics from Births, Deaths and Marriages show that the suburbs surrounding Botany Aquatic Centre are growing more than ever before. Mascot just cracked the top 50 in New South Wales, when it comes to birth rates.
Labor recognises this and in the lead-up to the last election we pledged an additional $10 million to Botany Bay Council, to partner with them to upgrade Botany pool to create an indoor facility that ensures the pool can remain open for locals all year round. We were pledging to put $10 million into that project and Botany Bay Council was also going to put in $10 million, so it was a $20 million upgrade to allow the pool to be open all year round. Of course, Labor was not elected, but in the wake of the election I found a fund from which we could access this funding: the Community Development Grants Program. But it relied on the local government to make an application for this funding. Recently, Rockdale and Botany councils have been merged to form Bayside Council. Unfortunately, Bayside Council has refused to make this application. They refuse to support this program to upgrade Botany pool. This is the reality of the newly merged councils. The larger population is on the Rockdale side and many services have now been moved out of Botany and over to Rockdale. In the recent round of local infrastructure grants, 70 per cent of the grants funding went to the Rockdale side. This is the reality of the New South Wales Liberal government's proposal to forcibly merge local councils.
Our community—the Botany side of Bayside Council—is being left behind, and the Botany pool upgrade is a classic example of this. I condemn the New South Wales Liberal government for forcing the merger of this council, which is seeing services cut and our community being left behind. I intend to continue to campaign for the upgrade of Botany pool, and I urge all residents to support this campaign.
This week is National Volunteer Week, when we acknowledge the important work of our volunteers and their organisations in building stronger communities. The spirit of volunteering is in the DNA of Australians and it is always supported by the Turnbull government. This, of course, includes our support for and protection of the 60,000 CFA volunteers, whose volunteer spirit was threatened by the Daniel Andrews Victorian Labor government, with threats to unionise them.
Volunteers who continue to do wonderful work in Chisholm include all the mums, dads, grandparents and carers who volunteer to support the tradition of the great Australian pastime of weekend and after-school sport for our children. There is so much goodwill from and supportive activity done by volunteers in Chisholm, including by those in the Box Hill Community Information and Support, in the Monash Oakleigh Community Support and Information Centre, at Burke and Beyond, at hospitals, such as the Box Hill hospital, at the Red Cross and at Crossway LifeCare, who, as their company manager says, help those in tough places flourish.
Additionally, as recently as last week I visited the MERA group, the Melbourne Eastern Residents Association, which is a newly incorporated community group established by a few enthusiastic and passionate volunteers just in January this year but which has now had more than 540 families join who are predominantly of Chinese heritage and who live in the suburbs of Chisholm and surrounding areas. MERA aims to support and serve the eastern suburban neighbourhood, especially to assist migrants from different countries settle into Australia and the Australian way of life.
Volunteers in Chisholm are among nearly 100,000 volunteers across Australia benefiting from $10 million in Turnbull government grants to support community organisations. Almost 2,700 community organisations will benefit from a grant to support the work of volunteers. I am so proud that the Turnbull government's investment in our communities is delivering vital support to small community organisations which would not be the same were it not for the people within them. Volunteer grants will assist a range of local groups, including the following, to name just a few: the Chinese Health Foundation of Australia; the Greek Seniors and Pensioners Association Clayton and District; the Victorian Vision Impaired Tenpin Bowling Association; the Burwood Neighbourhood House; and the Dixon House Neighbourhood Centre. The grants of between $1,000 and $5,000 enable all these organisations to better support their volunteers by purchasing much-needed equipment, training and transport.
The energy, expertise and time our volunteers give to our communities support those most in need and represent what Australian communities are all about—giving a helping hand. I am so proud to be part of a Turnbull government which is ensuring that our local volunteer organisations in Chisholm will have this support to continue their valuable work.
When I sat in the House on Tuesday night and listened to the budget, there was something that became absolutely clear to me—if it was not already—and that is that there was not much in the budget for young people. We live in a world of extraordinary opportunity. The world is changing so fast and there are opportunities everywhere. We will live in a different world in 20 or 30 years time. Whether our young people flourish in that world or not is largely dependent on the decisions we make in this House right now.
We know—and there has been a campaign on this recently—that this current government does not have a minister for youth. We did when we were in government. It was abolished when the Abbott government came to power, and we still do not have one. We know from this budget that the voice of youth is not being heard. We also know that there are about 250,000 people out there between the ages of 18 and 24 who did not even enrol to vote in the last election. It was about 1,500 people in my electorate. So it is hard to know which is the chicken and which is the egg—whether the government does not listen to young people because not enough of them vote or not enough of them are enrolled to vote because they do not think they are heard. It is a chicken-and-egg situation, I guess. Either way, we have a budget and a government which has ignored the needs of young people.
When I talk to grandparents, they tell me, 'It is about time we all started worrying seriously about the future we are creating for our grandchildren.' Whether it is jobs, the environment, education or housing affordability, this budget does not address the conditions that young people find themselves in now. In fact, when they find themselves in a bad spot of unemployment, they are punished as if they are a child who did not clean up their room. Whether it is making it harder for them to receive unemployment benefits, denying them benefits for periods of time, drug testing them on the way in or you name it, there is a punitive approach to people who cannot find a job even though we know that there are not enough jobs for young people. In some sections of my community, when I go census district by census district, there is more than 50 per cent unemployment. We also know that across the board in Western Sydney there are 160,000 more workers than there are jobs now. That will grow to 306,000 by 2036.
So we have real work to do, and the key to ensuring that our young people can find that pathway into work is education. Instead, we have seen the government cut $22 billion from our schools and $600 million from TAFE, on top of the $3 billion they have already ripped out of TAFE, skills and training since 2013. We have lost 130,000 apprenticeships under this government, and nearly 1,500 in Parramatta. We have had cuts to uni funding of $3.8 billion. Uni fees will be higher, and graduates will repay them earlier. In every single area where you might give young people a handup for the future they will build for us, this government makes it harder. It is time to get a minister for youth, and to young people out there, it is time to enrol to vote. (Time expired)
I would like to speak today about inland rail and the railway line from Brisbane to Melbourne, for which funding was announced, to the tune of $8.4 billion, in the budget on Tuesday night. This is a project that has been on the books for a long, long time, and there are various reasons it has taken this long to get it to this point. But the point is that we are now in a position where we can start to see construction commence, and I believe that will happen on certain sections of the route—probably on line that already exists—this financial year, with a completion date of 2024.
This line is nation-building, and it has relevance for a number of reasons. First of all, for intermodal traffic, probably about 80 per cent of the traffic on this line will be city to city, Melbourne to Brisbane. One of the largest freight corridors in Australia at the moment is the Newell Highway, which bisects my electorate. The freight task is growing at an astronomical rate. This line will help address that issue with 1.8-kilometre trains travelling at about 110 to 115 kilometres per hour, doing the trip between the two cities in about 20 or 21 hours. They need to do it in that time to compete with road transport, and that is why this line has to be reasonably direct.
The other thing that excites me about this line is the opportunity for industry and decentralisation along its route. I think I have about 600 or 700 kilometres of it through my electorate, and the potential for value adding, for agricultural produce, and for distribution centres is enormous—not only with the 16,000 jobs that are predicted during peak construction, as well as the permanent jobs to maintain and look after this line, but, now, with this announcement, we can start to see real investment by others who can start to purchase land and plan to build intermodal ports, grain terminals, and a whole range of other things. I spoke about this in my very first speech to parliament in February 2008. The people of my electorate are very, very excited about this announcement. The talking is over; it is time for action. The inland rail has now gone from a dream to a reality, and it is a great day for the people of western New South Wales.
Tasmanians are pretty used to being left off the map, but I think we thought our Tasmanian Liberal senators and our state government might have a bit more influence in Canberra than they actually do, because Tuesday night's budget speech not only had not one mention of Tasmania, or of any project in Tasmania, but pretty much left Tassie off the map again. Tasmanians are pretty cranky about this. In fact, the Murdoch press itself is talking about Tassie being left off the map. There is a double page spread today, and there was a double page spread yesterday, about how badly Tasmania has done under this Liberal government, and Tasmanians are fed up with it. Indeed, Tasmanians are very annoyed that our Liberal premier went out and said that he would get the more than $2 billion worth of cuts to our hospitals and our schools reversed. This budget locks in those cuts. Those cuts to our hospitals, and most of the cuts to our schools, are still there, and Tasmanians are not happy.
There are a whole range of important projects in Tasmania that are ready to go. In fact, they are on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. Did they get a mention? Did they get any funding? No, they did not. In fact, the only infrastructure spending that is happening in Tasmania is that which was announced in the 2013 budget by Labor. There have been no new investments in Tasmania from this Liberal government bar one, which is one we campaigned for, that we announced in the lead-up to the last election campaign. The Liberal Party were dragged kicking and screaming to match it—and they did that in the last week. They do not want to support Tasmanians. Tasmanians are sick of it, and they are sick of the lack of influence—
An honourable member interjecting—
It is interesting that you bring up the GST, because Tasmanians are really angry about this review into GST distribution—really angry, indeed. Tasmania stands to lose billions of dollars. Our Liberal senators obviously did not lobby for Tasmania in this regard, and they only came out after the review was announced to say, 'We'll stick up for Tasmania.' They did not do the lobbying beforehand. The AFP have been cut at Hobart Airport. We called on the AFP to be restored at Hobart Airport just last week, and we had a Liberal come out and say, 'I'll stand up for it,' but there is no restoration of the AFP at Hobart Airport. Liberal senators here in Canberra have no influence. Tasmanians are sick of that, and sadly our state will continue to lose out because our Liberal senators are not prepared to stand up for our state.
I rise to commend the 2017-18 budget. It is a plan that delivers fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians and it is a major boost to my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast. In this budget we have a further $12½ million for the new Central Coast Medical School and Medical Research Institute so it can attract and retain world-leading health professionals in Gosford. This takes our government's total commitment to $45 million, with the University of Newcastle and the New South Wales government each contributing an additional $20 million on top of this towards that project. Vice-chancellor Professor Caroline McMillen said that the medical school will create outstanding new opportunities for the region, linking the world's best medical education and research to the coast. Central Coast Council administrator Ian Reynolds said that this extra funding will enhance the reputation of Gosford as a leader in innovation and medical research and education and will have huge flow-on effects to our local economy.
I also wish to advise the House that the coalition is taking action on the serious issue of GP shortages on the peninsula. Around $100,000 has been made available this week to help get more local doctors for people living in suburbs like Woy Woy, Umina Beach, Ettalong, Blackwall, Booker Bay, Pearl Beach and Patonga. A new expert working group convened by the local primary health network will identify both short-term solutions and longer term strategies to recruit and retain GPs in the area. Just recently we held a major community forum at Umina Beach with the Assistant Minister for Health, Dr David Gillespie, who has worked tirelessly with me on this issue. Members of our community have described this issue as being a crisis, to the extent that one respected GP who recently retired left around 1,200 patients without a family doctor. This funding will tackle the problem head-on and comes after the government has listened closely to the needs of our community, doctors, practice managers, GP recruitment agencies and representatives from the Rural Doctors Network, Aboriginal and community health, and the PHN. In fact, our local PHN chief executive, Richard Nankervis, welcomed the announcement, saying it was about patients receiving the right care at the right place at the right time.
This budget will also see funding committed to a range of other important projects, including more than $7.2 million for Central Coast Council to upgrade local roads, including: Ryans Road at Umina Beach; Oceano Street at Copacabana; Murray Street and Davis Street at Booker Bay; and the intersection of Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road at Kariong. This goes hand in hand with other major projects we are delivering, including: $10 million for the Regional Performing Arts Centre in Gosford; upgrades to Somersby Industrial Park, Banjo's Skatepark, Terrigal Trojans clubhouse and McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach; $12 million towards delivering continuous mobile coverage on trains between Wyong and Hornsby; better mobile coverage in Spencer, Killcare and Wendoree Park; and $7 million towards a new community learning hub and library in Gosford. This is about making the right choices to secure better days ahead. (Time expired)
I rise today to also talk on the budget that was released last Tuesday night, and in particular I want to look at its impacts for the city of Newcastle and also for Australian women. Indeed, I have just come from Labor's launch of the women's budget statement 2017. This is a commitment that Labor has made because, despite the fact that Australia was a pioneer of gendered analysis of budgets, with the election of the Abbott Liberal government in 2013 the commitment to produce a women's budget statement was dropped, ending a 30-year tradition. The current Prime Minister has likewise failed to produce an Australian women's budget statement to accompany the budget last Tuesday night, which means that we now have no systematic analysis of the differential impacts of government collection of taxes and the distribution of those moneys on men and women in our society. Any government that seeks to pretend that budgets are somehow gender-neutral documents, or indeed that government policies are gender neutral, is having itself on, and Australian women in particular will know from past experience that budgets do have a differential impact for them.
It is a great shame that since the Liberals came to power in 2013 Australia has slipped from the 19th position to 46th place on the Global gender gap report. That should be an issue that concerns each and every one of us in this House, because if Australian women do not have an equal share in our social, economic and political life in this country then that is to the detriment of our nation as a whole. I implore people to look at Labor's women's budget statement—this is the first cut on that analysis; there will be more to come—and to continue and join with us in a conversation around how we achieve gender equity in Australia. So join in Labor's conversation about setting the agenda. I look forward to having those conversations with Australian women across the country.
For Newcastle also, this was a budget that was full of disappointment. There is no money there to look at the development of the Glendale Interchange, the most major piece of infrastructure that is needed in our region. There is universal agreement from all our councils and our members of parliament that this is a project that has capacity to unlock 10,000 jobs, and that is what the men and women of Newcastle need most of all: good, secure, well-paying jobs. (Time expired)
I come from a family of small business people, and I am proud that the Turnbull government has been small business's best friend since we were elected over 3½ years ago. On Tuesday night the Treasurer outlined how members on this side of the chamber are committed to delivering jobs and economic growth, with further measures supporting the over 12,600 small businesses in my electorate of Forrest. The budget extends the $20,000 instant asset write-off for a further year, and that is great news for small business. We also have increased the turnover threshold to $10 million, enabling more growing businesses to reinvest in their future and upgrade their equipment. It is practical initiatives such as this instant asset write-off that make a real impact for the 3.2 million businesses that are the economic backbone of this country, the small businesses. They are the people who employ 6.5 million Australians, often giving people their first job and just as often giving people their last job.
Recently the Minister for Small Business, Michael McCormack, came to the South West and caught up with several small business owners, including visiting one of the region's great success stories, Hot Weld Fabrication. Rick Casagrande was just 21 years old when he started Hot Weld in 2004 after he completed his boilermaking and welding apprenticeship. Based on his very strong work ethic and dedication to service and product quality, Hot Weld has grown to now employ 35 people across the business's two workshops, Hot Weld Fabrication and Hotweld Engineering. Rick does not just employ local people in the South West; he actually trains highly skilled employees and apprentices. Hot Weld uses state-of-the-art steel structure fabrication and erection technology, and it services businesses throughout the South West. The government's 10-year Enterprise Tax Plan is helping small businesses like Hot Weld to prosper and grow—those that are employing hardworking Australians, particularly in rural and regional areas like my own.
As I said, Hot Weld is an absolute leader in its field. It has won numerous awards year upon year, starting right back in 2007. That was only three years after Rick started the business and he started winning awards—the 40 Under 40 Award, South West business awards, right through to the 2015 building excellence award for the South West. They have delivered quality products regularly. I want to acknowledge Rick Casagrande and his team for their focus on delivering very good quality products to all of the businesses they service in my electorate of Forrest.
Today I rise to discuss an issue I have raised many times in this place, and that is jobs for South Australia. In particular, I have been disappointed that the government has not announced a proper strategy for job creation when Holden leaves later this year. In lieu of the government actually doing the hard work on this, I have locally put together the Southern Jobs Taskforce. I recently held the first meeting in my electorate.
I have to say in South Australia we are facing a challenging time ahead. Holden will make its final exit later this year. That will mark the end of automotive manufacturing in this country. State and federal governments have recognised that there are challenges, but the federal government has not put forward solutions. The focus of discussion has been northern Adelaide, but it must be remembered that the south will also be heavily impacted. In fact, across Australia by 2020 the south of Adelaide will have the fourth largest loss of manufacturing employment. The loss is expected to be around 1,700 jobs.
This presents enormous challenges for the south of Adelaide and we need a plan going forward to create and secure local jobs, to support the growth of our existing industries, to encourage the emergence of new industries and to attract investment to the region. This is the reason why I organised the Southern Jobs Taskforce. I would like to thank all the local businesses, schools, higher education providers, training providers as well as departmental officials who came to sit down and share ideas about the economic future of southern Adelaide.
The task force has produced a number of recommendations for southern Adelaide, the main one being the development of a strategic plan for our region. The task force stressed how important it is for southern Adelaide to have a strategic plan that clearly identifies and targets industries and long-term priorities for our region. This type of plan will attract investment into the area and create long-term stability for businesses. This is something that I have presented to the state government and to the federal government as well.
We need to focus on the best asset of our region, and that is its population, its workers. They need to be appropriately trained and skilled, but they also need job opportunities in our area. So I look forward to continuing to work in the local area to develop a plan so that we will have a long-term economic future in southern Adelaide.
This week is National Volunteer Week. Last week I met with some eight individuals and organisations in my electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast who are among the 100,000 volunteers across Australia benefiting from $10 million in Australian government grants. I visited four of those organisations to thank the volunteers for their work and to talk to them about these grants. These volunteer grants are a great example of the Turnbull government investing in small community organisations which help many of our most vulnerable citizens. The energy, expertise and time our volunteers give to our community support those most in need and they represent what Australian communities are all about—that is, giving our fellow Australians a helping hand.
I am glad to see that our local organisations will have this support to continue their valuable work. The local organisations in Fisher receiving grants include the Landsborough Primary P&C Association, which received $3,200 for the training of their volunteers. The Caloundra Family Drug Service and Support Group received $4,800. Guides Queensland in Maleny received a total of $2,100 for the transport costs of volunteers with a disability. Maleny District Sports & Recreation Club received $5,000 for landscaping and gardening, while Maleny Neighbourhood Centre received $1,600 for computer and kitchen equipment. Landsborough Area Community Association received $4,182 for computer equipment and fuel costs, while Maleny District Men's Shed were given $4,926 for first aid equipment and tools. The St Vincent de Paul Society received separate grants in Caloundra, Maleny and Landsborough, totalling $6,500, for fuel costs for their volunteers.
I recently met with Sue Hawes at the Caloundra Family Drug Service and Support Group. Sue's organisation aims to reduce the adverse impacts of drug use on the community and the individual by offering telephone crisis support and local family support meetings. I met with Tony Powell, Maureen Pontin and Peter Ryan of St Vincent de Paul in Caloundra. I think we are all familiar with the great work that they do in that organisation. I also met with Chelsea Large, Robyn Webster and young Estelle Thomson at Maleny Girl Guides, and with Greg Williams and the volunteers at the Maleny District Sports & Recreation Club.
Volunteers are the backbone of every community. It is volunteers that embody our community spirit, who give opportunity to our children in sports, who preserve our heritage and culture and who help those who are most in need. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers in Fisher for the great work that they do.
I thank the Federation Chamber for its indulgence in allowing me to pass on these few comments. I would not detain the House any longer than I have to if I did not think the matter was of global importance. In my electorate we have a small company by the name of Plasvacc, who busily go about making vaccines for parvovirus for dogs and snake antivenene for humans. They have been working very diligently with the CSIRO and the University of Queensland. They have completed some preliminary primate trials and have discovered a cure for the deadly virus Ebola. We will be working now collectively with the World Health Organization to assist with some funding in this space. Last year, when we had the last Ebola outbreak, 11,000 people in Africa passed away from this deadly and debilitating disease.
Plasvacc is a very humble business, a very unassuming business, nestled in a vet clinic on the side of the Cunningham Highway. The team are amazing operators when you see what they do. Last week I had the pleasure of touring their facility. It is a local company which traditionally manufactures high-quality blood plasma products using veterinary and medical products.
In 2014 Plasvacc were approached to be part of an international team led by professors Khromykh and Suhrbier from the University of Queensland, and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, with the project also involving scientists and doctors from the CSIRO, INSERM, VECTOR in Russia, where they conducted the primate trials, Claude Bernard University in France and the United Nations Medical Service in New York. The clinical papers have been peer reviewed and accepted by the medical fraternity.
Scientists around the world have been working in this area for many years. I acknowledge their expertise and hard work in this area. Plasvacc's head vet, Shane Bedford, and his horses played a small but vital role in turning this theory into reality. They take plasma out of horses and, in a nutshell, they deconstruct the DNA of Ebola, they take out a couple of components, they put it into a horse, the horse builds natural antibodies and they then pull the plasma out, spin that off, and that then becomes the antivenene that they use in their trials.
I will keep the House informed on this ground-breaking advance from a great local team in my area.
The time for members' constituency statements that was agreed to earlier today has concluded.
It is National Volunteer Week, and the theme this year is 'Give happy, live happy'. This annual celebration acknowledges the generous contribution of the more than six million volunteers across Australia who give tirelessly to their communities each and every day. Australia has a strong tradition of volunteering. My community, the Central Coast, gives generously. Volunteering Central Coast was established over 30 years ago and has grown to become the leading volunteer recruitment and referral agency in the region. Every year, they link over 1,200 volunteers with more than 110 community organisations helping local people. It is a privilege to share in this place the stories of some of the remarkable volunteer organisations—stories of sporting clubs bringing people together, stories of surf-lifesaving clubs keeping us safe, stories of community groups supporting those who need it most.
As a kid growing up in Wyong I spent most of my time at Baker Park playing netball. Today I would like to recognise the Wyong District Netball Association, an entirely voluntary organisation founded in 1961. Wyong District Netball Association is the largest netball association on the Central Coast. This year we boast 22 clubs, over 250 teams and more than 2,600 players, supported by over 500 volunteers. It is with sadness that I acknowledge the passing of Aunty Pat, a Mingara life member and an umpire I remember fondly for her fairness. Aunty Pat came to us from St George District Netball Association, joining Wyong District Netball Association 12 years ago. Aunty Pat volunteered well into her 80s. A badged umpire, in her later years she mentored countless junior umpires.
The Central Coast is home to the most beautiful beaches on the east coast, and, thankfully, due to the volunteers at Surf Life Saving Central Coast, no lives were lost on patrolled beaches this season. This year, volunteers with Surf Life Saving Central Coast put in 95,822 hours on patrol, saved 1,099 lives, prevented 15,973 people from getting into difficulty in the water, performed 2,105 first-aid treatments and attended 29 after-hours call-outs. I congratulate all members of the Lakes, Soldiers Beach, North Entrance, The Entrance, Toowoon Bay, Shelly Beach and Wamberal surf-lifesaving clubs on another fantastic season. Thank you for all you do to keep us safe in and out of the water.
Census data shows there are close to 10,000 children on the Central Coast living below the poverty line. In pockets of our community, around a third of households have a combined income of less than $600 per week. It is tough. We Care Uniting in Toukley collects and distributes clothes, baby products and cooked meals to families across the Central Coast who are living in poverty or are at risk of homelessness or family violence. It began as 'share the love', when two local mums saw a need and had to act. When it outgrew their homes last year, We Care Uniting stepped in, with the support of the Toukley Uniting Church.
In their first nine months, We Care Uniting received over 10,000 donations and distributed $49,000 worth of goods to over 249 vulnerable children and their families on the Central Coast. Based on current rates, they will distribute $138,000 worth of goods to support more than 700 vulnerable children this year. In partnership with the Toukley Neighbourhood Centre, they also prepare home-cooked meals, with support from local partners ALDI Toukley and Lakes Food Care. To date, they have provided over 2,000 meals to those who are hungry and in need.
Their month-long donation drive, May-B-Baby, is collecting children's clothes, prams, high chairs, nursery furniture, sanitary products, nappies, wipes, car seats and baby capsules. Donations can be dropped into my office; the office of the state member for Wyong, David Harris; and Toukley, Wyong and Watanobbi neighbourhood centres. And I am thrilled to announce Amcal pharmacy in Westfield is on board as a new drop-off point. I thank Derryck, Jo, Gloria, Annette, Wendy and the team at We Care Uniting for their dedication and commitment to improving the lives of others—and my niece, Anna, for making the first donation.
Recent figures estimate the annual economic contribution of volunteering in Australia to be around $290 billion—important to note during budget week. Thank you to the volunteers on the Central Coast. (Time expired)
I want to thank all of those involved in helping to make what is already a great community in the federal seat of Petrie even greater—from the input of local residents who have highlighted issues to me that need to be addressed, right through to those in government who have listened to and acted on our concerns. Initiatives contained within the budget are wide ranging and include increased funding for veterans support, domestic violence initiatives, and the return of the stronger communities grants. The return of stronger community grants, in particular, as I am sure all members here would agree, is of enormous assistance to the many community groups that are often totally reliant on the dedication of volunteers, who do much heavy lifting in assisting some of the most vulnerable in our community.
I am also proud to say that every single school in the electorate of Petrie will see increased funding as a result of our investment in education. Parents, teachers, principals and school communities can now log on to the newly launched, publicly available online funding estimator so that they can see exactly how much extra funding they will receive as a result of the government's education investment. They can log on to education.gov.au/quality-schools. I had a bit of a look at the funding estimates before I came up here. I have the biggest state primary school in Queensland in my electorate for grades P to 6, Bounty Boulevard State School, which I have been out to many times for different events. It a great local school, approaching some 1,400 students in P to 6. The website estimates that this year, in 2017, Bounty Boulevard State School will receive $2,829,000 in federal government funding. Next year, in 2018, they will receive $2,973,900. Bounty Boulevard State School, I know, will use this really well.
Mango Hill State School, in my electorate as well, has a fantastic principal, staff, and school P&C. It is another great primary school in my electorate. This year they will receive $1,767,900 from the federal government. Next year they will receive $1,858,400, which I know Mango Hill will use really well. Up in Deception Bay, Christ the King Catholic Primary School is a great little school. It is a much smaller school. I have been there many times. The staff do a wonderful job and the community are strong. This year they will receive $2,342,700 from the federal government. Next year that will go to $2,429,300. Deception Bay State High School has been fighting to ensure that their hall gets air conditioning at some time. I have been talking to the state member about that, as well as the opposition candidate for the upcoming state election. I think the school desperately needs that, and perhaps some of this funding will help. This year they received $3,354,100. Next year Deception Bay State High School will receive $3,525,900, which is fantastic. Mueller College is a big school at Rothwell, from grade P right through to year 12. They have a great principal there and great teaching staff. The students are exceptional. I went out there recently to talk about bullying. At the school gates, I spoke about bullying to all the young people coming in. Being a primary school and a high school, they will receive an additional $516,400 in the next 12 months from the federal government. Clontarf Beach State School is a great primary school, with a fantastic principal and staff. I am fighting for that school. You walk in there and it is like stepping back into the 1960s; the buildings are old and in need of a paint job, and it needs rendering. I am fighting for Clontarf Beach State School. I have written to the state member as well as the state opposition. Next year, Clontarf Beach State School will receive an additional $55,700. This is great news for students right through the Petrie electorate, and I will be supporting them.
Tuesday night's budget was obviously very disappointing for Tasmania. There was hardly anything in there for my home state, despite the billions of dollars being splashed around on mainland infrastructure projects. Yes, the federal government says there is $1.1 billion for Tasmania, but frankly that is all old news, such as the continued Mersey Community Hospital funding and the Launceston City Deal. Responsibility for this shambles does not rest simply with the federal government, because the state government must also shoulder the blame. Indeed, the state government should be doing its job, knocking on the doors of its Liberal Party colleagues in Canberra and fighting for our fair share of the big money on offer. But alas it is simply not the case, because the state government continues to show, time and time again, that either it does not know or does not care about all this potential federal investment.
The best example of what I am talking about is the University of Tasmania's visionary STEM proposal for the Hobart CBD. This project would be transformational for the university, for Hobart and for Tasmania and it would create a significant economic boost, both during construction and on completion, with the thousands of staff and students who would occupy the new facilities. Infrastructure Australia, no less, has assessed the proposal and given it a glowing endorsement. That is why I have taken this proposal to the Prime Minister personally, and he has left me in no doubt that he understands the value of the project but that any formal approach for funding must be driven by the state government. But when I have communicated this to the Premier's office, both directly and through the media, there has been a deafening silence, because state parliamentarians simply do not get it, because their staff are running the show and running it badly or because the lot of them regard the public interest as some sort of political plaything and are leaving the big federal funding announcements until closer to the state election.
Light rail is another example. Indeed, a northern suburbs link would be of tremendous benefit to greater Hobart and would link communities, save money, ease traffic congestion and help clean up the environment—and all this when we have a Prime Minister who is so openly enthusiastic about rail and who understands so clearly the benefits it would bring. Except here we are in the afterglow of a budget that saw billions spent on rail, not one cent of which went to Hobart and to Tasmania for the restoration of passenger rail. Why? Simply because the current Liberal state government, like the Labor government before it, has failed to put in any funding submission to the federal government. Moreover, just last week we saw the extraordinary revelation from the Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, that Tasmania could be missing out on Defence contracts because the state government is not coordinating the sector. So, valuable defence contracts, for example at Prince of Wales Bay and in the north of the state, are going begging, despite the fact that this is a world-class Defence manufacturing precinct and suppliers like Incat and Taylor Bros have the capabilities and the skills to deliver Defence work.
And there is more. For instance, there is no money in the budget for the Bridgewater Bridge upgrade or water infrastructure. Frankly, the community wants to see a government that fights for its fair share of federal funding. You would think having a Liberal government in Hobart and another one in Canberra would work in our favour, but obviously it does not. Instead, we have pathetic scenes like yesterday, when the state government's response to criticism was to say that Tasmania had got plenty of investment, and that anyone who says otherwise is 'dishonest or delusional'. The Tasmanian government has also lashed out over education and claimed that the state will receive the greatest share of federal education funding per student, despite the fact that state funding is simultaneously being gutted, with the result that net funding for public schools in Tasmania is actually going down. The community deserves much better than such personal attacks and lies. It is no wonder, then, that just yesterday afternoon a constituent, who is a person of considerable standing in the community, summed it up when he texted me to say: 'Absolute incompetence. Farcical, really. How incredibly short-sighted.'
This is not hard stuff, but too often it is all just too unfathomable and difficult for Tasmanian state parliamentarians. I suppose it is okay for them because they are well paid and their needs are met. They would be thinking, 'Why should we worry about looking more interested in the community when the state election is probably not until next year?' (Time expired)
I would like to raise a point on the crisis we have in our nation with regard to the cost of electricity. Less than two years ago, the wholesale price of electricity in New South Wales was around $40 per megawatt hour. In the middle of last year, it was between $45 and $50 per megawatt hour. The latest wholesale price of electricity for New South Wales is over $120 per megawatt hour. That is a more than 100 per cent increase in less than 12 months in the wholesale price of electricity, clearly caused by the removal of coal-fired electricity generators from the system.
Let's look at what is currently happening to the cost of electricity in this country. This morning, between 10.30 am and 11 am, the wholesale price of electricity was not $40, $50 or $100 per megawatt hour, which is where it had been. It was $283 per megawatt hour. That is five to six times the price of what it regularly was less than two years ago. In South Australia, the situation was even worse. The price was $298 a megawatt hour. We are not talking about the middle of summer when there is a heatwave and everyone has their air conditioning on. We are talking about a mild autumn day—not at the peak at night when everyone is coming home—between 10.30 am and 11 am. These are the prices.
These high wholesale prices will flow through to an increase in the retail prices paid by consumers of between 30 and 40 per cent. I ask everyone in this parliament how they are going to explain to their constituents that their electricity bills are going to go up between 30 and 40 per cent. The reason why we had this boost in costs this morning is simply the wind was not blowing. Around the nation, we have over 4,390 megawatts of installed capacity of wind power. Between 10.30 am and 11 am, that was operating at a capacity of around one per cent. For the something like $1 billion worth of subsidies that we are paying, today we were getting 50 megawatts of electricity generated by wind turbines. Between 10 am and 11 am today, we needed 22,000 megawatts of electricity for the east coast grid, including Tasmania and South Australia. Of that 22,000 megawatts that was needed, wind was supplying 50 megawatts. That is one-quarter of one per cent.
Delta Electricity has done some sums about what this will cost each state. Their sums are that, in the next financial year alone, consumers in New South Wales will be paying an extra $4 billion for their electricity. That is $4 billion that will have to come out of people's pay packets to pay their electricity bills. In Victoria, it is estimated at an extra $2.8 billion. In Queensland, it will be an extra $2 billion. In South Australia, it will be an extra $1.08 billion. That is close to $10 billion extra, and this is on top of some the electricity prices that are already the highest in the world. There will be an extra $10 billion, just in four states, that will come out of those consumers' pockets to pay for our electricity.
What about the effect on industry?
You only have to listen to the words of Glencore. They have warned that we are beyond the 'tipping point' in industrial 'demand destruction'. They said that unless we make decisions really quickly, in the next 12 months, to re-establish base load electricity, which can be only coal or gas, we will have no chance of sustaining the economy in the shape that it is now.
The entire prosperity of the nation is at risk because of this mad obsession that we have with renewable energy. We have to call this out. We have to act. We cannot stand by and watch this happen to our nation.
I draw the attention of the parliament to a number of human rights violations that have occurred in the Roman Catholic diocese of Vinh, an area in central Vietnam. Vietnamese authorities have denounced Catholic priests for preaching about justice and peace, stating that the priests were 'conducting propaganda against the state'. Fathers Dang Huu Nam and Nguyen Dinh Thuc are Catholic priests from Nghe An province within the Vinh diocese. They have long spoken up for the rights of freedom of expression and assembly, religious liberty, as well as justice and access to the Vietnamese legal system.
These two Catholic priests have become well known for supporting local communities that were decimated as a result of a toxic discharge from the Formosa Ha Tinh steel factory, a Taiwanese owned company operating in the Vung Ang industrial zone. This environmental disaster has devastated the lives of local fishermen and all the communities that rely on the fishing industry in central Vietnam. It has left more than 100,000 citizens suffering severe financial hardship.
According to reports, children have been forced to leave school as families are unable to afford education. Other families have had to relocate to different regions in order to make a living. Many people have been harassed and detained by local police, simply for seeking justice and adequate compensation. In February this year I spoke about Father Thuc after he was physically attacked while leading a peaceful march of affected fishermen. They were seeking to exercise their legal rights and to file a lawsuit against the Formosa steel company to demand just compensation.
I have been informed by members of the Vietnamese community that local authorities sent a letter to Father Nam accusing him and Father Thuc of 'conducting propaganda against the state'. Furthermore, I have learnt that local authorities have orchestrated a locally based or domestic campaign against Father Nam, calling for his imprisonment for 20 years, or his execution. This is an extreme form of defamation against Father Nam, who has simply spoken up for his parishioners and affected local communities, calling for environmental protection, justice and appropriate compensation for those affected by this environmental disaster.
It has also been reported that the Vietnamese government has conducted a targeted campaign over state media in which it has accused the two Catholic priests of being reactionaries. Candlelight vigils and religious services at various Catholic churches are now continually monitored by authorities. Frankly, this is an affront to religious liberty.
Members of the Vietnamese Community in Australia have expressed their strong concern for the two Catholic priests as Vietnamese authorities continue to mount more pressure on Father Nam and Father Thuc. Today, many have gathered on the grounds outside Parliament House to demonstrate their solidarity by holding a 24-hour hunger strike.
Around the world, the Catholic Church has long promoted peace, justice and care for communities in need. Yet in Vietnam today the church appears to be persecuted for continuing to stand up for these rather vital principles. I have been told that the Vinh Diocese Working Group Supporting Victims of the Marine Environmental Disaster was formed to help the thousands of people affected by the Formosa environmental disaster. A petition started by the working group has now garnered more than 193,000 signatures worldwide, with 90 per cent of the signatures originating in Vietnam itself. This petition is an expression of the people's concern for the livelihoods of all those affected by this environmental disaster. The petition was released to mark the one-year anniversary of the environmental disaster, and yet the Vietnamese people have seen a lack of government response and the mistreatment of the peaceful activists who are pursuing just compensation for those affected.
While the Vietnamese government is keen to sign free trade agreements and enhance its standing within the global community, it is essential that it be encouraged to take steps towards freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the recognition of human rights, as well as protecting religious liberty.
I thank the honourable member. It is good to see you back in parliament.
Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I reiterate that it is great to see the member for Fowler back in the parliament. Two days on from the Treasurer delivering the budget, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, on all his hard work that went into the preparation of this budget. I also extend my congratulations to our Prime Minister and the finance minister on their contributions as well.
This is the 10th budget I have been privileged to see delivered in my time as the federal member for Swan. Of course, six of those years were during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, when the budget was handed down by the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan. I recall the response to the 2013 budget in particular, when the people of Australia had endured six years of fiscal recklessness by the Labor government. I remember it well because the response was overwhelmingly described as 'lukewarm at best'.
But this week feels very different to those dark days of the Labor budgets, because what the Treasurer has delivered is a budget based on fairness, security and opportunity. It is a budget that recognises our challenges but seizes our opportunities. It realises our goals and delivers on this government's national economic plan. The Treasurer noted that, despite continued economic growth, not all Australians have shared in the rewards. He noted that many remain frustrated at not getting ahead and that the pressures on families, small-business owners and everyday, hardworking Australians have been mounting.
This rings true for the people of Swan. As I am sure most members of the House did, I went through the budget papers to assess the impact these new measures will have on my constituents. I would like the indulgence of the Chamber to say just how this budget will alleviate pressures on the residents of Swan.
For parents across Australia, our children's health and education are our priority. As a custodial single parent to my son, I understand when families approach me with their concerns about the future of their children's education. Our government has acted to guarantee the services that Australian families use and need through our needs based funding model for schools. This will see a total increase in federal government funding for the schools in Swan of $312 million over the next 10 years, going to the 55 primary and secondary schools that educate nearly 21,000 children in my electorate.
For our younger families, we have developed reforms that will assist them as they juggle work and family in securing their financial futures. There are currently 7,980 families in my electorate of Swan using government-supported child care. Our childcare reforms, passed recently, ensure each and every one of these families has access to affordable care. As they grow, we are ensuring that all children in Swan can access 15 hours of preschool a week. This will see nearly 2,000 children in Swan reaping the benefits of the $2.5 million in funding for Swan announced by the government.
Our family's health is always of the utmost importance. That is why this government will continue to provide record funding for Medicare, despite continued scare campaigns, since the election, from those opposite. In the last financial year alone there were more than 600,000 GP services bulk-billed in Swan, putting the GP bulk-billing rate at 76.2 per cent for the electorate. Our government is securing the future of Medicare with a dedicated fund which will continue to protect these vital services for all Australians.
In addition, this budget secures funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Treasurer noted that as Australians we always look after our mates and we look after those who are less fortunate than ourselves. I am very proud that the coalition government are delivering the best care we can provide to those who need it the most. Once fully rolled out, the NDIS will directly help an estimated 2,891 people in the electorate of Swan.
My electorate of Swan is filled with small businesses. We have the Welshpool industrial hub, the Belmont Business Park, more than 100 car yards and an extensive cafe strip in Victoria Park, where my electorate office is located. The Turnbull government knows that it is the small businesses that are the heart and soul of the Australian economy. That is why this government is committed to delivering tax relief for small businesses. More than 17,000 small businesses in Swan can take advantage of the instant asset write-off. Further to this, more than 17,000 businesses in Swan will be eligible for our small and medium business tax cuts. This is how we deliver for hardworking Australians. We support families, we support their health services and we secure their children's education. We reward small business owners who take on a great risk to drive our nation's economy. This coalition government is committed to fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians.
What a week it has been. We have heard government members in this chamber wanting a pat on the back for delivering a so-called fair budget. Let's listen to the warped and twisted definition of what fairness is under a Liberal-National party government. The definition of fairness when you are a Liberal or National federal member is that you deliver a tax cut of $16,400 to a millionaire. But does a family or worker in my electorate earning $65,000 a year get a tax cut? No, they get a tax increase of $325 per year. This is the new parallel universe that this government wants my community and every other working family in Australia to live in. Millionaires get a tax cut of $16,400; working people get a tax increase.
I am not having any more nonsense from those opposite talking about the 'low-tax party' or the 'low-spend party'. They are a high-taxing party. The highest amount of tax that Australia has ever paid will be under this government. I will say that again: the highest amount of tax that Australians have ever paid in the history of the Commonwealth will be under this government. The highest amount of debt that Australia will ever face will be under this government. In four years, has debt been cut? Has it been reduced?
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:07 to 12:20
Let's look at the top-line figures of this unfair budget. We know that growth is down, wages growth is down and unemployment is up. There are 95,000 fewer jobs forecast in this year's budget—so much for jobs and growth. All of those members opposite, trained and programmed through the IPA, will have to go back out to their branches across Australia and explain that this is the highest-taxing government Australia will ever face. Gross debt will now pass half a trillion dollars in the coming months—$20,000 for each Australian man, woman and child. Gross debt will hit $725 billion in 10 years and keep growing. The deficit is 10 times bigger than was predicted in the Liberals' first budget for the coming year. This deficit has tripled under the Liberals' first budget. I do not want any more lectures from those opposite about preferred economic management. Net debt has blown out by more than $100 billion since the Liberals came to government, and will be at record levels for three more years. It is little wonder that the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said he gave the budget 'the applause it deserved'—let alone what Prime Minister John Howard and former Treasurer Peter Costello said. Division within the Liberal Party continues just because they know that, under this Prime Minister and Treasurer, debt has completely careered out of control.
While they are doing this, the community are missing out. They are paying higher taxes. But there is some relief for some of the community—millionaires get a tax cut and large corporations and multinationals get a $50 billion tax handout. We on this side of the chamber know that the budget fails the jobs test and the Medicare test. The Prime Minister has chosen big business over middle- and working-class families. He has chosen multinationals over Medicare. As a result, we will see millionaires getting a tax cut but working families in my electorate paying higher taxes. Under this government, every working person in Australia will pay higher taxes.
The list of cuts to health and education has been placed on the record. Labor will continue to oppose these cuts that this government is putting on the table. Schools in my own community in the southwest of Brisbane do an amazing job—particularly parish Catholic schools such as St Mark's in Inala, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart in Darra, Good Shepherd and also St Augustine's College up at Augustine Heights. I know how hard these schools work. This government has walked away from Catholic schools in our community. We will stand by education in Australia. (Time expired)
Today I would like to speak on crime, an issue of growing concern in my electorate of Bonner. I have been receiving a fair amount of feedback from my constituents on local crime and safety. It is a particularly vital issue for residents in the Gumdale-Wakerley area. I would like to update the House on what I have been doing to address reports of crime in and around the suburbs and how locals can get involved to help tackle this problem. Crime in the community can have a devastating impact, and I am not just talking about financial losses. Crime can also take a significant mental toll on its victims. Recently I heard from a constituent who lived in Wakerley for over 35 years. She told me that she used to be able to walk about in the neighbourhood without fear; but now, she says, most nights she is too afraid to go out alone. Her story and others like it have really touched me. It is important to feel safe and secure in our own homes and our own neighbourhoods. That is why this month I am launching a new campaign to identify crime and safety hotspots in the Gumdale-Wakerley area. This campaign will also give residents an opportunity to discuss crime with local law enforcement.
Earlier this month, I sent out a community safety survey to residents in the Gumdale-Wakerley area. This survey is helping me gauge how people feel about local crime levels, and how safe they feel in their community. It is also letting me know people's personal experiences with crime and their thoughts on the level of police protection in the area. I thank my constituents who have taken the time to complete and return my community safety survey. I have already had lots of great feedback and suggestions on what actions would be most helpful in alleviating crime in and around the Gumdale-Wakerley area.
Recently, I met with officers from the Wynnum Manly police station to discuss residents' concerns and a range of possible measures to reduce and deter crime in the Gumdale-Wakerley area. Since that meeting, Acting Senior Sergeant Carolyn Cox has graciously agreed to join me for a Coffee With a Cop event at Gloria Jeans Mayfair Village in Manly West next month. On Saturday 3 June from 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock, locals will be able to sit down with Sergeant Cox and Senior Constable Sharon Collins to share their thoughts on crime in the area, and they can ask any questions they may have on this important issue.
I am proud to be the sponsor of this neighbourhood safety initiative, and I thank local police and residents for their help in getting this crime campaign off the ground. I look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders to ensure that everyone in our community is kept safe from crime.
I rise to call for the Inner West Council, unelected as it is, to withdraw its proposed demolition of the St Mary and St Mina Coptic Orthodox Church in Sydenham in my electorate. This is the oldest Coptic Orthodox church in the Southern Hemisphere, and was the first Coptic Orthodox church established anywhere outside of Egypt.
This church was built in 1884. It was, for many, many years, a Methodist church on Railway Road in Sydenham. It was there before the airport, which, of course, had a significant impact on the practice of faith in the church, because it was directly under the newly built third runway. The church was bought by Egyptian Coptic migrants in 1968. Those migrants, of course, fled after political turmoil and persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. They put their hard-earned dollars into that church to buy it. The church holds war memorials from before that time dedicated to our brave diggers who fought for freedom in this country. The buildings around the church were demolished when the third runway was built, and a new church funded by the federal government was established in the St George area across the river. But the community had wanted the church to be maintained as a museum to the local history of, particularly, the Coptic Orthodox community, who number around about 100,000 in Sydney alone.
Recently, on 2 May, an arsonist targeted the building, causing more damage, which is the subject of a New South Wales police investigation. It is true that the building needs an upgrade, but the Coptic community have themselves raised funds and organised builders who are prepared to participate in the refurbishment of the church. The Inner West Council, of course, does not actually exist as a democratic body. The New South Wales government abolished the former Marrickville Council, and had a forced amalgamation between the Marrickville, Leichhardt and Ashfield councils into the Inner West Council, and they have had an unelected administrator since that occurred. Given that, there is no democratic process for the community to participate in stopping the abolition of this church.
The council says it will take $5 million to rebuild the church, but the Coptic Orthodox community have raised in cash and kind some $2 million to carry out the work. The Inner West Council plans tomorrow to raze the building and create a memorial area using parts of the church. The state government's Office of Environment and Heritage has not opposed the demolition. I say to the New South Wales government of Gladys Berejiklian, if this is not heritage—a church built in 1884, the first Coptic Orthodox church outside of Egypt—then what is? The New South Wales government particularly have a responsibility because there is no elected council in place. Effectively, the administrator is a representative of the New South Wales coalition government, appointed by them as a sole administrator, and they should intervene. At a time when the Islamic State is claiming responsibility for bombings of Coptic churches in Egypt as recently as Palm Sunday, when 50 people were killed, this is a community that feels they are under siege, and I stand with the community in support of their heritage, in support of their right not only to practise their religion at the church in Bexley but also to recognise their history as an important community here in Australia.
I have only been a parliamentarian for about nine months, and I wish to raise an issue that is very near and dear to my heart and to the people of Fisher. About five men and two women will commit suicide today—and tomorrow, and the day after that. Seven Australians will take their own lives day in, day out. Mental health, or the lack thereof, costs our national community, our national economy, $60 billion a year. That is the economic cost. But, when you look at the cost to families, when you look at the cost to lives, it is not just the person who suffers the mental illness that is impacted; it is their mum, their dad, their brothers and sisters, their daughters and sons. Hundreds of thousands of people are being impacted by mental illness in this country on a daily basis. It is a great blight on our community, and it perhaps says something about our lack of village atmosphere and how we live in large cities these days.
I am very proud to advise the House that on Tuesday night the Treasurer announced funding of $5 million for the Thompson Institute, which is a brain and neuroscience institute based in my electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast. The Thompson Institute was established as an offshoot of the University of the Sunshine Coast, and it was set up and funded initially by a local couple, philanthropists Roy and Nola Thompson. They tipped in $10 million out of their own pocket to fund this institute—they actually gave them the building—the university put in $10 million, and until Tuesday there had been no funding from the federal government. The federal government has now committed to spending $5 million, and I want to thank from the bottom my heart the health minister, Greg Hunt, and the Treasurer for their support of the Thompson Institute.
This $5 million will go into groundbreaking research. This sort of research is done only in a handful of places around the world. It will go into three programs. The first is in relation to the treatment and research of dementia; the second is in relation to youth mental health; and the third is in relation to suicide prevention. My family has been impacted directly by mental illness. I know all too well, all too painfully, what mental illness does to families, and I know that many, many other Australians do as well. The federal government's commitment of $5 million to the Thompson Institute will go a great way towards groundbreaking research and treatment of people who are suffering from ailments such as PTSD, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. It is a little-known fact that people suffering eating disorders, out of all mental illnesses, have the highest morbidity rates. It almost took my daughter's life. I am so pleased to see that the Thompson Institute will be involved in this groundbreaking research.
I also want to thank so much Sir Angus Houston, who paired with me in advocating for the Thompson Institute; Roy and Nola Thompson, as I have said; Max Bennett, who is also on the board; and of course the director, Jim Lagopoulos, who has been instrumental in this program. Thank you.
The expenditure on transport infrastructure in this budget grossly disadvantages Victoria. The ethos underlying Federation was that all states be treated equally. The transport infrastructure expenditure in New South Wales in particular, compared to that in Victoria, is, frankly, scandalous. The Financial Review today, in a graph, replicates the claims of the government that $10 billion has been spent on transport infrastructure in Victoria. That is not correct. It includes the East West Link, which has not been taken up by this government, democratically elected in Victoria, and falsely claims that the $3 billion for the East West Link is available to Victoria. The amount of money in this budget actually being spent in Victoria is $1 billion, which goes mainly towards regional rail, to help commuters from the great cities of Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat have a smoother way into Melbourne.
James Campbell, a columnist with the Herald Sun, today wrote:
A FLICK through the Commonwealth budget papers is enough to make a Victorian taxpayer's blood boil. This year Victoria will get $12m from the Bridges Renewal Program—NSW gets $34m, Queensland $26m. There's $55m over the next three years improving cattle supply chains in northern Queensland and almost $400m on improving WA and Queensland roads.
Those funds are being disgorged as part of Developing Northern Australia, a strategy from the federal government to take money from the parts of Australia where people want to live (Victoria) and ship it off to the unproductive parts of Australia where self-evidently people don't want to live …
Then there is a thing called the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan which the budget papers say is getting $1.8 billion over the next four years—and $2.9 billion over 10 years—"to enhance capacity and improve transport infrastructure in Sydney’s western suburbs".
Think about that the next time you are stuck in traffic between the ring road and the Westgate Bridge.
And don't even start me—
Mr Campbell says—
on the $5 billion we are spending building Western Sydney an airport to go with its improved—Commonwealth funded—infrastructure.
He further states:
My personal favourite is a table on Page 53 of Budget Paper 2, entitled National Partnership on Wi-Fi and Mobile Coverage on Trains which reveals that over the next three years the federal government will spend $12m establishing "mobile and internet connectivity along the train route between Hornsby and Wyong". And what will the rest of Australia get from this exciting initiative? Absolutely nothing.
Part of the imbalance between what Victoria is getting is our own fault. There's still $1.5 billion … for the bit of East West Link—between the Ring Road and City Link—
that the state government is willing to go ahead with. The article continues:
Some of it is historical: Sydney is going through a massive infrastructure boom which bizarrely could end up costing its state government power because voters in the regions feel they aren't getting their fair share.
It's hard not to imagine, however, that some of the neglect of Victoria comes from the fact that at any given election there are only ever three seats up for grabs here, whereas there are dozens of seats in play in NSW and Queensland. It's a problem without a solution in sight.
It is a problem without a solution in sight if one only considers politics. But, of course, politics is not what the underlying financial agreements of Federation should be based on. They should be based on equitable expenditure of taxpayers' money that should come back to the states in the forms of education, transport, infrastructure and hospitals.
Let me restate basically what three members from Victoria—me, the member for Gellibrand and Senator Kitching—have put in the Financial Review over the last three weeks. Victoria has 25 per cent of the population and gets $1 billion for transport infrastructure in this budget, while New South Wales gets $20 billion. Even according to the Financial Review, which is reproducing government graphs, that is unfair. Victoria has 25 per cent of the population and gets a tenth of public transport infrastructure. Similarly, we are getting 37 per cent of the immigration to Australia. The trains and the trams in Melbourne are bursting. The Turnbull government will pay the political price for this if they continue to ignore the ethos underlying Federation.
It is my pleasure to rise in the chamber today to speak about how the 2017 budget, announced by the Treasurer on Tuesday night, will provide benefits to my constituents in Forde in terms of fairness, opportunity and security. This budget guarantees the services Australian families use and need. It guarantees quality education, a first-class health system, a well-equipped Defence Force and police force, improved infrastructure, and more opportunities for families, seniors and small businesses.
Importantly, it will provide more money for schools, including a total of $417 million over the next 10 years for the 41 primary and secondary schools in my electorate of Forde. Our needs based funding model for schools, endorsed by David Gonski, is all about fairness. Schools in every sector in every local community in the electorate of Forde will be receiving significant increases in funding through our needs based funding model. More importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows make a real difference to supporting our teachers and schools to improve student outcomes. This is a fair system that is good for students, good for parents and good for teachers.
During the 2016 federal election, those opposite ran a dishonest campaign that the government would privatise Medicare. As usual they were full of hypocrisy, grandstanding and the usual poor form from the Labor Party, scaring voters, particularly vulnerable, older voters, into thinking they would no longer be supported with bulk-billing and other vital services. Our budget assures Australians that Medicare is secure—it always has been under the coalition government and always will be. The coalition will continue to provide record funding for health and Medicare and will guarantee Medicare's future with a dedicated fund which will protect these vital services for this generation and the next. This budget provides $1.2 billion to provide cheaper access to vital medicines. We are listing more drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to ensure families have access to vital drugs.
Supporting our veterans has always been a priority for the coalition government. There are some 1,163 veterans and their families in my electorate of Forde. I look forward to sharing the budget message with them. Importantly, it is about ensuring that past and present service personnel who undertake at least one day of full-time service have the benefit of easier access to free mental health and support services. Enhanced access to counselling for veterans and their families will provide benefits to the partners and dependants of contemporary veterans and also those currently serving today.
What I consider to be one of the most important measures in the budget is our government's commitment to secure full funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Once finally rolled out, more than 3,400 people in my electorate of Forde will benefit from the NDIS. Under the plan of Labor, those opposite, the NDIS was never fully funded. That caused enormous concern for many in our communities who were hoping to benefit. But I am glad to say that this budget puts those fears to rest. Australians with a disability deserve the best care we can provide, and this budget secures that funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme into the future.
More than 14,000 small businesses in Forde will benefit from tax relief, as well as the extension of the instant asset write-off. The extra investment in apprenticeships is helping around 2,200 young people in my electorate of Forde. That is critically important because we have a high youth unemployment rate. I have no doubt the 2017 budget is fair and will help the Australian economy grow, create more jobs, provide opportunities and help us deliver a better Australia for future generations.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:56