On behalf of the House I would like to acknowledge all the guests in the distinguished visitors gallery and the Speaker's gallery this morning, and advise the House that among our guests are campaigners for the 1967 referendum and their families, as well as family members of the plaintiffs of the 1992 Mabo High Court ruling.
These are significant events in our nation's history, celebrated each year through National Reconciliation Week and, of course, in this year in particular, being the 50th and 25th anniversaries respectively.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present report No. 11 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and a delegation of business and private member's business on Monday, 29 May 2017. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members ' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 May 2017.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 29 May 2017 as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance and social security to allow the debts of people affected by domestic or family violence to be waived, and for related purposes. (Social Services Legislation Amendment (Relieving Domestic Violence Victims of Debt) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 11 May 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
Orders of the day
1 Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from22May2017MrTaylor).
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
All Members speaking—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
2 MR CHRISTENSEN: To move:
That this House recognises:
(1) the long term global demand predictions for coal in providing reliable, secure and affordable baseload power;
(2) that power prices in Queensland have reached record highs, including up to $14,000 MW/H in January 2017;
(3) that the high cost of electricity supply in North Queensland has been a disincentive to business investment for many years, putting a strain on Australian businesses and households;
(4) that Australia has an abundance of high quality coal, better than in many countries around the world;
(5) that Australia should utilise this natural advantage by maintaining its prominent role in providing secure, reliable and affordable energy, and that in order to do this, there should be a coal fired power station built in North Queensland.
(Notice given 23 May 2017.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Christensen—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR HAMMOND: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the rapid increase in the use of electronic communication technology in recent decades, including in commerce;
(b) that access to electronic communication technology differs between Australians, and is often related to income, age, education level and remoteness;
(c) that not all Australians have the skills and infrastructure to communicate effectively via electronic channels;
(d) that many businesses, including banks, telecommunications companies and utilities, charge consumers an extra fee to receive communications via post; and
(e) that often the fee charged by companies to receive communications by post are intended as a disincentive, and do not represent the actual cost incurred by the company; and
(2) calls on the Government to bring forward legislation that will give consumers the right to receive communications from companies by post for no extra fee.
(Notice given 22 May 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Hammond—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, may I just commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on their presentations here this morning in acknowledging this important anniversary of the 1967 referendum. As the member for Cook, I acknowledge the Dharawal people in Sydney and, in particular, the Gweagal people, who were the first present when Lieutenant James Cook arrived in Australia on 29 April 1770. It has certainly been a long time since then and I think the presentations made today in this House have reflected well the views of the Australian people.
In particular, I want to acknowledge the Clontarf Foundation, which does such tremendous work in my own community and right around the country, and continues—I think very much in the spirit of the contributions that were made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition this morning—answering that appeal.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill, that is, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017, provides certainty that low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.
Australians place great faith in a government's range of essential services.
Our essential services give Australians the security and confidence they need to seize opportunities when they arise—to understand that the Commonwealth government has their backs when it comes to important essential services that they rely on.
In this year's budget the government is protecting the essential services that Australians rely on, especially our most vulnerable Australians. We are fully funding those services.
We are guaranteeing Medicare so that all Australians can be assured Medicare is not only here to stay, but will be strengthened into the future.
By law, as I announced on budget night, we will establish a Medicare Guarantee Fund from 1 July this year to pay for all expenses on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Proceeds from the Medicare Levy will be paid into that fund.
An additional contribution from income tax revenue will also be paid into the fund to make up the difference. This will provide transparency about the costs of Medicare and a clear guarantee on how we pay for it.
We are also closing the funding gap, once and for all, for our National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The Turnbull government will fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme by increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point from 1 July 2019.
Every single cent of the additional money raised from the increase in the Medicare levy will go to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme and provide all of those families, all of those Australians, all of their friends, all of their carers and all of their communities right around the country the assurance—the guarantee—that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded, once and for all.
We are facing a $55.7 billion gap in the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the medium term, and that hole needs to be filled. The increase in the levy that we are putting forward two years from now does not occur until the extra national disability insurance bills start coming in in 2019-20. The levy does not increase until the extra bills start coming in.
We all have a responsibility to do our bit when it comes to fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme, according to our means. If you are on a higher income, under the Turnbull government's plan you will pay more. If you are on a lower income, you will pay less.
Someone earning $80,000 a year currently pays $1,699 a year in the Medicare levy. From 1 July 2019 their contribution will increase by $400 a year—around just over a dollar a day to ensure the Commonwealth's share of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.
Those on higher incomes will pay more. Someone who is on $250,000 a year pays $4,800 in the Medicare levy each year, and they will contribute an extra $1200 a year to secure funding of the NDIS—some three times what those on the lower income I have just mentioned would pay.
Appropriately, those on lower incomes will pay even less. A single mother on $37,000 a year pays no Medicare levy at all and a pensioner on $34,000 pays no Medicare levy. This is fair. These have been the arrangements for some time, with indexation. And the government is ensuring that this fairness remains central to the Medicare levy.
But all of us will share in the responsibility of helping our mates who are living with a disability and giving an assurance to them that this vital service in the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be there for them into the future—and not just for them but, through any great misfortune in the future, for those Australians who will be forced to live with a disability; they will have the support and certainty of that scheme as well.
So I do implore the opposition to come to the middle when it comes to supporting the government to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There is no need to increase the Medicare levy for any other purpose than to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are aware that the opposition is proposing to increase the Medicare levy, but, as their shadow Treasurer and their assistant minister have confirmed, that increase in the Medicare levy is not to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Not one cent of the proposed increase in the Medicare levy by the opposition is intended to support funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Their purposes in raising that levy are unclear. Our purpose is very clear. It has only one purpose—that is, to give families dealing with disabilities and their carers and all others—
Opposition members interjecting—
I note the interjections coming from the opposition, which are disappointing and unfortunate, but the truth is there to see—that is, we as a government will fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, because those opposite left a gaping funding hole for that service. It is one thing to promise something; it is another thing to deliver it, and that is what the Turnbull government is doing. We implore the opposition to put aside the politics, meet us in the middle, as we did when the Medicare levy was first increased to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and follow through. From the interjections opposite, including from the member for Lindsay, I am disappointed that they are showing a continued lack of support for this initiative.
But all of us know this is a shared responsibility, and we do implore the country, as indeed those before us, in the previous government, implored the country to support what is a fair measure. We all feel passionately about this—as indeed the member for Lindsay does, as indeed the member for Hughes does, in particular, as I mentioned in this House yesterday. But our focus must be to get the job done and that is what the government is proposing to do, and we invite the opposition to meet us in the middle.
Let me turn to the detail of this bill.
This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners, in line with increases in the consumer price index.
These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2015-16 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2016-17 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.
In addition to providing a concession to low-income households, the Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets, such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset, do not incur the Medicare levy.
Increasing the low-income thresholds in line with the consumer price index ensures that the thresholds keep pace with growth in consumer prices.
The Medicare levy phases in at 10 cents for each dollar in excess of the relevant low-income thresholds, until it is paid in full.
The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with income under $21,655 in 2016-17—increased from $21,335.
For single individuals with no dependents, the full Medicare levy rate would apply if their income is above $27,068—increased from $26,668.
Couples and families will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $36,541—increased from $36,001.
Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $47,670—increased from $46,966.
The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,356 for each dependent child—increased from $3,306.
For example, if a couple has three children and is not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, they would not need to pay any Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $46,609.
Around an estimated one million individuals will benefit from this bill from the increase in the low-income thresholds, including individuals who receive a concession as part of a family.
The increase in the low-income thresholds means that some low-income individuals will be relieved from paying the Medicare levy. Other low-income individuals will also now pay less Medicare levy than they would if the thresholds were not increased.
In 2016-17, around 10 million individuals are estimated to pay some Medicare levy after accounting for the increase in the thresholds. This means that just over one in every two adults are contributing to Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme through the Medicare levy. This is a fair and reasonable arrangement. It recognises that these levies act as a proxy insurance scheme for both Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for which all Australians are covered.
This measure is estimated to have a cost to revenue of $180 million over the forward estimates. The increase in Medicare levy low-income thresholds will apply to the 2016-17 income year.
Existing exemptions from the Medicare levy also remain in place, including for blind pensioners and sickness allowance recipients.
Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. What the bill demonstrates is that the Medicare levy is already designed to ensure that vulnerable people in our community—elderly people, single parents, those with larger families, all people in those situations—are in a position to receive relief from how the Medicare levy is imposed in this country. That is why an across-the-board increase of half a per cent two years from now, to ensure the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme—this is the fairest way to do it. This is the way to do it to ensure that we all make a contribution in accordance with our means. Those in this country who are very restricted in their means are provided exemptions as this bill today once again demonstrates. This is a fair way to give the guarantee on Medicare. This is a fair way to give the guarantee of fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Australians are watching this parliament and they are hoping that the parliament will live up to this test of fairness the government has set before this parliament to ensure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded once and for all. I sincerely hope that the parliament will respond positively to the question put to it by the government in supporting not only this measure which totally preserves the exemptions and extends those for those who are most vulnerable but the subsequent bill that will come to ensure that families living with disabilities can have the certainty and peace of mind that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded.
Debate adjourned
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill provides for a one-off energy assistance payment to welfare recipients who have a limited ability to earn additional income; and reinstates the pensioner concession card to more than 92,000 former pensioners that ceased being eligible for a pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test.
Ene rg y assistance payment
This bill provides for a one-off energy assistance payment to recipients of the age pension, disability support pension, parenting payment single and veterans and their partners paid the service pension, the income support supplement and relevant compensation payments who are eligible for payment and residing in Australia on 20 June 2017 (the test date) to assist them with their energy costs.
The energy assistance payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each member of a couple, providing additional assistance to around 3.8 million Australians, including:
To be eligible you must be in receipt of one of the qualifying payments and be residing in Australia on 20 June 2017. Those qualified will automatically receive the payment through Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs—they will not need to take any action, and no claim is necessary. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support.
Those people who have made a claim for payment on or before the test date and subsequently have that claim granted, will also be paid the one-off payment.
Legislation ensures that a person cannot receive more than one entitlement and no payment would be made to non-Australian residents. People who are not in receipt of payment because they are suspended on the test date will not be eligible. This may include people who are in gaol on the test date.
Qualifying veterans will include those receiving disability pension and war widow(er)'s pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, permanent impairment compensation, special rate disability pension or wholly dependent partner payments under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 or permanent impairment compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 on the test date.
Pensioner concession card
This bill will also reinstate the pensioner concession card to around 92,300 former pension recipients. Former pensioners who lost entitlement to the pensioner concession card when they ceased being eligible for the pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test will once again be eligible for this card.
This consists of 88,700 former pensioners paid by the Department of Social Services and 3,600 former pensioners paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
From 1 January 2017, these people were all issued with a health care card, and those over age pension qualification age were also issued with a Commonwealth seniors health card. From the Commonwealth perspective, these cards provide the same benefits to the card holder in terms of access to cheaper medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the lower extended Medicare safety net. These cards did not, however, provide access to free hearing services provided by the Department of Health or a range of concessions and benefits provided by states and territories, and/or private providers, which are available to pensioner concession card holders.
The government has decided to reinstate the pensioner concession card to maximise concessions to this cohort.
While eligibility criteria for concession cards are set by the Commonwealth government, the decision to use certain Commonwealth government concession cards as the trigger or as a vehicle for targeting state and territory concessions is a choice made by state and territory governments, and other private providers.
State concessions on rates, utilities, motor vehicle registrations and public transport are all determined by the type of card you hold. Due to the decisions of state and territory governments, and/or private providers, some concessions available to pensioner concession card holders are not available to holders of other types of concession cards, including a health care card and a Commonwealth seniors health card. Reissuing the pensioner concession card will help overcome this anomaly, and help facilitate people to again access these discounts and concessions.
It will cost $3.1 million over two years to reinstate the pensioner concession card to this cohort of former pensioner recipients whose pension was cancelled due to the rebalancing assets test measure. This is a small expense to the government, but will go a long way to assist this group in managing their daily budgets.
Consistent with the health care card and Commonwealth seniors health card they have now, the pensioner concession card will be automatically reissued from 9 October 2017 with an ongoing income and assets test exemption.
To maintain their current Commonwealth benefits, those former pensioners issued with a Commonwealth seniors health card will also retain that card. As the pensioner concession card provides all the benefits the health care card does, the health care card would become redundant and would be deactivated for those former pensioners issued with a health care card on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pensions assets test.
The eligibility requirements ensure that these former pensioners will maintain ongoing eligibility to the standalone pensioner concession card, but still have to meet some of the conditions in place for usual pensioner concession card holders. These conditions include portability requirements where cardholders will have their card suspended after being overseas for six weeks. The card will be reactivated on return to Australia. the pensioner concession card will also be cancelled if the cardholder is in jail.
This bill acts on the government's commitments outlined in the 2017-18 budget and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to allow the income management element of Cape York welfare reform to continue for two additional years until 30 June 2019.
Income management ensures welfare payments are used to meet the essential needs of vulnerable people and their dependents.
Income management sets aside a percentage of a recipient's welfare payment to ensure it can only be spent on priority goods and services such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.
People on income management are also provided with support to improve money management skills. Centrelink assists income management participants to identify expenses and helps them budget so their welfare payments can meet these expenses.
Income management supports 25,693 people in locations across Australia, including individuals referred by child protection authorities.
Funding for income management was due to cease on 30 June 2017. Government has decided to extend income management in all existing locations until 30 June 2019.
Extending income management for two years ensures continuity of support for vulnerable participants while allowing government time to work through future directions for welfare quarantining.
There are high risks associated with ceasing income management without a mechanism to replace it.
An influx of cash into income management sites could lead to an increase in levels of violence, hospitalisation and abuse.
Income management also increases food security in communities as it encourages community stores to stock plenty of food and household goods. If income management ceased on 30 June 2017, this could be compromised.
Income management in Cape York is the only income management measure with a legislated sunset date. Current legislation allows for all other income management measures to continue beyond 30 June 2017.
Cape York welfare reform is a partnership between the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge, the Australian government, the Queensland government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. It aims to restore local Indigenous authority, rebuild social norms, encourage positive behaviours and improve economic and living conditions.
Income management is an important component of Cape York welfare reform. Currently, a person can be placed on to income management after a decision by the Family Responsibilities Commission made before 1 July 2017. Where welfare recipients are referred to the commission, the commission can also discuss the issues with the individual and link them with relevant support services.
Cape York welfare reform commenced in the four partnership communities on 1 July 2008.
In 2016, income management was extended to the community of Doomadgee. Doomadgee is not formally part of the Cape York welfare reform partnership; however, the same referral pathway for income management applied in the four communities applies in Doomadgee.
There are currently 196 participants on income management in Cape York and Doomadgee.
The income management component of the Cape York welfare reform is a powerful tool, designed to be used both as a mechanism for ensuring that welfare payments are spent on necessities and as an incentive for individuals to engage with social supports and make positive behavioural change.
The approach of Cape York welfare reform has yielded positive results for both individuals and communities.
Participating communities have seen significant improvements to their economic and living conditions.
A 2012 evaluation of Cape York welfare reform found that progress has been made at the foundational level in stabilising social circumstances and fostering behavioural change. This was particularly in the areas of sending children to school, caring for children and increasing individual responsibility.
The evaluation also found there was evidence that income management assists in reducing behaviours that lead people to being referred to the Family Responsibilities Commission.
Further, 78 per cent of income-managed people surveyed reported that the program had made their lives better.
This bill extends the date before which the Families Responsibilities Commission can make a decision to place a person on income management to 1 July 2019. This enables income management to continue in Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge and Doomadgee for a further two years.
This amendment aligns with the end date of income management in all existing locations across Australia.
The proposed approach to the extension of income management in Cape York was discussed with the Queensland government and the Cape York Partnership, which agreed this was the best approach and met the needs of Cape York welfare reform at this time.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017.
The budget measures bill would implement three of the government's 2017 budget announcements for the veteran community.
As the Prime Minister has said, we best honour the diggers of a century ago by supporting the service men and women, the veterans and their families of today. This budget will do just that.
The government has invested an additional $350 million in this year's budget to support veterans. I am very pleased to say that there was a strong focus on two issues that are raised regularly by veterans: mental health support and reform of the department's processes and systems.
The government is expanding our program of free and immediate mental health support to current and former Australian Defence Force members. This treatment is currently available for five specified mental health conditions.
The government is expanding our non-liability healthcare program so that it will be available for any mental health condition, including phobias, adjustment disorder and bipolar disorder.
It is important that this House notes the significance of this program for veterans and their families.
Just over 12 months ago, anyone who has served one day in the full-time Australian Defence Forces had to prove that any mental health condition was linked to their service.
Already suffering from these conditions, they would have to wait to have their eligibility and claim approved from the department. It meant wait times which would see their mental health deteriorate or not receive the support that they desperately needed.
Last year, this government provided a new approach—free and immediate treatment for depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse and substance abuse without the need to prove the condition was service related.
In this budget, the government has gone even further. Now, we will commit to provide this for all mental health conditions.
It will mean that from now on, veterans and defence personnel can get free and immediate treatment without a burden of proof and without the need for a bureaucratic barrier.
This government has delivered this barrier-free support for the first time in Australia because we know that the earlier intervention and support is provided, the better the outcome for the individual.
Most importantly, this policy is completely uncapped. If there is a need, it will be funded.
As part of our veterans mental health initiatives, the government is also expanding eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS).
VVCS is a vital service that saves lives. The government understands that partners, families and former partners of our veterans are an important part of the ex-service community and that they too are affected by military service.
In recognition of this, the budget provides extra funding so that any partner, dependant or immediate family member will have access to VVCS, and former partners of ADF personnel will also be able to access VVCS up to five years after a couple separates, or while co-parenting a child under the age of 18.
In addition to this, this budget begins the government's response to the complex problem of veteran and defence suicide.
The government has received a report from the National Mental Health Commission on services provided to defence personnel and veterans and a preliminary report on suicide rates from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Suicide prevention is a complex issue and as the report has shown, there is no simple solution. It requires a multifaceted response.
This budget will provide $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve care and support available to veterans.
We know that some of our most vulnerable veterans are those who have just been discharged from hospital care.
The mental health clinical management pilot will assess the benefits of providing intensive clinical management immediately after hospital discharge to help meet a veteran's complex mental health and social needs.
The second part to this budget for veterans is the investment it will make in improving the services and systems of the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
As part of the Veteran Centric Reform, the government has committed $166.6 million towards making DVA a 21st century department with a 21st century service.
This includes a significant investment in the upgrading of the department's computer systems and processes. We can only have a better service from DVA if they have the tools to do the job. Claims and wait times will be cut by this investment, something that is long overdue.
Finally, the government is further supporting veterans' employment opportunities through funding to support the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program. As many of you would be aware, this initiative is aimed at raising awareness with employers, both in the private and public sectors, of the enormous value and unique experience that veterans possess. These measures will not require legislative change.
With regard to the budget initiatives contained in this bill, I am pleased to advise of three measures that will be effective from 1 July as long as this bill passes.
Schedule 1 — improved health care for Australian participants of the British Nuclear Tests and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force
Schedule 1 of the budget measures bill would amend the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to provide Australian British nuclear test participants already covered under that act and civilians present at a nuclear test area during a relevant period, as well as Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force with full medical treatment and support.
Participation in the British and Commonwealth occupation forces marked the first time that Australians were involved in the military occupation of a sovereign nation which it had defeated in war. The primary objective of BCOF was to enforce the terms of the unconditional surrender that had ended the war. The primary objective of BCOF was to enforce the terms of the unconditional surrender that had ended the war.
BCOF was required to maintain military control and to supervise the demilitarisation and disposal of the remnants of Japan's war-making capacity. Warlike materials were destroyed and other military equipment was converted for civilian use under the supervision of BCOF personnel.
The entire BCOF force totalled 45,000, from Britain, India, New Zealand, and Australia. For two-thirds of the period of occupation the Commonwealth was represented solely by Australians, and throughout its existence, BCOF was always commanded by an Australian officer.
In recognition of the possible exposure to ionising radiation experienced by both Australian veterans of BCOF and the BNT veterans, the government has decided to provide a gold card to these veterans which will enable them to access medical treatment for all conditions.
This programme will also provide healthcare coverage for pastoralists, Indigenous people and other civilians determined to be within the same vicinity as the participants of the British nuclear tests.
From 1 July 2017, it is expected that 2,800 people will be able to access this expansion of services.
The government has committed $133.1 million over the forward estimates to this measure.
Schedule 2 — Work test for intermediate or special rate of pension
The amendments in this schedule would amend the current outdated work history restrictions for special and intermediate rates of disability pension provided in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to better reflect modern working arrangements.
The special rate of pension was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families or put away money for their retirement. The intermediate rate of pension was designed for veterans who, due to a service related disability, can only work part time or intermittently because of the disability.
The eligibility criteria for the special rate of disability pension is provided in the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. In addition to the standard requirements for special rate pension, a veteran over 65 must satisfy a work test. Applicants must demonstrate an intention to work beyond the normal retirement age of 65, and be unable to work as a result of their war-caused injury or disease.
These changes would remove the current requirement for claimants to have worked for 10 years with the same employer, and for self-employed clients to have worked a minimum of 10 years in the same profession, trade, vocation or calling.
In the modern workforce, these expectations are unrealistic and the government recognises this.
Instead, the work history requirement for special and intermediate rates of disability pension would just require a period of 10 continuous years of work in any field or vocation, with potentially multiple employers prior to applying for the special or intermediate rates of disability pension.
Schedule 3—Rehabilitation programs
Schedule 3 of the budget measures bill would insert instrument-making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (SRCA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to rehabilitation pilot program.
Currently, veterans and ADF members with eligibility under the SRCA or the MRCA have to wait until their initial liability claim is accepted before they can access rehabilitation services. Assessing a claim typically takes around four months, and for complex cases it can take even longer.
Early access to rehabilitation facilitates participation in economic activities with all of the ensuing benefits of work and recovery, assists in minimising the ongoing effects of injury and illness and promotes recovery and wellbeing.
A six-month pilot program providing early access to rehabilitation assessments to a group of 100 participants will be undertaken in the 2017-18 financial year.
If a person's liability claim is subsequently rejected, government funding for the early access to rehabilitation pilot program would cease. In those circumstances, the person's rehabilitation program would be transitioned from a government provider to a community based provider. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission would not seek to recover the costs of the rehabilitation services provided to the person.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the government's support to our veteran community. These are only some of the measures that the government will deliver for veterans and their families in this budget.
It is a budget that will honour those who have served by looking after our current and former serving men and women.
I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
The measures in this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, were they to be enacted, would deepen inequities between students and in our schools. They would also boost inequality more generally, taking Australia backwards. They represent a retreat by this government from taking a national interest in and national responsibility for schools education. I reject this bill, because I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that every child gets every chance to fulfil their potential at school and in life.
I rise today to speak in support of the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, a bill which supports all Australian schools. Those opposite have much to say about this bill and will pretend to be big on education. But, as in all things Labor, we know that yet again they are short on funding.
We need to focus on the positive impact that this bill will have for schools and, importantly, for students throughout Australia—smart coalition policy, just like Australia's smart students, who are benefiting from real reforms. These are reforms that can only be delivered by the coalition government. The coalition is committed to educating Australian students to the highest possible standard.
Equity and fairness are espoused in the teachings at schools right across Australia. So it is fitting that, through this bill, funding is also fair.
The amendments in this bill allow the government to deliver on our Quality Schools package, outlined in the 2017 budget. This bill amends the act to implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, and to deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools and to tie funding to reforms that evidence shows improve students' outcomes.
Importantly, this bill sets Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond, giving certainty to the sector. It applies new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth school funding and transitions schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. This standard equates to 80 per cent for non-government schools and 20 per cent for government schools. This bill also enables regulation which allows the government to withhold, reduce or recoup funding paid to jurisdictions which do not meet the Commonwealth's requirements to at least maintain their student funding levels. Regulation will be applied to both government and non-government schools, and prevents cost-shifting.
Education is a major part of Australia's future. Irrespective of whether your child attends a public or a private school, the world, quite literally, is their oyster. Education is the great enabler.
Between 2018 and 2027, a record $242.3 billion will be invested in total schools recurrent funding. This includes $81.1 billion between 2018 and 2021. Over the next decade, funding will grow, on average, by 94 per cent for government schools and 62 per cent for non-government schools. This growth allows schools to continue to expand successful programs such as specialist teachers or targeted interventions for children falling behind.
The fact remains that the coalition's new schools funding arrangements are fair, transparent, equitable and needs based. Quite simply, students with greater needs will attract higher levels of funding from the Commonwealth. Students at schools like The Glenleighden School in Ryan will be the beneficiaries.
The Australian government is committed to fairness and, as such, will remove the 27 secret and special deals that Labor instigated that currently mean that students with the same needs within the same sector receive different levels of Commonwealth funding. We know that, under Labor's current arrangements, schools take at least 150 years to see equitable allocation of the Commonwealth's contribution to the Schooling Resource Standard. Quite frankly, this is unacceptable and gives good reason for the coalition to resolve Labor's unfair, biased and ill-managed policy.
Members here well know that the first day of a child's school life spells a limitless career. When parents tell their children—who invariably disagree and disregard the comment at the time—that the sky is the limit, it really is. Given that children spend upwards of 12 years in schools and in tertiary studies, it is important that these places of learning are at their peak.
I know we are all very fortunate to have some exceptional schools in our electorates. However, schools in the Ryan electorate consistently rank among the highest of Queensland schools. This was evident in last year's annual Your School report by The Weekend Australian. The Your School report highlights the achievements of students and teachers in schools that scored the very best results in the national literacy and numeracy tests. Many schools in the Ryan electorate featured in the report, and they include: Ironside State School at St Lucia, which was the No. 1 primary school in Queensland; Rainworth State School, Bardon; Fig Tree Pocket State School; Brisbane Montessori School at Fig Tree Pocket; St Ignatius Primary School at Toowong; Bardon State School; Kenmore South State School; Brookfield State School; St Peter's Lutheran College at Indooroopilly; Brisbane Boys' College at Toowong; Indooroopilly State School and Indooroopilly State High School; Ashgrove State School; St Joseph's School, Bardon; Chapel Hill State School; Mater Dei Catholic School at Ashgrove West; Stuartholme; and, of course, Pullenvale State School. Each of these schools should be proud of their achievements. Each teacher, student and parent at these schools should also be delighted that they enjoy this reputation.
These scores do not indicate that the schools not attaining a top rating are less deserving. Just like the sky being the limit for students, those schools that were not on this year's list are all exceptional in their own unique ways. It is not just academic scores that create a successful school and a successful student. There is certainly no one-size-fits-all model. However, there are always a few ingredients that go a long way, including resourcing, talented teachers, a strong sense of community, dedicated students and committed parents. What works for one school may be completely different to another school nearby. Whether a child becomes a successful doctor, builder, business owner, astrophysicist or plumber, they can think back to their schooling days and the investment that they and their school made to help them achieve.
While on the topic of schools in the very scholastic electorate of Ryan, I was privileged last week that the Prime Minister took some time out of his busy schedule to visit a very special school, The Glenleighden School located at Fig Tree Pocket. The Prime Minister saw first-hand that school's unique teaching methods which combine teaching and therapy to prepare children for the next stage of their education. Aptly, The Glenleighden School's motto is helping children to speak and find their voice. The school recognises that children and young people with language impairments often have difficulties with social, emotional and behavioural regulation. It is therefore committed to supporting and protecting all students. I know I speak on behalf of the Prime Minister when I say that this visit was truly humbling. It is through the Quality Schools package that this education facility will be better equipped to support the success and futures of each and every student.
This bill provides a strong foundation for achieving our long-term vision for Australian schools. By providing a funding model that is fair, transparent and needs based, we will improve results of all Australia's school students. In the great words of a local Ryan resident, Springfield Land Corporation CEO Maha Sinnathamby: 'Education is the currency of the future. It cannot be stolen from the owner.' Through decisive coalition policy, we are providing all Australian students with the currency that they need for their futures.
I commend this bill to the House.
I rise today to oppose the government's destructive Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. The Prime Minister's sales pitch on this legislation has been the most brazen, shameless attempt to mislead the electorate that we have seen in recent years. But no amount of spin can disguise the fact that the government is preparing to undertake a $22 billion ram raid on Australian school funding. This is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. We can be sure that this is exactly how much is on the line because it comes from the government's own policy document, which was given, conveniently, to journalists. It reads: 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.5 billion over four years from 2018 to 2021 and $22.3 billion over 10 years from 2018 to 2027.
In my own home state of New South Wales, schools are set to lose $846 million in the next four years alone. Yet, still, the government have been desperately trying to disguise the extent of their cuts, even from the schools themselves. The secretary of the New South Wales education department, Mark Scott, could not have been clearer when he called out the government's fake figures in an email sent to school principals on 11 May. The email referred to funding amounts provided to school principals by the federal government. It reads:
You should not rely on these figures for future planning or budgeting purposes. The calculation of apparent increases to your school also does not take into account increases in teachers' salaries or any other cost growth over the next decades.
This is because Mr Scott knows, just as I do, just as parents in my schools do, that the government's figures and its school funding calculator are deliberately designed to disguise just how deep these cuts will go. Even the New South Wales Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, has called the Turnbull government out on its extraordinary attempts at deception. Mr Stokes has questioned whether the government's figures 'represent reality or not'. In fact, he is so concerned about the impacts of this legislation on my home state that he is currently looking into the legality of the government's plans to trash the existing school funding agreement that the New South Wales government has with the Commonwealth.
This is extraordinary stuff from a Liberal government, and it demonstrates clearly just how much is at risk. It shows how little the Turnbull government understands about the importance of education not only for our children but for our national capacity and indeed our future prosperity. Investment in education is fundamental to increasing productivity and addressing inequality, which we know is now at a 75-year high in Australia. But those opposite clearly do not care about the economic impacts of this decision and they patently do not care about inequality or fairness. When given a choice between properly funding our schools or giving big business a tax cut, they have chosen big business. This is what the school cuts are all about—funding the Prime Minister's corporate tax cuts, which have now blown out to $65 billion.
And we must not forget that the Commonwealth's own figures show that these same tax cuts will take 20 years to deliver even a minuscule one per cent boost to growth. Last year, the Economic Society of Australia and the Monash Business School undertook a pre-election survey of Australia's top economists about the benefits of education investment compared to corporate tax cuts. Of the 31 economists surveyed, two-thirds agreed with the statement 'Australia will receive a bigger economic growth dividend in the long run by spending on education than offering an equivalent amount of money on a tax cut to business'. Only one lone respondent said he was strongly opposed to that statement, and even he stipulated that any benefits of tax cuts would not be particularly large.
That is not exactly what you would call a glowing endorsement of the government's plan. But so blinded are those opposite by the opinion of experts, so desperate are they to help out their big business mates, that they are taking money from our kids to hand over to large corporations. There is no doubt that the school plan on offer today in no way delivers on the government's spin. It is not sector blind, it is not needs based, and it will hit the schools with some of the most disadvantaged students the hardest. The government has cynically appropriated the Gonski brand but none of the Gonski substance. This plan is really a continuation of the long-held agenda of Liberal governments to rip funding from education, especially from our public schools. This government clearly sees education as a line item to be slashed, not an investment in the most important thing we have—our kids and our people.
Those opposite like to pretend that this legislation is sector blind, that it only looks at needs and not whether schools are public or private. But nothing could be further from the truth. This is a plan that prioritises private schools and leaves public schools at the mercy of individual state governments. Under this plan, public schools, which currently educate 80 per cent of Australian students, will receive less than half of the small increase to funding that is on offer.
Not only does this bill slash critical funding of our schools but it also legislates a reduced role for the Commonwealth funding of our state schools into the future. It abolishes the existing requirement for the federal government to increase funding for underresourced schools by at least 4.7 per cent a year and it caps Commonwealth contributions to public schools at 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, the benchmark amount that our schools need.
When the Prime Minister complains about different funding arrangements made with the states under Labor, which we have heard loud and clear, this legislation will in fact make the situation worse. Under the former Labor government's plan, Commonwealth funding was, importantly, linked to and contingent on the states also increasing their funding. We were setting Australia on a path which would ensure that every school got 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. Under Labor, most schools would have reached that standard in two years' time. But this meant that the states had to pull their weight too, and that is only fair. It was essential for the states to contribute so that we could in fact ensure that not only every school but indeed every child in every school had access to a good quality education.
There is no such requirement in Mr Turnbull's legislation. This government is giving public schools 20 per cent, eventually, and abandoning all responsibility for how the rest is funded. Clearly, this means that the quality of education children receive will be determined by the state they live in. Those living in states that believe in and can afford to invest in education will prosper; all students in other states will fall behind.
This is very serious, and no matter what the Prime Minister says about being a fan of needs based funding, his plan will hurt disadvantaged schools and it will hurt kids living in states that cannot or will not contribute more. In doing so, the government's plan will rip opportunity away from students who we know benefit the most from extra support, making an absolute mockery of the Gonski principles the Prime Minister pretends to support.
In contrast, private schools will get 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard through federal funding. This means that by 2026 and 2027 private schools will all be getting 100 per cent of their Schooling Resource Standard funding while public schools will be nowhere near that, even if state governments do maintain their funding in real dollars—which is highly unlikely. In fact, only one-seventh of public schools will have reached the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027.
It is painfully clear that the Prime Minister's school funding plan does not come close to being fair. But we should not really be surprised. After all, this is the man who wanted the federal government to pull out of funding state schools entirely. The government has tried to run the line that because 24 very overfunded schools will receive small cuts that the Prime Minister's plan is somehow fair. This is a shameless red herring, and people should not fall for it. It represents only 24 out of 9,000 schools across the country. Meanwhile, schools across the country are being hung out to dry.
So what does this mean in the real world? It means less funding, it means less individual attention for kids and, inevitably, it means that many kids will fall behind. It means that schools will be less able to provide one-to-one attention for kids who are struggling. It means that literacy and numeracy programs will be cut. It means fewer programs for disadvantaged kids reconnecting with education and it will mean that some enrichment programs in things like STEM, languages and music will not be able to go ahead. It will also mean that fewer extension activities to help gifted and talented students achieve their potential will be taught.
It is a little hard to get your head around just how damaging this government's $22 billion cuts will be on a local level. Fortunately, the New South Wales Teachers Federation has done some excellent work on the precise impacts on schools in New South Wales. I would like to put on the record right now the exact amounts that individual state schools in my electorate of Newcastle stand to lose.
Adamstown Public School will lose $181,632; Belair Public School will lose $309,659; Callaghan College, with three collective campuses, stand to lose $2,753,008; Carrington Public School will lose $85,025; Elermore Vale Public School will lose $308,934; Glendore Public School will lose $424,580; Hamilton North Public School will lose $110,189; Hamilton Public School will lose $191,554; Hamilton South Public School will lose $273,121; Heaton Public School will $183,987; Hunter School of Performing Arts will lose $618,677; Islington Public School will lose $201,769; Jesmond Public School will lose $252,481; Kotara High School will lose $647,171; Kotara School will lose $74,168; Kotara South Public School will lose $186,495; Lambton High School will lose $673,301; Lambton Public School will lose $286,196; Maryland Public School will lose $439,516; Mayfield East Public School will lose $273,460; Mayfield West Public School will lose $333,711; Merewether Heights Public School will lose $195,373; Merewether High School will lose $540,451; Merewether Public School will lose $153,573; Minmi Public School will lose $71,800; New Lambton Heights Infants School will lose $40,206; New Lambton Public School will lose $358,430; New Lambton South Public School will lose $296,235; Newcastle East Public School will lose $145,126; Newcastle High School will lose $726,889; Newcastle Middle School will lose $56,332; Newcastle Senior School will lose $78,388; Plattsburg Public School will lose $452,993; and Shortland Public School will lose $413,751.
That is not the end of it, but that is all that time permits today. These are outrageous cuts to public education.
I am particularly pleased to rise to speak today on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, because earlier this week we on this side of the House commemorated the 75th anniversary of Sir Robert Menzies' speech 'The Forgotten People'. A number of us on this side of the House went down to Old Parliament House to an event organised by the Menzies Research Centre to reflect on that speech and on the contribution Sir Robert Menzies made in his long parliamentary career.
Sir Robert Menzies was the first Prime Minister to provide Commonwealth funding for schools when he famously, after the 1963 election, provided Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. Since then there has been a tradition of Commonwealth funding for schools. And it is particularly interesting to be speaking on this bill in the context of that week. In Menzies' speech 75 years ago he reminded people that the class war was a false war. Yet every time I have heard members opposite speak about education funding it is a repeat of the class war. In fact, every time I hear members opposite speak about education funding they spend about half their speeches talking about how bad corporate tax cuts are. Well, unless we have good small businesses employing people in this country, what are we going to do with the graduates from our schools? What are we going to do with the graduates from our universities? There is a continuing class war obsession on the other side. We seek not only to acknowledge that the class war is a false war but also to say that the war in relation to classes is a false war. With this legislation we are stopping the war in relation to classes by providing sector-blind needs based funding.
The coalition is always cleaning up Labor's mess. All over the country we saw the posters, we saw the demos and we heard the campaign slogan 'I give a Gonski'. The government is now giving Labor the chance to give a Gonski, and Labor seems as though they are squibbing that opportunity yet again. They like to say they gave a Gonski, but in government they failed to implement the Gonski review. In government Labor cut a range of asymmetrical deals with different states and different education systems which created a mockery of the so-called needs based funding system. They did different deals with different states. The Leader of the Opposition when he was education minister was so desperate to get anyone to sign up to his deals he would give anything away.
Some schools, as a result of the funding deal the then Leader of the Opposition did, do not attract their needs based funding for over a century. That is not good education policy, that is not needs based funding reform and it is not good education funding reform. Labor's funding arrangements were not only unfair—they do not deliver performance improvements. Here are the words of the Independent respected education policy analyst and former departmental secretary and hand-picked member of Labor's own Gonski review panel, Ken Boston. This is what he said about what Labor implemented:
Now, this was not what the Gonski review recommended.
He went on to say:
… Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation: agreements with some states and not with others, and—among participating states—different agreements and indexation arrangements.
That is not me—this is Labor's own hand-picked expert for the Gonski funding panel, Ken Boston. But now Labor are turning their back on Gonski altogether. In fact, now they have been given a chance to vote for the Gonski needs based funding model and they are choosing to vote against it. They are voting against a policy tradition that on their side of the House dates back to the Whitlam era. Needs based funding as an idea entered the public arena when Gough Whitlam was opposition leader. Labor has been calling for needs based funding for years, and they will need to explain to the Australian people why they will vote to see government schools receive at most 4.7 per cent legislated funding growth compared to the 5.1 per cent average annual increases on offer, why they will vote for schools of identical need to receive different levels of federal funding from the Schooling Resource Standard just because they live in a different state. They are even voting against David Gonski himself. Here is what he said at the announcement of the government's funding plan:
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
He went on:
… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …
Labor's abandonment of Gonski is part of their tissue of lies about education funding. They accuse the coalition of cutting funding to education but the truth is there are no cuts. The coalition is delivering record and growing funding for schools—a record $242.3 billion is going to be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81.1 billion between 2018 and 2021. Funding for schools will grow from a record $17½ billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. Funding will grow faster than broader economic growth, with total federal funding growing by approximately 75 per cent—I say it again, 75 per cent— over the next 10 years, with funding per student growing at an average of 4.1 per cent per year.
We are going to transition all schools to consistent Commonwealth shares of the Schooling Resource Standard by increasing funding. In the government sector we will increase the funding from an average of 17 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. That is because the funding of government schools has been primarily the responsibility of state governments, but the Commonwealth is now increasing its percentage. In the non-government school space we are increasing the average of 76.8 per cent for non-government schools to 80 per cent in 2027, again reflecting the historical position of the Commonwealth as the main funder of non-government schools. At the national level, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase in real terms. Over 10 years there will be 5.1 per cent increases in the government sector, 3.5 per cent in the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent in the independent sector.
The current national schools arrangements introduced by the previous government are not only unfair but they are not actually driving any improvements in education outcomes. This is despite the increase in funding over a very long period. The government's Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document released in May 2016 proposes a range of practical reforms to reverse Australia's declining performance. That is why I am so pleased to see that part of the package that was put together at the announcement is what is known as Gonski 2.0.
As we know, there have been disappointing results in recent national and international assessments Australia has participated in. Whether it is in science, maths or literacy, we are not doing as well as we used to do. Whether it is in NAPLAN, PISA—the Program for International Student Assessment—or the trends in international mathematics and science study, Australia continues to slip. We are now being beaten by countries with less developed economies, like Kazakhstan and Slovenia.
When we read the original Gonski review it is clear that the review was focused on funding and equity, but it also presaged the need to improve declining school performance. That is why it is so good that David Gonski has agreed to lead a new inquiry into improving the results of Australian students. The Review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools will provide the Turnbull government with advice on how this extra Commonwealth funding should be used by schools to improve student achievement and school performance. David Gonski will be joined by Ken Boston, who was a member of the original Gonski panel. The review will make recommendations on the most effective teaching and learning strategies to reverse declining results and to seek to raise the performance of schools and students. David Gonski will provide his report to the government by the end of the year, ahead of the negotiation of the school reform arrangements with states and territories in the first half of next year. The question for those opposite is: will Labor treat Gonski 2.0 like they have treated the Gonski funding reforms in this bill?
I would like to talk briefly about what this bill will mean for my electorate of Berowra. One of the great assets we have in Berowra is the quality of our schools and the quality education they provide children. When I go around our schools—whether it is the school presentation day or awards night, when I visit classrooms and when I go to the school fairs—I see the enthusiasm and the excellence across all sectors which exists in the schools in my electorate. Total federal funding for all schools in my electorate amounts to $1.12 billion over the next decade, supporting 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and the over 26,000 students that attend Berowra schools. By 2027, the 35 government schools in my electorate will receive more than $514 million in funding. The 12 independent schools will receive more than $467 million in funding. Over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education systems on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate.
I acknowledge that two of the 24 schools which will receive less funding than they have received under previous arrangements are in my electorate. Those schools are Mount St Benedict College at Pennant Hills and Oakhill College at Castle Hill. Following the Minister for Education's announcement I reached out to both of these schools to discuss the changes and to see if there was anything I could do to assist them. I want to thank the principal and the acting principal of those schools and the chairs of the councils for the constructive approach they have adopted.
I am a strong supporter of the schools and school communities in my electorate. I have been advocating to the Minister for Education on behalf of all of Berowra's schools to ensure he understands the needs of our schools. I look forward to continuing to work with our schools as the funding program is implemented.
It is important to outline some of the measures that are contained in this bill. This bill will implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, to deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools and tie funding to reforms that evidence shows will actually improve student outcomes. That is the purpose of the Gonski 2.0 review. We want to set Commonwealth schools funding up for the next 10 years and beyond. We want to apply indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding and transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. As I said before, that is 80 per cent for non-government schools and 20 per cent for government schools.
We want to enable regulation to allow the Commonwealth to withhold, reduce or recoup funding paid to jurisdictions which do not meet the Commonwealth's requirement to at least maintain their per student funding level to both government and non-government schools to prevent cost-shifting—and we have seen cost-shifting under the current arrangements, particularly in South Australia. We want to require cooperation with the implementation of the national policy reforms to lift student outcomes, and we want to improve accountability and transparency of school funding arrangements through ministerial reporting requirements by removing the requirement in the current act for schools to have onerous and prescriptive implementation plans. The bill will also make a range of technical amendments, including to improve the efficient operation of the act.
The government is basing these changes on what is known as the Schooling Resource Standard under the act. The Schooling Resource Standard provides a measure of the relative funding need of schools and is comprised of a base per student funding amount, which is three-quarters of the total funding plus six loadings. Those loadings relate to a range of things, such as disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students with low-English speaking proficiency and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.
For non-government schools the base amount is discounted by the capacity of parents in the school community to financially contribute to the schools' operating costs, and this is calculated using ABS data. Then there are school level loadings for the school's size and location. Those loadings take into account individual student needs, and that is based on the data that is provided to the Commonwealth. The socioeconomic disadvantage loading is based on the socio-educational advantage index, based on the education, occupation and employment of parents, as indicated by a form that those parents complete. Students from the two bottom SEA quartiles attract funding at different rates.
Principals and teachers are able to use the funding provided to their school to best allocate resources and address the needs of their students and more autonomy. We must continue to drive for more autonomy in our schools. It means that they can choose to invest the extra funding in these like speech pathology and special needs teachers according to the particular needs of their school community.
While Commonwealth funding is calculated based on the entitlement of individual schools, schools in government and non-government systems distribute their funding to their member schools according to their own allocation models—and we are not interfering with those allocation models. Every student within a school within their individual circumstances and background will count towards their Schooling Resource Standard.
In conclusion, this bill presents a challenge. It presents a challenge to Labor. Do they support needs-based funding—which has been their tradition since the late sixties? Do they support improving outcomes for school students? With David Gonski's endorsement of the government's proposals, do they still give a Gonski?
It is great to follow the member for Berowra in this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Perhaps I can offer him this: Berowra Public School, losing $230,000; Brooklyn Public School, minus $47,000; Cherrybrook Technology High School, negative $1.1 million; Cheltenham Girl's High School at Epping, $731,000 worse off; Cherrybrook Public School, $559,000 worse off; and then there is Clarke Road School and Cowan Public School. It is a shame the member for Berowra left the chamber.
I rise clearly and firmly to express my disgust and frustration that this government, the Turnbull government, has turned on the children of my electorate of Lindsay and turned on their principals. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has provided data using confidential information from a government information public access request, or GIPA—formerly known as an FOI—via the Department of Education's own figures. The Teachers Federation, through the Department of Education, has provided school-by-school analysis, showing that this government's budget has extraordinarily slashed more than $846 million from New South Wales public schools. This is the money due to be provided over the years 2018-19 under the original Gonski funding agreement, signed by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments.
So extraordinary is the money being ripped out that the New South Wales Liberal Minister for Education, through the Department of Education, wrote to every single school principal in my area, telling the schools:
I am aware the Commonwealth education minister has written to you with an estimate of the funding increases that your school will attract from the latest announcement.
You should not rely on these figures for future planning or budgeting purposes.
And I have the letter here. The full letter goes on to say much more. Of course, I would be happy to table that document, but I am sure that Liberal members opposite have already seen it. It is simply extraordinary that a Liberal state minister and a department secretary would take such a step. But, on a scale and the importance of this decision made by the Prime Minister and this incompetent government, I say it is absolutely the right step.
The Turnbull government are punishing every single public school in my electorate and every single public school in New South Wales, and they know it. Every single one of the 43 public schools in my Western Sydney community of Lindsay is going to lose money—every single student, every single classroom, every single principal, every single teacher and every single family, and that is a disgrace. Every school will lose money, from Principal Justine Blackley's Mulgoa Public School, a gorgeous little school on the outskirts of Lindsay, which will lose $61,000, through to Colyton High School, a big high school, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary and will now have $1.3 million cut from its bottom line. These are students in Western Sydney who need it the most.
I have to admit that, when I learned that every single public school in Lindsay will lose out under this proposal, I actually did not believe it. I did not believe that we would be $23 million worse off. Maybe that was denial. I thought: 'Surely there has been a mistake. Surely the Turnbull government would not be so callous. Surely the Turnbull government has not turned its back on the children of Lindsay, and surely the Turnbull government would not launch an attack on our public schools.' You would think that a bloke as out of touch as this Prime Minister is would at least have the electoral smarts not to do something so callous and so indefensible as to take money from a child's education.
Public schools around this nation are vitally important. They look after seven out of 10 kids with a disability, like Kingswood South Public School in my electorate of Lindsay; seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English; around eight out of 10 kids from low-income families, many of whom are living in Lindsay; and eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The Prime Minister talks big when he delivers a speech for our First Australians but cannot back in our First Australians when it comes to giving them a decent, fair and funded education. Taking money from Aboriginal students' education will not help close the gap.
Like many in this chamber—or at least on this side of it—I am a mum and I am a very proud one. I have three beautiful children and all of them are in public schools. I have one in year 3, one in year 5 and one in year 9. I will miss the assembly of my third grader tomorrow, as I will be standing in this place defending the school funding of every nine-year-old in public schools in my electorate. My middle child, who has a disability, has been a direct beneficiary of needs based funding, for which I, as his mother and local member, am so grateful. Just like in all families, each of my children has their own unique learning needs. Each one of them adores their school, their hardworking teachers, their friends and their school community. Each one of them will lose out under the Turnbull government's cuts to education funding.
I say to every single year 12 student and to some students in year 11 at high schools in my area, like Glenmore Park High, Chifley College Dunheved, St Mary's Senior High: when you cast your first ballot at the next federal election, never forget that the Liberal Party abandoned you and your education. Never forget that the Liberal Party ripped more than $23 million out of school funding. Never forget that the Liberals took $23 million that could have gone to new resources, remedial teaching, gifted and talented programs, and targeted tuition for your younger brothers and sisters. Never ever forget that $23 million was taken out of education in the same budget that Malcolm Turnbull gave big business a tax cut worth $65 billion. Never forget. Never forget Liberal governments' priorities and, if you are not a millionaire, always remember that you are not one of them.
This Turnbull government is ripping funding out of every school in Lindsay. Every single one of the 43 public schools in my electorate will have its funding cut, including Claremont Meadows, Kingswood Park and Kingswood, where I completed my first prac as a teacher in training—every child, every parent, every teacher, and every principal. The Turnbull government is going to make life harder for every single one to get ahead, from the foundation of a good, proper and well-funded education—kids in schools like Penrith South.
The Turnbull government is ripping $1.2 million out of Cambridge Park High School, which has one of the highest populations of Indigenous students in Lindsay. Cranebrook High School—not Cranbrook!—which is in a part of my electorate that has a lot of public housing, educates kids from diverse backgrounds. It is a great school, and it is in an area where we need to be giving kids a chance, not taking it away. It is going to lose $1.2 million.
Kingswood High School does not even have air conditioning in its classrooms—in a suburb that reached 45 degrees in January—and it has a school hall that is falling to pieces. The state Liberal government and state member Stuart Ayres should be ashamed! But, while Kingswood families are working their guts out, Kingswood kids are trying their hardest, and they are going to lose $1.1 million.
Principal, Mr Glen Leaf, of Bennet Road Public School in the hardworking suburb of Colyton is going to lose just over $1 million. These are kids from kindy right through to sixth graders losing out. Cambridge Park Public School, where good principal, Cheryl Binns, is doing awesome work with students and kids in their support units, will have over $1 million ripped out.
The parents and students at St Marys North Public School, who have been assisted by long-term, well-respected volunteer and community champion, Jackie Greenow, will be losing over $1 million. The Turnbull government, in its callousness, is even ripping $166,000 from Kurrambee School, which provides a dignified education looking after students with the most special needs; an SSP in my electorate, doing amazing things for families and students—many of whom I am privileged to know. I have watched firsthand the positive impact that the education they are getting is having on their lives. Every school in Lindsay—every school: the Turnbull government is attacking every kid, every parent and every teacher in every public school in Lindsay.
Properly funding public education is at the very core of the fair go. It was a Labor government that commissioned the review of funding for schooling, a Labor government that introduced the Schooling Resource Standard and a Labor government that developed a genuine needs based funding model, guaranteeing more funding to kids to give them the extra help that they require. Over here, on this side of the House, we do not just know how to say 'fair' we know how to do it. 'Fair' is not just a word for us in the English language that you can simply say; it is a word of action. It is something you demonstrate: it is a value and it is measurable. On 'fair': these Liberal Muppets in government would not know how to do it if it slapped them on the forehead!
The Australian Education Act 2013 includes the following objective in law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
The Turnbull government's bill proposes removing these words from the act.
I say to the teachers at Penrith High School and Penrith Public School that the Liberal Party does not believe in public education. To the students at York Public School, Jamisontown Public School and Orchard Hills Public School I say that the Liberal Party does not want to guarantee the rights of every single one of your classmates. To the hardworking kids at Oxley Park and Penrith Primary School I say that the Liberal Party does not want you to receive the best education that this nation can provide. To the parents over at Henry Fulton Public School I say that the Liberal Party and the government does not care about your kids.
Jamison High School, which is around the corner from where I live and where principal, Mr Greg Lill, is doing great things, is going to lose $913,000. These are the students who walk to and from school every day past my home. The Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School, is where the principle Mr Max Ford is pushing his students to shine beyond the four walls of the traditional classroom and to seek opportunities to excel in the creative jobs of the future. They are going to miss out on $821,000.
Oxley Park Public School is in a very diverse part of my community in Lindsay. It will be short by $141,000. Over in Emu Plains, across the Nepean River, a cluster of schools will lose more than $1.7 million—Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay. The Glenmore Park Learning Community, where local legend, Mark Geyer, and I championed education and leadership to a group of kids this year, will lose more than $2.2 million combined—Glenmore Park High School, Glenmore Park Public School, Regentville Public School and Surveyors Creek Public School.
Schools servicing families to the north of Lindsay will also lose over $2.2 million: Braddock Public School, Cambridge Gardens Public School, Castlereagh Public School, Henry Fulton Public School, Llandilo Public School and Samuel Terry Public School. The eastern end of the electorate, in Werrington and St Marys, will lose a combined $2 million: Werrington Public School, Werrington County Public School, St Marys Public School, St Marys South Public School and St Marys Senior High School.
The Turnbull government has even attacked the Putland Education and Training Unit, which provides rehabilitation and training services for youngsters coming out of Cobham Juvenile Justice Offenders and who need a second chance. They have almost $200,000 gone. And the Penrith Valley Learning Centre, helping to engage those who need something more targeted than a mainstream school, will lose $100,000.
If those over there do not think that money being spent on education is money well spent then I am not quite sure why they even sought election to this House. More than $23 million dollars has been ripped out of public schools right across the Penrith region. That is one hell of a sausage sizzle fundraising effort for P&Cs and a lot of cakes to bake for bake sales to raise the kind of money to replace it. It will be missing from all of those schools come 2018. I am disgusted and I am frustrated that the Turnbull government has short-changed the children of my electorate of Lindsay, short-changed their parents and short-changed their very, very dedicated and hardworking teachers and principals at every public school in Lindsay—every public school. The Turnbull government is attacking every kid in every public school, and they have the audacity to come in here and to shove their faces on the TV news to defend their disgrace of a policy, champion their budget and wave around a $65 billion dollar tax cut for big business like they are changing the world. They are giving their big business mates tax cut on the backs of the kids of Lindsay. Tax cuts for big businesses have never, ever changed the world.
If we look at history, we will find the thing that has changed the world is education. History will judge this government and their decisions quite poorly. I believe that everyone needs a chance and a champion, and under the Liberals no child in a public school in Lindsay will be given a chance. They absolutely do not have a champion in this government, who choose to champion big business tax cuts over their education.
I am really pleased to be speaking on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 today, because it is going to deliver wonderful funding increases for all of the schools in my electorate of Boothby. I have some 24,852 students in Boothby, spread over 52 schools, and they are all going to benefit from this unprecedented investment in our education system and our school system. The sector-blind needs based funding that this bill makes law will see my schools receive an increase of $269 million over the next 10 years.
The Quality Schools package means fairer, simpler and more sustainable funding for our schools. This legislation is not just throwing money at a problem; it is proposing a solution. The task of achieving better outcomes for our children demands an ambitious reform agenda to see the increase in funding finally align with an increase in results. It simply does not cut it that while the Commonwealth has been providing record amounts to students and schools, year on year, we have seen results go backwards. We cannot prepare our children for the jobs of the future if they are not significantly beating international benchmarks for maths and science—and in English and the arts, for that matter. Similarly, in a global and competitive world there will not be future jobs for our children if skilled labour from other countries proves to be more educated and more highly qualified from an increasingly younger age. That is why this bill will strengthen teaching and school leadership to ensure our best teachers stay in the job and build on their skills. It will develop essential knowledge and skills for a rapidly changing world, improve student participation as well as parental engagement—because education is not just the responsibility of teachers but also the responsibility of parents and families—and it will also ensure we are measuring performance accurately and increasing transparency so issues can be identified and rectified early on.
I am pleased to be part of a government that is not reacting to symptoms, but one that is addressing the very real issues in education. Our model is what the Labor Party should have put forward while in government. Instead, as we know, we got 27 separate backroom deals done on the fly, which did not even cover all of Australia. It was particularly bad in my home state of South Australia. These are deals that would have seen inequitable funding models in place, some for up to 150 years.
The coalition's sector-blind and needs based model will see uniform funding delivered to schools across the country. However, the needs based component of the package is particularly important, as students with a disability will see an average 5.2 per cent increase each year. In my electorate I have a wonderful school, Suneden Special School, that looks after our children who have some of the highest needs in the state. They will see a funding increase of around 13 per cent this financial year, as we undo the terrible deal that state Labor Premier Jay Weatherill struck with his Labor colleague, the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. This year, Suneden Special School will receive an extra $183,000 to be shared across their 68 students. Over the course of the next 10 years, their funding will increase from $20,000 per student to $54,600 per student by 2027. This is a significant increase. As I said, it is going to help some of our students who have the highest needs.
Our reforms will also rectify the interstate inconsistencies regarding the definition of students with a disability by providing a national definition. Our education minister, Simon Birmingham, has form when it comes to addressing inequities between the states. He has a great track record. I will speak more on that in a moment.
I am proud to be standing here in support of this bill that will more than double their funding that these students will receive, helping them get more out of their education and preparing them for the future. Just as I am proud of my government, I am so disappointed by those opposite. I am intrigued to see how the next Labor candidate that may face me in the seat of Boothby will explain to parents of students in my electorate how Labor opposed our increases in education funding. Likewise, I would like to see how they plan to explain to parents how our current late state Labor government in South Australia not only signed the worst funding deal for schools in the nation but presided over a decrease in funding for our schools in real terms. I am not surprised that the minister for education took to cleaning up this school funding debacle with such enthusiasm. As a fellow South Australian, he understands just how ripped off our schools in South Australia were by the dodgy Weatherill-Gillard education deal.
It is not just about the terrible deal that was done between the Premier and former Prime Minister; it is also about what the state Labor government is doing to schools, as was revealed on 3 February by my former employer, The Advertiser, in an article. I am just going to read a few quotes because I think it is important to remind people of Labor's terrible track record at both the state and the federal levels in terms of education funding. I quote from The Advertiser article:
The state's spending on public schools fell from $2.450 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014/15 when adjusted for inflation, while federal money increased $12 million …
So state government funding reduced for public schools and federal government funding increased.
State funding per public school student dropped from $14,682 to $14,312, while federal funding rose from $2237 to $2307.
This is the sort of track record that state Labor has on education in my home state of South Australia.
We found out at the time, as well, that the state government had not only decreased funding for public schools but given a $757,500 grant to a group of community organisations to run a campaign against federal education funding policies. So state Labor not only reduced funding for our public schools in South Australia but also wasted $750,000 or so of taxpayers' money to run a campaign against federal education funding policies. This is money, obviously, that could have been, and should have been, spent helping to educate children in my home state. Instead, in typical Labor fashion it was used for political purposes.
I will reflect a little further again on the current model that Premier Weatherill and former Prime Minister Gillard signed South Australia up to. Most of the funding was to flow to South Australian schools in the notorious fifth and sixth years of the Labor deal. So that was money that was never budgeted and schools in my electorate have never seen. To add to this, over the past few years the South Australian Labor government has seen negative growth in real terms of minus 2.5 per cent. This is where we really begin to understand which party actually cares about quality schools in South Australia—and that is certainly not the Labor Party.
I want to read a quote from Mr Michael Honey, the principal of Nazareth Catholic College in Adelaide. He was on radio immediately after this excellent announcement—of what the minister for education and our government are doing for students in South Australia—had been made. Mr Honey said:
… we've been gutted … of funding in South Australia, the lowest funded sectors in Australia …
… … …
… we're looking at a shortfall … of some $200 million per annum at the moment … this is the deal that was done between Jay and Julia and is still in force today.
These are the sorts of things that we are going to be fixing. So, thanks to this bill, South Australian schools will enjoy funding increases above the national average, at 4.4 per cent, providing a desperately needed boost to our school system.
This increase, in the context of the South Australian deal, and the fact that this legislation is not receiving support from those opposite, exposes the Labor Party as the hypocrites that they are, for saying that there are cuts to education when indeed there are none under our government. It also exposes them for the political opportunists that they are, giving more weight to political expediency than to quality education. I have faith, though, that the education sector, the teachers, the students and their parents, and the Australian people, will see through Labor's continued misinformation. In fact, I think that they probably already have, but you do not need to take my word for it; instead take it from Phillip Spratt from the Australian Council of State School Organisations, who said:
The move to reduce the twenty-seven funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors.
Dennis Yarrington, the president of the Australian Primary Principals Association—who I will talk a bit about in a little while, because we had a very successful function with him here at Parliament House last night—said:
Common funding arrangements across the country will see greater transparency and give principals confidence that what they receive in school funding is fair and equitable.
And we have another quote from Martin Hanscamp of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, who remarked:
… we'd like to loudly applaud a policy approach that is good for all schools and sectors and, as has been said, provides … the opportunity to put an end to the ridiculous school funding wars.
These are the sorts of reactions, comments and views of people who are in the sector and are obviously very supportive of the bill and the work that the Minister for Education is doing.
As I said, I was with Mr Dennis Yarrington, the president of the Australian Primary Principals Association, and many of his colleagues last night because they had their annual conference here in Canberra, and we also relaunched the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education last night. So I am delighted to be speaking on this bill today because I can also let people know what a wonderful event we had, and that we have relaunched the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education. My co-chair is the member for Scullin, and we were joined last night by the Minister for Education, the Hon. Simon Birmingham, and also by the shadow minister for education. So this is a great bipartisan group, and we are focused on looking at all of the different ways in which we can support our school principals and also the primary schools in our electorates, because we all have many of them. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to speak with Ms Julie Hann from Mercedes College, which is right around the corner from my home in my electorate, and also with Mr Dave Edwards, another South Australian educator, who was honoured with life membership of the Primary Principals Association last night.
I just want to reflect on the Primary Principals Association charter because I think it fits in well with what we are doing with this bill and the changes that we are making in terms of funding and outcomes and this legislation. The Primary Principals Association's Charter on Primary Schooling states that:
Primary schools teach our children and contribute to our nation's future. They embrace the responsibility of giving children the academic and social foundations for leading fulfilled and enriched lives … personal responsibility is encouraged and expected; and, the knowledge and skills are gained to become independent and lifelong learners.
We all know how important it is for children to be provided with the academic and social foundations that will allow them to lead fulfilling lives and make a contribution to our wonderful nation.
Being the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education is particularly wonderful for me because, in some ways, I suppose you might say, it is a chance for me to participate in our family business. My great-grandmother and my grandmother were both primary school teachers at Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, which is in the heart of my electorate of Boothby. So it has been wonderful for me to be able to try and serve the community in a different way, as they both did when they were teaching young people at Colonel Light Gardens Primary. My brother and sister and my two sisters-in-law and my brother-in-law are all teachers as well. So there is nobody more excited about this bill than me, because I come from a family with so many teachers. My siblings, my sisters-in-law and my brother-in-law would all benefit, and their students will benefit, from our government's funding package.
So I would like once again to congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on this excellent work that he has done. I am really excited for South Australia. Schools in my electorate and in South Australia will finally get the funding that they deserve, which they have been denied by the deal done by Premier Jay Weatherill and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I am looking forward to getting out and about to every single one of my schools to let them know about this excellent package and the fact that funding will increase in so many schools, particularly, as I said earlier, schools like Suneden Special School, which really does do wonderful work for kids who need our support most.
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. We need more money for public schools, but not the model that Labor came up with on the eve on an election, that locks in funding to wealthy private schools at the expense of public schools; and not the Liberal model that will make it harder for many of the neediest public schools to catch up after years of neglect; but funding that puts public education on a pedestal.
This is something that matters deeply to me. I am a proud product of a public school education. I went to Linden Park Primary School in South Australia and Rosalie Primary and Hollywood High in Western Australia. That public education was the foundation that allowed me to go on to higher education at Murdoch University and then Monash University. My parents, like countless parents before and since, wanted what was best for me and believed that a quality public education was not only the means of creating greater opportunity for their children, but also greater equality in society and the cornerstone of a democratic society.
I share their vision and the Australian Greens share their vision. We believe that federal funding to the school education system should be delivered on the basis of need. The reality is that that means more money is needed for public schools and less money should be put into overfunded private schools. As a party, our commitment to public schools is rock solid. We understand that all governments have a responsibility to guarantee every child access to a high quality, funded public education.
There are some good independent and catholic schools in my electorate, and I have spent some time there with those communities. Parents obviously get a lot out of sending their children there. But my point is that sending their children there should be an act of real choice. Parents should never have to shop around because they worry that their local public school does not have the resources it needs to educate their kids. Public schools should remain the gold standard and not become a safety net. The Greens also know that decision-making in education should be open to input from teachers and academics and their unions and parents and students. That is why we have been consulting widely on this proposal from the government.
The more that I learn about the government's plan in this bill, and the more I learn about the state of our country's schools, the more I am convinced that this government is not serious about properly funding our public schools. The government says it will take some money away from overfunded private schools, but in fact, according to information provided to me, it means that the number of overfunded private schools will go from 17 per cent to 65 per cent. The government says it is increasing funding to schools, but in fact, in this bill it appears to be cutting the current indexation of funding of 4.7 per cent, and it is putting in much less funding than was agreed with states under the current funding arrangements. In my electorate of Melbourne many schools will get substantially less than promised under the current arrangements.
To understand why this is the case we need to look at the original Gonski review and the current arrangements which grew out of that review. In 2011 David Gonski recommended a new funding arrangement based on a new student resource standard that would form the basis for general recurrent funding for all students in all schooling sectors. It would consist of separate per-student amounts for primary school students and secondary students, provide loadings for the additional costs of meeting certain educational needs, and those loadings would take into account socioeconomic background, disability, English language proficiency, the particular needs of Indigenous students, school size and school location.
The Greens backed this original Gonski model in. And remember, at that time we were in a power-sharing parliament with Labor. The failure to lock this original Gonski model away in law when we had the chance is something I will never forgive Labor for. We could have used the 2010 parliament to legislate the original Gonski plan. Instead, Labor decided to play politics with schools, delay for two years, do some last-minute deals and then take the issue to the election, which they lost. And some of the Labor members who are crying the loudest now about the Liberals' plan forget that when they had the chance to fix public school funding they sold public schools out. We were pleading with Labor for years to get on with Gonski. But because it was more important for them to have a stick to beat the Liberals up with at election time they refused to legislate the original Gonski plan, and now many public schools are suffering.
In 2013 the Gillard-Rudd government did implement some aspects of the Gonski recommendations, and that is what is underpinning current funding arrangements. Five agreements were signed by the Commonwealth—with Tasmania, New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia and Victoria. The Turnbull government wants to dispute the degree to which these arrangements were binding. But the reality is that there was an arrangement agreed to, and each agreement runs from 2014 to the end of 2019. With the exception of Victoria, each agreement commits the two parties to provide additional funding required to get schools to reach 95 per cent of that state's Schooling Resource Standard, and the agreement was 92 per cent for Victoria; we were coming from a long way behind.
In a nutshell, the agreements mean that the Commonwealth puts in two thirds extra money and the states one third. States are also required to distribute funding according to need and maintain three per cent growth in all school funding, while the Commonwealth committed to 4.7 per cent in funding growth for schools below the Schooling Resource Standard which is set out in the current legislation. Each agreement sets out exactly the additional money required. In New South Wales, for example, the deal was for $5 billion over six years. The money that is flowing is making a difference, and I see it in action in schools in Melbourne.
But one of the flaws of the Labor-led agreements is that the funding is back ended, with approximately two thirds of the funding in the final two years of 2018 and 2019. This was one of the many bad decisions made by the Labor government, more interested in playing politics than in fully implementing the original Gonski reforms. Labor's back ending is why, in part, the Turnbull government's plan will have such a negative impact, because it reduces that amount of money that will be invested in our schools compared with those current arrangements. That means less money for reducing class sizes or employing additional specialist teachers in areas such as literacy and numeracy; providing greater assistance and support for students with disabilities or behavioural problems; or building the skills and knowledge of teachers through additional training. This in turn means that the more disadvantaged schools and the more disadvantaged students are left further and further behind.
This is why the Australian Education Union says that the Prime Minister's Gonski 2.0 is a con and not a good deal for public schools, because, despite the government saying that it is making a large increase in school funding to 2026-27, it will deliver only a tiny increase in funding per student, especially when inflation is factored in, according to the information that has been provided to me. This increase amounts to only 40 per cent of the increase planned under the current arrangements, and thousands of public schools will get a much smaller increase. Perhaps worst of all, the government's plan will put a cap on Commonwealth funding of public schools at 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard—20 per cent. This is a major retreat by the Commonwealth government in funding public schools and disadvantaged students.
Disadvantaged public schools will continue to be underfunded, and there is no requirement for states to put in funding, which means that state governments, as they have in the past, may short-change schools as well. This is not an accident of the approach; this is an explicit policy of the Turnbull government. As Trevor Cobbold of Save Our Schools has pointed out:
The Turnbull Government has rejected the necessity of a nationally agreed approach to funding schools according to need. It has unilaterally struck a new Commonwealth funding model without consultation with state and territory governments. As a result, inconsistencies and inequities in funding between schools in different states will remain as state governments follow different funding policies.
I can only deal with the bill that is put in front of me for me to vote on. Given these flaws, I cannot vote for this bill. I will not support cuts to funding to schools in my electorate and I will not support a reduction in funding to public schools around the country. We will use the Senate inquiry into this bill to shine a spotlight on the bill and consult with parents and teachers and their unions to determine what is needed to implement the original Gonski plan.
We must not forget the Gillard-Rudd Labor government's promise that no private school would get a reduction in funding has exacerbated the inequities in funding. The special deals for the Catholic education sector and other school systems and the refusal to legislate the funding increases to the states, despite the Gonski report's recommendations to do so, are major failings of the Gillard-Rudd Labor government arrangements. As a result, what we have now existing in law is not needs-based funding, whatever Labor might say. Labor undermined needs-based funding by giving more money to wealthy private schools that do not need it, trapping the wasteful overfunding of wealthy private schools in law.
For example, according to the My School website, thanks to Labor the elite Loreto Kirribilli school in New South Wales received $7.3 million in government funding—a shocking 283 per cent of its entitlement—in 2014. That figure then increased by another $1.5 million to $8.8 million in 2015. That is nearly three times what they are entitled to under the Gonski Schooling Resource Standard. Thanks to Labor, private schools in New South Wales alone received a combined $129 million above their entitlement in 2014. That is $129 million of funding in one year, in one state, that went to grossly overfunded private schools and did not go to the public schools that needed it the most because of Labor's legislation. There are many more examples like this.
The Greens do not support Labor's locking in in law of ever-rising funding to wealthy schools that do not need it. It is jaw-dropping to watch Labor now become the staunch defenders of overfunded Catholic schools, showing this is just rank political opportunism by the ALP. The Greens believe government should fund Catholic schools directly and put an end to using poorer Catholic schools to subsidise wealthier ones. I challenge Labor to agree with us on that. Hundreds of public schools around the country are way below the Schooling Resource Standard and will remain there for decades. They are missing out, thanks to Labor, so that the wealthy, overfunded schools can have even more.
So it is time we implemented the original Gonksi plan. The Gonski report delivered in 2011 was a landmark document delivered in good faith, but it has been bastardised by Labor and now again by the coalition government. The Greens want to see the original Gonski vision realised and that is why we will be fighting for a better deal for Australian public schools. The Greens believe our students and our schools deserve a genuine needs-based funding model that is legislated to guarantee certainty and transparency, with an independent national schools resourcing body to oversee school funding. We want to see the delivery of much more money, faster, to Australian public schools and a cooperative, not combative, relationship between Commonwealth and state governments on schools funding that is committed to genuine needs-based funding from both levels of government.
It should not be beyond the wit of this place to return to David Gonski's original idea of a needs-based, fully funded, transparent and sector-blind model that ends the overfunding of wealthy private schools and results in a well-resourced public school sector. But neither Labor nor the coalition has put this on the table. The government needs to go back to school and re-read David Gonski's original report.
I am a proud member of this government committed to delivering a fair, needs based, sector-blind funding system for all Australian schools. The proposal outlined in the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 will ensure that students and schools with the same need attract the same Commonwealth support through a needs based, transparent funding model. The present situation is that recurrent funding varies depending on negotiated arrangements with state or territory governments. This is good news for schools and students around Australia in my electorate of Petrie. Every local school will be better off—I say again, every local school will be better off—under the proposals outlined in this bill: $18.6 billion will be distributed to Australia's state, independent and Catholic schools over the next decade.
This legislation will also strengthen the linkage between Commonwealth financial assistance and the implementation of evidence based reforms to improve student outcomes. The federal government has also launched, as everyone would be aware, a new online calculator to ensure transparency, and I encourage all parents to check how much funding their school is entitled to. Needs based funding that rewards results is a win for parents and students around the nation, particularly in our local area, where we will see a funding increase of $369 million benefit some 27,200 students.
I was surprised by the announcement just a couple of weeks ago, in early May, from the minister for education, the Prime Minister and David Gonski himself, and the reason I was surprised what that this year in Queensland and right around the nation we are contributing some $17½ billion to education. Last year we contributed $16 billion, so there has been a big increase this year alone and over the last four years. I clearly remember campaigning in 2013, when I was elected as the federal member for Petrie. We made a commitment—as you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough; you came in in the same year—to ensure that Gonski was funded over the forward estimates. Labor somehow continues to lie on these different issues, saying that we did not do this or we do not do that, or it was not the original Gonski agreement. They continue to fib on this issue. I do agree with the member for Melbourne, for once, when he says that Labor have decided to play politics with schools. That is what they love to do—they always love to do that.
Let us have a look at what some people are saying about this. What does David Gonski himself say? David Gonski AC, at a media conference on 2 May 2017, with the Prime Minister and the minister for education, said:
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
He went on:
… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …
Thank you, David Gonski—I will take that on board and I will quote you here today. If Labor are not happy with David Gonski himself saying that this is a good deal, maybe they will accept Peter Goss from the Grattan Institute:
Today's announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the Commonwealth.
I could go on. I was surprised that we made this announcement to contribute $18.6 billion over the next 10 years and really make it fair and ensure that all schools around Australia are treated equally, but I am even more surprised when I hear the shadow minister for education and Deputy Leader of the Labor Party say, 'Oh, we are voting against that; we are not going to support it.' Even the Greens have said that they will vote against this. So they are voting against $18.6 billion in additional funding that our government is giving that is well thought out, that it is budgeting for—not like the money that they put in the forward estimates back in 2011, which was never going to be funded. I am very surprised that they are voting against this. It is outrageous. Every school in my electorate—I have them all listed here; there are 40 or so—will be better off under this deal, and I will be campaigning hard on this at the next election, making sure that every parent of every child in every suburb of my electorate knows that Labor is voting against this education bill. They are voting against it. I have seen some hypocritical things in my time, especially in this place. I have seen some backflips on a whole range of things.
And let's not even talk about the NDIS. They are voting against that as well. They are voting against a fair Medicare increase to help fund the NDIS. I have a good friend whose child had a disability and died at the age of two. I think it is just outrageous that Labor will not vote to fund Medicare 0.5 per cent. If someone on $10,000 a year—currently not paying any tax—decided they wanted to help fund the NDIS, they would pay 50 bucks a year. And Labor does not support that. They do not support it. They want to make sure NDIS is unfunded. But I am getting off topic. I will get back onto schools.
I will be campaigning hard in my own seat right up to the next election. Arethusa College is an independent school in my electorate with a lot of kids that have dropped out of school and gone to their school. It has a lot of kids with special needs. In the next 12 months under our bill they are going to get another $278,200. That is why I am supporting our education bill. Aspley East State School in my electorate is a Queensland government school. What do you think they are going to get next year? $92,600 extra. It is a great little school down in the southern end of my electorate. Aspley Special School is another government school. It has 105 students with disabilities. They are going to receive $47,000 next year under the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 bill. That is why I will be voting yes.
Aspley State High School is a great school in the southern end of my electorate. The principal there does a wonderful job. We know—I know from getting around to schools—that staff make a big difference in school. It is not just about the money. It is also the quality of the staff and the quality of the principal. Within five minutes of meeting a principal I can tell whether they are any good. I have a lot of good principals in my electorate. Where there are good principals, the schools always get good results. So teacher quality and staff quality is essential, as well as school autonomy, and we have a lot of independent government schools in my electorate. There will be $129,400 extra for Aspley State High School, next year alone. That is in 2018. I do not even mention the next nine years after that. It keeps going up.
The Australian Trade College North Brisbane trains a lot of tradies, young people that want to become apprentices—in hairdressing, motor mechanics; they have plumbers there. They will get $83,200 next year. Bald Hill State School is a wonderful state school. I did not get the chance to get down there this week. I was going to see Kylie Conomos, the school chaplain, who does a great job there. There is a great feel about the school. They are getting $71,400 next year. St Benedict's College is a Catholic school in my electorate, at Mango Hill. They will be getting $133,500 next year. That is why I will be voting for this bill. St Benedict's Primary School, also at Mango Hill, will get $160,800 next year.
Bounty Boulevard State School, the biggest primary school in Queensland, will get $144,900 next year alone. Bracken Ridge State High School will get a $72,600 increase next year if the bill passes the House. If Labor vote against it and the Greens vote against it and it does not get through, I will be making sure Bracken Ridge State High School knows that Tanya Plibersek, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party voted against it. Bracken Ridge State School will get $41,300 next year. Christ the King Catholic Primary School is a great little school in Deception Bay in my electorate. Nick Hurley, the principal up there, does a great job. A lot of the teachers do a good job. It is a fairly high needs area; $86,600 next year alone for them. Clontarf Beach State School—$55,700 for them next year alone, if this bill is passed. Clontarf Beach State High School, if this bill is passed—$152,200 next year.
Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre, a Catholic school which helps kids in Deception Bay who have perhaps dropped out of school or a struggling, will receive $102,700 next year—for those people in the gallery. Over 10 years it goes up by millions of dollars. Those opposite think it is a cut—outrageous. Deception Bay North State School will receive $78,300 next year. Deception Bay State High School will receive $171,800 next year. By the way, this does not include the state government's increase; this is just the federal increase—fully funded. These blokes think there is a $22 billion cut. What planet does the Labor Party live on? Deception Bay State School, which is a struggling school but a great little school with good staff, will receive $53,200 in 2018. Grace Lutheran College, which is an independent school, a big school, will receive $547,000 next year. Grace Lutheran Primary School, which is just down the road from where I live, will receive $141,900. Griffin State School, which has been open two years for the people who live in Griffin and is a great little school, will receive $30,500 next year if this bill is passed. If it is not passed, you can blame Labor. They are voting against the bill. It is outrageous. Hercules Road State School will receive $110,100. This is another Queensland government school. Humpybong State School, another great little school—it has been going for over 100 years in my electorate—will receive $112,500 next year. Jabiru Community College will receive $168,400. The member for Herbert is laughing. I wonder what St Patrick's will lose out on next year when those opposite vote against this bill.
Let's have a quick look at Lilley—Wayne Swan is going to vote against this bill—and some of the neighbouring schools in my electorate. I went to St Flannan's school, which is a small primary school in Zillmere. It is going to receive $151,500 next year because of this bill. Sandgate District State High School, which services a lot of the students in Bracken Ridge, will receive $165,000 next year. Both of those schools are in Lilley. St John Fisher College—a Catholic girls high school in my electorate—will receive $173,500 in 2018. Those opposite are going to get up after me and say that there is a cut to funding in this bill. That is what they are going to do.
Because there is!
Outrageous. St Joseph's Catholic Primary School in my electorate will receive $185,500 in 2018. Kairos Community College—another school in Deception Bay which does great work—will receive $48,500 next year. Over the 10-year plan—let's just throw that in—they will receive another $3 million. Kippa-Ring State School, which is a government school in my electorate, will receive $44,700 next year if this bill goes ahead and is passed by the Senate. Mango Hill State School—a great little school; Tracy Egan, who is the principal there, is doing a wonderful job—will receive $90,500 next year. Moreton Downs State School will receive $98,400 next year. Mueller College—another great school, pre to 12—will receive $516,400. It is a big school in my electorate. Norris Road State School will receive $76,000 next year. North Lakes State College will receive $388,800 next year. Redcliffe Special School will receive $52,700 next year. Redcliffe State High School will receive an increase of $189,500. That is on top of the state government increase. I am not going to have time to run through all my schools. I am going to have mention the rest of them in my contribution on the appropriation bills. This bill is fair; it is funded. Those opposite are playing politics, and it is outrageous that they do this with schools.
I thank the member for Petrie for his contribution, which he made just before me, and also the contributions of others on that side of the House to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I am sure we will hear more speeches flogging the dead horse of a claim that they are going to increase funding to schools.
Mr Howarth interjecting—
I would suggest to the member for Petrie that so many of them went to the 2013 election on a promise, and maybe that is why they are feeling some pain now, because that promise was that if you elected them you would get all the Gonski funding, dollar for dollar, equivalent to what Labor was providing. So despite running through school names and claims of amounts of money, the problem they are going to have when they campaign on this at the next election, as the member for Petrie referred to, is that people in every one of those schools will be saying then, as they are saying now, 'That's not what you promised and we are not happy with the cut that is being delivered in the piece of legislation before us today.'
If you want to talk about jobs and growth, if you want to talk about improving employment opportunities, it is absolutely true that education is central. It is a fundamental, core basis of the Australian story of people getting a chance in life to reach their full potential. There will be a number of opportunities to talk on this aspect of the budget. This budget makes cuts at every level of education. The schools sector sees $22 billion worth of cuts. The TAFE and vocational education sector sees massive cuts. The university sector—not only cuts, but pushing the cost back onto students. All of that is difficult enough, but it is damning when you consider it is done in the context of a $65 billion tax cut for the big end of town. It is not that they had no choice; it is exactly that they did choose. They chose the big end of town over investing in education to give all Australians a fair opportunity.
How did we get to this point with this bill? I would like to put some context around this. It is true that Labor in government undertook the landmark review into school funding. We did that because the minister at the time, Julia Gillard, had identified that we had a very long tail of disadvantage in our schools, that there was a clear issue for us as a nation, and that too many people were being left behind. We wanted an eminent body of people to look at the issue of school funding, and that is what they did.
That led to the recommendation for establishing the Schooling Resource Standard—a standard that would be sector blind and would clearly define what funding level all schools needed to deliver a great education for all of our kids. That funding model would guarantee extra funding, in particular for kids with the poorest outcomes, to give them the extra help they needed. Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013, enshrined a very important objective into law. That objective was:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
How is that playing out on the ground? Let me give two examples of local schools in my area. First of all, Keira High School, which, as a result of the bill before us today, will see a $922,000 cut to their funding over the next two years. At Keira High School every Aboriginal student has a teacher-mentor and access to the AIME program. They have been delivering Aboriginal studies to every year 7 and 8 student. Keira High School is also able to deliver a stage 6 Aboriginal studies course to students at the high school, as well as to students from other schools. That is how they are using that additional funding.
Woonona High School in my electorate will have $447,000 cut from their funding over the next two years. They have reduced class sizes, increased curriculum choices and increased the number of students who now have the confidence and ability to attend university. Prior to the funding going through to the school in 2012, only 15 per cent of Woonona High School students went on to study at university. That number rose to 55 per cent in 2016—an amazing outcome.
This government simply does not value education for all. The changes being introduced in this bill before parliament represent a $22 billion cut to our schools.
Shame!
It is indeed a shame; the member is quite correct. That is $22 billion taken from schoolkids so the government can give a $65.4 billion tax cut to big business. And, despite all the claims coming from the other side, parents and teachers know that their school will be worse off because of these cuts to school funding. It is equivalent to cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade or sacking 22,000 teachers.
Let me be very clear about this. We campaigned very strongly against the first Abbott government budget, because it cut $30 billion from school education. This bill before us seeks to return $8 billion. That still leaves a $22 billion cut. That is why people in the communities of those on the other side are unhappy. That is why they are not swallowing your con about them getting additional funding. They know that, when you promise and commit to something and then you give significantly less, that is a cut and a con.
In my area, the Liberal's refusal to honour their commitment to Gonski funding in 2018 and 2019, just in two years, will mean a cut of $54.3 million for schools across Cunningham, Whitlam and Gilmore: $15 million in my electorate; $22 million in my good colleague the member for Whitlam's electorate; and $19 million in the electorate of Gilmore—$22 billion in cuts to schools across the country are to pay for $65 billion in tax cuts for big business and millionaires. That is an appalling outcome, and that is why this bill is a con job.
The worst affected schools in my area are those that most need the assistance. Just to give a sample: Warrawong High School will lose $1.3 million in the next two years; Bulli High School, $500,000; Keira High School, almost $1 million; Warrawong Public School, $650,000; Figtree High School, over $700,000 cut; Five Islands Secondary College, $744,000 cut; Wollongong High School, $767,000 cut; Woonona High School, $447,000 cut; Bellambi Public School, $389,000 cut; Corrimal High School, $598,000 cut; Helensburgh Public School, $314,000 cut. Schools in every suburb right across my electorate in just two years are facing significant costs, let alone looking at the 10-year outcome.
When the review of school funding reported, they recommended that all governments work together to ensure every child has the best chance to succeed. That is why Labor worked with the states and territories to ensure that, by 2019, every underfunded school would reach their fair funding level, with an extension for 2022 for Victoria. We said to states, 'We will work with you to ensure this fair funding is achieved.' But the Prime Minister has said that that does not matter anymore; that it is not the total funding that each school has that matters. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister and this education minister are walking away from a fundamental part of the Schooling Resource Standard—that is, that it is total funding that matters. They are walking back into the past where it was only Commonwealth funding and the states were not locked in to keeping up their share of the bargain.
Under what the government are proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027—eight years away from now. Kids will come and go through the schooling system waiting to reach that fair funding level. It is very, very important to not only our public schools but also our Catholic schools, our independent schools and all of the states and territories that the government are held to account for the fact that they are cutting funding when it is most needed. It is a fundamentally unfair offer to schools.
It is important to note that the bill before us also throws out the reform agreement that was in place with states and territories. The government says reform is the most important aspect of education. There is none of that in here. Of course, at the time of the Abbott budget, the then education minister said, 'Oh, we don't need any strings attached requiring reform or improvements around schooling and the systems that it offers'—that did not matter—'We'll just give them the money.' This bill is no better. It does not offer any sort of reform agenda. It does not deal with leadership or transparency or any of those issues that were part of the original agreements. They do not care about quality, either.
In the time I have left I want to indicate to the House that it is not just the Labor Party saying this. Those opposite have made numerous references to the fact that we might be misleading people. I would say to you that the fact that you went to an election promising to match Labor dollar for dollar is where your problems started. I want to share a quote with the House.
As somebody with a disability, I understand the positive and significant impact which these Gonski education reforms and needs based funding are bringing for students with disabilities right across New South Wales," he said.
Today, I have called on the Commonwealth Government to do the right thing by our local students and teachers and honour its agreement with the New South Wales Government with respect to the full Gonski funding.
Those were the words, in March this year, of the new parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales—the Liberal parliamentary secretary for education—Gareth Ward, on his appointment. He went on to say:
The Premier has stated very firmly that she will be pursuing this outcome with the Commonwealth Government to ensure that NSW receives every possible cent of Gonski funding.
I was extremely proud that New South Wales was the first State to sign up to this historic Gonski funding agreement.
It has provided so many additional opportunities for students that would not have otherwise been possible such as employing additional specialist teachers in numeracy and literacy, providing greater assistance and support for students with disabilities and behavioural problems.
Gonski has also helped to build the skills and knowledge of our local school teachers through additional training and classroom resources.
He finishes his contribution, referring to a notice of motion that he was putting in the parliament, with the words:
I will continue to support Gonski and call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its funding agreement with the New South Wales Government.
It was not a once-off.
In April, in the Illawarra Mercury, Andrew Pearson again reported that the parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales 'gives a Gonski, and the Turnbull government should too'. The parliamentary secretary was with the New South Wales Teachers Federation Organiser, John Black, who said:
The federal government's failure to honour the Gonski funding arrangement beyond 2017 leaves the educational future of millions of children hanging in the balance.
And the member was there to support that campaign. More recently—only this month, in May—the South Coast Register reported on the parliamentary secretary's comments in support of the full Gonski funding agreement. And just yesterday, 2ST radio had an interview: 'New South Wales Education Minister calls out Turnbull government on Gonski funding during Shoalhaven visit'.
So, in our area, all the federal Labor MPs, all the state Labor MPs and the state Liberal MP, and the parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales are calling on this government to deliver the Gonski agreement in full, to walk away from the cuts and to not continue with this con job of a partial reinstatement of funding that goes nowhere what was promised. There is only one voice in my region that is continuing to try, in vain, to defend what the government seeks to do today, and that is the member for Gilmore. And I am very pleased to say that our very active candidate Fiona Phillips in the seat is right behind the Gonski campaign here.
And she's gonna win!
Hear, hear!
One of the most important lessons we can teach our children is how to identify a scam. In our society today there are many scam artists, there are many people running deceptions and there are many people telling outright lies. The ACCC even has a website called Scamwatch. On it, they have details of the Nigerian scam, the fake charity scam, the inheritance scam, dating and romance scams, false billing scams and up-front fee and advance payment frauds. But what they should add to that list is the Labor Party's fraudulent campaign on education and school funding in this nation; it is nothing but a complete and utter untruth which has been repeated by member after member coming into this chamber and claiming that there are cuts to school funding. The disgraceful performance of the Labor Party—scaring schoolchildren, scaring parents, misleading them with false information about cuts which simply do not exist—is a scandal and a shame and you should all stand up and apologise for it.
Let's go through some of the facts. People may not believe me—they have heard different things from Labor Party members talking about cuts and they have heard the truth from the outside—but let's go through the actual facts of what is happening with federal government funding to schools so that we can dispel the myths and the untruths and the sophistry of the Labor members in this debate. Firstly, let's look back. Between 1987-88 and 2011-12, total public funding for schools has doubled in real terms. During that period, we have had a doubling of funding in real terms—that is, over and above the rate of inflation—yet we have had only an 18 per cent increase in enrolments. We have had an 18 per cent increase in enrolments and a doubling of funding over and above inflation. Total combined Commonwealth and state funding has grown in real terms per student by 15 per cent over the 10-year period from 2005-06 to 2014-15. In that period, there was an increase in enrolments of 15.4 per cent.
When the coalition came to government after the glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, in our first year, Commonwealth spending on schools was $13.94 billion. In 2015, we increased that by 8.7 per cent. In the following year we increased it again, by 7.4 per cent. In 2017, the latest year, we have increased it to 17.76 per cent, another eight per cent increase. So let's be very clear: this government is spending record amounts on school funding. We are spending close to 40 per cent more than the last budget of the Gillard-Rudd government, when they were in power. And they come in here and complain about cuts when we in the coalition are spending 40 per cent more than they did! That is an absolute fact, yet these Labor members, one after another, roll into this place and talk about cuts.
How have they done this? Where does this sophistry come from? There is an acorn of truth in their deception and sophistry. If we go back to the original Gonski funding, it was over six years. In our budgets, we have a forward estimates period of four years; for anything outside of that four-year period you do not have to account for where the money comes from. If we look at the original Gonski funding, in those first years there were reasonable increases; but the real increases were backloaded into the fifth and sixth year so they did not have to show the public where the money was coming from.
They had no money!
Of course they had no money, as the member for Bowman correctly interjects. It was just a complete, absolute con. If those opposite want to come into this parliament and say, 'We will spend more money than the coalition,' that would be a fair enough debating point and we in the coalition would accept that. But they are not saying that; they are going around pretending that there are cuts to schools. We heard it. The member for Lindsay came into this chamber earlier today and went through a list of schools in her electorate—as we heard from the member for Cunningham—and talked about cuts to those schools. Those opposite are unnecessarily misleading not only the schoolchildren and the parents but the teachers at those schools.
Let me go through the member for Lindsay's electorate. In 2017, the current year, spending in Lindsay will be $147,364,000. Remember that the member for Lindsay walked in here and said that there were cuts to all these schools in her electorate, when spending in her electorate increases to $154,184,000. That is an increase of 4.63 per cent—an extra $6,820,000. The member for Lindsay came into this chamber and misled students and parents about cuts, when the truth is that there is $6.8 million in extra money going into Lindsay.
That is not enough!
I will take that interjection—that is fair enough. The member says he would like to spend more. That is a fair enough debating point, and I will accept it, but you must come and say where that money will come from. If you want to borrow more money, if you want to put this nation into greater debt than we are already in, that is a fair enough debating point, but do not come into this chamber and tell lies about schools having their funding cut when it is simply untrue.
Mr Speaker—
Member for Hughes, take your place for a moment. Member for Burt, I am not accepting the point of order. Sit down. I think this is unruly and I think it is unfair on the people listening to the debate. I call the member for Hughes.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and you are correct: it is unfair to the people listening to this debate. It is unfair to the members of the Australian public and it is unfair to the schoolchildren of this nation for one Labor member after another to roll into this parliament and tell untruth after untruth about school funding cuts when school funding is clearly and unambiguously increasing.
A point of order?
I know the member is trying to avoid using the word 'lie', but coming in and using the word 'untruth' hardly skirts around the standing orders.
There is no point of order. Member for Hughes.
The other words I would use would be 'sophistry' and 'mendacity'. I think that sums up the Labor Party's tactics in this debate.
In my electorate of Hughes in this current year the federal government is contributing $99,103,000. Next year there will be an increase of 4.2 per cent, to $103,267,000. The schools in my electorate, similarly to those in every electorate around the country, will be receiving an extra $4,164,000—not quite as much as the member for Lindsay, who is enjoying a greater increase, and who is going to come in and vote against this increase, but an increase.
The Catholic schools have made a bit of an issue about the cuts. Next year St John Bosco College will receive an extra $248,000. St Patrick's College will receive an extra $318,700. Aquinas Catholic College will receive an extra $279,300. When it comes to per-student increases, outside of the four special schools—the Cook School, the original boys' school down at Engadine, Bates Drive School and Minerva School—the school that will get the biggest increase is St John's Bosco Catholic College in Engadine. They will receive an increase of $305 per student next year. This is similar. My electorate is not special. This is happening across the nation. Every school is getting more money on top of the 40 per cent more that this government is giving over and above the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.
The Labor Party like to use David Gonski's name and to quote David Gonski. What has no less than David Gonski said about these changes? He said:
I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
The Labor Party come in here and they quote Gonski's name time after time after time. I hope that they will quote that, because David Gonski is telling the truth when he says there is additional funding, unlike members of the Labor Party. What did Ken Boston, one of the original authors of the Gonski report, have to say about it? He said:
In the run-up to the 2013 election, prime minister Kevin Rudd and education minister Bill Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation …
He said that what Labor implemented:
… was not what the Gonski review recommended. It was not sector-blind, needs-based funding. It continued to discriminate between government and non-government schools.
Those are the words of one of the original authors of the Gonski report.
There are many speakers listed on this debate. I would hope that they will have greater respect for the citizens, the constituents and the school students in their electorates. It would be outrageous if Labor member after Labor member walked into this chamber and created the false impression that funding in their schools was being cut when the absolute opposite is the truth—their schools are getting more money. We can have our debates and we can argue intensely across the chamber, but what we should not do is adopt such a low act at to mislead students and their parents and tell them that there are cuts when the facts are that they are getting more money.
We have seen that results in our schools are not where we want them to be.
Ms O'Toole interjecting—
The opposition whip may like to remind the member for Herbert that she is not in her place. If she wants to participate in the debate, she can do it from outside or from her place.
I will leave my comments there. But I call on members to show good faith. Do not use the sophistry we have seen. Tell the truth about school funding, not the mendacity and untruths that we have seen so far in this debate.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
A quality education is fundamental to the core Australian value of a fair go. Today, I rise to join this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 and join the thousands of parents and grandparents, hundreds of educators, principals, teachers' aids, school workers and, most importantly, the children that I represent in this parliament who want decent funding for education in our community. Making sure our schools and classrooms are properly funded and resourced is the cornerstone of ensuring that every Australian student is given the best opportunity to succeed in their education and reach their full potential.
My sister is a school teacher and has proudly been a public school educator for almost 30 years. My cousins are teachers. I am proud of them and every other teacher in this country. I am not just proud of them; I am grateful for the work that they do day in, day out. I am incredibly proud of the QTU, a strong body that advocates for and represents teachers across Queensland. I acknowledge the outstanding leadership of people like Kevin Bates, my good friend Sam Pidgeon, Kate Ruttiman, Brendan Crotty and Lyn Esders, a local teachers' organiser who stands up for teachers in my local community every day of the week.
I am proud to work alongside school principals and local schools in my community. There are wonderful educators like Beth Petersen from Durack State School, John O'Connor from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Darra, Anne Kitchin at Middle Park, Pat Murphy from Woodcrest college, Denise Kostowski from Forest Lake State High School, Lee Gerchow at Goodna State School and John Brew at the brilliant Centenary State High School. These are just a handful of the great schools in the Oxley electorate. Every time I go to these schools I see the passion and dedication of those professionals and great staff.
Today, I stand to oppose the $22 billion worth of cuts that the Turnbull government is proposing for education in Australia. I will not vote to cut millions of dollars for funding for schools in my community. I will not cast a vote to make it harder for local Catholic parish schools in the electorate of Oxley to make ends meet. I stand in this place to demand true needs-based funding—a model that is fair and gives our kids a fair go. Enough is enough. This government needs to end the war on education and start properly funding education in this nation.
I listened to what the member for Hughes had to say. He said that this was all a conspiracy—that everyone was making it up—and that he was the font of all knowledge when it came to education funding in this country. I need to educate the member for Hughes and advise him on the destructive policies that he is voting for and advocating for. I refer to correspondence from the Catholic Secondary Principals of Australia and the Australian Catholic Primary Principals' Association to the minister of education—the member for Hughes' colleague inside the LNP government. I quote from the letter to the minister:
The legislation amendment announcements by the Prime Minister and yourself on 2 May disenfranchised Catholic school principals, who without any accurate details, suddenly had to explain to current and prospective parents what your announcement meant for their future school fees.
… … …
The Catholic principals stand in solidarity with the Catholic education systems and they support system funding and the co-responsibility that goes with it. Hence, Catholic school principals stand united with the broader Catholic school community in the face of a deliberate strategy by the Government to undermine the system by pitting principal against principal, school against school (evidenced by the misleading letters to each school and the funding estimator website).
CaSPA and ACPPA want to make it clear that the tactic will not work. CaSPA and ACPPA can assure the Minister that Catholic education will stand together to ensure Catholic schools remain affordable and available for all families who seek them.
That is what this government is proposing to do: not only to rip money out of the public school sector but to place extra pressure on the small and local Catholic parish schools right across the community. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Hughes: go and meet with your school principals, go to your local Catholic schools, go and talk to their peak bodies—go and listen to them.
They're getting millions more.
He says they are getting millions. He says the Catholic educators are all wrong. He says that their peak bodies are wrong and that he is right. Well, I say to you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will listen to those in the frontline: the educators, the teachers and the school parishes. They are fearful of this policy. What arrogance, what absolute arrogance, coming in here and saying, 'I am above educators. I know best.' They should hang their heads in shame.
Mr Dick interjecting—
He is still interjecting and saying that they are wrong and that they should be denounced. Well, I stand toe to toe with him in this place. I will not take an arrogance lecture from the member for Hughes, lecturing everyone and coming into this place week in, week out. Get out into the community and start listening to those who are fighting what you are trying to do.
When Labor was in power in 2010, Labor initiated the review of funding arrangements for schooling to develop a funding system that was transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students. More than 7,000 written submission were provided to the review, and the panel met with hundreds of professionals, stakeholders and school communities across Australia. At the completion of the review, in the letter to the education minister in 2013, the chair wrote:
The panel is strongly of the view that the proposed funding arrangements outlined in the report are required to drive improved outcomes for all Australian students, and to ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.
What we are talking about is a funding model, recommended by that panel, which ensured that no Australian child would miss out on a quality education due to the school they attended or the suburb they lived in. That is why, following the report, Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following objectives into Australian law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
It is a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes to give them the extra help they needed. Make no mistake, when the government rips out $22 billion in funding from our schools that is what they are walking away from—that commitment. Not only will schools lose resources, lose teachers and lose funding; this bill also proposes to remove the entitlement that all students have a right to an excellent education. This is a shameful act from a government that is hell-bent on ripping out billions of dollars from school funding and walking away from the commitment of ensuring every child has access to a quality education. On this side of the chamber, we know that this government does not believe in education as a great enabler. They do not want to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education that this nation can provide.
The government are also walking away from the high benchmarks we set ourselves as a country, and from what we can achieve when we properly fund our education system: for Australia to be placed in the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; for the Australian school system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate II attainment rates to 90 per cent; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate III attainment rates to 90 per cent; and to at least half the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020.
That is what this government is walking away from: a quality education for all Australian students. This Prime Minister does not value education. This government does not value the power of education. And the changes introduced to this parliament clearly represent—from the government's own documents, their own briefing papers—a $22 billion cut to education. The member for Hughes asks: 'What's this based on? Where do you get this figure from?' Well, he needs to talk to the education minister. He needs to talk to the actual people who provided that information, from his own government, highlighting in black and white that there will be a $22 billion reduction in funding.
That is on one hand. We know that the government's other priority, while cutting $22 billion, is to give $65.4 billion to multinationals and big business—a $22 billion cut from schools and $65.4 billion in a tax cut for big business. I will say it again: that is a cut for every school over the next 10 years of around $2.4 million, over the next decade, the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. The review of school funding recommended that all governments work together to ensure that every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life. So, the member for Hughes is the font of all knowledge! The Catholic educators are all wrong, the New South Wales Liberal government is wrong, the New South Wales Liberal education minister is wrong, and the state and territory ministers are all wrong, but the member for Hughes is correct; he is the only one—the font of all knowledge—who knows everything about education! What an absolute joke.
We know that only by working with the states and territories will we be able to guarantee proper funding for each and every school. It beggars belief that members opposite would want to get up and defend this. I note that the member for Gilmore is in the chamber. She is presiding over $19 million worth of cuts in her electorate. She is proud of that. She is happy with that. The member for Hughes is lecturing everyone that the Catholic educators are all wrong. We know that those opposite—the arrogance they show—
Government members interjecting—
We know that maybe cutting penalty rates is a gift. But there is a double gift, of reducing funding for every school in her electorate. Now, I am not sure that if I was the local representative I would be too brave turning up to a P&C meeting in my electorate saying, 'Good evening everyone; I'm here to announce millions of dollars worth of funding cuts.' I do not think that would be an appropriate thing, but I am not going to give any free advice to those opposite.
When I met with Springfield Central State School P&C last Monday night they asked me why this government is cutting funding. That is what they asked; the school principal asked that. The member for Gilmore says that they are wrong. So, the principal at Springfield Central is wrong? The P&C is wrong? But the member for Gilmore is right? The teachers who work there, the allied support workers, the teachers' aides are all wrong? They have read the budget papers. They have seen the briefing note. They know they are getting $22 billion less in funding. But somehow the member for Gilmore is correct! How arrogant can you get? How out of touch can you get?
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Gilmore: you have a lot on your plate; I would not worry about what is happening at Springfield Central, but I will tell them, from you, that they are all wrong.
You are being dishonest!
I will take that interjection. I will be honest with them, because that is what they deserve. We know that over the past four years they have zigged and zagged, gone backwards and forwards, but they still have not landed a credible education policy. Who can forget that the Prime Minister at one stage thought that the government should withdraw all funding from state schools? Remember that one? The government should just walk away from state schools altogether. Well, they might not have completely walked away; they just ripped out $22 billion.
Government members interjecting—
And they are all still interjecting. They are all still trying to defend the indefensible. If I was a representative in this place seeing a $19 million cut to schools in my electorate, like the member for Gilmore is, I would get up in this place and make some noise. I would not simply sit back and give them a clap and say, 'You're getting a gift.' It is high time that this government faced the music. When they go back to their P&Cs, when they have the guts to turn up to their local parish schools and explain themselves, they will find a very hostile reception from those parents and school communities.
We know that what this means is that 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027, some eight years from now. Under their model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes back to public schools. We know that when it comes to education—when it comes to the transformative power of education—the community can depend on Bill Shorten and Labor. The community can know that they have a true advocate with Tanya Plibersek fighting for them every single day in this country. (Time expired)
Just before I call the member for Gilmore I will say something about the words 'misleading the House', 'dishonest' and 'untruthful'. There are ways to use those terms in the House. This is not the place for them. I would ask members just to have regard to the standing orders in their approach.
Before I speak about the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, I just have a couple of little corrections. I was asked to mention the fact that Keira High School, which is not in Gilmore, was mentioned by a member on the other side as a school that would be losing funding. In fact, I have the numbers here. Every student in that school is allocated $2,976 this year, and next year it is going up to $3,127.
From my maths—and while I am only a masters educator—that is actually an increase, so I do not understand where these people are getting these mythical numbers from. They are quoting a six-year-old figure which was never funded—never funded! Those opposite funded four years of programming. It was in the forward estimates; they did not fund the final two. It was some mythical, cloudy number that they pulled out of the universe. It does not add up, so they should stop talking about reductions in funding and look at the reality.
During the 2017 budget we finally saw a fully funded and fair education strategy for all Australian children. This $18.6 billion reform plan is the continuation of the essence of needs based funding that was central to the review, education and philosophy of the original author of the funding changes in Australia's education, David Gonski. He said:
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.
… … …
… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
… … …
… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …
That is a quote from David Gonski, from 2 May this year.
If David Gonski himself is not enough, then Labor should listen to some of the many other independent education experts who have backed the coalition's plan. Pete Goss from the Grattan Institute said in May:
The announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the commonwealth.
Bronwyn Hinz from the Mitchell Institute said on an ABC interview in southern Queensland on 3 May, 'The things that stand out to me as positive are a much bigger emphasis on really matching the funding where it is needed. The first version of Gonski did a lot of this, but it had shortcomings.'
Shelley Hill from the Australian Parents Council, in her media release of 3 May said:
The Australian Parents Council welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister and Education Minister …
… … …
It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools …
Personally, I am appalled by the opposition playing politics, yet again, with the education of children—particularly those with a disability, those in low-socioeconomic regions and those trying to encourage Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students to attend and thrive. The constant squawking about 'cuts!' to education barely registers with the general public, especially when they see the increased funding written in black and white and funded. The money is allocated in the budget and it will be delivered.
The Labor Party tries to convince the community that their funding set-up six years ago under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government was concrete and promised. The final two years of their funding model were unfunded. They were not funded, and no matter how many times they repeat their squawk of 'funding cuts!', like the bird calls in the bush, repeating the call does not make it truth. Actually, this strategy of constantly repeating mistruths is insulting and deceitful for everyday Australians and certainly confusing for parents everywhere, including those in Gilmore.
Within the bubble of politics, the argy-bargy of debate can easily be dissected into truth and false facts. However, many parts of the media are not quite as savvy and they repeat the false data—over and over goes the myth.
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Gilmore will be given an opportunity to conclude her contribution at that time.
This week has been a proud time for our nation, but it has also been a time for sombre reflection, where we celebrate the brave and tenacious fight of our first Nation people, and we reflect on the fact that they were not counted as citizens in this great nation until after the 1967 referendum. Today we had the honour and privilege of having some of our first nation people and their families here, who were involved in the fight for the 1967 referendum. They were here to celebrate the 50th anniversary. We also celebrate and pay tribute to the 25th anniversary of the Mabo High Court decision. On Tuesday morning 20 years ago the Prime Minister received the Bringing them home report.
Herbert includes Palm Island, which is home to approximately 47 language groups, and Townsville is home to a high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so this is a very meaningful time for me and my community. I was proud to welcome Mrs Bonita Mabo and Gail Mabo, the wife and daughter of Eddie Koiki Mabo, who live in Townsville, to the parliament this morning. I also acknowledge Professor Noel Loos, who still lives in Townsville. On Monday I listened to the stories of the stolen generations and our very own Florence Onus, who passionately told her tragic family story.
I am proud to stand and say that I value the fact that I share this wonderful land with the oldest living culture. I am in awe of the courage, sheer determination, passion and resilience of our first nation people. Their battles have been long, tough and at times very painful, but they have not given up, and our nation is all the better for that. However, the fight is not yet over. We still have a long way to go, and every first nation citizen deserves no less than a commitment to live a fulfilling life.
Almost every week a constituent runs up to me looking panicked and asks me, 'Is there an election coming up?' There is not, of course. They have just seen me holding my regular mobile offices. 'Mobile office' is a pretty fancy title for what is essentially me on the side of a busy street under a shade sail with the A frames out and some plastic chairs, listening to locals who pass by and stop in. When I was elected last year, I outlined my intention to be as visible, accessible and responsive as I possibly can, and also as thoughtful as I possibly can about the challenges and the opportunities that lie in front of us in Brisbane. My mobile offices are just one of the ways I have been working hard to achieve that.
So I want to formally thank the 500 or so constituents who have come to talk to me so far at my mobile offices. They have helped me to prove the value of listening. Their thoughts, their feedback and their stories have made me a better representative. I am proud to record that, as of this month, I have now held over 100 mobile offices across Brisbane. If the one downside of that is that it causes the occasional moment of panic for people who are worried that they are missing out on an election, then the answer surely is for me to hold even more mobile offices until every last constituent knows that this is how I want to work to represent the people of Brisbane.
The other week I got a chance to read a really powerful piece written by Shannon Molloy. He wrote it in February 2016. He wrote openly and courageously about his life as a teenager realising he was gay. He wrote about not only the physical response he had to endure, but also the response he had to feel at being betrayed by people in positions of trust. I would urge people to read this piece, because it is a deeply moving piece. If it were not hard enough to read that, it was especially hard this morning to read in The Australian a story by Emily Ritchie, which contained the words, 'They win—I am done'. Shannon resigned from the board of the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, reportedly pressured to step down from his role by activists who complained that his employment with News Corp presented a conflict of interest with the lobby. This is just wrong. Shannon, opening up publicly to what you had to endure was enormously brave, and you have a courage that would surpass that of many of us. Your voice is hugely important, and I cannot believe there are those who would want to silence that voice. What has happened to Shannon is wrong, and he should get a place back on the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby. I want to send my voice of support to him through what he is going through.
It is almost 100 years since General Monash's command of the new 3rd Australian Division in the Battle of Messines. I stand to add my voice to the chorus of those calling for promotion of one of our greatest Australians—Sir John Monash. He was a giant of a man, part of the generation who helped forge this nation's identity in the cauldron of war. He was a man of towering intellect and a brilliant military strategist. His bravery in leadership on the battlefield earned him universal respect among his troops. Yet General Monash was denied promotion and advancement because of the anti-Semitic sentiments at the time. How unjust that a man of his courage and bravery be overlooked for a warranted position because of his religious beliefs. Australia's early welcoming of the Jewish community was in no small part due to General Monash and the longstanding and ongoing admiration that people had of this great Australian.
General Monash's influence and contribution was not limited to his war service. He was a leading and valued public figure, working in prominent civilian positions and dedicating his time to organisations such as the Boy Scouts and the early commemorations of Anzac Day. It is with great passion that I and the many supporters of General John Monash, including Robyn Young and other members of the Beacon Hill Branch, endeavour to achieve his promotion to field marshal in time for the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War. (Time expired)
Since 2009 Business Armadale has been helping local business owners reach their full potential by promoting a strong community spirit, providing training and support for local businesses and proactively advocating for the economic success of the wider city of Armadale and City of Gosnells region. Business Armadale has also strongly advocated for key local infrastructure projects that will help drive efficiencies in our area, like the widening of Armadale Road, the construction of a new Armadale Road bridge and the fixing of the Denny Avenue level crossing—projects for which I and Labor have been long-time supporters and advocates.
Last week, I had Labor's hardworking shadow minister for employment services, workplace participation and the future of work and the digital economy, the member for Chifley, back in my electorate of Burt, attending a Business Armadale post-Budget breakfast round table. We spoke to the local business group about Labor's approach to supporting small business. We had plenty of great questions and engagement not only about our policies but about those of the government. It was great to see their support and receive their ideas about how we can support more jobs growth in my local region—an area that is struggling more than most.
The thing that impressed me about Business Armadale was that the discussion was not just about them; it was about the wider community and how we can make things better for all people in our communities, their businesses and workers in particular. I would like to thank the president of Business Armadale, Wayne Nurse, and Heather, who organised the event, along with Gary and his team at The Manse Restaurant, who hosted us.
Today I want to congratulate Cairns Hockey Association's Aspire to be Deadly program, which has been selected as a finalist in the 2017 Queensland Reconciliation Awards. It is a wonderful recognition of the positive outcomes this program is achieving for Indigenous young women and girls through sport, mentoring and education. Aspire to be Deadly has grown from humble beginnings, under the skilled management of Julie McNeil, to an internationally-recognized community benefit program. I would also like to acknowledge the fabulous efforts of Wesley Ferns, Jess Fatnowna, Lisa Fatnowna and the Aspire Indigenous Mentor Program.
This is just the latest exciting development for Cairns Hockey. We are now working in conjunction with Tropicana Lodge and the Young Australians League on a proposal for the Kaziew Rangath academy. The academy will focus on students' physical, mental, academic and spiritual growth, with a strong support network and academic team so that each student will achieve their potential. We have seen the success of the AFL Cape York House for young men, and one has been recently announced for young women. Kaziew Rangath will enable young women from Cape York and the Torres Strait to board and attend school in Cairns and engage with Cairns Hockey. This is an exciting time and, as a key supporter, I wish Cairns Hockey and their partners the very best of luck at the Queensland Reconciliation Awards on 1 June.
On Sunday I was again very proud to be part of the Running for Premature Babies team and complete the Sydney half marathon. After losing their firstborn triplets in 2007, Sophie Smith and her late husband Ash, of Coogee, established the group to raise money for the Royal Hospital for Women's Newborn Intensive Care Unit in Randwick and medical research and equipment. Through their leadership and hard work, Sophie has inspired over 2,000 people to get fit, challenge themselves and help fund a wonderful cause, which to date has raised in excess of $2.3 million for equipment and saved hundreds of babies' lives.
This year the Running for Premature Babies squad was the largest team in the event, with 520 runners—all with the goal of raising $240,000 to cover part of the cost of a new monitoring system for babies in the highest level of intensive care at the hospital. I am pleased to report that the team surpassed that amount, raising $320,000. For the whole event, sponsorship and fundraising totalled $800,000, and this group raising more than a third of those funds is a phenomenal effort. Congratulations to all of the members of the Running for Premature Babies team, and I thank them for supporting this wonderful group. Sophie Smith, you are a legend.
Last week the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science visited my electorate of Boothby and saw firsthand the groundbreaking innovation that is happening in South Australia across high-growth areas from medical devices and global health care through to renewable energy and battery storage, robotics and systems automation. We met the team at SAGE Automation, founded by Andrew Downs, one of our advanced manufacturers that employs over 300 people nationwide and does world-class work in defence, infrastructure, resources and utilities. We visited the Tonsley Innovation Precinct and met entrepreneurs creating the jobs of the future. Minister Sinodinos spoke to precinct leaders about the coalition's $100 million advanced manufacturing package that will, among other things, see innovation labs established in South Australia and Victoria and will support higher education so that those entrepreneurs have access to a continual flow of highly trained engineers.
I must commend the work that local business Micro-X under managing director Peter Rowland is doing creating and selling the world's first portable x-ray. ZEN Energy and director Richard Turner are outperforming the US based company Tesla in energy storage. Professor Karen Reynolds, based at Flinders University, continues to lead medical device research innovation while nurturing start-ups. South Australia is leading the world in so many of these areas and I am incredibly proud that this innovation and smart manufacturing is based in the heart of my electorate and collocated with Flinders University and TAFE, which truly encourages the flow of ideas and cooperation between the education, innovation and business sectors.
A couple of months ago calls and emails began to flood into my office expressing concern and even anger at the proposed permanent closure of a number of median crossings along the very busy St Georges Road. Living just off St Georges Road myself, these were concerns I well understood. This proposal comes after Darebin City Council passed a motion and wrote to VicRoads last year seeking permanent closure of those crossings. In response to community concerns the Victorian member for Northcote, Fiona Richardson, and I wrote to affected locals, seeking their views on this important local issue.
The response was overwhelming, as you can see. Literally hundreds and hundreds of responses flooded into my office. Over 80 per cent of people wanted to see those crossings reopen, with more than 75 per cent giving traffic congestion as their key concern. Many also expressed concern about the negative impact being experienced by local businesses and on pedestrian safety. Eighty per cent said they had not been adequately consulted by Darebin council and that they were greatly disappointed in their council.
I thank everyone who shared their views and I commit to representing those views on this issue as it moves forward. I should note that cyclist safety is a personal concern for me—my wife, Liberty, rides to work every day and my family often cycle around the neighbourhood. This concern was reflected in the survey, with a majority of people supporting measures to improve cyclist safety, but it is time for Darebin council to end its war on cars. (Time expired)
I rise to provide the House with another update on the Murray Darling medical school. The concept behind the school is that it will train doctors in the bush for practice in the bush. At present, it is raining doctors in the city but there is a severe shortage in the country. Less than 10 per cent of medical students trained at the big city universities go on to practise medicine in the country. The universities running the current system are failing country Australia. While there are some positive efforts going on in the country by these city universities, it is a shame that on the one hand they took up these endeavours yet on the other they actively tried to kill this Charles Sturt University proposal. Our communities are very disappointed in the unnecessarily predatory and negative approach that the likes of Sydney University are taking on this issue. The Australian government has requested that Charles Sturt University and La Trobe University review the clinical training requirements for the Murray Darling Medical School to demonstrate how these requirements can be accommodated within the current and future clinical training system. A report has been prepared by PPB Advisory and I have a copy here hot off the press. I will be having more to say on this report in the very near future. In particular, I will be letting the electorate of Calare know precisely what it contains. People living in country Australia deserve access to the same level of health care as people living in the cities. Despite the opposition from the established urban universities, our country communities can rest assured that the case for the Murray Darling Medical School is stronger than ever and we will not be backing down on this vital issue for country people.
A few moments ago this parliament was entertained by a shameful attack on the member for Cunningham by the member for Gilmore. The reason for this attack? The member for Cunningham was sticking up for schools in her electorate and students throughout the country—something that the member for Gilmore should be doing herself. I know that the member for Gilmore is very fond of 'fudge analogies'. Well, I call on the member for Gilmore to stop fudging the figures when it comes to school education. We know that the cuts in education are harming students across the country and in her electorate. In fact, $19 million is being ripped out of the schools in her very own electorate because of decisions of her government. Nowra East Public School will lose $1.3 million. Bomaderry High School will lose about $650,000 and Bomaderry Public School will lose $736,000. These are not wealthy areas; they are some of the poorest areas on the South Coast.
I am calling on the member for Gilmore to stop fighting for the hopeless policies of this Prime Minister and start fighting for the schools in her electorate. It is nearly two years until the next election. This is no time to quit. It is a time to roll your sleeves up and start fighting for the things that matter. And what matters for the schools in the South Coast, the Illawarra and the Shoalhaven is a decently funded education system that is going to give our kids an opportunity in the future. (Time expired)
Last Friday I was pleased to attend the open day of the Spiers Centre in Heathridge as part of National Families Week. The new CEO, Gaelle Gouillou, and her team of staff and volunteers organised number of activities for children and families, including a bouncing castle, an animal petting zoo, a St John Ambulance display and a sausage sizzle staffed by the local Joondalup Men's Shed. Since its foundation in 1980, the Spiers Centre has been an invaluable centre of family support providing assistance through emergency relief, financial counselling, personal develop programs and support groups for those facing hardship and adversity. Each year, the Spiers Centre provides support services to an estimated 12,000 individuals and families facing personal crises or financial hardship. Volunteers provide around 1,500 unpaid hours of service to the community.
To date, the local business community has been very supportive, but it is time for renewal. I have a vision that the profile of the Spiers Centre will continue to grow, and that local corporate sponsorship and philanthropy will increase to match the substantial economic growth in the City of Joondalup. There is great satisfaction to be had in supporting a local charity which helps local people in our neighbourhood. I urge local companies to start supporting the Spiers Centre either financially or with goods and services in kind.
Today I would like to acknowledge the work of the Indigo Shire Council and the development of the Chiltern 'Heritage Town, Bold Future' project. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the work of the project drivers—Mark Florence, Kate Biglin, Susan Reid, Kevin Mayhew, Joy Lee, Rod Wangman, Anne Bowler, Tony Brown and councillors Barb Murdoch, Sophie Price and Roberta Horne. This project will position the historic town for economic and population growth and create a connected and resilient community. Council has sought funding from the Australian government's Building Better Regions Fund to bring this plan to life. I wish them all the best in their application and look forward to it being delivered.
The plan, when funded, will upgrade and expand the children's services hub to integrate children's services and the community centre, accommodating 35 children in long day care. It will activate the town centre through improved streetscapes and connectivity, and it will create an industrial employment precinct with utility services and upgraded road infrastructure to accommodate future traffic demand and usage. When completed, the project will bring a $12 million boost to the local economy and up to 42 jobs, including 28 ongoing jobs for Chiltern and the region. I congratulate the council, and I thank them for their work. To the community of Chiltern I say: the best is yet to come.
I rise to update the House on the success of the petition of the Peel Youth Medical Service, also known as PYMS, for a headspace facility in Mandurah. Headspace provides early intervention mental health services to 12- to 25-year-olds, and assists young people and their families to improve wellbeing by focusing on mental health, physical health, work and study support, and alcohol and other drugs services.
The petition was born out of a need to better equip local young people with the right tools to deal with their mental health issues. Over the course of the campaign, we gathered 3,400 signatures and rallied the support of community leaders, local government and state parliamentary representatives.
Having briefed the health minister about the petition on a number of occasions, I was honoured to host him at the Peel Youth Medical Service last week, where he announced that Mandurah would receive a headspace facility within the year. Prior to this announcement, the nearest headspace was an hour away from Mandurah. Mandurah headspace will be centrally located, less than a 10-minute walk from the transit station, allowing ease of access for young people coming into Mandurah from the surrounding areas.
Importantly, the facility will be located in the PYMS health hub, a one-stop-shop for young people dealing with mental and physical health issues, supported by other health professionals such as GPs and counsellors. The Mandurah headspace is a critical piece of infrastructure for young people in the Peel region, and everyone who supported this petition can be proud of their advocacy.
As we heard this morning, this is a very significant week for Aboriginal Australians, for the NT's first nations peoples and for our entire nation. This Friday marks 20 years since the tabling of the Bringing them home report, and soon we will mark the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum.
But this week also marks a little-known act by this coalition government, two weeks after the Turnbull-Morrison 2017 budget. I speak of moves to further disenfranchise Aboriginal Territorians and of the loss of jobs in Darwin.
In the Northern Territory, only 82.7 per cent of eligible voters are enrolled to vote, with over 28,000 people not registered on the roll. So what does this government do in response? In the budget, it downsizes the Darwin Australian Electoral Commission office, including the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program. It sacks 10 staff, including four working specifically on improving enrolment, leaving just three employees. This echoes 1996, when John Howard targeted and abolished the AEC's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service.
I ask the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister, to reverse this decision. And I ask him: what would those present in our chamber this morning think about the downsizing of the AEC office in Darwin in the Northern Territory?
I rise to raise concerns about plans by Powercor to disconnect power to the Birregurra township on Friday, 9 June, immediately prior to the long weekend. The notice of power supply outage was delivered to the owner of the Birregurra General Store, Cameron Williams, and other traders and residents, with no consultation. I am told that only the local school was consulted.
The tourism trade in Birregurra is vital. Birregurra lies at the foothills of the Otways, near the Great Ocean Road, and is of course home to Brae restaurant, one of the world's best restaurants. Tourism is a vital part of the local economy.
Why is Powercor not capable of implementing its power outage at a time which would cause minimum disruption and harm to traders? At one of the busiest times of the year, this will turn Birregurra into a ghost town. Does Powercor understand what this will do to food ordered for the long weekend that has to be refrigerated? Mr Williams estimates the cost to his business will be something like $2½ thousand. He says: 'As a person who has put my house on the line to be a small business owner, it is a real kick in the guts.' He will be required to send his eight staff home. What is incredible about this decision is that Powercor made this decision in Forrest last year on Easter Thursday, so they have learnt no lessons. I call on Powercor to have some common sense, have a heart and reverse this decision.
In Senate estimates this morning we learnt more about the seriousness of the outbreak of white spot disease in the Australian prawn sector, a failing which is costing farmers tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. We also learnt more about the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' failings on this issue. His department first took action on the outbreak of this dreaded disease in March 2016, but the minister knew nothing about it until almost 12 months later. This is the most serious breach of our biosecurity system in decades. Our key competitive advantage as an exporter is our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe produce; therefore, there is nothing more important for an agriculture minister than ensuring that regime is the strongest it can possibly be. The minister for agriculture was pretty quick to run to the cameras as soon as he heard about Johnny Depp's dogs. He saw political opportunity in Johnny Depp's dogs—an issue which had already been adequately handled by the department—but when it comes to this serious biosecurity breach, which is so impacting on prawn farmers in this country, Barnaby Joyce is nowhere to be seen. He is completely missing in action. There is no run to the cameras; there is only silence from the minister.
Sporting clubs play a major role off the field, and one such club is the Lismore Marist Brothers Rams. This weekend members of the Rams are providing their time and labour for a fundraiser for 15-year-old Shari Rose, sister of current player Jacob, who has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Recently, as wheelchair-bound Tait Jenkins wished to see a sunrise from the top of Mount Warning, members of the footy team carried him to the top in darkness. When former player Niko Vakararawa suffered a stroke, the club organised a fundraiser for his family. Grant Cook was playing for Murwillumbah when he died during a match; the Rams donated all match payments and fundraised for his family. Jodie's Inspiration, a local charity—the Rams lend their labour to the annual pink Halloween ball and they have also organised a round of football games in support. They have volunteered to improve Crozier Oval and raised funds for the Westpac Helicopter Rescue Service and for Father Peter Karam's children Christmas appeal. In the first Relay for Life they broke the Australian record for distance covered in a 24-hour period, with all funds going to the Cancer Council. To each and every member of the Rams and all other clubs who do likewise, I thank you for what you give to our wider community.
In 2007 Prime Minister Rudd appointed me parliamentary secretary for disabilities. I thought I had seen unfairness in workplaces as a union rep, but nothing prepared me for this second-class deal that Australians with disability and their carers were receiving. Jenny Macklin, Bruce Bonyhady and I, and thousands of people with disability and their carers, designed and campaigned for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But I never ran into the member for Wentworth in the meetings that we were campaigning at, and now the government is seeking to rewrite history and frighten Australians with disability and their carers. Labor has a better, fairer plan for the budget, which raises $4½ billion more. We reject the notion that the only way to protect the NDIS is to increase the taxes on working-class and middle-class Australians. Today I offer the government a fairer, better way: do not give millionaires a $19½ billion tax cut, do not give large corporations a $65 billion tax cut and remove the concessions for property investors worth $37 billion. If you want to try and raise taxes on 10 million ordinary Australians, you will have to come through us. You will have to come through Labor. The last bloke who sat in that chair thought he could, and look where it got him.
Will there be anything left of me? That was the question I asked when I recently popped in to see a team from my local CUA. They were staffing an organ donor drive at Dolphins, the Redcliffe Leagues Club, and I soon found myself adding my name to the Organ Donor Register. I felt a bit of a goose asking, but I wanted to know. 'What if my family wanted an open casket—will I still look the same?' is a common question asked by those joining the register, and I do not know why, but I was reassured to hear the answer is yes.
I encourage all those I can to join the Australian Organ Donor Register. One donor can save the lives of 10 Australians. It is encouraging to know that Australia is a world leader for successful transplant outcomes and that we are seeing record numbers of life-saving transplants. Last year 503 deceased organ donors gave 1,447 Australians a second chance at life, up by 17 per cent on the year prior. It is an easy thing to do to sign the register, but make sure your family know your wishes as well.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the 10 years from 2018 to 2027, what is the difference in dollar terms between the Prime Minister's schools policy and the policy under the previous, Labor government? Prime Minister, it is a dollar figure: what is the number?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. Members on my right unfortunately prevented me from hearing the last part of the question. I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the 10 years from 2018 to 2027, what is the difference in dollar terms between the Prime Minister's schools policy and the policy under the previous, Labor government? Prime Minister, it is a dollar figure: what is the number?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It is not uncommon to ask ministers and prime ministers to compare policies. But it is unusual to ask me to compare our policy, our budgeted, fully-funded policy, with Labor's fantasy. Labor promised all sorts of things—27 secret deals, no transparency, no needs-based funding. Shaking her head, the member for Sydney is outraged. The outrage should be from her supporters, and every one of them knows that their position on education has been a complete hypocrisy. I will tell you what we are spending: $18.6 billion in additional money over the next decade. While the Labor Party are unable to say how they would fund it or whether they would fund it—indeed, the member for Sydney was unable to even promise to commit to funding it—the coalition has committed. My government has committed to precisely what David Gonski recommended: national needs-based, consistent, transparent funding. Labor are not able to do that. They are wallowing in hypocrisy now, even as—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
On direct relevance: I do not see how the Prime Minister can be directly relevant to a question asking for a number without naming one.
Government members interjecting—
Just before I call the Prime Minister, members on my right will cease interjecting. I have not called the Prime Minister. I am going to address the point of order. I know everyone wants to move quickly, but I think if a point of order is made I should be able to address it. The Manager of Opposition Business well knows that, whilst a specific question of that nature can be asked, they cannot demand a certain answer. The Prime Minister is in order. He is on the policy topic of the question. He is directly addressing—
Opposition members interjecting—
If you are interjecting you are arguing with me, and that is perilous, I am telling you! The Prime Minister is directly addressing the substance of the question. He is in order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labor Party's education policy was unjust, inconsistent and a corruption of what David Gonski recommended. As Ken Boston said, it was a betrayal of every value they claim to speak for. That betrayal does not stop there. They talk about jobs and they want to tax small and medium businesses more. They want to deny them the incentives to employ—
Ms Husar interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Lindsay is warned! The member for Griffith is warned!
They talk about the NDIS. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition just before question time began about his commitment to the NDIS. Then he was unable to explain his extraordinary backflip. A few years ago he called on us all to support an increase in the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS but not to fully fund it. Now, when we have the chance to deliver on that vision, what do Labor do? They run for cover. Labor have no numbers. Labor have no funded numbers. I would say they have nothing funded.
Opposition members interjecting—
When it comes to numbers, the real question the Leader of the Opposition should be asking is: what are the numbers of the member for Grayndler?
The member for Berowra will just resume his seat for a second. The level of interjections was ridiculously high towards the end of that answer. A number of members were interjecting, particularly the member for Burt, who is now warned. I have warned two members: the member for Lindsay and the member for Griffith. The member for Lindsay continued to interject, so she will eject herself under 94(a). She can leave. Anyone else that is warned—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The member for Lindsay will leave or I will take more severe action.
The member for Lindsay then left the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the Manchester terrorist attack and what the government is doing to keep Australians safe, including in my electorate of Berowra?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I spoke with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, last night, and I conveyed to her the heartfelt sympathies and condolences of the Australian people to the people of Britain and to the victims of this shocking criminal attack and to their families. I reaffirmed to her the resolute solidarity of Australia with Britain, partners now as we always have been and always will be in freedom's course. Prime Minister May thanked me and thanked this parliament for the solidarity we showed yesterday as the Leader of the Opposition and I spoke in unison, united in our solidarity and our sympathy for our friends in the United Kingdom.
This was a shocking, criminal attack on innocence. At least 22 people have been murdered and 59 injured—many of them children, as we know. This was a children's concert. This attack was designed to kill children. What could be more vile, more reprehensible, more criminal than this crime? It was committed by a coward.
Brave men and women—Australians and Britons alike—will not be cowed by terrorism, wherever it occurs. We will not change our way of life and we will continue to fight together, as Prime Minister May and I reaffirmed last night, to defeat this scourge of terrorism in our homes and around the world. The Director-General of Security has advised me that Australia's threat level remains at 'probable'. There do not appear, at this stage, to be direct links between the attack in Manchester and threats in Australia. But we must remain vigilant at home, always, where the threat remains very real—the threat level is 'probable'.
Today, the New South Wales Coroner handed down his report into the Lindt cafe siege. Our heartfelt sympathies go out once again to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, as well as all the brave hostages who survived that siege. Their lives were changed forever. The government will consider the recommendations carefully and continue to strengthen arrangements where needed.
Our first priority is to keep Australians safe. Our agencies, with whom I and my ministers are in constant touch, are constantly upgrading, reviewing and adjusting our response measures. We must be more agile than those who seek to do us harm. We will always work tirelessly to keep Australians safe, and we do that by destroying Daesh in the field in the Middle East and by destroying their networks here at home. We will keep Australians safe. We have the best agencies and the best intelligence services in the world. There are no guarantees, of course, but, since September 2014 when the threat level was raised, there have been 63 arrests for terrorism offences, with another one just this week, and 12 major plots have been disrupted. And we continue to use every avenue at our disposal to provide additional resources, whether they be financial or legal and whether it relates to signals intelligence, human intelligence or hard power. We will do all we can, as we always have, to keep Australians safe and to defend the liberty that this parliament is established to preserve.
The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.
If I may, I will briefly associate myself with the heartfelt remarks of the Prime Minister. Yesterday we were operating on those early fragments of information, but the more that we learn the worse it gets. It is clear that Manchester has been an act of evil terror. It is a crime of cowardice; it was aimed at innocent people and innocent children—people having innocent fun. Now we have seen the face of the evil perpetrator, and we have also now become witness to the faces of some of those who were lost. In associating myself with the Prime Minister's remarks, I want to share the comments of Ms Charlotte Campbell. She spoke to the media, and her words could be the words of any of us in this House who are parents, or, indeed, of any Australian:
I'm at home phoning everybody: hospitals, police, the centres that the children have been put in. Her dad's in Manchester looking for her. I've got friends looking for her. I've got people I don't even know looking for her, people messaging me, saying we've got her photo, looking for her, we'll get in contact if we see her. And I'm just hearing nothing. … They've basically told me to stay put and wait for a phone call.
Very soon after that, Ms Campbell had her phone ring with the worst possible news. Her daughter, Olivia, was only 15 years old. In time, the shock will fade and the news will move on, but for families the grief will remain. We will retain our shared determination to defeat terrorism. Like the Prime Minister, despite the fierce arguments we might have on other matters here, all of us in Australia stand alongside the United Kingdom as friends, as family and as partners in this conflict.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence: every parent can imagine the horror that those parents are going through. Our thoughts are with them. My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement in relation to his schools policy: 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $22.3 billion over 10 years'? If not, why did the Prime Minister's office distribute this document to journalists stating that his schools policy was a $22.3 billion saving compared to Labor's policy? He was prepared to put it in writing. Why won't he say it out loud?
The Age answered that question very well this morning. I will quote The Age editorial page talking about Labor's credibility deficit. The Age editorialised:
… this is neutered by another time-tested political parameter: exorbitant promises are unconvincing unless those making them can demonstrate the capacity to actually fund them.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to ensure the safety of Australians at home and abroad?
I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. The Australian government condemns in the strongest possible way the horrific attack in Manchester that was calculated to kill innocent young people. While we have no information to suggest that any Australians were among those killed or injured, it will be some time before all the victims are identified.
We should remember that around one million Australians visit the United Kingdom each year and that, at any one time, there are about 130,000 Australians resident in the United Kingdom. I can confirm that the Australian government has updated our travel advice for the United Kingdom. I will quote from that advice:
… the UK Government has increased the UK's domestic threat level to 'Critical' (the highest of the UK's five domestic threat levels). UK Prime Minister May has also announced that armed soldiers will be deployed in UK cities to assist police with security. Continue to avoid the area surrounding the Manchester Arena and anticipate significant transport delays in the Manchester area. Expect an increased police and security presence across the UK. Be vigilant about your personal security, monitor the media and follow local authorities' instructions (Safety and security). In light of the UK's increase to its threat level, we now advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Kingdom.
I can advise the House that the threat assessment means not only is an attack considered highly likely but a further attack may be imminent.
We are in contact with British authorities who have confirmed that a police investigation continues to find all the perpetrators who may have been involved in this attack. There is a concern that this attack was the work of a wider terrorist cell with links outside the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister said, the Australian government will do all that we can to keep Australians safe at home and abroad. Our security measures are under constant review.
We have boosted our counter-terrorism efforts to protect Australians at home and abroad, with an additional $550 million in this most recent budget. We have cancelled or refused to issue passports for over 205 Australian citizens who seek to travel to the Middle East to support or work with terrorist organisations, including ISIS. There are 200 Australians under active investigation for seeking to support terrorist organisations. We are unrelenting in our efforts to seek out those who wish to do us harm.
My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the $1.2 billion figure he used in parliament yesterday in relation to the bank tax is completely misleading? The figure represents only nine months of payments compared to the full 12-month figure reported by the banks to the Australian Stock Exchange.
The figure I referred to was the gross cash figure for 2017-18, which is set out in the budget papers. I was asked about what the figure would be in 2017-18. That is what the figure is in 2017-18. I know that we have added an additional statement in the budget papers. There are now 11 statements in the budget papers, not 10. I know the shadow Treasurer can only count to 10—he cannot get to 11—and this may have confused him somewhat as he was moving through the budget papers.
I notice once again that that shadow Treasurer has come into this place today to run the lines of the banks. I have one question for the shadow Treasurer: which bank are you appearing for today? Which bank are you backing in today? For an opposition that say they are against a bank tax—they say they are against the bank tax but they have used every question time to raise this issue, not other issues. His sole focus in this chamber is to come into this place and represent the big banks and raise questions on behalf of the big banks.
He also comes in here and asks questions about revenue. This is the opposition that when in government gave us the mining tax, which they said would raise $12 billion—the member for Lilley remembers—and it raised $400 million. Where is the difference? I know they spent the difference, but they certainly did not raise that revenue. We have a shadow Treasurer who once boasted that 'China should float the yen'. We have a shadow Treasurer that cannot remember what threshold he lifted the tax-free threshold to. We have a shadow Treasurer who gave us GroceryWatch and Fuelwatch and, best of all, he gave us 'Boatwatch'—and we counted plenty of boats on your watch.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting.
I am pleased to inform the House that we have present in the southern gallery this afternoon a group of young Indigenous leaders from all around Australia. They are visiting Canberra to participate in the 2017 National Indigenous Youth Parliament throughout this week. I look forward to hearing their adjournment speeches on Sunday afternoon. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you today.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the Commonwealth must intervene in the Tasmanian health system. Waiting times are the longest of any state. For example, it is 946 days for urgent gastro and liver appointments, and doctors tell me patients are dying while waiting for treatment. Moreover, bulk-billing by GPs is in truth declining. Ambulance Tasmania has the slowest response time of any state. No wonder the AMA has lost confidence and the Royal Hobart Hospital Staff Association warns of a severe risk to patient safety over this winter. Prime Minister, considering the federal government spends billions of dollars on Tasmanian health, will you now order an urgent inquiry into this dangerous, costly and avoidable fiasco?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member understands that Commonwealth funding to health services—hospitals, Medicare, PBS and in every respect—in Tasmania is at record levels. The honourable member would also understand that the Commonwealth has recently made a payment of $730 million in respect of the Mersey Community Hospital so that will be transferred back to the ownership and responsibility of the state government. That is a very substantial payment to the Tasmanian government to enable that to be done and to secure the provision of that hospital's services and other services in that part of Tasmania.
I recognise the concerns the honourable member has, but I would say to the honourable member that the provision of the substantial financial support the Commonwealth makes to Tasmania enables the state government to deliver, for its part, on the public hospital services for which it is responsible. Those are the Tasmanian government's constitutional responsibilities. The Commonwealth is playing its part, funding Tasmania appropriately and substantially, and that is increasing at every turn.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Denison on a point of order?
The point of order is relevance. The question goes to an inquiry into the spending of that money.
The Prime Minister has the call.
I understand that the honourable member would like the Commonwealth to take responsibility for the provision of health care in Tasmania. I can assure the honourable member that the Commonwealth is not going to do that. We have a clear constitutional responsibility, which we are honouring. As you know, the Mersey hospital was acquired by the Commonwealth government 10 years ago. That has been brought to an end, at considerable cost to the Commonwealth—a $730 million payment to the state. The state has all the constitutional and political authority to manage its hospital system, its health system, appropriately. The Commonwealth is playing its part, generously and justly providing Tasmania with the funds to enable it to do so.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the right choices the government is making to guarantee essential services? And, Treasurer, how is the government acting to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme?
I thank the member for Bowman for his question, and I appreciated joining the member for Bowman when we went to see Star Community Transport in Cleveland last week. They are one of the many agencies preparing to support the full implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But they know, as we know, that there is a $55.7 billion black hole that needs to be filled to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
By their own admission, as I told the House yesterday, the original increase of 0.5 per cent in the Medicare level is insufficient to fully fund the scheme. And, as I noted yesterday, you cannot spend money twice. You cannot spend savings twice, as the Labor Party said they could, and that is why there is a funding hole. We know that the Medicare levy was first introduced by the Hawke government in 1984, at one per cent. It was then increased to 1.25 per cent, in 1986. The Keating government increased it to 1.4 per cent and then to 1.5 per cent. And it was increased to two per cent on the proposal of the Gillard government. That change, as we know, had full bipartisan support. On each of these occasions, the universality of the Medicare levy was maintained as we moved forward.
We are taking the same approach to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme as was taken by the former Gillard government when it came to raising the Medicare levy by half a per cent. That comes in in two years time, when the bills come in. Today I introduced legislation to lift the indexation of the Medicare levy low-income threshold. An estimated 100,000 Australians will now join the nine million other Australian adults who are not required to pay the levy. The changes, which will cost the Commonwealth some $180 million over the forward estimates, will exempt couples and families from paying the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $36,541. And couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $47,670. The Medicare levy has built-in carve-outs for those on low incomes and for vulnerable Australians. That was respected as a principle by all the predecessors of the Leader of the Opposition who led the Labor Party, and it is a principle that is now being abandoned by the Leader of the Opposition in the name of cheap politics.
The government stands ready to stand in the middle of this parliament and ask the opposition to join us in fully funding the NDIS. We are both committed to this scheme. I commend the Gillard government for introducing the scheme, and we invite the Leader of the Opposition to do the right thing by disabled Australians and their families and support the government's middle-ground proposal.
My question is to the Treasurer. I ask again: why did the Treasurer, in question time yesterday, use a figure of $1.2 billion, which represents only nine months of payments, compared with the full 12-month figure reported by the banks to the Australian stock exchange? Was the Treasurer seeking to paper over the $2 billion black hole in the bank tax?
My attempt, albeit vain, was to try to educate the shadow Treasurer.
Opposition members interjecting—
They find this witty—to educate the shadow Treasurer, the same shadow Treasurer who thinks the Chinese currency is the yen, the same shadow Treasurer who does not know what the tax-free threshold is, despite the fact that he actually lifted it. It was a simple statement of fact that that is the cash position for 2017-18. We have also outlined the accrual position for 2017-18, which is $1.6 billion. I know that these concepts are difficult for the shadow Treasurer, but again we see that the one issue that burns him most in this budget, the one issue that riles him more than any other issue in this budget—I do not see him coming in here to support the full funding of the NDIS. I do not see him coming to the dispatch box to support $18.6 billion for proper needs based school funding. I do not see him coming to the dispatch box and saying, 'We support the government to guarantee Medicare.' What I see him doing every day in this parliament is having the banks pull his strings. And which bank are you appearing on behalf of today, shadow Treasurer? You seem so deep in their debt that you cannot help yourself.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government has devised a fair way to ensure the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded? Is the minister aware of any alternatives?
I thank the member for her question. As the member is well aware, the NDIS will come to benefit about 3,112 people in her electorate of Forrest. As the member also knows, the central achievement in the design of the NDIS is that, as an insurance scheme, it is available to each and every Australian who needs it—whether they are born with a disability or acquire a disability later in life—and irrespective of their financial circumstances. But, of course, it must be funded. And right now it is possible to give the absolute guarantee to all the Australians who could need it that the insurance scheme will be there for them and their families if those circumstances arise.
The reason why almost everyone agrees that the 0.5 per cent increase is the fairest way to fully fund the NDIS is that every Australian will benefit from the scheme. So every Australian who has a reasonable capacity to contribute can do so through the levy in a way that fairly represents that capacity. If you look, for instance, at a single person with an income of $28,000, to fill the funding gap they would be expected to pay $75 a year in 2019-20. A person on an income of $200,000 would be required to pay an extra $1,000. So a person with seven times more income would pay 13 times more to fill the gap.
Perhaps another way of looking at this is to look at what you get for that contribution. The scheme actuary estimates that, if somebody faced the challenge of multiple sclerosis in, say, their early 40s, that person would receive $1.5 million worth of support over the course of their life—that is, $1.5 million worth of assistance, care and dignity. So, whether that Australian contributed $75 to filling the gap or $1,000 to filling the gap, they would benefit to the tune of $1.5 million. That represents the best insurance policy that anyone anywhere in the world could ever hope for.
Members opposite are standing in the way of that happening. The only person standing in the way of that happening is the Leader of the Opposition. He will not take his own advice—and he certainly will not take the advice of the member for Grayndler—so how about he takes the advice of the member for Jagajaga? This is what she said about the 0.5 per cent increase: 'An increase in the Medicare levy, a dollar a day for the average earner, will ensure we can sustainably deliver disability care. We think it is a fair balance.' The only person who does not think it is a fair balance is the Leader of the Opposition; there is still time to help each and every Australian; there is still time to change your mind.
My question is to the Treasurer. The big four banks have reported to the Australian Stock Exchange that they will pay $965 million over 12 months for the bank tax. Isn't it the case that this falls well short of the 12-month figure in the budget of $1.6 billion for the bank tax? When will the Treasurer just admit that he has a $2 billion black hole?
The estimates for the major bank levy are set out in the budget papers. It may come as news to the shadow Treasurer, but banks do not get to decide how much tax they pay. The ATO works that out. That is who works it out. The shadow Treasurer may think that he can just send his tax return back and say: 'This is what I've decided to pay this year. I'm sorry, the ATO might have a different view about that, but this is what I reckon I should pay.'
The shadow Treasurer seems to have conniptions over the major bank tax levy. He seems to be completely exercised about the fact that we would actually bring into this place a major bank levy that gets the banks to pay some tax. The levy he brought in was a tax on bank deposits; it was a tax on every single pensioner's bank account in this country. That was the bank tax that the shadow Treasurer supported.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin is warned!
That was the bank tax that those on this side of the House abolished and refused to support. Our major bank levy addresses this issue and assures the major banks and the special position they hold in our financial system. Let's not forget that the four major banks and Macquarie each were able to retain their credit rating after the budget when, sadly, regional banks were not able to maintain theirs. One of the reasons for that is because of the special place they hold in our financial system.
The shadow Treasurer may want to sit there with no clothes on when it comes to issues like this because—
Honourable members interjecting—
It is a horrible thought! I apologise to the House at the suggestion of that image! But, at the same time, he represents a party that brought in a $12 billion mining tax that did not barely raise a sniffle. For that, they should hang their heads in shame.
I would like to inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon a delegation from the Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how the budget is providing greater support to older Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Bennelong for his continued interest in aged care.
Firstly, I want to announce that I have commissioned an external review of the failures and shortcomings that led to the unfortunate circumstances at Makk and McLeay at the Oakden older persons facility. What I want out of that is a report that has no fear or favour in identifying the shortcomings that allowed that context to prevail, because the Turnbull government is committed to a strong, effective aged-care sector.
Providing support to our older Australians is a high priority for government, and it was reflected within the 2017 budget. In the forward estimates we have allocated $99.3 billion to provide for the needs of older Australians living within residential care or those who choose to stay at home longer and enjoy the autonomy and independence that they have been used to over their years.
Recently, I announced a two-year extension of the Commonwealth Home Support Program of $5.5 billion. This provides for community transport, cleaning, personal care, allied health care, domestic assistance with cleaning and shopping, home maintenance and modifications. This means that 900,000 Australians will receive this support, provided and supported by 1,600 providers. An additional $3 million was provided to strengthen the My Aged Care platform. This will enable the enhancements to occur that will make access easier for professionals, for families who have loved ones considering aged care and, importantly, for people in rural and regional Australia.
There is the $2 million development of an industry-led workforce strategy, which will not only link with the needs of aged care but, in working with my colleague, Minister Porter, will also look at needs within the NDIS.
Additionally, the government is investing $33 million over three years to help service providers in the disability and aged-care sectors to grow their workforce. It will also harness existing employment services to match local jobs. It is an incredible area of growth but it is also an area in which we want the workforce that is projected for the future. We have a need of 366,000 workers in 2016, which will increase to 980,000 workers in 2050. In addition to that, 60,000 more full-time workers will be required by 2019 as the NDIS rolls out and the connected activity of the aged-care sector workforce complements the NDIS Integrated Market, Sector and Workforce Strategy.
The only issue facing the NDIS is Labor's ballooning funding gap of $55 billion over the next decade. Unlike Labor, the Turnbull government will fully fund the NDIS through a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the big four banks' disclosures to the Australian Stock Exchange show a $2 billion black hole in the bank tax. Does the Treasurer have any reason to believe these disclosures are inaccurate, given a false statement to the Australian Stock Exchange would be an offence under the Corporations Act?
I cast no aspersions on the banks. I cast none. They are making statements that I assume that they believe are fully accurate from their perspective. I assume they are, because that is what they are obliged to do. In this budget, which the shadow Treasurer seems to be struggling to read, he will find the estimates that the government has put forward which take into account the many other assumptions that are implicit in these types of estimates. So that is what is presented there.
But I have a piece of advice for the shadow Treasurer. He just needs to get over it. His mates at the big banks are going to be taxed. Get over it. Get on board. You say you support the tax; it is time to stump up.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is providing real needs based funding that is consistent across all states and territories and finally delivers on David Gonski's plan for schools? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I can advise the honourable member that all the 48 primary and secondary schools and the more than 23,000 students in her electorate of Chisholm will benefit from the government's record investment in schools. This is what my government is delivering for schools: fair needs based funding that is consistent across every state and territory and is transparent and people can see what they are going to get. They can see the basis of the funding. They do not have to worry or wonder about 27 secret deals done by the Leader of the Opposition in the Gillard government—stitching up one deal after another, heedless of whether it was consistent or fair, just trying to get another signature on another piece of paper. So far did he travel from the recommendation of David Gonski that Ken Boston himself, Gonski's co-panel member, described Labor's funding model as 'a corruption'—strong language.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce is warned.
His language shows how outraged they were.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is now warned.
Our funding model is sector blind. It means that government, Catholic and independent schools are all funded based on need. Every school can find out what the funding is. And it is a record funding level this year and every year: $17½ billion this year, increasing to $30.6 billion in 2027. That is an extra $18.6 billion over the decade. No wonder it has been well received, because it is seen to be exactly what it should be: fair, needs based, consistent and transparent. Of course, transparency is not a long suit of the Leader of the Opposition—as his former union members used to find out—but neither is consistency.
This is an opposition that, as we have seen, is trying to run a protection racket for the banks, which they claim to be wanting to bring to book. They will not fund the NDIS, which the Leader of the Opposition spoke so warmly and proudly about. He asked whether I had been at some meetings with him when he was the parliamentary secretary for disabilities. Not surprisingly, I was not accompanying him around the countryside. But I tell you the meeting he has failed to turn up to—it is the meeting of this parliament when we vote to fund the NDIS. That is the question. It is all very well to showboat and grandstand, but an honest leader, a fair dinkum leader, funds the promises he makes. He has not done— (Time expired)
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr Irons interjecting—
The member for Hughes and the member for Swan will cease interjecting.
Mr Irons interjecting—
The member for Swan is now warned.
My question is to the Treasurer. Morgan Stanley has said that the bank tax may only raise $1 billion in its first full year, and Deutsche Bank has said that the bank tax is likely to fall short of the $6.2 billion targeted in the budget. Treasurer, there is a $2 billion hole in your budget. How will the government fill it?
They can continue to run—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting and the member for Burt will leave under 94(a). The Treasurer has the call.
The member for Burt then left the chamber.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The member for Fenner can leave under 94(a) as well.
The member for Fenner then left the chamber.
I see the shadow Treasurer has enlisted from the opposition another member of the bank protection society for major banks. I would have thought the shadow finance minister would have been keeping his distance from the shadow Treasurer on this one, given he has been coveting his job the second he came into the role. So he has been enlisted in this program, and that will reflect poorly on him. Again, the only issue that is consuming the opposition is the poor old big banks that we have decided to tax—the poor old banks that benefit from the strong regulatory regime we have in this place, which ensures they have been able to maintain their credit rating. We have decided on behalf of the Australian taxpayer that they should be playing a bigger role in protecting not just the budget over the next budget and forward estimates but into the future, because we still have to fund schools, we still have to fund hospitals and we still have to fund Medicare. That goes well beyond just the budget and the forward estimates. So the forward estimates that are outlined in the budget are what the budget presents. That is a statement of obvious fact.
Those opposite have raised the issue of holes in funding. I note that the opposition continue to say that their funding promises depend on the full reversal of the Enterprise Tax Plan. They know that, to live up to that promise, they have to reverse the legislated tax cuts for small businesses. They have to drop the threshold for a small business from $10 million to $2 million. The shadow Treasurer should be up-front and tell people if he is going to increase taxes on small business in this country, because if he does not then he has a $25 billion black hole in his commitments.
Before I call the next questioner, I have made it very clear that the level of interjections is too high. The member for Braddon is warned. I remind the member for Rankin that he has been warned, as have the member for Sydney and numerous others. If it continues, they give me no option but to continue to eject people from question time, because I will always uphold the interests of members who are trying to participate in the debate and trying to listen to the proceedings.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please outline to the House the choice the government is making to deliver fair, needs based funding for all Australian schools, and will the Treasurer please outline the importance of fully funding our education commitments?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and I particularly thank him for the opportunity to join him in Brisbane last week to announce $120 million for the Deception Bay flyover. But right next to the Deception Bay overpass is Arethusa College. That college is an independent special assistance school in his electorate and their funding per student over the next decade will increase by 83 per cent as a result of the increase in school funding that we are providing in this budget. Later that day I was with the member for Forde; we were at the Shailer Park State High School. They have an increase of 60 per cent for the students in that school—some $6½ million dollars. The member for Robertson and I were in Gosford earlier that week. Both Gosford High School and Gosford Primary School have a 60 per cent increase in funding from the Commonwealth government, which is part of our $18.6 billion increase in funding for schools around the country.
It is based on a fairer and simpler model of genuine Gonski needs based funding—not the 27 special deals which were done by the Leader of the Opposition and others when they were in government, but a fair dinkum, simple process which lets the light in and lets every parent see the Commonwealth support that is flowing to their schools. In public schools we have already seen our support lift from 13.4 per cent of that needs based funding to 17 per cent, and it is on its way to 20 per cent—which will be there for every single public school in this country. We have made the right choice in this budget to support education and schools funding on a genuine needs based approach. The shadow Treasurer told his constituents in Fairfield back in 2015 in national Gonski week:
… Gonski is in our DNA. It is who we are.
It was his 'we are us' moment. It is certainly not in his DNA any longer, because the Labor Party are walking away from needs based Gonski funding in favour of their special deals.
My question is to the Treasurer. Disclosures to the Australian stock exchange, statements by Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank, and the Treasurer's refusal to give straight answers to basic questions all lead to one conclusion: there is a $2 billion hole in this budget. When will the Treasurer admit there is this black hole and what cuts will the Treasurer bring back to fill it?
He can run as hard down this dry gully as he likes, but it is a dry gully. The government has set out a very clear measure to tax the major banks, which will raise in the first year on a cash basis $1.4 billion—$1.2 billion, I should say—and $1.6 billion on accruals.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition is so across every figure—as is the shadow Treasurer—that he could not even remember what the tax-free threshold was! Our budget brings the balance back in 2021. That is what our budget does. What we inherited from those opposite was a fiscal mess. We had expenditure growing at more than 3½ per cent a year; under this government we brought it down to below two per cent. From 2018-19, for the first time in a decade, we will no longer as a Commonwealth government be borrowing money to pay for everyday expenditure. Those opposite racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt simply to pay for everyday expenditure. Those opposite racked up deficits of $240 billion. We inherited a baked-in surplus on this side of the House. We inherited a baked-in deficit with baked-in spending but we are bringing the budget back to balance. On the issue of budget credibility, on the issue of financial management and on the issue of bringing the budget back to balance, those opposite promised the four surpluses that the member for Lilley said he delivered. No-one ever found them, Swannie; they were not there.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer will refer to members the by their correct titles. And yes, he can.
What about Albo?
The member for Corangamite will leave under 94(a).
The member for Corangamite then left the chamber.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action taken by the government to secure our borders and secure our nation? What immigration and border protection measures have been put in place to keep Australians safe?
I thank the honourable member for his question and for the very serious interest he takes in making sure that, like all members in this House, we keep every Australian as safe as humanly possible. The reality is that no peacetime government has committed more resources to national security than this government. We have secured our borders. It has now been over 1,032 days since we have had a successful boat arrival. I want to commend all of the officers within the Australian Border Force and those members of Operation Sovereign Borders who have kept our country safe and kept our borders secure.
We have also embedded Counter Terrorism Unit officers at our eight international airports. There are indeed more than 100 CTU trained officers deployed across airports operating international sectors. CTU interventions have resulted in the cancellation of passports and prevented the travel of minors to conflict areas. This is of particular concern to all Australians, particularly when we see what is playing out around the world in terms of foreign fighters returning to our country. I want to reassure all Australians that we are putting every assistance into providing support to our CTU officers working in concert with those officers of the Australian Federal Police and our intelligence agencies as well. It means that in 2016-17 the CTU teams conducted over 206,000 real-time assessments.
We have invested in intelligence capabilities to prevent potential threats from ever reaching our shores, and I am very proud of the fact that in this budget we announced $60 million to significantly upgrade biometric collection, processing, matching and data sharing capabilities. It builds on the previous $99 million investment into a new visa risk assessment capability, which will provide early identification of visa applicants who may pose a threat to national security and our way of life. The fact is that the Turnbull government will never stop working to keep Australians safe, and our government will always take whatever action is necessary to protect Australian families and the Australian way of life.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for McMahon from moving the following motion forthwith—
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) both Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank have advised the bank tax is likely to fall short of forecasts in the Budget;
(b) yesterday in Question Time, the Treasurer used a figure to defend his bank tax which represents only 9 months of payments against the full 12 month figure reported by the banks;
(c) the big four banks have reported the bank tax will raise $965 million over 12 months;
(d) the Budget clearly states the bank tax will raise $1.6 billion over 12 months;
(e) this leaves a significant shortfall in the bank tax, blowing a $2 billion black hole in the Budget over four years; and
(f) the Treasurer sought to mislead this House about the bank tax and his $2 billion black hole; and
(2) calls on the Treasurer to:
(a) admit there is a $2 billion black hole in the Budget because of his incompetence;
(b) admit he sought to mislead the House about his $2 billion black hole;
(c) come clean by immediately releasing the bank tax legislation and explaining how he intends to fill the $2 billion black hole he has blown in the Budget; and
(d) apologise to every Member of this House for his underhanded attempts to mislead them.
I have called the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has moved that the member for McMahon be no longer heard. Is that correct? Yes.
Mr Burke interjecting—
No, I did give him the call, but the member for McMahon kept yelling at the top of his voice. I am sorry you could not hear it, but you had better deal with it in-house down there on your front bench. The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. An incompetent Treasurer is the banks' best friend. It is exactly what they want.
The Leader of the House has the call. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under standing order 94(a). I am trying to address the House.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on both sides!
Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government is driving growth in the agricultural sector by opening new transport corridors, such as inland rail? And is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative policies that jeopardise the significance of this infrastructure?
I thank the honourable member for his question. And, might I say, what a great program the inland rail is, and I understand all the horticultural production in your area and the great assistance all those containers will be—200,000 container a year that will be able to be moved on the inland rail, the great commerce that will be moved to the western districts, that great vision for the nation that has been provided for us by a government that can actually put the money on the table for this. We will see the growth in places such as Goondiwindi, Parkes, Moree, Narrabri and Wodonga. We will see the benefit to Brisbane and the benefit to Melbourne. We will see this because we are a government of vision, a government that delivers.
You rightly asked the question about whether there are any alternative policies. Well, who would know? See, the shadow minister for transport is not allowed to speak in this place. The shadow minister for transport is now politically mute. He has got himself a new tie and a new suit, but he cannot speak. I think they must have put an embargo on him. The poor old shadow minister for transport is being stopped from speaking his mind. We had a look at it the other day and we said that Mr Shorten was a bit worried about Mr Shorten's Praetorian Guard of supporters—
The Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Okay: the member for Maribyrnong is now being protected by a Praetorian Guard. Now, you have to be a bit careful of Praetorian Guards. Praetorian Guards can be a bit dangerous. Caligula got knocked off by his Praetorian Guard; they put in Claudius. So did Commodus, so did Caracalla, so did Pupienus and so did Elagabalus. So, you have to be bit careful of your Praetorian Guards. I checked out who his Praetorian Guard is. Well, the 2IC of his Praetorian Guard is the member for Sydney, so we had a bit of look—
Opposition members interjecting—
He speaks!
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler on a point of order.
The question was about inland rail, agriculture and freight. Given that the rail line does not go to the port but stops 84 kilometres short—
The member for Grayndler will come to his question.
he might want to address that.
Just before I call the Deputy Prime Minister, I do point out that the question asked a number of things. He is comparing and contrasting, but he is moving into territory that the question did not ask.
We looked for the alternative policies, and the 2IC of the Praetorian Guard said—talking about a leak—that the fact that a friendly conversation between colleagues with different views makes it to the paper shows how little we talk about what happens in shadow cabinet. Now, I believe that if something makes it into the paper it probably says that you are talking about what is happening in shadow cabinet. But I would have a look through his Praetorian Guard. The member for Watson is in the Praetorian Guard. No worries there; he is polling at eight per cent. The member for McMahon—ditto. But then I saw that Senator Sam Dastyari is in his Praetorian Guard—uh-oh! Be careful of that one. He reminds me of Emperor Pertinax. You know what happened to him: they sold off his emperorship. I reckon, mate, if you have a Praetorian Guard, you need a Praetorian Guard. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
There is some gravity attached to this issue, and I advised the Leader of the House that I wanted to raise it and the manner in which I wanted to raise it. Moments such as what we had in the parliament this morning are of great import, and the unity of the chamber is a very important part of those moments. I am quite sure you were not responsible for the organisation of the issue I am going to raise, but I simply want to draw it to your attention, as there was a ceremony in advance of the speeches here within the House, which I believe has potentially had an effect on the dignity of the House itself. I do not want to raise it in a way that causes anyone who travelled long distances to be here today to feel in any way that the moment was less than what it was.
For reasons which you may be able to find out—or there may be a way for other members to bring to our attention as a result of this question—invitations to government members to that ceremony went out at around a quarter to eight in the morning, or something of that order. Invitations to the opposition, for most members of the opposition, never arrived. Given the nature of what we were dealing with this morning, I might add that that includes the member for Barton, who was not counted in the census until she was 10. She was not invited to the ceremony that was part of the lead-in to the proceedings in this chamber.
I raise it with you not with respect to your administrative functions, because, as I understand, all the administrative roles that you play as Speaker, involving people being seated in the House and everything that you are required to do, were done exactly as is appropriate. But it is important for the country that moments like this morning can be moments of genuine unity. If there is a way, in your role of protecting the dignity of the House, to advance it so that invitations are properly given and that everybody is able to show to Australia how unified we are on these issues, I believe it is good for all involved, better for the parliament and better for the country.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Given the significance of the day, I have heard him at length. I thank him for the way in which he raised it. With respect to the arrangements, arrangements within the building lie with the event organisers. As Speaker, my role is to give various approvals. In this case they fell into three categories. One was to agree to the guests on the floor of the chamber and in the Speaker's gallery up there, which was done. The other is, whenever there is use of the private areas, to give that approval, which was given. The third is a waiving of the media rules if that request is made. That is the extent of my involvement.
When you talk about matters within the parliament, obviously within the House I have a responsibility, but when functions are happening throughout the building, as I said, it really does lie with those organising them. I appreciate the manner in which the Manager of Opposition Business has raised this, and I hope that my answers clarify that for his perspective and for all members.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government cutting $22 billion from Australian schools over 10 years.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr Speaker, thank you for your advice on that other issue just a moment ago. We do appreciate that.
It is incredible, isn't it, that we have had another question time today with a government that refuses to say that it has a $2 billion black hole at the heart of this budget, and a Prime Minister who, despite repeated questions from the opposition, cannot say the figure $22 billion, cannot name the cut that he is making to schools funding. Do you know what? If the Prime Minister cannot say it out loud, you only need to read the briefing document from his office, circulated to journalists and others when this announcement was made. This is the briefing document that gives the lie to the government's argument about school funding. This is the document that will tell you that their new school deal is not fair, is not needs based and is not sector blind. You do not have to go to our figures or our campaigning or even to the state ministers' or anybody else's; it is the government's own document that damns them as cutting $22.3 billion from schools. It has it right here in black and white: $22.3 billion over 10 years. It says, 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' So it is not fair. It is not fair, because this government has also provided a table about school funding year by year, and what that table tells us is that there is an average of $2 billion cut from school funding every year from 2017 to 2027. It is not fair, because it also includes an adjustment fund. Why do you need adjustment fund if there are no cuts? If you are spending $19 billion extra, why do you need an adjustment fund? Well, there is a $40 million adjustment fund, but it makes it very clear that these adjustment funds are temporary.
Guess what else? It says right here that they are paid outside the model. Does that mean that there will be special deals? They are paid outside the model. I will tell you what else this document tells you. The government's own document tells you that this is not sector-blind funding. In fact, this is sector-specific funding, because, while the government will pay up to 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools—it says right here, '80 per cent of the funding standard for the non-government sector'—guess what? For public schools, it says, '20 per cent of the funding standard for the government sector.'
Who says that this government should pay 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools and 20 per cent for public schools? No-one says that. It is certainly not, as my colleague points out, in the Gonski review—nowhere near it. In fact, what Labor did is what the review recommended, which is say that we will fund every school in every state and territory in every sector up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, plus loadings. That is what sector blind means. It means that needy schools—whether they are independent, Catholic or public—get up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. And, as we put in extra funding, we expected the states to do the same. We would put in two thirds while the states put in a third. What does this mob say about efforts from the states and territories? Nothing. They say that they will take responsibility for 20 per cent of funding for government schools, and what the states do to get their schools closer to the Schooling Resource Standard is a problem for them.
The government's new school deal is also, of course, not needs based. The proof of that is also in this document. When you look at the table that tells you about indexation in different states, guess who does the worst? The Northern Territory, which has the poorest kids and the worst NAPLAN results—kids who are really struggling in small and remote schools—get the lowest indexation. They get 1.6 per cent per annum on average, which does not even keep pace with inflation in schools. They get the worst deal. Guess who gets the second worst deal? Tasmania get the second worst deal, with the second poorest kids.
If this was such a great deal, if this was actually $19 billion of extra funding, you would have the state education ministers rushing out, excited to get that extra money for their schools. Do they support this? No, they do not. Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, the Northern Territory and WA have all said it is terrible.
In fact, the only government that has welcomed it is Tasmania, and who would know why? I mean, honestly, who would know, when they are losing $85 million from their schools over the next two years, why they would welcome this. Who knows! Could it be because they are a coalition government that does not care about schoolchildren? You would have to assume: yes. One of the strongest state governments on this has been the New South Wales coalition government, saying that this robs their kids of $850 million over the next two years alone—that they were expecting hundreds of millions of dollars in extra support for their schools.
So why are the state governments not rushing out for this extra $19 billion of funding? Because it is a cut. Why are the Catholic systemic schools not rushing out, excited to get the extra funding promised to them by the coalition government? Because it is a cut.
The only place where it pretends that this is an increase is in the dodgy calculator of those opposite—the dodgy calculator that Mark Scott, the head of the New South Wales education department, has said you cannot trust, and that the Catholic system has said you cannot trust. The only place where it says this is an increase for your school is in their dodgy calculator that takes as a baseline the funding level that includes Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, ripping $30 billion out of schools. Well, if you rip $30 billion out, and then you decide not to rip $30 billion but just $22 billion out, your baseline looks a bit better, doesn't it, if you are using a $30 billion cut for a baseline?
I know I have shared this story before, but my brother, when my parents would say, 'Turn that bloody music down!' would go and turn it up, and then he would turn it down and he would go, 'See? I've turned it down.' If you change the baseline and you think you are going to fool people—well, he did not fool us, I can tell you! But that is what those opposite are trying to do: to change the baseline and use that to fool people.
I will tell you what shocks me most about this: those opposite refusing to defend the kids in their electorates. They are refusing point blank to defend the children in their electorates. The electorate of Parkes loses $43 million over the next two years alone, based on New South Wales government figures. The electorate of Riverina loses $23 million. The electorate of New England loses $26 million. These are big figures—they are bigger, actually, than kids in my electorate of Sydney lose, because they have got more need in those big regional areas. They have got more kids facing educational disadvantage. The electorate of Page loses $23,896,671 over those two years, including $1.6 million from the Rivers Secondary College and 1.3 million from Casino Public School—I could go through, school by school. The electorate of Banks loses nearly $12 million over the next two years, including $1.2 million from Beverly Hills Girls High and $506,000 from Peakhurst Public School.
As to Victoria: the member for Chisholm should not have put her head up today; the children in the member for Chisholm's electorate face cuts of $9.7 million over the next two years, including $1.3 million from Mount Waverley Secondary College. Oh, and the Aurora School, supporting deaf and deaf-blind children and their families, are facing a cut of $600,000. Do those opposite not know or do they not care? Do they not know or do they not care about these funding cuts? They should be ashamed to come in here with those sorts of cuts. (Time expired)
Whilst I am delighted to be speaking on today's MPI and the coalition government's reforms to school education, I am disappointed that I am not here discussing vocational education and that we are not having an MPI on vocational education—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will not debate while he is walking around the chamber.
because it is certainly an issue that is of importance to the coalition government, and I do hope that in the future we will be in here discussing vocational education during an MPI because we have a fantastic story to tell about vocational education here in Australia.
Can I also say that the coalition government does not see education in discrete lots. We actually see education as an education highway—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned.
where people are able to embark on education through early childhood, through school and into vocational education and higher education. So I am very keen to discuss in detail vocational education, but today we are here to discuss schools, and I am very happy to put on the record, yet again, some very important facts.
The coalition government is going to commit an additional $18.6 billion for Australia's schools over the next decade, starting from 2018, and it is going to be distributed according to a model that is fair, needs based and transparent. Under what is clearly a landmark in school reforms, the Quality Schools reforms, Commonwealth funding for Australian schools is going to grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. This includes more than $2.2 billion in new funding over the first four years to be included in this year's budget, following on from an additional $1.2 billion in last year's budget. It is a record $242.3 billion that will be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 through to 2027, including $81.1 billion over the period 2018 to 2021.
We are going to do a number of things with our reforms, but, critically, we are going to end Labor's 27 special deals with states and territories, unions and the non-government school sector. The changes we are making are going to ensure that all of our schools and states transition to an equal Commonwealth share of the resource standard in a decade, unlike the 150 years of inequity that current arrangements would entail.
There are quite a few stats that I would like to go through today that are important in the context of this debate to make it very clear that states and territories are responsible for the overall quality of school education in their jurisdictions and also the major funder of schools, providing around 66 per cent of total public funding in 2014. At the sector level, current government funding—Commonwealth, state and territory—accounts for 94 per cent of funding for government schools, 73 per cent for Catholic schools and 42 per cent for independent schools. All schools receive funding from the Australian government and from state and territory governments. Over the last decade, Australian government per student funding for government schools has been growing faster than state and territory government funding. Government funding per student, recurrent funding, to government schools increased by 72.4 per cent in real terms over the 10 years to 2014-15, while comparable state and territory funding grew by only 9.4 per cent over the same period.
Those on the other side are often keen to talk about funding for individual schools. So I took the opportunity to have a look at the funding for the electorate of Sydney. The electorate of Sydney has 23 government schools with 6,664 students and four Catholic schools and 13 independent schools—totalling 40 schools with 14,072 students. I looked at the government school statistics for each school and at what the total Commonwealth funding over the period 2018 to 2027 was. For the government sector, Ultimo Public School receives $8,402,600, Conservatorium High School receives $5,917,700, Darlington Public School receives $7,229,700, and Burke Street Public School receives $9,812,200.
They sound like increases.
It is actually a $2,324,200 increase for Burke Street Public School. Crown Street Public School receives $7,858,900—that is a $1,860,900 increase; Darlinghurst Public School receives $8,474,300; Plunkett Street Public School receives $1,793,400; Gardeners Road Public School receives $10,399,200; Forest Lodge Public School receives $8,817,600; Alexandria Park Community School receives $22,583,500; Newtown High School of the Performing Arts receives $35,112,800; Glebe Public School receives $7,439,300; Australia Street Infants School receives $3,939,700; Newtown North Public School receives $7,428,900; Newtown Public School receives $11,064,700; Erskineville Public School receives $9,986,800; Lord Howe Island Central School receives $2,189,800, which is actually within that sector; Bridge Road School receives $3,156,500; Sydney Distance Education Primary School, based in Surrey Hills, receives $8,026,800; Sydney Distance Education High School receives $18,120,000; Fort Street Public School receives $5,253,200; Cleveland Street Intensive English High School receives $8,647,400 and Green Square School receives $2,956,300. All of those schools will have significant increases in their school funding as a result of the reforms that this government has put forward in the education sector in schools.
Many people have raised concerns in the past and have indicated that this government does not have the ability to pass legislation through the Senate, but that is not true because we have been able to pass quite contentious legislation through the Senate. I am very confident that the schools reform package that we have put to the parliament will be passed in the House and also by the Senate. I am confident about that because I am confident that the crossbench will understand that the schools are going to be better off under the proposals that we have put forward.
Once we have resolved the funding issues we can then move forward and discuss the issues of quality education and ensure that every dollar that we put into our schools is well spent and results in a significant high-quality-outcome education for our students. We on this side of the House have said many times, and the coalition government has been very clear, that we are focused on a quality education outcome for all students across Australia. The proposal that has been put together by the minister has been well received throughout very large sections of our community, and particularly throughout the education sector. There is endorsement after endorsement that we have been able to put forward.
You're cutting everything! You cut schools, TAFE and universities!
The member for Chifley has already been warned!
The last time education was discussed in the MPI, I was able to make very clear the high number of endorsements that we had received and I read those onto the transcript. Unfortunately, I did not have time to conclude my list. There were multiple endorsements that I could have read out but time did not enable me to do that. But I am happy to continue, because I am very sure that those opposite will put up another MPI and totally ignore the vocational education sector.
It is a sad day when we have to get up here and debate something we buried the hatchet on in 2013. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, we all recall the bunting, the posters and the advertising messages which clearly said: 'Us too! Us too! We're part of Gonski!' We worked out a system for the first time in the history of Australia where schools were funded on a needs basis. In other words, schools were looked at and assessed and we ensured that there was enough funding to deal with any shortfalls to ensure children had the right start to life so they could go on and do bigger and better things.
To see the government today rehashing something they did not agree with back in 2013, but for the sake of an election decided to do the 'Us too! Us too!' thing and put out their advertising and bunting and campaigned on it to win votes to be able to win government, is a disgrace. What they have done now is reneged on that promise of 2013.
We put more money in!
If I were the member for Aston, I would not talk too loudly. In his electorate alone there are over $8.3 million in cuts to schools, one of them being the Rowville Secondary College, which alone loses $1.5 million. That is one $1.5 million from that community and that school.
We know, and everyone around the world knows, that one of the levers we have to change someone's life for the better is through education. We have seen so many people that had a start in life living through poverty, through bad luck and through a whole range of things. Because of determinations of governments, of parents and of communities, they have been able to put people through schooling to change their entire lives and their entire generation. We saw this is the early years of public education here in Australia. We saw this when we had the Gough Whitlam government, when we had free education for universities. It gave people the opportunity to go and get a degree when they had previously had absolutely no hope under conservative governments.
The government is not interested in education. They can dress it up, they can package it, they can paint it, they can put lipstick on it and they can put a bow tie on it, but the reality is that when you add up the sums there is a $22 billion cut to education in Australia. That is fine. If the government want to make a cut, that is fine. Be up-front. Be honest. Come out and say, 'We're making these cuts in order to fund X, Y and Z.' Perhaps there is a shortfall in health and we need that money and it is urgent. That is fine; we will debate it. But, through you, Deputy Speaker, do not give us this story that you are not cutting and that you are putting more money into it when we truly know that the $22 billion is taken out of education to make up the sum for the $65 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in Australia. There is no reasoning for us to be doing such a thing as to take $22 billion out of our schools and communities—funding that is there to assist and build the foundations for those students to go on and change their lives—in order to give a $65 billion tax cut to Australia's richest people. That is not on.
We on this side do not believe in that. We believe that children should have every opportunity to better themselves and to get an education, and also that schools should have the facilities, the teachers, the abilities and the resources they require for some students that perhaps are falling behind or, for whatever reason, are not up to standard. That is why we need to be able to build those foundations in those early years to give those children that opportunity to go ahead and change their lives. Together with that, we are changing the world. Deputy Speaker, when you give someone a good education you are changing the world. Along with a better life for them, with a collective we are changing the world to be a better place.
This was funding under Labor's plan. Under the plan this government agreed to in 2013, this was funding that needed to go to students who needed extra support, in some cases, for numeracy and literacy and to help teachers support students with additional needs. There is still no detail. This is what I cannot understand. We have not seen clear funding detail from this government to this point. (Time expired)
We had that great film, Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray. That is Groundhog Day, the film. We have now had, I understand, Groundhog Day, the musical by Tim Minchin. Today we have seen 'groundhog day, the parliamentary motion' from the member for Sydney. We got a bit of a flavour of this from the assistant minister when she was talking about how little we have heard about vocational education from those opposite. By my count, in this parliament alone, the member for Sydney has moved six MPIs, two private members' motions, one censure motion and seven questions on notice about education funding. In the last parliament, the member for Adelaide moved 10 MPIs, asked nine questions on notice, and made speeches on one grievance debate, one 90-second statement and one adjournment debate all on the question of funding.
Nobody is saying that school funding is not important. But, absolutely, the most important issue in school education is school performance. We have a terrible situation where we are declining in our performance in literacy and numeracy. We are having no discussion from those opposite about performance quality or results.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The member for Lindsay is warned.
I have looked high and low to find a motion on these matters, and you just cannot find it. When we are being beaten by countries like Kazakhstan and Slovenia one has to ask the question: what are we doing about quality and performance? On this side of the House, we are doing something about quality and performance. That is why we have commissioned Ken Boston and David Gonski to do the Gonski 2.0 inquiry, where they are reviewing teaching and learning strategies, and where they want to do something to reverse the declining results and to raise the performance of schools and students. They are going to produce their final report by the end of 2017 in time for negotiations with the states and territories in relation to the next agreement.
It is to be hoped that those opposite treat Gonski 2.0 better than they have treated Gonski 1.0. We have had this long series of funding fallacy motions from those opposite. You do not have to believe me; you do not have to believe conservative think tanks. You can believe the ABC Fact Check, which said, on these matters: 'Labor is sprouting rubbery figures.' This so-called $22 billion cut never existed. If you believed that Labor was going to spend $22 billion more on education funding, you would believe that they would have also delivered us a surplus. They kept promising to deliver surpluses, and we never got them.
Labor has had many opportunities to support the Gonski program. But when they will be given the opportunity to vote for sector-blind, needs-based, transparent funding, as they will be shortly, they are going to vote against it. The vote against it is to vote against Gonski. Here is what David Gonski himself said at the announcement of the government's funding plan. This is the person that the Labor Party chose to do the funding review. This is the person that the Labor Party and the trade unions plastered over every school, every train station and every available piece of public land in everyone's electorate. This is what Mr Gonski had to say about our proposals in relation to funding.
… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.
… … …
… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.
… … …
… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …
That is a ringing endorsement from David Gonski. If you are going to support the Gonski funding model, you have to support the proposals that we have put forward here.
The truth is the coalition is actually delivering record funding in education and record funding for schools. A record $242.3 billion will be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81.1 billion over 2018 to 2021. Funding in schools will grow from a record $17½ billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. Funding will grow faster than broader economic growth, with total Commonwealth funding growing by approximately 75 per cent over the next 10 years and funding per student growing at an average of 4.1 per cent per year.
I plead with those opposite: this is the best chance that we have for transparent, sector-blind, needs-based funding. I ask them to join with us on this side of the House and to give a Gonski.
Today, in question time the Prime Minister commenced with the statement: 'It is unjust, inconsistent and a betrayal of what David Gonski intended.' Well, doesn't he need to go to the house of mirrors and have a good hard look! That is exactly what this second dud version of Gonski is. He also said today—and it is really interesting when you listen to the Prime Minister's language, as it is very telling: 'Labor needs to say whether they would fund it.' Do you know what the answer is? We would and we will. This government is cutting $22 billion out of Australian schools—there is no denying it. You cannot make a promise—'not a dollar difference'—and then say: 'No, no, we changed our mind. We're not going to fund it now, but we will give you this, and it is an increase.' Well, it is an increase when you cut it—it really is—but it is not a true increase.
In the Hunter region, my region, in the next two years $23 million will be ripped out of schools. This is a region where youth unemployment is amongst the highest in the country. We hear from those on the other side: 'This is not $22 billion in cuts—Labor is making it all up. It was never there in the first place.' Well, the money was there; it is there. It is a matter of priorities. Those on the other side do not want to properly fund education. What have members said today? 'It is the parents' responsibility to fund education.' This is about priorities. You do not want to fund education, and that is the bottom line.
This government is cutting $22 billion from Australian schools. Nobody on this side of the House or in public schools in my electorate is fooled. We know it is a cut, because the government said it was a cut in its own briefing papers to journalists. We know it is a cut, because the states and territories signed up for a six-year agreement under the original Gonski plan and we have two years to go. Those agreements have been signed. They are in place. That money was budgeted for by schools. As for making it up, go and talk to the principals in my electorate. They were not making it up when they signed up for it.
If this government is serious about education, it will drop its ludicrous Gonski 2.0, lame duck, second-rate plan and honour the original, genuine Gonski plan that it signed up for. 'Not a dollar difference'—how short is your memory? The money is there; it is just priorities. This government must prioritise school funding that actually and adequately meet the needs of every Australian schoolchild. In my electorate, nine schools will lose more than $1 million each. One school will lose close to $2 million in the next two years. You would not know it, but they have done a fantastic job with this shonky, rogue algorithm, schools-funding estimator—what a dodgy deal that is! The estimator only shows the funds the government will give to the schools in the next two years. It does not show what the government is tearing up in these Gonski agreements and what it will take away.
In my state the Department of Education data sets those two figures side-by-side. So, if you want some decent data and some evidence, go and have a look at those figures. It says what the government will give schools and what the government will take away. Do the arithmetic. There is the difference. No-one should be fooled. This government has the hide to call this budget fair, when our most disadvantaged students will miss out on funds. School principals know it—they know it when they receive their letters from this education ministers spruiking about extra money. They know he is not telling the whole story, that he has totally ignored the fact that the money that was promised will not be delivered, and that a lesser, paltry amount will be delivered in its place.
Two schools in my electorate show just what can be achieved when proper, genuine, original Gonski funding money comes to the party. Kurri Kurri High has employed a teacher to work with Aboriginal students. They have improved their writing results by 200 per cent. They have employed an experienced HSC marker to work with every individual HSC student, resulting in twice as many band 5s and far fewer students not finishing. These are really critical, important markers that we should be looking at.
We should not be bickering about this money in this House. This government should pay up and back our kids so that they may receive the excellent education that, firstly, they are desperately entitled to but, secondly, they deserve.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak out against the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney, and to speak in support of the coalition government's education reforms. The fact is simply that there are no cuts to the amount that the federal government provides to schools. We have seen a positive trend in combined Commonwealth funding for schools in recent years. From 2017 to 2027, the funding for schools across all sectors is due to increase by a sector average of 53 per cent.
There are 27,909 students studying in my electorate of Dunkley, and on average the funding for each student is set to increase by $6,557 over the next 10 years. This increase is forecast to bring total Commonwealth funding for Dunkley schools to $1.25 billion over the next decade. All 51 schools in my electorate of Dunkley will be getting an increase in funding. I know it must be a disappointment to those on the opposition bench but, contrary to their claims of cuts of $22 billion over the next 10 years, the Turnbull coalition government is in fact increasing funding to schools nationwide by $18.6 billion, which leaves the member for Sydney's calculations out by over $40 billion.
On Monday evening I joined with the Minister for Education and many others, including four principals from schools in my electorate—Flinders Christian Community College, and its various campuses, and Bayside Christian College—for the Christian Schools National Policy Forum here at Parliament House. These principals—Nick Haines, Cameron Pearce, Andrew Watts and Chris Pryor—were all very pleased with the funding changes and the transparency and consistency of the new funding model, which ensures fairer, needs-based funding for our education sector. Like the other 49 schools in my electorate, both Flinders Christian Community College and Bayside Christian College will receive increases to their funding over the next decade. In particular, funding for Flinders Christian Community College will go up by $715,400 next year, with a total increase of nearly $43 million by 2027. Funding for Bayside Christian College will go up by $230,900 next year, with an increase of over $14 million by 2027.
The reception from the community in Dunkley has been overwhelmingly positive in response to the school funding changes. I would refer those who find themselves doubting the positive impact it has had for over 9,000 schools Australia wide to the answer the Prime Minister gave in question time on Monday, where he quoted the delighted comments of the principal of Bayside Christian College in my electorate in a letter he wrote to me on Monday. Returning to the member for Sydney's assertions: despite her insistent claims of what the opposition would do if they were in government, they need to explain to the country why they have chosen to play politics with the funding of 9,000 schools across the country rather than to vote with the government to increase their funding.
I note that our nine Catholic schools in Dunkley will also be getting increased funding, noting that block funding is given to the Catholic Education Commission in each state to redistribute as they see fit, as has always happened. Indeed, Catholic schools in Victoria will be getting a 3.5 per cent increase over the next four years in annual average per student funding. In my electorate next year John Paul College will get a funding increase of over $350,000, Padua College will get an increase of over $770,000, St Anne's School in Seaford will get an increase of over $48,000, St Francis Xavier School will get an increase of nearly $60,000, St John's School will get an increase of over $91,000 and St Macartan's School will get an increase of over $154,500. And there are three other schools in my electorate that I should also mention will be getting an increase next year. St Jude's School in Langwarrin will get an increase of over $81,000, St Augustine's in Frankston will get an increase of over $88,000 and St Thomas More Catholic School will get an increase of over $71,500.
Members opposite continue to make comments which astound me, and they choose to deny the benefits that these education reforms provide to people in my electorate. So I would ask that they support these reforms of the government.
( I am a mum with three children, all in primary school, and this year my youngest has started kindergarten. With this budget, I am absolutely livid that this government will take away $22 billion from education, from schools, from my kids' future, from the needs that they will have as they move through their education. It is quite astonishing that the member for Dunkley says there are no cuts. Those opposite have to look at the government's own documents—their own paper admits to the cuts. They call it a savings, but we call it a cut. They are the same thing. So, please admit that that is what it is.
Under Labor the Schooling Resource Standard for all schools and all systems in Tasmania would be at 95 per cent by 2019. That standard ensures there is the funding needed to give every child a quality education but now, under this government, that standard goes down to 20 per cent for public schools. What happens to the rest? In Tasmania, the Tasmanian schools in every sector will lose $85 million over the next two years—$68 million from Tasmanian public schools. I want to read out a quote from the Australian Education Union:
Instead of the $100 million our schools would receive under our six-year signed agreement, the Federal Government is offering just $16.5 million to the 2018/19 financial year.
It is $16.5 million when they should have got $100 million. On the night of the budget the Premier of Tasmania celebrated the federal budget, celebrated these cuts to Tasmanian schools. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said before, he is the only Premier in the whole of this country who is agreeing to these cuts to his own schools. It will be very exciting to see what the Tasmanian state budget delivers tomorrow for education. How is a state like Tasmania going to make up for this shortfall? How are they going to meet the 95 per cent of the resource standard? The Tasmanian state education minister, who is a state member in my electorate, said that the axing of the Gonski $100 million that I referred to before 'will condemn generations of Tasmanians to educational disadvantage'. This is the state education minister, but the Premier is saying, 'Well, this is fantastic—we really do need a $68 million cut to Tasmanian public schools!' The $85 million cut to all Tasmanian schools over the next two years will mean larger class sizes, reduced numeracy and literacy support and less individual attention, and a reduction in support services like counsellors, school psychologists and speech pathologists—all those supports that do give real meaning to needs based funding. One of my schools, Ulverstone High School, wrote to me to tell me about what the additional funding under this agreement has meant to their school:
The additional funding has enabled our School to provide extra support for students in Literacy and Numeracy through support staff working in classes with students and providing extra support for disengaged students. The implementation of 1:1 devices for all students is underpinned by the extra funding that the School has been able to access to provide all students with access to technology.
Is that going to continue under these cuts? Is the state government going to make up the difference and ensure that the kids at Ulverstone High School will get the funding they need for extra resources for numeracy and literacy? We will see tomorrow, in the state budget, but I am certain that that will never happen.
The Catholic schools are also very worried. I have met with the Catholic Education Office in Tasmania a couple of times in the last week. They are very concerned that the federal government is not giving them any information so they can inform their families what these cuts mean for them. Here are the government, the parties that say parents need to have a choice in education, and now they are forcing parents to make that choice based on funding. Schools in Tasmania are low fee schools. Fees range from $1,000 to $2,000 per year, and this government is putting that situation at risk and will close those schools down.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other speakers try to bluff their way through the mythology of funding for our schools. Back in 2013 we committed to meet the forward budget education commitments of four years. The fifth and sixth year of funding were never budgeted for. The first four were funded, and we increased the investment by $1.2 billion to cover the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government shortfall. With this budget, a further $2 billion will be invested over 2018 to 2021, which brings the total to $18.6 billion. I am sure I heard that Labor made a commitment to fund all students to 95 per cent. Where on earth was that money going to come from, when the Labor source of funding originally was supposed to be raised by the minerals resource rent tax? And what a dud that turned out to be.
I also heard about funding for Northern Territory schools, so let's just check on two. Ampilatwatja School received $10,930 per student this year and will get $11,121 next year. Bradshaw Primary School students this year received $5,117 and next year will receive $5,207. For both of these it was a significant increase, but the first school I mentioned is a little bit more remote. Remoteness and being Indigenous actually gives them extra funding, and that is what is reflected in those numbers. The arguments that are being put forward by Labor are bizarre at best, dishonest at worst. They must support the amendments, or shame on them.
One school in my electorate has been featured, not for the amazing work they are doing but for the rubbish regarding funding. So let's put this funding in the context of reality. Nowra East Public School this year gets $3,528 per student and next year will get $3,707. Just around the corner, less than five kilometres away, another school gets only $2,640 and next year will get $2,774. That is needs based funding, because Nowra East is in a low-socioeconomic area. It is $1,000 difference per student for the principal to be able to apply to all the wonderful programs the school is doing.
We have a total combined Commonwealth and state and territory funding that has grown by 15.4 per cent per student over the last 10 years. Commonwealth funding has increased in real terms by 72.4 per cent for government schools and 25.7 per cent for non-government schools. While our funding has been growing, our results are not reflected in that increased investment. How much funding we provide is important, but what we do with it is what counts. Funding should go where it is needed most and should be used in ways that we know deliver results. But under the current funding arrangements that we inherited from the former government, funding for schools is based more on history and special deals than on actual need. States and territories were treated differently by Labor depending on what deal they could negotiate. It is not acceptable that the same student with the same needs currently gets a different level of funding from the Commonwealth depending on where they live. States and territories that had historically funded their schools were actually penalised under those deals.
I note that the previous speaker on this matter of public importance, who happened to be the member for Whitlam, who spends a fair whack of time in my electorate, has not actually discussed any of the schools in his own electorate. So, I have four examples here that he might want to take notice of. The first is Shellharbour Public School. This year they are getting $1,096,200. That is $2,298 per student. Next year they will get $1,151,700. That is $2,415 per student. That is an actual increase, well above CPI, so they can continue their great programs. Flinders Public School this year gets $1,305,700. Next year they will get $1,371,800. That is $2,481 per student. Dapto High School—which is actually quite an amazing high school; I went up there to have a look at their commercial kitchen—this year is getting $2,734,600. Next year they will get $2,873,100. That is quite a significant increase. But need I remind those on the other side that the Commonwealth government is not responsible for the state schools. Getting the funding up to 20 per cent for state schools is great—much better than where it is now—and we have a responsibility to do it. Let's get real about the funding model.
I would like to think that most members who come to this place appreciate the honour they have in representing their community and doing the best they can for the future, not only for their constituents but for all those within their respective communities. But when it comes to education, health and other issues—although this debate is about education—you have to start to look at not just what this government says but what this government does.
A number of faces I see here were here in 2013. We saw in the lead up to that election that the government obviously did some polling and worked out that, in terms of health and education, they could not have much division with Labor. When it came to education, the view from the then shadow minister was that there was not daylight between them and Labor and, therefore, if you voted Liberal you got the same deal as if you voted Labor. He said, 'We all subscribe to needs based education, so this is not a division; this is a unity ticket.' And what did they do? As soon as they got in, they tried to take $30 billion off that. They led with the view that there would be no cuts to education, not cuts to health and no cuts to pensions, but they moved on all those.
When it comes to education, I think we have to be realistic about it insofar as this is an investment. There is no question about it. I know the member for Gilmore says, 'This is not our problem; it's a matter for the states.' I will tell you what is our problem: investing in this country and in its future. The best way of investing in the future is through education. Not only does it give a ticket to opportunity for young people in the future but it also actually skills up these young people for the jobs of the future. By the way, that is our future as a country. I get concerned when we hear the explanation or the doubling down as to why this is not a $22 billion cut to education.
The Prime Minister was asked on repeated occasions today, 'If it is not $22 billion, what is the number between the Liberals policy on education and what Labor would deliver over the next 10 years?' Apart from the obfuscation that occurred, nothing really happened. They were not prepared to come out and say, '$22.3 billion,' but the PMO was quite happy to go out and circulate a briefing statement to all of our colleagues up in the press gallery to say, 'This is what it amounted to.' This is a key area of investment in this country. There are many key areas, but education is what we need if we want to be that smart, innovative nation for the future. Yet they are trying to double down. How do you get back out of this and call it a saving of $22 billion?
I am not in a habit of quoting Liberal state ministers, but I will on this occasion—Minister Rob Stokes in New South Wales. He made it very clear. He said:
We made sure we found the funds we needed to meet the obligations under the agreement we signed in good faith with the commonwealth government. We have funded the full six years of our agreement with the commonwealth.
He goes on to say:
… we have a deal with the commonwealth government and we expect that deal to be honoured.
If he cannot get a deal out of his liberal mates here in Canberra, I guess this guy cannot get a deal at all. The head of the NSW Department of Education, a senior public servant, says that the Commonwealth budget contains an increase of $820 million for New South Wales Schools but that there remained a shortfall of $1.8 billion in the existing agreement. That has been circulated at every school and to every PNC; every principal has that letter from Mark Scott, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Education.
Education should not be an issue that we are coming in here and debating about. I would have thought that all of us who have been the product of, hopefully, a decent education understand that it is the ticket to success in a country like ours. I have seen what it means for areas such as mine in Fowler. For those who are not aware, my electorate in southwestern Sydney is not a rich electorate. As a matter of fact, it is an electorate that is primarily made up of migrants, but the vast majority are refugees. We are actually slated to have the majority of the new refugees from Syria who come to New South Wales come to my electorate. Education is very, very big for those young people—kids for whom English is not a first language and kids who come from a war-torn, persecuted background. We expect a lot of our schools and a lot of our teachers, but this government has just turned its back on all of that.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I have not had the privilege of serving in this place for as long as you have, but I have been here long enough to remember those placards. 'Why do not you give a Gonski?' they used to say. I thought I might have a think about what that placard meant and what Gonski was calling for. Gonski was calling for a national school funding model. He asked that it be needs based. He said, importantly, it needed to be transparent. We have delivered a model which is national. We have delivered a model which is needs based. And, importantly, we have delivered a model that is transparent. And, on top of all of that, we have provided a model which is sector agnostic.
So, when I see those placards which a few of my colleagues across the way forgot to take down from the windows in their suites, I think, yes, we have given a Gonski. We have delivered the real Gonski. But they hate it. They absolutely hate it. In this modern Labor Party, what do you do when you have been outflanked by an agile and innovative coalition? You turn back to the tried and true misinformation campaigns. They are out there on penalty rates today. They are obviously out there on the NDIS. But in here in this place they are running the school scare campaign.
Let's have a think about the macroeconomic environment—$18.6 million more school funding. No matter which way you say it, that is more money. Those opposite say, 'We would provide even more!' But, just like the NDIS, it is unfunded. You can write a cheque if you do not have to cash it, and that is the problem for those opposite. You have to actually cash these cheques. We do not live in the fanciful world of writing a blank cheque and leaving it to someone else to worry about cashing it. Having spoken about the macro level, let's look at the micro level. Let's bring it back to the good people I have the privilege of representing in this place—110 schools; 25,236 students. Not 90 per cent, not 95 per cent, but every single school on that list receives more funding because we gave a Gonski. In 2017 it is a five per cent increase. Over the 10 years between 2017 to 2027, it is a 61.6 per cent increase. They are not cuts. They are real increases. It runs to hundreds of millions of dollars across these 110 schools in my electorate per year.
I am not the only one calling this fakedom out. To their credit, the Murray Pioneer,a newspaper in Renmark in my electorate, had this editorial headline: 'Funding 'cut' is fake news'. Who would have thought that those opposite would kind of be channelling the fake news theories? The school funding calamity is false. Editors and journalists in my electorate get it. The people of my electorate get it. When you get more of something, that is not a cut. That is an increase. If I get more apples, I have had more apples, not less apples. It is pretty simple. My daughter is seven and she has worked out this sort of addition and subtraction stuff out.
I do not think the last word should go to a politician or to editors—although, they do a great job in my electorate; a great shout-out to the people at the Murray Pioneer. I think the last word should go to an independent school. Rivergum Christian College principal Gregg Smith said: 'We are aware of a fierce campaign from some arguing against these reforms. We fundamentally disagree with those views. Our college, one of 125 Christian schools across Australia, is supportive of Gonski 2.0 reforms. Our support is not simply because we benefit from its successful implementation. In fact, we have six schools within our group who will suffer detriment. This is about what is best for all schools across all sectors in the long term. Our support is simply based on the fact that this is good policy.'
I present the Australian government response to the Productivity Commission report: Inquiry into regulation of the Australian marine fisheries and aquaculture sectors, May 2017.
Earlier, I was discussing just how bad the strategy of constantly repeating mistruth is. It is both insulting and deceitful for everyday Australians, and certainly confusing for parents everywhere, including those living in my electorate of Gilmore. I talked about the bubble of politics—the argy-bargy of debate that can be easily dissected into truth and false facts, or fake news, as some of my colleagues referred to. However, many parts of the media are not as savvy, and, clearly, from some of the debate today, neither are some of those in the opposition. Every member of the opposition over there is repeating the same fairy story. There was no funding for the fifth and sixth years of their proposed education funding. I believe this is a pretty shameful way to behave. Labor's 2013 election commitment to education was unfunded then, and it remains so, despite some Labor candidates stating that every dollar will be replaced. I ask: show me the money. Where is it coming from? No member of the shadow Labor ministry has confirmed this information is in fact truth. I wonder, does the shadow Treasurer know that the Labor team has committed to $22 billion? I imagine not. It will leave a massive, unfunded commitment.
Education funding is calculated using a really complicated model that has a reference to a base amount per student, plus loadings. Those loadings are put there to target schools and students of disadvantage, including those from lower socioeconomic areas, students with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and students with low English proficiency. There is also a consideration of school size and location. In my case, the New South Wales government has a different methodology, for which I cannot account. Commonwealth funding to government schools in New South Wales has been growing faster than the state funding. Under the coalition government, from 2014 to 2017, total funding to government schools in New South Wales has been $7.2 billion, an increase of 43.7 per cent, and the second largest increase across government schools in Australia. The future increase from 2015-16 through to 2020 will be an additional $563 million. Our funding growth means there is no reason schools cannot continue to support teachers with their new or existing initiatives, such as specialist teachers or intervention programs. Buildings, playground equipment and yard maintenance for government schools is actually the responsibility of the state government. Overall, the coalition government is growing investment in schools from $16 billion to $20.1 billion, on top of more than $14 billion the coalition has been delivering for regional and remote schools. There have not been and nor will there be any cuts to education funding in Gilmore.
However, there is a great deal more to education than having well-maintained buildings and increased funding: there is the quality of our teachers and their efforts in every way to help each and every child reach their individual potential. I know that the majority of our teachers love their work. They love the children that they teach. I acknowledge that. I have seen their work in action and the results they achieve.
The budget has committed future real funding for education, giving certainty. This is much preferred by parents and teachers, rather than some dreamlike, nebulous amount that, to this minute, remains unfunded—like an empty piggybank. I question the reasons behind the Labor Party denying initiatives for truly delivering a needs based funding model. Why will they vote to see government schools receive, at most, 4.7 per cent legislated funding growth compared to the coalition's plan for a 5.1 per cent annual increase? Why will they vote for schools of identical need to receive different levels of funding for their Schooling Resource Standard just because they are in a different state? Why, after using the name of Gonski as a call to arms for teachers unions around the country, is Labor now going against David Gonski's endorsement of the coalition's plan?
Why do they prefer different funding methodologies that advantage some non-government schools over others? And if they want to continue the 27 special deals that they implemented they will see needy students in one state get up to $15,000 less than the same sort of student in the same sort of school but in a different state.
Labor is trying to have an argument about funding, but the legislation before parliament is about delivering a real needs based model to distribute that funding. Spending is not a substitute for reform. It is remarkable that after years of posturing on the Gonski that the Leader of the Opposition now stands opposed to the Turnbull government's consistent implementation of a needs based funding model.
I began with a reference to the Schooling Resource Standard, which is the central focus of the Gonski reforms. From 2018, new arrangements for Commonwealth schools funding will be focused on needs with the Schooling Resource Standard, as recommended by that review in 2011. The resourcing standard for each school will depend on the size and composition of its student population, the number of students who need extra help through having a disability; those who come from a disadvantaged home, who may never have read a book at home; Indigenous students; and the size of the school and its location.
I call on the Labor to stop this ridiculous rubbish, treating Australians as if they were gullible sponges absorbing constant repetition of untruthful statements so that eventually they believe them to be true. Mums, dads, grandparents and families just want to know that the current programs running in their children's schools will continue. With our increases, these programs will continue.
Let's just examine some real case scenarios of funding for the students in Gilmore. If a student is attending Shoalhaven High School, this year the federal government is contributing $3,708 to that child. Next year it will be $3,896. Nowra East Public School, the school in my electorate that is now known throughout the country—not necessarily for the terrific job they do—this year receives $3,528 for each student, and next year they will receive $3,707. At Vincentia High School each student is allocated $3,380; next year it will be $3,551. And, as a final example, at Moruya High School each student is allocated $3,419 this year, and next year it will be $3,592.
Every single school in Gilmore gets an increase in education investment from the Commonwealth government. The figures are averaged out per student, but in the end it is a number gained by adding to the base according to the needs. Eventually, the school principal, working with his or her staff and parents, chooses how best to utilise the money allocated to their school in the best interests of their enrolled students. The teachers and principals just want to know that the time they have spent developing new programs or having the training opportunities to grow in their professional development to deliver great programs for our children will continue. They want certainty in relation to this. With our investment in education, all of the above will happen.
Contrast this certainty of funding to imaginary dollar figures that are unfunded. It has been quoted that sometime somewhere they will get that from revenue: 'Oh, does that include borrowing from overseas? Well, whatever it takes.' This is not appropriate for Australia. We need to spend within our revenue sources, particularly for education.
As a parent and a past teacher, I note that certainty wins, absolutely, over fake promises. The teachers in my region—in schools like Sanctuary Point Public School, Nowra East Public School and Nowra Public School, then going from Bombaderry down to Ulladulla and Milton and then further down to Batemans Bay and Sunshine—are amazing. They have done fabulous things with our children and they just need to know that the money they are getting next year will be more than the money they are getting now. They need to know that the money they are getting over the next 10 years is going to be more—more than CPI—so that principals can actually develop programs like the robotics at Sanctuary Point, like the video classes or like some of the other things they are doing with STEM. They are doing amazing things, and yet there are children in those schools who have literacy problems so they are bringing in helpers for literacy. Each and every one of those programs will continue, and each and every one of those parents needs to be reassured that each and every one of those programs will continue.
I am tired of the opposition scaring my parents and my custodial grandparents by telling mistruths—which are then regurgitated in the media—to the public that their children will miss out. It is wrong, it is inappropriate and they should stop doing it.
Our children deserve so much more respect than you are showing them. Our teachers deserve more respect. You are degrading the work that they have done and you are pretending that you have got a funding bucket that will commit to what you are promising. You do not. You never did and you still do not. I am absolutely ashamed of some of the tactics that you are using. For goodness sake, education is far more important than that.
This is a sad day. It is sad day for the parliament and a sad day for the country because today the government has asked the parliament to approve its plan to downgrade the aspiration for Australian students, their education and the country—like the government abandoned its plans for jobs and growth in last week's budget. It is a very sad day indeed.
Let us be very clear about what the bill before the House, the Australian Education Amendment Bill, is going to do. You can tell a lot from the amendments that this bill brings forward, which will seek to change the objectives in the Australian Education Act. The act currently has as one of its objectives the provision that in Australia all students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach their full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations and contribute fully to his or her community now and into the future. That is right—this is the provision that members opposite are about to vote to have removed from the act: the aspiration and the objective that all students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, irrespective of where they live.
It goes further. The government is asking us to remove from the act the proposition that puts in place targets, including targets that will ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high-quality and highly equitable education for all students by having regard to the following national targets: for Australia to be placed, by 2025, in the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, maths and science. So in a few hours members opposite are going to vote to remove that target from the Australian Education Act. They are going to vote to remove from our legislation the requirement that we strive to meet a target of putting Australian schools in the top five highest performing countries in the world in maths, science and English.
It goes further. We are going to be voting to remove from the act a proposition for the Australian schooling system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards. We are going to be voting against lifting year 12 or equivalent, or certificate II attainment rates, by 90 per cent. Have you ever heard of such a thing? We are going to be voting against lifting the attainment of year 12 students by 90 per cent. We are going to be voting against halving the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent. We are going to be voting against that. On this day, of all days, we are going to be voting against halving the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018, from a baseline of 2008. Can you imagine it—on this day, of all days, coalition MPs are going to be voting against that, and they have the temerity, as the member for Gilmore has just done, to stand there and lecture us on values when they are voting against these propositions. It beggars belief.
There is a very good reason why they are asking the parliament to vote against these propositions. It is because they know, under their plans, they cannot meet them. They know, under their plans, they cannot meet these objectives that we have previously signed up to. The reason they cannot meet them is that they have ripped $22 billion out of the school education system. The member for Gilmore asked recently how we were going to fund it. Well, we would have a lot more money to provide for education if we were not dropping $65 billion on a corporate tax cut. Now that is an unfunded promise! We would have a lot more money to spend on education if we were not dropping $65 billion on an unfunded tax cut for big business.
I want my kids to grow up in a country where education is a fundamental human right, not a privilege, and where it does not matter what the circumstances of a child's birth are—they will have access to a great local school so they can reach their best potential in life. It is what animates every Labor member of parliament, and has for decades.
In 2008, a Labor government led the states in a ministerial council on education, employment and training which issued the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. We managed to get all states and territories to sign up to two goals: (1) that Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence, and (2) that all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens.
We knew that we could not meet those goals unless we, as a government, stepped up and redressed the inequities of the school funding system that existed then and which still persist today. Labor undertook a landmark review into school funding on this basis.
We also invested over $16 billion in school infrastructure, spending $296 million in the Illawarra and south-east on 188 separate projects. Local communities were welcoming these projects at the very same time as members of the Liberal and National parties were ridiculing them.
In my community and in my region, this was the first investment that many of those local schools had seen in over 50 years, bringing a new classroom, a new science lab, a new library or a new community hall. It was the first investment that they had seen in decades. They welcomed it, and they saw this as a first instalment in Labor's vision for a better education system in this country.
Perhaps the most significant Labor legacy in our local schools is the investment not just in bricks and mortar but in the funds schools need to give every student the opportunity they need, through more teachers, improved teacher training, more resources like learning support officers and teachers' aides, improved standards and better classrooms and resources. These funds give schools quite simply the resources they need so that schools can distribute them as they know best, to give their students the best chance of success.
The Schooling Resource Standard was a sector-blind model which clearly defined the funding all schools needed to deliver a great education. It was a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes, to give them the extra help they needed.
These cuts tear at the very throat of that resource standard. The changes that the Liberal government has introduced into this parliament since 2014 represent $22 billion in cuts to education, while over $65 billion is being given in tax cuts to big businesses.
Parents and teachers know that schools will be worse off because of these decisions. They know it. They tell us, and I am sure they are telling members of the coalition parties as well. It is the equivalent of cutting more than $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade. That would employ over 22,000 new teachers.
The review of school funding recommended that all governments work together to ensure that every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life. The Labor government offered the states two-thirds of the extra funding needed and locked states into increasing their funding by one-third. None of this would work if we were putting more money into the top of the bucket while states and territories were draining money out of the bottom of the bucket. So it was a condition of our agreement with the states and territories that we shared the burden of increasing funding to the schooling system in total.
When the member for Sturt became the Minister for Education he famously tore all this up. This was his no strings attached promise to the states in their education policy mark one. They tore all this up; in their first budget they tore up the funding agreements, particularly in the out years. They now ask us to give them a pat on the back because of the $30 billion they cut out they are putting $7 billion back. Teachers and parents and school communities will not be fooled. Indeed, in my own electorate they know that this will cost $20 million in 2018-19 alone. That is why yesterday, at the local primary school at Barrack Heights, local mum Rosemarie Roach was one of many who gathered at a community meeting to meet with teachers and principals, and they had a very simple request to the government: please keep your promises—our children really need you. They are not my words; they are the words of Rosemarie Roach, a mother from the school. Under Labor, Barrack Heights Public School would receive over $215,000 next year, in 2018, but under the Prime Minister's plan the school will receive just $36,000. That is the difference in one school in one year. That is a huge cut on what was agreed to, in just one year.
Make no mistake, the Prime Minister and the minister are walking away from a fundamental part of the Schooling Resource Standard which was agreed with the states, which was agreed with the territories and which was understood by every school in this country. Is it any wonder that we have at this very moment school ministers from Liberal state governments around the country jumping up and down? They are being far more critical—they are saying harsher things than I have ever said this place—about this Prime Minister and about the education minister and about what they are proposing to do to the school funding system. They are saying far harsher things than I have ever said, because they know that what the government has done is renege on a contract, renege on an agreement.
Today I am calling on all members of the coalition parties to look at what is happening in their own electorates and look at what is going to be the result of these changes to the school funding system. I am particularly calling on members who represent regional, rural and remote electorates, because we know these are the areas where education results are, quite frankly, not up to where they need to be if we are going to meet the aspirations we set out in the act. We know that regional communities, particularly communities with lower SES ratings, are struggling—they do not have the resources they need to ensure that their kids can get the education they need to compete in a modern world. There are huge gaps in participation rates and huge gaps in completion rates. When you compare what is happening in the inner cities with what is happening in the rural and regional parts of the country, the city and metro areas have participation rates almost double those of regional areas throughout the country.
We are calling on members of the National Party, we are calling on members from regional and rural constituencies, to do the right thing by their electorates. It is not unprecedented for members of the coalition parties to exercise their votes in the interests of their constituencies as opposed to the interests of and the political plans laid out by their government. In 1973, when the Whitlam government put the Schools Commission Bill to the parliament, it was hotly contested. The then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, opposed it in the House and his colleagues opposed it in the Senate. After cool consideration by Country Party members, they understood their poor regional schools and poor systemic schools in rural and regional Australia were the very schools that were going to benefit from the changes, and they crossed the floor. They crossed the floor and voted with the Labor Party to ensure that the Schools Commission Bill was passed into law, a bill which delivered better funding and better outcomes for regional and rural schools throughout the country.
We are calling on those same MPs, the coalition MPs that represent rural and regional Australia, to do the right thing by their communities and consider voting with Labor to ensure that we do not do the damage that this bill is going to do to school education and the funding system that is needed to deliver on the aspirations in the Melbourne Declaration and the promise that was made to all state governments throughout the country. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. It is a great privilege to be able to contribute to this debate on behalf of the people of Goldstein, particularly because the central thrust of this government's proposal is to focus on equality of opportunity for every Australian child. One of the tragedies of this debate, as we just heard from the previous speaker, is highfalutin rhetoric designed to achieve a political gain, rather than focusing on what is in the best interests of Australian children to make sure that no matter where you come from, no matter what your circumstances, your background or who your parents are, every Australian child has the best chance to be able to secure a good education that is funded and enjoys public support to make sure you have the best chance to be successful in life. That is the central thrust of everything that sits at the heart of this education package, ably led by the education minister, Senator Simon Birmingham. That is, in the end, why I applaud it.
One of the most disappointing parts of this debate has been the continual effort by those on the opposition benches to talk about funding cuts that are simply fictitious and imaginary. Do not get me wrong: they are not alone. They are being aided, for instance, by the state government of Victoria. I had a constituent who emailed me only a few days ago saying, 'I have just read a news story in The Age newspaper.' I could not find it on their front page, and I am not surprised, because they should have been embarrassed by it. It was basically a carbon copy of a state government of Victoria press release, going through how the federal government, despite spending $18.6 billion additionally on education across Australia, was somehow cutting education across the board and to every single school.
That seemed to me a rather fictitious proposition, but I persevered. I have an inquisitive mind and sometimes like to see what the basis is of the fallacies and lies put out there by the Australian Labor Party and particularly the Andrews government. I read through the story and it became clear that they had simply generated a whole bunch of numbers which helped support their argument, because rather than focus on how to improve the outcomes for Australian children, they would rather dedicate the lives and energies of bureaucrats in the education department towards running a fictitious political campaign—arguably an abuse of their time and resources. You could tell, because there was not a single specific number. There was a number that said, 'This school loses somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 a year'—whatever school it was that was specifically listed. That seemed to be pretty spectacular, considering that it was supposed to be an exact identification of how much money was going to be cut.
So I continued to engage with this constituent, and I said, 'I do not think that is right, because if you use the education department's estimator about how much money is to be spent on the school'—I will not name the school—'it showed quite a substantial increase in expenditure.' Eventually we got to the bottom of it and found a state government of Victoria funding estimator that they applied to every single school. This constituent said—this is what they said to me; I did not make this up—'Every time I enter the name of a school, there was a cut.' I said, 'Do you think perhaps they should reveal how it is calculated; what the evidence base of it is; where the information came from?' None of that was present. All that was available was, there was this school and there was a funding cut, within these huge parameters of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then I pointed him to the education department's estimator, which said, 'This is your school; this is the amount of money you get now; this is the amount of money you will get next year; this is the amount of money you are going to get in 2027 based on enrolment data.' Obviously the last part is hypothetical, but with specific dollars. Then it breaks it down, aggregated for the school and also for the students.
I said, 'Which data do you trust more—the one that is specific and gives you a clear indication, or this round number put up by the state government?'
Eventually we found that the state government number of $22 million was based on a fictitious promise that they could never back up, that they could never fund, to increase the amount of expenditure on education. They had simply rounded it out by the number of students, weighted a little bit.
It is quite common to say that some people cannot lie straight in bed when you are saying something that is not accurate, but the truth of the Australian Labor Party today, particularly when it comes to education funding, is they could not lie straight in a coffin. That is how dishonest this campaign is. It is simply not true. The federal government is spending more money on public schools, independent schools and the Catholic education system than has ever been spent. That is the truth. That is a factual accuracy. Nominally, there is a huge amount of money being spent. There is a significant increase in funding to independent schools, to Catholic schools and also to state government schools. Not a single school in the electorate of Goldstein is losing a dollar of funding. Every single one is seeing a dollar increase.
Lucky Goldstein!
Lucky them, indeed. I am glad to see that members of the opposition on the frontbench now are acknowledging the fact that every single one of them is going to get a dollar increase. And it does not matter whether you come from a Catholic education background, an independent school education background or a state school background, every single child in the Goldstein electorate is going to see an increase in their funding. In some cases it will be a quite substantial increase, particularly if you go to a state school. More often than not these are schools which provide opportunities, and we want them to provide equal opportunities, to children who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—though not exclusively, and we need to acknowledge that. But, for those people who start life a bit rough, the state system does provide enormous opportunities.
So when we hear the fictitious lies—as we heard from the previous speaker—that have been put out there by so many people, it frankly drives you mad. They then misinform and mislead constituents and we have to go back and clarify the facts. By the way, the constituent I mentioned accepted the facts and was a little horrified at the lies and deception that had been put out there by the Australian Labor Party. They then had to go and educate others and say to others, 'No, that is not true; there is more money going into schools, including to the school that my child goes to, to make sure that they can have the best educational opportunities in life.'
That is the first half of this education package. Yes, we are using the needs-based funding model that was originally recommended by David Gonski. We congratulate him for his contribution to this debate and we congratulate him for supporting the government in implementing it. But we also support him for the second half of this package in a way that the opposition will not. They go silent and want to distance themselves from any suggestion that there has been a fulfilment of what Gonski recommended—that is, to shift the focus in education to where it should be, not just on dollars and cents but also on outcomes. Let's face it: money matters—buildings have to be built, schools and teachers have to be funded and resources need to be provided and books need to be bought—but, in the end, you can spend dollars wisely or you can spend them poorly. You can hire the best and you can skill and up train teachers so that they can have the best opportunities in order to make their maximum contribution and to make sure that, when they engage with children, they give them the most active, energised and educational opportunity.
We all know what it is like to have an amazing teacher at school. I do and the member for Robertson does and, I dare say, even the member for Bruce might have had a good teacher during his school experience.
Mr Morton interjecting—
Though maybe it sometimes does not show, as the member for Tangney remarks. We want teachers who are engaged and provide the best education for students. Yes, there needs to be a focus on their salaries and all of the other things, but we need to make sure that we get the best education outcomes for students. If it comes down to spending more money and getting no better outcome, that is not money well spent. Money is well spent only when you get improvement in results for students—when they have a more engaged and inclusive education environment and when they have the opportunity to realise their ambitions, whatever they may be. Some people want to go on to tertiary education, whether at a TAFE or at a university. They may have the same experience if they want to go and engage in a skills based program or an apprenticeship and go on to become small businesspeople or traders. We love it all, because, when Australian students go through the education system and gain the skills they need to go on and live a happy and fulfilling life, that is the foundation of this great nation's success.
That is what the focus of this education package is: to recognise not only that students require needs based funding but also that the money should be spent well to underpin their being able to have the best success in their life. The bill realigns the 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 provide strength and accountability mechanisms. That is the strength of this package, by delivering not just the money but also the tied outcomes.
The schools in my electorate—and I am sure I am not alone in this—will achieve enormous benefits from doing so. That is the feedback I am getting from schools. There are people who have raised concerns because scare campaigns have been run. I am not disputing that. People in my electorate have raised those scare campaigns with me and asked about the accuracy of the information, and I have made it clear that the information is inaccurate and then gone on the journey with them and proved to them that what they have heard is not the case. And they have accepted that, because they can see the intention of this government, which is to focus on how we achieve the best opportunities for every child, because we are not focusing just on dollars and cents; we are focusing also on outcomes.
There is also, as there should be, proper protection and assistance for children with a disability. The bill changes the calculation of the student with disability loading to include differentiated loadings to better reflect the needs of students in the top three levels of adjustment. Having worked with people who have a disability, I know that is extremely important. And it is important not just for the children who have a disability, and the educational challenges they face, but also in terms of the challenges presented to their parents, to make sure that they can provide the assistance and support that their children need and to make sure that their parents can also work with the schools to achieve the assistance and the support they need.
These changes are enormously important and extremely welcome. The minister, Senator Simon Birmingham, should be congratulated for this enormous contribution to improving the lives of children who have a disability. But, more than anything else, the cherry and the icing on the cake of this package are the long-term commitments and long-term agreements that it gives. One of the things we hear consistently across the board, no matter which school it is, is that they want certainty. They want the opportunity to plan their future with confidence, to be able to make sure that schools know where they are going to be in 10 years time so that they can make important decisions about hiring the best people, about building the skills and the capacity and investing in their people to deliver the best outcomes for students. By giving a clear and unambiguous 10-year commitment on the frame, direction and trajectory of funding, school principals, where they have the power to do so, can go ahead and plan around what they need for their future. I cannot think of something that is more important than giving school councils, principals and students the confidence they need to deliver the best outcomes, which I would have hoped we would all want to see.
Unfortunately this sometimes childish debate from the opposition—and I say that with a heavy heart and a bit of deep reluctance—put forward by, say, the member for Bruce, who sniggers up there in the back like a 12-year-old, getting up there and having this constant confected and fictitious debate about funding, corrodes that confidence that schools need in order to make those decisions in the interests of students. I would have thought that the lesson of the debate over the past few years is that we have to do as much as possible to enable those schools to plan for their success. That should be, I would hope, what the members opposite will stand up and argue for, as I am sure many of the members on this side will. They can stand up and plan with security and confidence about the direction of government policy.
In closing my remarks, I support this legislation because it provides the assistance and needs based funding for students—tick. But more important than that is that it focuses the discussion on making sure that that money is spent efficiently and effectively and that it is outcomes focused—tick. A+, as the member for Moreton would say; and maybe even A++. And for giving security and confidence to the schools sector in the long term: double-tick, smiley face, and A ++. (Time expired)
'A++'—I like that. I rise to add my remarks to what can only be described as an enormous fraud. This is not a policy. It is not an investment plan. It is not a fair bill. But it is marketing spin of the first order. It is the government trying to con people to think that this is in fact a funding boost, that it is fair to students and that it is a good outcome for Australia, when it is actually a $22.3 billion cut as compared to the existing arrangements. We all saw the extraordinary moment in question time where the Prime Minister refused to endorse the words that his government put out when announcing this policy.
In my electorate of Bruce alone it representatives a $17.2 million reduction in funding over 2018 and 2019 to government schools, which is an enormous amount of money, some hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases millions, per school. You have to acknowledge the chutzpah—or that great Australian phrase, 'more front than Myers'—of trying to claim this as a funding boost when you are actually cutting. It was a good gag for the first couple of days. It did get some good early headlines. I felt sorry actually for the member for Sturt, the former minister who likes to style himself as a great 'fixer'. He was going to fix the universities and he was going to fix school funding. Then he saw his successor, Minister Birmingham, come up with this great 'fix' that got such good headlines. But then of course, as is always the case, when you see past the spin—when the opposition here starts doing our job and looking at the detail and comparing the numbers; when the principals; the schools sectors; the Liberal state governments even; the Premier of New South Wales, supposedly a friend of the government—when all of the rest of us have a look at the actual reality behind the spin, of course the government's case falls to bits and the scam is exposed.
What this bill really does is remove extra funding that was agreed with the states and territories for 2018 and 2019, funding that would have brought all under-resourced schools to a fair funding level. And it especially hurts public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's proposal compared with 80 per cent extra funding under Labor's proposals.
In my state of Victoria, when you chunk this up—just over two years—and this is a $630 million cut, a reduction. I know we keep being told it is not a cut. But these were signed agreements. You read the agreement, and it says this was the money. This was the money we were going to get with the agreement. But, under this bill, under this government's arrangements, we do not get that money. That sounds like a cut. It is a cut. So my 36 schools get $17.2 million less. And this absolutely matters a lot. I could, if I run out of things to say, which is highly unlikely on this topic, stand here and read out into the Hansard all of the schools and the figures, but you can find them on the website. I had a lovely catch up yesterday and this morning with Glendal Primary School from Glen Waverley—they were visiting the parliament—a fantastic primary school that had been investing in numeracy, literacy and robotics. They had a team go to America for the international robotics championships. They are losing $400,000 over the next two years that were signed up.
But if I had to pick one school whose situation is manifestly unfair and draw the House's attention to it, it would be Dandenong High School. For anyone who does not know Melbourne, Dandenong High School sits within the second-highest disadvantaged municipality of all 79 councils in Victoria. It is a fantastic school, and under the Gonski agreements that had been signed with Victoria, Dandenong High School would have received an extra $1.6 to $1.8 million over the next two years. They now will not receive that if this bill goes through and those agreements are ripped up.
Let's stop and think about that. The Dandenong community is an incredibly multicultural place. It is a settling place for asylum seekers and refugees. There is entrenched intergenerational disadvantage in many pockets of the school's catchment. Despite this, and mainly because of state Labor government investment over 10 to 12 years, it is doing fantastic things. It is blessed with a wonderful principal, Susan Ogden, who is providing great leadership to the school and doing great things with equity funding—numeracy, literacy and leadership programs.
I met with Dandenong High School leaders when they were up here a few weeks ago. For anyone who watches The Voice on TV, here is a plug. The leading contestant, Hoseah Partsch, is a disadvantaged Dandenong High School student who visited our parliament only a month ago. We are all behind him. His story was written up in The Daily Telegraph. He entered the competition hoping to win the money to buy his family a house because at one stage he and his family were living with six people in a one-bedroom apartment. This is the kind of student that Dandenong High School is so proud to represent. So it beggars belief that, of every single high school in Victoria from year 7 to 12, Dandenong High will lose more money under this bill when this agreement is ripped up than any other school. It makes no sense, for anyone who knows Victoria, that you would take the most money off one of the most disadvantaged schools. How is this fair?
I have said before that my electorate of Bruce, with 53 per cent of people born overseas, is Australia's future; and I firmly believe that this school is Australia's future, yet the government is cutting funding. Every member will say education is important—and I believe we all believe that. But I can say without hesitation that for people in my electorate there is no more important issue than education. I told the House in my first speech that I had doorknocked over 14,000 homes over 13 months. My favourite question that I asked was 'What was most important to people?' and the standout answer was education—whether it was young people at uni or TAFE, parents with schoolchildren, or grandparents worried about the whole spectrum. The reason for this is the high value that migrants, above anyone else, place on education. When people come here they sacrifice everything for a better life for their kids; they have that laser-like focus, knowing that education is a pathway to a better life for their children because it brings opportunity. We know that through the waves of Australian migration. We had the post-World War II Greeks and Italians, people who worked four jobs and just wanted to get their kids to get to uni. And then we had Asian migration—more recently, from the subcontinent—and people from every part of the world.
The starkest demonstration of that occurred in Glen Waverley in my electorate when I was doorknocking. I doorknocked two houses that were next door to each other. I discovered that one of them was inside the school zone for Glen Waverley Secondary College and the other was outside it. The price difference for the house inside the school zone was $230,000. That is because people in my community are so determined to pursue what they see as the best education for the kids.
Of course, people understand that this is not just key to their kids' opportunity, it is key to Australia's future. Education is the critical enabler of our future prosperity. They are 100 per cent correct. This is not a lefty, radical, pinko plot kind of view either. The OECD's Economic Outlook in 2016 said 'education and public investment are the two areas of public expenditure that are estimated to be associated with higher long-term productivity'. And you cannot have an innovation economy, which we hear so much about, without investing properly in education. The OECD said 'better and more education is associated with higher growth and productivity, and also greater income equality.'
I am an unlucky soul on chamber duty; this week, yet again, and week after week, the member for Hughes was speaking. Anyway, I sat through it; it was entertaining, if nothing else. And we got lectured about choices, budgets. Labor is absolutely clear on the need to choose education. I will quote from an article which I actually filed away when I read it last year because I thought it summed up so much of why it is important to invest in education—particularly at the disadvantaged end, which so many schools in my electorate cater to. I quote from an article by Jessica Irvine in The Sydney Morning Herald:
Economists call it picking the low-hanging fruit: the strategic policy choices that deliver the biggest social return for lowest cost … It is spending money to help disadvantaged students get the best out of their education. Kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds are our greatest untapped source of potential growth. They are our most undervalued stock—
if we put it in human capital terms—
Investing in public education for disadvantaged students makes solid economic sense.
So, of course, the government's response is to cut the most funding from the most disadvantaged schools!
The member for Hughes in lecturing us about the budget did not mention that the government's choices are a two per cent tax cut for everyone in this chamber. Everyone in the country earning over $180,000 gets a tax cut. There is a $65 billion tax cut, which is unfunded, for big companies, and a $36 billion part of that is in a bill which is back on the Notice Paper again. And there is a $22.3 billion schools funding cut, which their own advice admits. Of course, they will fight to the death to protect tax breaks that overwhelmingly go to the top end. With negative gearing, the top 20 per cent of income earners get around a 50 per cent benefit, or, even worse, with the capital gains tax, the top 10 per cent receive a 70 per cent subsidy.
The choices that the government chooses to put forward and call them 'fair', to me, reveals an eternal truth about the Liberal Party. They do not actually care about equality of opportunity. It is a lingo they have picked up. They talk about needs based funding; it is a spin. They are a party of privilege and established wealth. They are not wealth generators. They are wealth preservers. I was thinking this morning that, if they were a financial advisory firm and you were knocking on their door, they would not let you in unless you already had $5 million in the bank. That kind of high wealth advisory firm is their market niche.
There has been a lot of focus on money in the contributions that I have heard in this debate. We argue about figures and 'Is it a cut?' or 'Isn't it a cut?' 'I know what will be said next and what we will say—and here we go.' There is a lot of focus on money, but there is an irony that, in this debate, the marketing spin on the bill is about convincing people that the government are spending more dollars and that it is outcomes now that matter. You might remember the MPIs which many of us sat through before the government made this announcement—this was late last year and earlier this year—where we said there was a $30 billion cut, because there was. The government said: 'No. Money doesn't matter. It is not about money. Really, we are just wasting money. Look, we spent money for a couple years and our results haven't gone up and so really we should just stop spending money. Money doesn't matter, because it is outcomes.' Now we have entered a parallel universe where a $22 billion cut is spun as an $8 billion increase. I cannot work that out—but anyway. Meanwhile, another shocking aspect to the bill is that the government are quietly crab-walking away from outcomes.
Labor's funding model, under the Australian Education Act 2013, enshrined the following objective into Australian law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
Then there are a series of targets—hard targets. Governments of all persuasions avoid enshrining hard targets, because they know that they can be held to account for hard targets. But we put clear targets in legislation that if we did the full funding that was recommended, the full funding that was required, we were prepared to sign up to Australia being in the top highest performing countries by 2025 based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science. We set further targets about school completion for year 12, certificate II and certificate III levels and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student completion. But this bill removes that goal; it removes those targets from legislation—and that is a disgrace.
We on this side will not forget, we must not let the other side forget and we must not let the people in our electorates or the electorates we will seek to win at the next election and form government forget that this government was elected on a lie that they would not cut a single dollar from education, that it did not matter who you voted for, you were going to get the same cents and dollars on either side. They were elected and it was cut, cut, cut, cut. It is this kind of behaviour that breeds cynicism and breaks trust, as we all hear from our electorates, and it frustrates me. We know outside the chamber that many of us do get on.
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Many of us do. They are not all bad—misguided but not all bad. Bipartisanship is desirable, compromise, dialogue. I never give up hope. There is always room for improvement on the other side, member for Brand. But we are stuck in this ridiculous debate with alternative facts, where the government pretend this is not an enormous cut overall in school funding that had been agreed. They hide behind this fig leaf of half a truth. I think the member for Hughes talked about 'an acorn of truth' when he admitted there is a $22 billion cut, but that is just an acorn of truth!
Sure, this legislation replaces what was in the legislation—a slightly lower funding level. But this is a claim that is fundamentally misleading, because the dollars in this bill are less than the agreements which were struck with the states. This is a cut. It is a reduction, whichever way you look at it. I hope that sense may prevail and that a negotiation may proceed. It will not happen in this place, we know, but it may happen through the Senate process. In the coming weeks and months, however long it drags on, the people in our communities, the principals who I have been speaking to, the parents, the teachers, the state governments, the minor party senators and others will see sense, will reflect, and perhaps some agreement can be reached that we can all vote on. But, until that time, Labor will not give up our campaign to remind the community what this bill and what the government's plan really represent: it is a funding cut, and in my community it is, unambiguously, an attack—a reduction in funding for some of the most disadvantaged schools in our state of Victoria, and, indeed, the nation, and we should not stand for it.
I am pleased to rise in support of the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Over the past few weeks, I have heard from a whole range of people from across my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast about the impact of these important changes. In fact, just yesterday Debra Walls, the principal of Green Point Christian College, a school in my electorate, contacted me because she wanted to share with me exactly what this legislation will mean for her school. She said: 'When I saw the funding increase I was gobsmacked. It means having the ability to have more teacher aids to help kids with learning disabilities with autism or dyslexia. Now we can help kids achieve and be the best they can be.' As the daughter of a former Christian school principal on the Central Coast myself, I can well understand what Mrs Walls means, because this legislation will ensure that Green Point Christian college will receive a boost of more than $4,500 per student over the next 10 years. This brings the total funding per student to $11,800 in 2027. For the more than 1,000 students at the college, many of whom I have met during their recent visits to parliament, it will mean they have access to the quality education they deserve.
It is also going to make a real difference in Bensville at the Coast Christian School. The Coast Christian School, under this plan, is set to receive $4,700 more per student in 2027, taking their total per student funding to more than $12,000. Their principal, Alison Graeve, told me what this funding will do for the school. Alison said: 'It is going to help with tiered learning for those students with a disability. It is going to assist the most vulnerable students and make a real difference at our school.' I visited the Coast Christian School not too long ago, to visit their year 5 and year 6 fair, and I was inspired by so many young, bright minds of the students there. That is why I support this legislation—because it is investing in the future of students across my electorate and setting them on the path to academic excellence and better opportunities in life. Like Alison and Debra, I know that this bill will secure important changes to our school funding model.
This legislation includes a number of measures to support parental choice, certainty and stability for schools and it will tie funding to reforms that will support better student outcomes. But, above all else, this bill will deliver real, needs based funding that is fair for all students, including in my electorate on the Central Coast. In suburbs like Woy Woy, Umina Beach, Kariong, Gosford, Erina, Narara, Terrigal and Kincumber, this bill is about ensuring access to the quality education students in my electorate deserve.
Measures in this bill will improve the act, making funding arrangements more transparent, accountable and efficient. Through a 10-year transition period, all government and non-government schools will get a consistent share of the Schooling Resource Standard. It includes new indexation arrangements that mean, initially, indexation will be growing faster than real costs. It will set our schools up for the future, and ensure that funding is truly based on the needs of our students, placing value on outcomes as well as funding.
This is a government that is committed to investing in education and in equipping our students for the jobs of the future. Starting from 2018, Australian schools will receive an additional $18.6 billion in funding over the next 10 years. Under the coalition, funding for education has grown and it will continue to do so, with our total investment in the 10 years to 2027 a record $242.3 billion. In New South Wales, funding will increase by more than 67 per cent over the next 20 years to a total of $73.9 billion.
In my electorate of Robertson, schools in every local community will be receiving significant increases in funding because of this needs-based funding model. The total increase in federal government funding for the 48 schools in Robertson over the next 10 years is $311 million. That is great news for each of these 48 schools and their 23,556 students.
Importantly, this bill is ending Labor's 27 special deals that would mean schools would have to wait up to 150 years to get their fair share of funding. By 2022, under the Quality Schools package, funding would have grown to $30.6 billion—a 4.1 per cent growth per student. This is real needs-based funding. It will level the playing field by getting rid of Labor's special deals and ensuring that funding is delivered fairly to all schools in every state and territory.
Our plan will also mean that schools in my electorate of Robertson get their fair share of support and do not suffer because of these special deals under Labor. Every student at the 48 schools in my electorate will have a fairer deal thanks to this government's plan. That is a fairer deal for Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic Primary School, Henry Kendall High School, Point Clare Public School, Central Coast Adventist College, Woy Woy South Public School, Holy Cross Catholic Primary School, Gosford High School, Kincumber High School and Brisbane Water Secondary College—just to name a few. In fact, Brisbane Water Secondary College at Woy Woy will see its funding increase by more than $40 million over the next 10 years. For the 1,500 students at this school, it means nearly $2,000 more per student in 2027. These increases are part of this government's plan to back our teachers, supporting them to improve student outcomes. This is a fair system that is good for students, good for teachers, good for parents, good for our community and fantastic for Australia's future.
At Umina Public School funding will increase by $1,400 per student in the next 10 years, meaning that a total of $3,700 will be available for each and every student come 2027. For Narara Valley High School it also means $4,600 per student in 2027. St Patrick's Catholic Primary School at East Gosford will see funding rise by $3,000 in the same 10 years. For St John the Baptist Catholic Primary School in Woy Woy it means more per student in 2018, as well, and nearly $4,000 more per student in 2027. Up at Peats Ridge Public School funding will increase to $5,300 per student. At Kulnura Public School it will increase by more than $1,800 per student over the next 10 years. This does not sound like a cut to me.
This legislation means a fairer deal, as well, for students with a disability, ensuring that needs drive funding allocation. For Aspect Central Coast School, which is a wonderful school dedicated for students with autism in Terrigal, this legislation will see funding boosts of more than $39,000 per student. This will ensure that our students and teachers are getting the support they need. But these are just some of the schools in my electorate that will be better off. I would encourage all parents, teachers and students to find out how much their school would be better off by using the online school funding estimator. This new funding estimator gives our principals and teachers the information they need in order to make long-term plans for their schools. It is all part of our commitment to real needs-based funding that is fair, consistent and transparent.
As I have heard already from principals on the Central Coast, these changes will make a real difference in our classrooms, setting students on a path to academic excellence, offering them more opportunity and offering greater support for schools that are falling behind. I am looking forward to meeting with student leaders, teachers and parents around the Central Coast over the coming weeks to get their thoughts on our plan and what this means for our students. I am also writing to local principles. I am keen to hear how this funding will personally help their school. I am looking forward to seeing more students benefit from our needs-based funding model for schools, endorsed by David Gonski, that is all about fairness.
Unlike previous Labor governments, we are linking our investments with school reforms that have been proven to boost student results. This government will deliver the real Gonski needs based funding that Labor did not and scrap the 27 special deals that saw money taken away from schools that needed it most. Labor can promise all the funding in the world—and they do—but their promises are worth nothing more than Monopoly money. We on this side of the House know that you cannot spend money that you do not have or that you do not fund. Just like with the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Labor did not fully fund their education promises in 2013 and they are not funded now. Where Labor left a budget black hole, we are ensuring that the NDIS is fully funded so that we can support those who need it most. We are guaranteeing the NDIS to support a better life for the almost 2,900 participants just in my electorate of Robertson alone. Like our commitment to education, we have ensured that the NDIS will be fully funded.
This is the same Labor Party that took the original Gonski report and turned it into 27 special deals, with different rules for different schools. It is the same Labor Party that failed to deliver a real needs based funding model or even to properly fund it. It is the same Labor Party that is continuing to mislead the public with their funding cut claims. The fact is that funding under this government has grown and will continue to grow. Any suggestion by members opposite to the contrary is simply false. However, Labor representatives on the Central Coast, including the Labor candidate for Robertson and New South Wales' Senator Deborah O'Neill continue to peddle funding-cut lies, claiming that our local schools will be worse off. Considering that all 48 schools in my electorate of Robertson are set to receive funding increases through this bill, Senator O'Neill and the Labor candidate for Robertson's claims, just like a Labor budget, simply do not add up.
Senator O'Neill and the Labor candidate for Robertson have spent a lot of time recently talking about fairness and equality on the Central Coast, but what they have not said is how Labor's 27 special deals are fair to students in my electorate. How is it fair to make funding promises with Monopoly money? How is it fair to make promises to people when they cannot deliver them? If Labor on the Central Coast want to know what is really fair they only need to look at this government's fully funded commitment to real needs based funding for schools and to properly funding the NDIS. Our students deserve access to education that is fairly funded and encourages academic standards.
While we know a strong level of funding for schools is vital, what is even more important is how the funding is used. That is why David Gonski will lead a new inquiry into improving the results for Australian students. The review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools will focus on the most effective teaching and learning strategies to reverse declining results and seek to raise the performance of schools and students. The review will provide advice on how funding can best be used to improve outcomes. Mr Gonski is set to deliver his final report to the government by December this year to inform new school reform agreements for states and territories set to begin early next year. This government is not just increasing funding; we are no longer simply accepting that results have been declining while funding has been growing. We are focused on improving educational outcomes for our students and on delivering quality education for each and every student.
As a former high school teacher on the Central Coast and a mother of two young children of school age, I know how important it is not only to properly fund our schools but also to use that funding in the most effective way—something that this government also understands. I know that each and every school should have an equitable share of funding, not just 27 special deals for states, territories, unions and non-government school leaders. Now, with the privilege of serving our community as the member for Robertson, I am reminded so often of the talent and potential of our young people on the Central Coast.
Principals across the Central Coast, along with Deborah, Alison and so many in our community, want to see our students—especially those who need it the most—get the support and quality education that they deserve. I, like every member on this side of the House, want to ensure that our students get the quality education they deserve, delivered through a fair, transparent and consistent funding model. This government is choosing fairness and quality over special deals. We are choosing consistency and transparency and we are choosing to invest in our students' futures, in our communities' futures and in our nation's future. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill and its impact on students and families around this country and, more specifically, those students and families from Western Australia. I will not support this terrible Liberal government bill, because this bill would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools compared with the existing arrangements. I will not support this bill, because it would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million. I will not support this bill, because it removes extra funding agreed with the states and territories for 2018-19 which would have brought all under-resourced schools to their fair funding level. I will not support this bill, because it will hurt public schools. They will receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's $22.3 billion cut to schools compared to 80 per cent of extra funding which was made under the Labor school funding plan. This bill will result in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics for those that need it most.
I will not support this bill, because it will cut important aspirational targets which are good for this country. This Liberal government will no longer aim for Australia to be one of the top five high-performing countries in reading, maths and science by 2025. This bill will eradicate the aim to halve the gap between the outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students by 2020. So I will not support the Australian Education Amendment Bill, and neither should anyone else. It is a shame it has even been put before us.
These are significant measures and they have wide-ranging and far-reaching ramifications. We all know that history is important, so let me take us back for a little refresher. First of all, I want to go back a bit in time, only four years ago, to 2013. It is election time. The writs have been issued and the public will go to the polls in a month. The education sector is pretty satisfied at this time. Parents are relieved to know that true needs based funding will be a reality across the country. No matter what happens, the Labor-led education funding reforms are enshrined in legislation, the Labor-led charge and leadership to ensure needs based funding is rock-solid and the then opposition leader, the member for Warringah, has stated, 'There is no difference between Kevin Rudd and myself when it comes to school funding.' That was the start of the unity ticket on school funding. Remember that? That was when the Australian public were led to believe by the Liberal Party that they supported genuine needs based funding in schools. Well, it did not last long. There was a backflip less than a day after from the Liberal education spokesman at the time, the member for Sturt. He stressed that Liberals would only honour the first year of Labor's fully funded reforms—a little crab walk off the stage. And then, days before the election, the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt promised to match Labor's commitment to fund education over the forward estimates. Remember that? That is the unity ticket I was talking about.
Fast forward to 2017, and we can see this for what it always was—purely low-grade electioneering. It was only after the severe public reaction to the disastrous 2014 federal budget that the government truly realised how much students, teachers and families depended on needs based funding for the fair and good education that Australian children deserve and need. That budget, the 2014 budget, saw a Liberal government rip $30 billion out of schools over a decade by strolling away from its promises to Australian children and to Australia's future. That budget disaster cost them a Prime Minister and a Treasurer. Even as they slowly came to terms with the enormity of their decisions for the future of young Australians, it has taken two years to come up with a scheme that attempts to disguise their twisted version of needs based funding as a funding increase, all supported by a natty little content-lite, facts-lite calculator website. It is on the internet, so it must be true—and, as the Prime Minister invented the internet, it really, really must be true! But, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I know, a leopard does not change its spots. There was $30 billion ripped out of education in the 2014 budget and $22 billion ripped out in the 2017 budget—I wonder what will happen next. What this natty little website does not tell the public is how much the state governments will contribute to the education of their children. It does not state how much their own fee contributions will build on the education of their children and the students. It only tells part of the story, and in doing so misleads the Australian public.
This side of the House, along with education experts, state governments, the Catholic school system and right across the country parents and parents and friends associations, can see what this scheme is—a $22.3 billion cut to funding schools across Australia., I am not fooled, Labor is not fooled and the Australian public are not fooled. Let me be clear—I know I have said it a couple of times, and I will keep saying it: under the proposed arrangements, in this bill, $22.3 billion will be cut from schools across Australia compared to the existing arrangements. Those opposite have said this is an unbelievable figure, and in some respects I agree—it is unbelievable. It made my jaw drop. How on earth, after their clearly now-abandoned cries of bipartisanship support for education, can this Liberal government continue to rip and tear holes in the hopes and dreams of students and parents and still choose to give big business a $65 billion tax cut? The Treasurer confirmed this recently in question time. It is unbelievable that they would rip out education funding which is equivalent to sacking nearly 22,000 teachers; it is unbelievable that on average each school loses $2.4 million; it is unbelievable that only one in seven public schools will get their fair level of funding, which is supposed to be 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, by 2027.
We on this side of the House are not the only ones stunned with disbelief. The outrage is felt around the country, and it is real—despite what members opposite may say. The New South Wales P&C Federation said on 3 May this year:
The Turnbull Government must not renege on the funding promised under the Gonski agreement signed in 2013.
The Liberal government likes to demonise unions, but I stand with the hardworking and committed teachers and school staff that form the Australian Education Union, who said on 4 May this year:
The Prime Minister has effectively abandoned the most disadvantaged schools and their students.
The Daily Telegraph on 3 May reported that the Liberal New South Wales education minister is considering court action to safeguard the state's share of education dollars. It was also reported on 3 May that the Queensland education minister has said that government schools across the state will be $300 million worse off. It was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald on 5 May that some Catholic schools will be forced to dramatically increase fees or close their doors. Again, these are just some of the comments aimed at the federal government in a veritable bombardment of criticism against these proposed cuts.
This protest salvo of return fire from public interest groups, parents and friends associations, governments, schools, students and many others pales into comparison with the missile launched by this Turnbull government that will leave a smoking crater of broken promises where genuine needs based funding once stood. The devil is in the detail here, and nowhere is this more evident than in the proposed removal of extra funding which was previously agreed to with the states and territories for 2018-19, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding levels. It takes the axe to public schools, which will receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's proposal compared to 80 per cent of extra funding from Labor. That is some unity ticket—that is a funding disparity of 30 per cent.
It is often claimed by the opposite side of the House, the government, that the coalition are the better economic managers in this country. Hardly a day goes by when the Liberals do not wistfully look back in time to the excesses and ease of the immobile Howard government and claim that doing nothing at all qualifies for financial management accolades. The Liberals believe their supposed economic genius is justified—how can this be so, how can this be true, if they are not willing to invest in the future education of young Australians? It has been consistently shown in research papers, academic discussions, economic reports and Productivity Commission reports that investment in education lifts standards of living dramatically across a nation. Global Partnerships for Education informs us that one extra year of schooling increases a single person's income by 10 per cent, and each additional year of schooling can raise our overall annual GDP. By ignoring this type of data and instead pushing us backwards, this Liberal government endangers our economic prosperity and the economic growth of Australia in the long term. If the Liberals want to run future election campaigns on this supposedly safe economic foundation, they may want to take a second glance at the pillars of education they intend to demolish, lest that foundation begin to collapse—if it has not already.
Let's take a closer look at my own home state of Western Australia. How the Liberals plan for education in WA is supposed to help the education sector over there. I can tell you now that the announcement was met with fury, not least of all from the new WA state government itself. Is it not enough that we have to fight tooth and nail to get fair Commonwealth funding for transport infrastructure in WA? Is it not enough that we have to be dudded repeatedly when it comes to the outdated GST redistribution system across the country—despite the fact that a large chunk of the federal cabinet comes from Western Australia? Is it not enough that we have to make do with a dismal share of investment in naval shipbuilding in order to shore up support for the re-election of the Minister for Defence Industry? No, apparently it is not enough. The federal government continues its war on WA by ripping out $649 million in Commonwealth education funding from 2018-19 to 2021-22.
I might take a moment to explain something the federal government may not be aware of. Twice a year in Western Australia a census is carried out by the WA education department that determines funding allocations for students who are at a social disadvantage—students with disabilities, Aboriginal students and students who are having to learn English as a second language. The WA education minister, the Hon. Sue Ellery, has called the government out on it and highlighted that there is no possible way that the Commonwealth could base funding arrangements around this census, around the actual need the department establishes, but have no knowledge of the results—none at all. And now these students have been placed at risk because of reckless decisions and political point scoring by a federal government that would not consult with the WA education sector and take into account the sensitive processes run by the WA education department—processes that assess the actual need of WA school students. The minister, along with the WA treasurer, the Hon. Ben Wyatt, has called them out on this lack of proper consultation and slashing of funding, calling the figures released 'disingenuous and inaccurate'.
The WA education minister is right to point out: 'WA Liberal federal MPs need to explain to their local schools why not only are we getting ripped off with the GST; now our school funding is also being short-changed.' Again, it is unbelievable—absolutely unbelievable. How much more must Western Australia be penalised? What torturous thought bubble is the Treasurer and his Prime Minister going to come up with next for my state of Western Australia?
My electorate of Brand is home to some of the most disadvantaged communities in the metropolitan area of Perth. The 2011 census recorded the suburb of Calista—where I was born—in Brand as the fifth most socioeconomically disadvantaged SA2 area in the Greater Perth region. In the rest of WA there are many other communities that are worse off, including those in remote communities with a high Indigenous population. How on earth are we supposed to help lift these communities without properly investing in their future and the future of their children, to give parents a chance for their kids to have the best possible opportunities in life, the opportunities that some people never had as children? This is 2017. The world has changed. Educational standards and the syllabus has all changed.
In Brand we have schools giving fantastic opportunities to their students, and it is the same around the country. These successful programs and these positive learning environments are under threat from a mammoth $22.3 billion cut to school funding that this Turnbull government is proposing. It is wasteful and it is shameful. We have seen the data, the statistics, the budget papers and the press releases. It is all very well to quote numerical figures and cloak it in a conservative ideology, but what does it all mean? How does it work? At its most basic, this bill results in fewer teachers. Fewer teachers means less one-on-one time for individual students and less help to get through the basic curriculum. It is no good for students. It removes the requirements that state governments increase funding for schools, meaning that 85 per cent of public schools will not meet their 2027 fair funding targets. State governments that have underperformed have been left off the hook.
What is most absurd is how it affects different parts of the country. I feel for the Northern Territory at this time, too; it sees a growth rate of 1.3 per cent over 10 years. People should be ashamed of what they are proposing for this country.
In the words of a famous song, 'I believe that children are our future. Teach them well, and let them lead the way.' Well, children are our future, and the Turnbull government is focusing on teaching them well so that they can lead the way in the future, through the measures in this bill—measures that tie funding to improvement in student outcomes through evidence based reforms.
The Turnbull government is equally committed to our children's future through fair, consistent, transparent, real, needs based, record funding, providing long-term certainty for parents and schools, based on the Schooling Resource Standard, a model developed by the original Gonski panel. I repeat: this is record school funding, that will continue to grow—$18.6 billion in additional recurrent funding; a total of $243 billion over 10 years, which is a record in Australia.
And gone will be those 27 special, very secret, Labor deals—deals that saw schools with the same characteristics treated differently, where students with the same need in the same sector were treated differently, depending on which state they lived in and which of the 27 different deals actually applied to them. These were the deals done by the Labor government that completely undermined the integrity of the needs based funding model.
But what really concerns me is that, despite increased funding growth over a long period in Australia, our performance in national and international assessments has declined or remained static. It is not acceptable that large numbers of Australian students did not reach intermediate international benchmarks in science and maths.
That is why the Turnbull government is acting now. We need to equip our students with a strong foundation in literacy, numeracy, science, technology, engineering and maths. These skills are really critical in regional and rural areas like my electorate of Forrest, which is undergoing change and will continue to do so in the years ahead.
I recently read a very thought-provoking article by David Kennedy and Nathan Taylor, who wrote about the effects of automation on regional Australia, on regions like my own. They write of how the growth of online services eliminate many routine tasks done by keepers and accountants; of the construction jobs where robotics will replace manual labour; of how Komatsu uses drones to coordinate automated bulldozers; and of companies getting 3-D printers to use cement to construct housing. The article said the jobs of the future will be in tasks involving cutting-edge, high-level creativity.
Well, in WA for instance, we already see Rio's autonomous vehicles—the 73 416-tonne dump trucks on mine sites in the Pilbara. They are controlled from a central control in Perth. They work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year, carting iron ore. And of course this is done by GPS, radar and laser sensors. I recently saw a remotely-controlled bobcat for use on a mine site developed by Hotweld Engineering in Bunbury in my electorate.
We will see more jobs in control rooms and in innovation, and fewer on various mine sites. So we will need people with the skills to fulfil these roles. We will need all the skilled and talented individuals we can retain in rural and regional Australia.
Measures within this bill are a key part of this future, through that focus, as I said, on literacy, numeracy, science, technology, engineering and maths. In this bill, the government is actively choosing fairness, equity and quality, where student outcomes are valued just as much as student funding.
I have got no doubt that parents will really appreciate the improved accountability and transparency, the ministerial reporting requirements, and the publication of Commonwealth funding to schools on an annual basis. Parents will know exactly what Commonwealth funding their child's school is receiving, from Augusta in the south of my electorate to Nannup and Balingup in the east, and from Margaret River, Busselton and Bunbury on the coast to Yarloop and Harvey in the north.
What I am really pleased about is that David Gonski will conduct a review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. The review will provide advice on how the extra Commonwealth funding should be invested to improve Australian school performances and to grow that very important student achievement. The review will contribute to the evidence based need, to ensure the funding is used in ways that make a genuine difference to student outcomes. The review will focus on practical measures that work, both from within Australia and from around the world, so that we improve the results for Australia's children.
There is further work ahead with the states and territories to develop and deliver a new national schooling agreement to help address declining student performance. I was at an Australian Primary Principals Association friends' event last night, and I have no doubt that they will be keen participants in the discussions ahead, bringing, as Minister Birmingham said, their thoughtful, reasoned and considered approach to the table in all of their discussions.
The guest speaker, Lisa Rogers, spoke about principals as instructional leaders and about the moment-by-moment decisions that teachers make in classrooms. I look forward to their contribution to David Gonski's review. This is the group that demonstrates the importance of strong positive leadership in schools. I have very many fine examples of those who I have worked with in different ways in my electorate of Forrest. They are wonderful principals who are instructional leaders.
But I also hope that David Gonski investigates how much time our teachers in kindy and primary school spend on basic parenting tasks that seem to be taking up more of their time—perhaps simple things like toilet training—and if the children around Australia are actually coming into kindergarten and primary school ready and prepared to learn. It is about how the primary schools are providing students with the skills and knowledge to continue their high-school-level education immediately, and about how the high schools are providing students with the skills and knowledge they need to continue their university-level courses or vocational education and training immediately. And even though this review is focused on primary and secondary education, I hope that David Gonski tests the effectiveness of these combined levels of education by talking to employers, to see whether universities and VET providers are producing employees who have the skills and knowledge needed in their employment, and identify where the gaps may be.
Mr Gonski will report by December this year, ahead of the negotiation of a new school reform agreement with states and territories in the first half of 2018. I can say that I am really looking forward to his recommendations. Our reforms in quality outcomes in schools are in the areas that make a difference: strengthening literacy and STEM skills, such as requiring minimum literacy and numeracy standards for school leavers, and ensuring that English or humanities and maths or science are studied to get an ATAR.
Focusing on the importance of teacher quality: I think that everyone in this place, if they were honest, could talk about the value and influence on their lives—not only on their lives but on their student lives as well and in their ambitions—of the effect of a passionate teacher. A dedicated and passionate teacher actually has an effect not only on their learning but also on their life. One such person in my life was a wonderful teacher at Harvey High School, Fiore Rando. I know that he has educated, encouraged and inspired generations of young people in my part of the world.
And there is our focus on the importance of parental engagement. We do need parents actively engaged in their own children's education. I am on the independent public school board of Cooinda Primary School. There we see directly how important that direct parental engagement is in what that the board is doing and will achieve with the school. I strongly support the government's key reforms there. The importance of very strong leadership cannot be underestimated in our schools; it is a key driver.
Our year 1 reading, phonics and literacy assessments will help to assist in the early identification and intervention needed for some students. We will keep our very best teachers in the classroom. 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 students in schools.
The amendments in the bill will commence on 1 January 2018, in line with the school year, to 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 as well as 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 non-government schools from an average of 77 per cent in 2017 to 80 per cent in 2027. The share of funding provided by the Commonwealth will increase across Australia, bringing it to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for the government sector. It is a significant increase. It reflects the Commonwealth government's historic role as the minority public funder of the government sector and the primary funder of the non-government sector.
The Turnbull government, as we know, has fully funded our education plan. This will ensure students across the country receive funding based on need and that all students will be treated equally. 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 2018-21 than if funding grew just in line with movements in CPI.
It has been reported that the states welcome the Commonwealth funding and may shift their own funding to minimise their own costs. The bill introduces a requirement for states and territories to actually maintain their real per-student funding levels as a condition of Commonwealth funding to prevent cost shifting to the Commonwealth. As we in this place all know, the Commonwealth does not own or operate a single school, so it is important that school funding by the states continues.
We will establish a transition adjustment fund that will provide support to assist vulnerable schools to ensure the move to the new funding formula is smooth. The Turnbull government has been very clear: 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 to avoid the situation we have had previously—that of participating and non-participating states. 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 actually improve student outcomes.
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. As I said at the beginning of this speech, children are our future and we need to teach them well. We also need to ensure we fund schools appropriately, and that is precisely what the Turnbull government is doing with this plan. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I rise in this place this evening to stand up and fight for the Herbert principals, schools, teachers, parents and, more importantly, the students. What I find absolutely extraordinary is that I stand in this place this evening, in a week where we have recognised the 1967 referendum, the Mabo High Court decision and 20 years since the Bringing them home report, to talk about a proposal of unbelievably unfair needs-based funding. Our first nations children deserve a fair education that is based on Labor's needs-based funding. Education is their only way out of poverty and disadvantage and into a life of purpose, meaning, contribution and citizenship. That will require for each and every one of them, regardless of where they live in this nation, access to a quality education. I think it would be fair to say that only Labor will deliver that education funding.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education have got to be absolutely kidding if they think this legislation fools anyone. This government likes to use little catchphrases to try and piggyback off some of Labor's greatest initiatives—the latest classic being Gonski 2.0. But this is not Labor's needs based funding for schools, and what the government is peddling could never be confused with Labor. This government fails to have Labor's understanding and commitment that all children should be able to reach their full potential no matter where they live, whether it is in the rich suburb of the Prime Minister's electorate in Wentworth or in a strong worker's suburb like Garbutt in Townsville, or on Palm Island. Those opposite will never be Labor, because the Turnbull government has no compassion or empathy for families, workers and pensioners—absolutely no heart to help others out and no guts to simply do the right thing. This is a government that is for top hats and not hard hats. This is a government for multimillionaires, not battlers. This government has cut $22 billion from our schools just so that Malcolm Turnbull can give a $65.4 billion tax cut to big business. Parents, principals and teachers know schools will be worse off because of the Liberal's $22 billion cut to education. This is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade, or sacking 22,000 teachers.
The review of school funding report found that what matters is the total resources that a school has for each and every child who walks through the school gate. The Turnbull government is trying desperately not to make this debate about funding. Guess what? That is exactly what it is about. It will not be the schools in Wentworth, inner Sydney or Melbourne that will miss out. No. It will be the schools in regional, rural and remote Queensland that will be left out, and, of course, they need it the most—and that is not to mention the Northern Territory. The schools in Herbert that have some of the most dedicated teachers and staff, devoted P&Fs and P&Cs and some of the brightest students in the country will be ignored by the Turnbull government as it rips $22 billion out of education funding.
North Queensland has been subjected time and time again to the continual mistreatment by this government. There is absolutely nothing in the budget for North Queensland—not even a mention. This government cutting $22 billion in funding for schools is like rubbing salt into our wounds. Our community knows that this is where these funding cuts will hit the hardest. It will be schools like Aitkenvale State School that have used their Labor needs based funding to start up a language program. Here is a school where the student population is one-third refugee, one-third Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and one-third mainstream—that is, two-thirds of the school population for whom English is not their first language. The innovative language program set up by the Aitkenvale State School places children who are struggling with English into a dedicated language classroom, where they experience intensive English lessons so that they can be proficient in English in order to return to mainstream lessons. This ensures that they do not fall behind and that they can have access to a good quality education. This program not only takes pressures off students but also reduces the pressures on teachers in the classroom, allowing them the time and space to focus on the curriculum for mainstream children—and no child is left behind as a result. It is very apparent that this government has no idea that its cuts will put this language program in jeopardy.
Mundingburra State School is another fine example of how Labor's funding helped students and families. This school was able to employ an Indigenous liaison officer, who directly supports families to ensure that their children attend school every day. This has significantly increased the attendance rate for struggling families and students. And then there is Heatley state high school. This school has employed a highly qualified literacy and numeracy expert teacher, who has identified those students who are struggling. She has ensured that they have the assistance they need to catch up to their peers in order to reach their potential. I have seen the difference that this teacher has been able to make to students' lives. For example, one particular student, who is in grade 10, had a reading and writing level of year 5. This student used to act out in the classroom and had behavioural issues. When the expert teacher started with this young man, it took him 30 minutes to write just one sentence. In less than 10 months of intensive support and engagement, this young man can now write stories—pages long—and has recently put together a PowerPoint presentation for his class. The behavioural issues have stopped and his studies are improving every day.
Labor's approach to needs based funding has changed these students for the better. Labor's approach to needs based funding has enabled each of these schools to identify their gaps, plan for change and enact the change necessary to make sure that no child was left behind in their community. I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training: you are putting these students' education at risk. You are threatening their futures by placing their education funding in jeopardy. You are taking away the ability for teachers to be flexible and innovative in developing teaching and learning strategies that make a difference and, most importantly, engage students in the learning process.
The Turnbull government claims to be the government of the ideas boom. Well, let me tell you, when it comes to education it is very obvious that they do not have any idea whatsoever. They have no idea that for this country to lead in innovation into the future, we must invest in education for every child, regardless of their social status, family income, culture, race or religion. The big ideas that will lead to the future prosperity of this great nation will not come from this backward government, but, given a fair go and a great education, they will come from our sprouting students. That is why we need to protect genuine needs based funding through Australian legislation and legislate the government's commitment to deliver for all schools and all students.
But the legislation proposed by the Turnbull government will do completely the opposite. This bill removes the commitment to deliver quality teaching and learning, to deliver school autonomy and increased say for principals and school communities, to deliver transparency and accountability, and to deliver for students with extra needs.
Under what the Turnbull government is proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027. That is eight years from now. Under their model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools. Labor's needs based funding model was providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools. We know that public schools still cater for seven out of 10 children with a disability, seven out of 10 children from a language background other than English, eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and around eight out of 10 children from low-income families. Labor's new funding model also had full public funding for all loadings for disadvantage, so the Catholic and independent schools that educate children with extra needs would also get the funding necessary. You would have to be blind, deaf and dumb over the last few weeks not to have heard the cries from Catholic Education against the Turnbull government. They have every right to be concerned over the Turnbull government's education cuts, as their funding model penalises some Catholic schools in some of the most disadvantaged parts of this country. There is a grave concern that they will suffer real funding losses and will have to increase their fees or cut teachers at these schools.
I am a former student of a Catholic primary school and St Patrick's College in Townsville, and a currently registered teacher and a former teacher myself. I also have a sister and brother who are both principals, one in the public system and one in the independent system, and a number of extended family who are teachers. The teaching expertise in our family goes back to my grandmother. I warn this government now that I am asking many questions of principals, P&Cs and P&Fs in the schools in my electorate. I can assure you that you will hear me loudly and clearly if you cut $22 billion from schools that is vital not only for public schools but also for the Catholic schools in Herbert.
What is even more of a joke from this government is that they are saying that the new national agreement will not even go to COAG until mid-2018. Does this government have absolutely no idea of the work that is involved for a principal and a school community to plan in advance? Schools cannot be expected to plan with five minutes notice, but apparently this government seems to think that that is possible. So to every state and territory, to all the teachers, principals, staff, P&Cs and P&Fs, now is the time to stand up and fight back. Do not agree to anything except for Labor's full rollout of needs based funding. The Turnbull government is waiting until mid next year for a COAG agreement. Maybe it would be a better idea to have an election mid next year and kick this disgraceful coalition government out. This government will and must pay for its blatant inability to listen to expert educators and not acting in the best interests of all of our students.
There is a clear difference between Labor and the LNP. Over the next two years alone, Labor would have invested about $3 billion more than the LNP into schools to get each and every school up to their fair level of funding. Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following objective into Australian law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
That is exactly what the Turnbull government wants to remove from the act. This government is so out of touch, so backward, so self-centred, actually believing that it could not preserve in law that all students are entitled to an excellent education allowing them to reach their full potential.
Further to that legislation objective, they are scrapping fundamental targets that ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high-quality and highly equitable education for all students by having regard to the following national targets: Australia to be placed in the top five performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; Australia's schooling system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable school system by international standards by 2025; lift the year 12 (or equivalent) or certificate II attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2015; lift the year 12 (or equivalent) or certificate III attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2020; at least halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020, from the 2006 baseline; and halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other students in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018, from the 2008 baseline.
These are admirable targets that should not be disbanded. But when you do not want people in this country to know just how out of touch you really are in relation to education, and how useless a government you really are, of course you would scrap targets, because then there is nothing to measure just how bad your funding model really is. The irony of scrapping these targets is that the Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham, wants to get rid of classroom tests; but that would also mean he gets rid of his own tests in terms of the targets to measure how effective his funding model is because he knows that his ranking will be 'F' for fail.
Only Labor will ever invest in schools. Only Labor will ever fight for principals, teachers and students. Only Labor can ever be trusted with education. And only Labor will restore the LNP's $22 billion in cuts and properly fund our schools. Because it is only Labor that truly believes that every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity to succeed in life. (Time expired)
We are debating one of the most important areas of legislation for any government—the education of our children and the proper resourcing of the schools and teachers who support them. The Turnbull government's approach with this bill is to ensure a fair, transparent and consistent schools funding model. Those themes of fairness, transparency and consistency are so critical in this debate and they are the principles that those opposite are simply ignoring in not supporting this bill. Of course, it reflects some of the core concepts recommended by the Gonski review, which the former Labor government often talked about but were clearly never committed to funding or implementing properly.
Instead, they tolerated and condoned inequities in the system and went about the awkward and inconsistent approach of special deals across the country. They were not and clearly are not interested in the principles of fairness, transparency and consistency that the government promotes in this amendment bill. Further, whilst those opposite continue with their political games, the government is getting on with the job, as it has been doing right across the portfolios in terms of community security, economic stability, growth and jobs—and in this case education arrangements, which will cease by the end of this year, by developing this legislation to set school funding for 2018 and beyond.
This bill puts in place an extra $18.6 billion in recurrent school funding, which will bring our total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027. Labor feebly suggests that this record expenditure is a cut, whereas in reality the only cuts to education that are on record are Labor's hollow promises of the past that were never a real program of government, were not funded beyond 2017 and remained unfunded under their current policies. But it is not just about the dollars. The Turnbull government's approach to ensuring quality in our education system, in line with our Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes policy, is focused on ensuring student outcomes are prioritised as much as student funding. As I said, it is only the Turnbull government that is getting on with the job of ensuring quality in our education system, and that is important due to our country's declining education performance, a decline that must be addressed.
National and international evidence proves that we must step up our efforts. It is simply not acceptable that large numbers of Australian students did not reach intermediate international benchmarks in science and mathematics. If we want our country to be competitive in a global environment with all its opportunities and challenges in a significant period of change and innovation that will not abate, our children must be technologically literate. They must have strong foundations in literacy and numeracy, and in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That is why the Turnbull government's Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes reform agenda is so essentially focused on strengthening teaching and school leadership, developing essential knowledge and skills, improving student participation and parental engagement, and ensuring better evidence and transparency.
As the person in this House who represents the wonderful electorate of Groom, I am so very proud to see this agenda underway in my community—in Pittsworth, Oakey, Toowoomba, Highfields and so many villages in between; in preschool and in primary and secondary school settings. Like so many in this House, I am a proud student from my own region. I began school at state school and continued my primary schooling at St Thomas More Catholic Primary School in Toowoomba before proceeding to St Joseph's College and Downlands College to complete my secondary education. We have a significant education sector in our region, servicing not only our local communities but many communities and many families, through our boarding schools, right throughout southern inland Queensland, northern inland New South Wales and beyond. Tremendous child-care and preschool facilities complement our fine schools, as do the TAFE, the University of Southern Queensland and the nearby University of Queensland campus at Gatton.
I am fortunate indeed to be married to a teacher. My wife, Anita, teaches in the Catholic education sector. I have had the privilege in past years of being a member of the Catholic Education board for the Toowoomba diocese, and I have been a board member and chairman of the Downlands College board as well. All of our six children have been educated in Toowoomba schools in the Catholic education system. I am particularly proud that two of our daughters are completing their education degrees, one in primary school teaching, the other as a secondary school trainee teacher currently on prac in Central Queensland this very week. As I know, they are both passionate about their future careers and, like their mum, they are already getting that unsurpassed satisfaction of seeing students learn and develop such that they too, in turn, can take up their full roles in our society.
As a student, parent and partner of a teacher, and as a board member of a schooling system and school board chair, I know what it is like in state, Catholic and independent schools to strive for a focus on education quality, to maintain budget, to manage and provide for those outcomes, to satisfy families' desires for their children to admire and benefit from the efforts of passionate, professional teachers and, above all else, to ensure high-quality outcomes for children throughout our region.
The challenge has been significant, and it remains. We must continue to improve year by year. That is why I am so proud to be a member of a government that is committed to such outcomes in a fair, consistent and transparent way. In our electorate of Groom, we are blessed with 73 primary and secondary schools, including state, Catholic and independent institutions, and including a number of boarding schools. Every one of those schools, large and small alike, will see an increase over the next 10 years. Every one. These schools in Groom will see an estimated $1.9 billion in total Commonwealth funding over the period 2018 to 2027. Each of our schools will receive their fair share of funding based on need, with more transparency and ties to reforms to boost our education outcomes.
Let us stop for a moment to consider some of those increases from 2018 to 2027 to just some of the schools across Groom, in Toowoomba and across the Darling Downs. Highfields State Secondary College, the magnificent new school just north of Toowoomba, established by the former LNP state government: $4.5 million. One of our well-regarded boarding schools, Concordia Lutheran College: $13.5 million. The magnificent Clifford Park Special School: $3.5 million. St Mary's College, a traditional Christian Brothers college, now a diocesan school, established in 1899: $20.1 million. Kingsthorpe State School in a significant growth corridor: $1.7 million. Harristown State Primary School, with an amazing and eclectic student body: $3.5 million. Just across the road, Harristown State High School, under the leadership of Ken Green: $17.6 million. The historic Toowoomba Grammar School, established in 1876, whose students joined me at the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra just last week: $21 million. Centenary Heights State High School, where my sister started her teaching career, now led by Mary Anne Walsh: $13.5 million. Meringandan State School, on another significant growth corridor: $1.7 million. Toowoomba Christian College, a burgeoning school at Highfields: $17.5 million. And St Joseph's College, also originally a Christian Brothers college, now a co-educational diocesan school: $18.2 million.
In my 10 or so months in this House, I have regularly taken the opportunity to talk about the wonderful electorate of Groom, and the fact that it is leading regional Australia in economic development and export activity and that it maintains an employment rate and standard of living which is the envy of much of the rest of the country. This is due in no small part to the ongoing leadership and investment of the Turnbull government, the former LNP state government and the Toowoomba Regional Council, all of whom partnered in infrastructure and policy settings that have allowed our region to absolutely blossom. As you would be familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, our agricultural base lies amongst the best farming and grazing regions in the land. We are a resource and energy powerhouse, with a significant mining industry heritage. We have facilities involved in coal, solar, wind and gas based energy activities. We are leaders in these areas as well. As I have said, we are the education capital of much of southern inland Queensland and northern inland New South Wales, and we continue to grow as a health capital for those very same regions across these two states. Our arts culture is evolving dramatically, and technology and innovation in data storage, robotics, composite fibre technology and agricultural engineering, amongst other areas of activity, are capturing worldwide attention. Of course we have two defence bases in our region—the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, Swartz Barracks, and Borneo Barracks at Cabarlah, a significant signals and technological warfare unit.
The essential part of the puzzle in securing our future as a region, given all those assets, given all that innovation, is that our education system has to be based on a fairer, needs based, more transparent and consistently supported arrangement. To maintain that focus in Groom for businesses and our families and to continue to create the jobs of the future, a quality education system with guaranteed funding from government is absolutely essential. We need those skills, and education has to go hand in hand with job creation for our region in the future. That is why this bill promises so much for Australia, especially in my electorate of Groom.
I join my colleagues in speaking on the Australian Education Amendment Bill, which, frankly, encapsulates just how out of touch this government has become. You would think, when you listen to this debate, that we are talking about two different pieces of legislation, with those on the other side touting the bill as the best thing for our schools and those on this side joining with state governments, who run our public education system, joining with the Catholic education system and joining with those who have been fighting for such a long time, our teachers and our parents, for proper needs based funding for our schools.
I do not think there are many on the backbench who actually understand the complexity of what this government has done with the formula for schools funding. I do not think they understand that what they have now done is take as a baseline the $30 billion of cuts that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott inflicted on our schools and then use that to claim they are providing additional funding to our schools. That is not the Schooling Resource Standard that was part of the Gonski reforms, and it is a very poor decision that this government has made. Make no mistake—the government's legislation cuts $22 billion from what the schools, the states, the Catholic Education Office and the independent schools were expecting as part of needs based funding for our schools. That is what this legislation does—it removes from law the commitments to deliver quality teaching and learning. It entrenches inequality in our school system and it will mean that far too many students will be left behind.
In order to understand why we have ended up with this piece of unfair legislation before us, we have to look at the government's approach to schools and education overall. At every moment, this government has attacked school funding and undermined Labor's needs based reforms. Who can forget the promise that voters saw as they were heading into the voting booths in 2013, that the Liberals would match Labor's school funding commitment dollar for dollar? They said that they were on a unity ticket when it came to school funding. Well, that absolute untruth turned out to be a complete untruth. Those promises did not even last a year.
And then we had the former education minister, the member for Sturt, boasting about how he was handing over school funding with no strings attached, undoing the transparency and accountability mechanisms that the previous Labor government had put in place. The government could not be trusted then and they cannot be trusted now. A change in Prime Minister and a change in minister have not changed a thing when it comes to their unfair approach to school funding.
What we have on the table is a desperate attempt to re-badge their failures in education policy. What we have is a $22 billion cut. They are trying to distract from their appalling history on schools policy and trying to distract from their damaging plans for the future of our schools. There are clear and compelling reasons why we need to fight this government's proposal. Access to education is fundamental to the economic and social progress of our nation. Education, alongside universal health care, is the most important investment a government can make to tackle inequality. It is the difference between lifting children out of intergenerational poverty; closing the gap on outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; ensuring that children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are included; and providing opportunities for children with disabilities to reach their full potential and not be left behind in what is becoming such a fast-paced world.
We ask a lot of our education system: our teachers, our students and the parents of these children. We want to support better quality teachers. We want better educational outcomes and we want to lift the outcomes for children who experience disadvantage. We want to develop children who are great readers and who are able to unlock mathematics; children who learn to code, to participate in healthy physical activity and who learn music, art, other languages and about other cultures. We want all of these things for our children because we know that these are the skills that are required to grow and develop our economy. And yet we have a government which does not want to invest properly in our schools in a way that is needed to achieve all of these things.
The fact that this bill seeks to remove as one of the objectives of the Australian Education Act the words:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.
says everything about this government. They want to remove that objective; they are simply not interested in the power of education to actually change people's lives.
In government, Labor developed the Schooling Resource Standard, a funding model that clearly defined the funding required for each child to attain a great education regardless of which school sector they were in. It includes loading for specific disadvantage, targeted to the students who need the most help: extra support for Indigenous students, students with a disability, students in remote and rural areas or students in areas of particular disadvantage. The funding commitments we made for the Commonwealth were based on the total resources available within each state and within each school sector.
Let's just remember what the review into schools funding itself said:
Not all states and territories have the same capacity to fund their school systems adequately.
This is something that the government seems to have been forgotten. To get all our school systems onto an even playing field across the country and to close the cross-border gaps we have to recognise that different states and territories are in different places with different starting points, and that different sectors are at different starting points, in order to lift everybody up to that standard.
We reached agreements with states and territories to ensure that schools whose total resources fell below the Schooling Resource Standard would reach that funding level by 2019. In the case of my home state of Victoria, that year was set at 2022 in recognition that it needed further time to lift up to that resource. We offered two-thirds of the extra funding needed to get all the schools up to the Schooling Resource Standard, tying our contribution to state commitments to increase their funding by one-third. What this government has done is said that none of that matters. They say that the total funding that schools have does not matter, and they have now retreated in this bill to a Commonwealth-only funding model, an offer that does not lock states into keeping or increasing their commitments to schools.
Let's look at what exactly they are proposing in this bill. I really hope that the backbench have actually read and understood the complexities of this funding model and why this is actually a substantial retrograde step for schools in their own electorates. When you look at the detail it does become pretty clear that it is not needs based funding—and it is certainly not fair. Their plan would see a transition to a flat Commonwealth contribution—remembering you are not looking at the total resourcing of schools now—of 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for all government schools, and 80 per cent for all non-government schools. It is not sector blind, it is absolutely sector specific. This rule locks in a sector specific rate for different systems and will result in some wealthier schools being better off, and those schools that desperately need extra support continuing to be left behind.
Importantly, there is no requirement for the states and territories to ever lift their contribution to get our public schools closer to the Schooling Resource Standard. They are walking away from the targets in the current act. These targets were put in place by Labor to build internationally competitive education systems across our county to meet our future needs. The impacts of the government cuts are very clear. It is an average of $2.4 million from each school across the nation. That is what the $22 billion is.
Over the weeks since the budget, I have spoken to a number of principals in my own electorate, and they have told me how much they stand to lose under this government's proposal. The local Catholic Education Office has told me firsthand the damage that it will do. We are in a fairly disadvantaged lower socioeconomic area, but they are saying that even in that circumstance where they get additional funding—not under this model but the one in which the distribution works—they will still have to charge their parents $100 to $200 extra in school fees in their Catholic primary education system. And that of course is at the current rate of growth that the government is proposing. They are saying that in future years that will potentially blow out to $1,000.
Parents in my electorate are not wealthy, and families sending their children to Catholic parish schools are not wealthy. Many of them choose to go to Catholic parish schools because they have kids with special needs and under that system currently they are able to access better services—or more support services—than they are through the public education system, because the public education system is so poorly funded. What this government is doing is cutting those Catholic schools. But what it is doing to public schools is frankly absolutely appalling. The Catholic Education Office says that they were not consulted on these changes; they were ambushed. They are facing cuts and they are going to have to, as I said, raise fees for parents who send their kids to Catholic schools. Local public schools in particular are worse off. According to figures released by the Victorian government, schools in my own electorate stand to lose over $14.7 million in funding just in the next two years, 2018 to 2019.
I cannot believe that Ballarat Specialist School, a school that has some of the most disadvantaged children in my constituency, is set to lose $1.1 million. Bacchus Marsh College will lose $1.4 million. Mount Clear College will lose $1.6 million. Ballarat Secondary College will lose $900,000. Daylesford Secondary College will lose $500,000. Darley Primary School will lose $300,000. Buninyong Primary School will lose $300,000. Urquhart Park Primary School, who were here in this parliament in the last couple of days, will lose $200,000 over that period of time. These are not just numbers on a page; they represent fewer teachers, less resources and less support in our public classrooms. These cuts will mean that kids who need the most help will not be given the support they need.
Many of us—and I do not talk publicly very much about this—have children who have disabilities and children with special needs. I see, every single day, the enormous struggle those kids have in school. And it is heartbreaking—absolutely heartbreaking—that they cannot get the support they need to learn. Teachers are trying with the resources that they have to do the best they can with those kids. Kids on the autism spectrum disorder who are not eligible for aides because their IQs are at a certain level beyond where they would be eligible are not causing great disruption in classrooms, but they are falling behind every single day. Children with dyslexia, other speech disorders, other learning disorders and ADHD are all falling behind in our education system. The results are lifelong. If they cannot catch up, if they cannot keep up, if they do not get the support they need academically, socially and emotionally in those schools, we know that those children end up with greater mental health problems. They end up not having the same capacity and opportunities in life. They end up, really, having major disadvantage going forward.
As a parent of a child with a significant learning difficulty, it breaks my heart that you are doing this. I cannot believe that you are doing this to children in public schools with disabilities. I am lucky that I have the resources to try and support my child and my school. But there are parents struggling every single day. You are now saying, 'Your kids do not matter. Your kids in regional areas, areas of disadvantage, do not matter.' That is what you are saying with this bill.
For students with disability, as I said, the cuts are particularly harsh. The Catholic Education Office in Ballarat has told me that their funding for students with disabilities will fall by roughly half. That is simply unacceptable. When you have the government telling us that they are now great champions of the NDIS, you should hang your heads in shame.
Remember: this government went to the 2013 election promising to fund the full disability loading. But students with disability have seen nothing but broken promises. In government, Labor put in place the More Support for Students with Disabilities program, with $100 million of year in additional funding, to specifically support students with a disability. Frankly, this government's decision to cut the funding for children with disability and impose $22 billion of cuts is an absolute disgrace.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about the importance of education for our community and the wonderful opportunity that we have created in this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, to increase funding over the next 10 years to schools right around Australia. It is my pleasure today to rise in the House to speak in support of this bill, which will provide a needs-based funding model for every school across the country, particularly in my electorate of Forde over the next 10 years.
The Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, or Gonski 2.0, as it has been colloquially termed, is delivering a real Gonski needs-based funding model that those opposite did not deliver. We are delivering record—and growing—funding for schools. Over the next 10 years, a record $242 billion will be invested in schools recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81 billion over 2018 to 2021. Funding for schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2027 to $30.6 billion in 2027. The funding, importantly, will grow, on average, faster than broader inflation, with total Commonwealth funding growing by approximately 75 per cent over the next 10 years and funding per student growing at an average of some 4.1 per cent each year. Every school and every student in my electorate of Forde will be better supported well into the future through this school funding model. In my home state of Queensland, schools will receive a funding increase of some 91.5 per cent over the next 10 years. At a national level, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase in real terms as a result of this truly needs-based funding model.
Importantly, when we came to government after the 2013 election, we were the first to invest additional funds in the Queensland education system through an $800 million investment that those opposite never provided. That went straight to our local schools across Queensland and resulted in programs such as the Great Results Guarantee, which ultimately became, with a change of state government, the Investor Success Program. When I speak with my principals around the schools in my electorate, they speak of how great that additional money has been in helping them run programs specifically tailored to the school cohort. Over the next 10 years, funding for government schools will continue to grow, to nearly $100 billion, from 2018 to 2027.
With this bill, the coalition is putting an end to some 27 special deals with states, territories, unions and the non-government school leaders that have distorted funding needs and would have some schools waiting up to 150 years to get their fair share of school funding support. This school funding plan will mean that schools in my electorate of Forde will receive their fair share of support sooner and will ensure that they do not suffer as a result of Labor's special deals.
While the government believes in a strong level of funding for schools, how that funding is used is just as important. That is why I support the government's new inquiry, led by David Gonski, which will look into improving results for Australian students by focusing on the most effective teaching and learning strategies in an effort to reverse declining results and seek to raise the performance of schools and students. Our reforms are aimed at setting up our schools for the future to deliver a fair needs-based funding model for all Australian students.
Last week I was very pleased to be joined by the Minister for Education in my electorate of Forde, where I represent some 41 schools and around 32½ thousand students. We had the pleasure of visiting Upper Coomera State College, where we met with school leaders and with Principal Chris Capra. The school runs an extremely successful cafe program to give students practical work experience. The minister and I had the pleasure of dropping in for a coffee and asked the students about their cafe and what they were learning from the experience. They shared the enjoyment they are getting from learning those basic, practical work skills. I would like to thank Zarraffa's Coffee franchisees for their support of the cafe and provision of equipment and coffee. It is just like going to any one of my local Zarraffa's stores.
Afterwards we visited the library to join a STEM class with some of the primary school students. The government understands the importance of technology and innovation as the future of Australian industry, and we can see every day the increasing importance that technology and innovation play in our lives. So it is important that our school students are brought up in an environment where they are exposed to technology, coding and a range of other subject areas that, when I went to school, we probably did not even think about. We are supporting our students through initiatives that encourage studies in STEM projects. It was terrific to see the year 6 students try to navigate a sphere through an obstacle that they had to actually program themselves. It was a lot more difficult than it looked. After every exercise, the teacher would change the course, and so they had to reprogram the sphere. Looking at these subjects and what is being done in our schools today, we see the change since I was at school. This is about preparing those kids for the future, for jobs that may not even exist today.
On leaving Upper Coomera State College, we visited Leapfrog Childcare Centre at Ormeau to chat with the educators there. As part of our overall education package, as a separate part of that, it is important that we put in place childcare reforms in this budget as well. This was a great opportunity to discuss those opportunities with our local childcare centre operator. Importantly, when you go and talk to the local childcare centre operators—and even when I talk to the schools, as I do on a regular basis—you discover the increasing level of interaction between our schools and our childcare centres to ensure that the kids who are going through child care are properly ready to go to school. What they are seeing as a consequence of that is the kids' capacity in their early years of school; they are much better adjusted and much better prepared because they have actually gone across to the school and understand a little better what the school environment is really like.
We then held two forums—one with our local school principals and one with local teachers. I am very pleased to say that these forums were very well attended and the feedback we attended was extremely positive. I would like to thank the minister for making himself available to speak with not only our school principals but some of the leading teachers from schools across the electorate of Forde. Principals and teachers alike expressed their satisfaction and their approval of the fact that they actually had an opportunity to speak with the minister directly.
But what was equally important was that we had one of these forums early last year. At that particular forum, we said to the teachers and to the principals in particular that we were focused on a needs-based funding system and that we would be increasing funding above what they were already receiving. Many of these principals had said to me that, with the Great Results Guarantee money that they receive—or Investing for Success (I4S) money as it is now—they were able to run programs that they had not previously been able to run and they wanted to continue those programs. A number of principals at that forum last week shared their pleasure and their delight for their school community and for the students and their teaching staff, who do such a tremendous job every single day. Not only do they now know that they are going to receive at least the same quantum of funding they received previously; we are actually going to increase their funding next year. So not only can they continue their existing programs that are starting to achieve some significant results in their school—in fairness to Queensland Education they have done a really good job of allowing the state school principals to prepare the programs that are applicable to the student cohort in their school—they are not dictated to on how they have to spend the money.
So this additional funding that we are now putting into the system with this bill is only going to build on that fabulous foundation that we as a government put in place as a result of the extra $800 million that we provided to Queensland schools in 2013 after we came to government. It has put at ease the minds of the principals and the teachers, who now know they will have the funding and the capacity to run these very important programs. It is this funding plan, and what we are looking to do with schools more broadly, that has an objective of setting our students on a path to academic excellence and to achieve real needs-based funding for students from all backgrounds in every town and city, in every region and state and in every classroom. It gives the capacity for our schools to run different programs that work for different kids in different situations.
Across my electorate of Forde I have a wide variety of schools, with a wide variety of students from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds and with a wide variety of capacity. I know that schools in my electorate have the capacity to bring in extra teachers or extra support staff to help those students that may be finding the education process a little bit difficult or are struggling with a difficult subject. It is amazing, when I talk to some of these teachers and students, how some students are fabulous in one subject but really struggle with another subject. If the school has these extra resources they can help those kids in those subjects where they may not be so strong. Those kids have the capacity, in the subjects they are strong in, to actually help their fellow students in a collaborative effort we see increasingly in schools. It is not only this encouragement to the teachers and to the principals, but the capacity for students to achieve their best.
This is what this education funding package is all about: recognising the importance of putting in place the resources necessary to ensure that our students who go to our great schools all around the country have the capacity to be their best. It is a reflection of what the budget more generally is designed to do and what this government's objectives are more generally—that is, to create the opportunities for Australians in all walks of live to strive for their goals and to achieve their best. I am proud to be a member of this government which is putting in place a plan for education funding, creating certainty for the next 10 years for the school community across Australia and for those in my electorate of Forde. I do want to see the students in my schools succeed and be their best. I know they have a tremendous contribution to make to the future of this great country. I commend this bill to the House.
As the member for Lalor I rise tonight to speak on what I consider to be the most important piece of legislation to come before this parliament: the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I say so with no hyperbole. I say so because it is my life's experience of working in the state education system in Victoria as a school teacher, as a principal class officer and as a principal. I stand here tonight as someone who absolutely understands school budgets and who absolutely understands, after 27 years in the state sector, what the Gillard reforms and the Gillard funding model meant for schools across this nation. I stand here to defend that model. I will rise as often as I can to defend that model because this is a once-in-100-years opportunity to deliver the equity that is required to bring the standards up in our schools.
This funding model is about equity. It is about quality. It is about Australia aspiring once again to be in the top five countries by 2025. The Gillard Labor government commissioned a review, and we know that that review determined that there was a Schooling Resource Standard for primary and secondary schools that needed to be reached for that equity to be assured. That was just the platform. That is the base that was determined that each school needed for each student to ensure that they got the support they needed. On top of that come the layers around disadvantage and the increased funding around disadvantage.
I stand here as the member for Lalor, the youngest electorate in the country, with 56 schools across the sectors. Some of those schools are as large as 2,000 or 1,500 students. We have some of the largest primary schools in the state. I know what this government's failure to deliver, reflected in this legislation this evening, means on the ground. I know that in my electorate, where we are educating the children of 70,000 families, if this legislation is passed and the opportunity to put in place needs based sector blind funding is missed, so will those children's futures be missed.
This review of school funding was commissioned to look at schools across the country and determine what was needed—and what was needed was for all schools to meet a student resource standard. We needed all schools to reach that student resource standard, with assistance from the federal government. We needed 27 agreements, because we have eight states. That is eight state sectors. That is eight state Catholic sectors. That is every other grouping of independent schools across this country. There were 27 agreements because there were 27 different sectors that needed come to an agreement with the federal government to ensure that their sectors could reach this student resource standard. That is what we are talking about here. Just to give some insight: when I left education in Victoria to become the member for Lalor, primary schools in Victoria were funded around $6,000 per student and secondary schools around $8,000 per student. The student resource standard that we were talking about in 2014 was $9,271 per primary school student and $12,193 per secondary school student. That was set to go up using the indexation model. We know on this side of the House how we planned to do that. We knew that, in delivering a large amount of funds to bring schools up to that student resource standard, years 5 and 6 were critical. This piece of legislation walks away from sector blind and needs based funding. It will reinstate the Howard model of funding for schools across this country—the Howard model that had the funding wars going on election after election, with sector against sector and school against school. That model did not deliver the equity required in our system for excellence.
These resources are critical for schools to have the aspirations that we need them to have to bring up the standard for children, and this legislation is a real cut. Speaker after speaker has talked about the promise that those opposite made at the 2013 election. The member for Boothby was in here today speaking on this legislation. She may not have known that at the 2013 election corflutes were at the schools in Boothby with that promise written on them—and that promise was seen by every family. What is really important for people here to understand is that this is not just a debate for today; this goes back decades. Under the former Labor government the breakthrough occurred, and we got consensus on what was needed to lift our schools. We got consensus around the fact that the problem in our schools' performance against those international standards was equity. We set in place not just funding reforms but reforms around what we expected of our schools. We know that what is being proposed here is a cut. We have heard speaker after speaker say that it is a cut. The government acknowledges it is a cut in its own paperwork when it says that it is a '$22.3 billion save'. It is not a 'save' if the children of the 70,000 families in my electorate have the transformative power of education taken away from them—and that is what we are debating in this chamber tonight.
We have heard a lot of talk from those opposite about numbers. Just for the record, I think we need to make it clear that the numbers that we on this side of the House are using are the numbers for the next two years and the numbers that those opposite are using are numbers for the next decade. Just take that in for a moment when you think about the cuts that are being proposed to be delivered for the next two years. I want to preface that a little. As I said, this debate goes back for decades. Some of this work goes back a decade. I was working in schools under a Labor federal government when national partnerships agreements hit the ground and funding came through the doors of the school I was working at to look at extended hours, to look at the impact of literacy and numeracy coaching and to study and evaluate the impact that these resources could have on student outcomes in our school. I know that in my electorate where that money flowed to highly disadvantaged schools huge differences have been made in student outcomes; schools are now punching above their weight. But I also know what a long journey that has been for the teaching fraternity across Victoria, and across the country. I know the things that schools are learning because I was in schools and I learnt beside the teachers delivering in those classrooms.
We are analysing student performance and student learning at the micro level. Teachers are working every day to ensure that they know every child's learning capacity and every child's learning level. Teachers are working harder than they have ever worked in a very new way. To make the efficiencies, they need to be collaborative; because to actually be able to monitor, assess and do the diagnostics on every child in every class that you teach takes an extraordinary amount of time. So the efficiencies they are getting are through collaboration.
Years 5 and 6 of this funding model are absolutely critical—to deliver to those teachers who have honed their skills who have found new ways of working. Years 5 and 6 of this funding model are supposed to roll in and give them the resources they need to sustain and continue and refine the things that they are learning. I hate to think what is going to happen to the schools in my electorate that are aiming so high and working so hard if years 5 and 6 do not deliver the resources that they need. We have teachers working incredibly hard. The morale of the teachers across this country will sink—it will fall off a cliff—if this legislation passes this evening, if this government is allowed to implement this fake equity funding model that they are bringing into this chamber tonight.
They want to reintroduce the Howard model to our school system, to all sectors. I note our Prime Minister was on my television screen, saying that he was going to 'end the funding wars'. The funding wars ended when the reform and this funding model were delivered. The funding wars ended when that government stood at polling booths at schools across this country and said: 'Dollar for dollar, we will deliver exactly what Labor has promised.' Yet in here today they stand and read from scripts and say they are going to put in a pittance of what is required, a pittance of what the study and the review found our schools need. It is an absolute pittance.
This is a shameful day. This is an absolute opportunity that everyone agreed was required for Australia to compete. It was required for all Australian children to get the quality education that they deserve, so that we could walk in our country and say, 'Postcode will not determine your future'. That is where this debate started, and tonight those opposite want to wind that debate back.
There have been lists. There has been lots of talk about numbers. We know it is a $22.3 billion cut. I know that in Lalor that is an extraordinary amount of money being pulled out of our schools, because it is $21.5 million across the next two years. There have been lots of figures used tonight by those opposite. But I have a few figures that might shock them. The electorate of Indi is set to lose over $1,800 per student towards reaching that SRS; Mallee, $1,800; Gippsland, $1,600; Wannon, $1,600 per student. The electorate of Murray will lose $1,600 per student; Dunkley $1,344 per student across that electorate. That is the difference we are talking about, and this is for the next two years. In McMillan, the figure is nearly $1,300 per student; Corangamite, $1,200 per student; Deakin, $1,100 per student; Chisholm, $1,044 per student; and Casey, $1,000 per student.
Could those opposite for a moment stop and think about what that means? When the Catholic sector say they may have to double fees, they are the numbers that they are looking at. The Catholic sector still aspires to reach this SRS, and they know what funding is required to reach this excellence. They know how many teachers they need to put into their schools; they know at the school level what is needed. The member for Forde stood here tonight and showed fantastic insight into the schools in his electorate and what they need and the programs they are funding, and yet he is going to vote for a package that is going to rip dollars away from what is already happening in his schools.
There is no doubt in my mind that we stand right now in this chamber at a seminal moment in Australian history. I implore all senators on the crossbenches to support Labor in standing strong with a promise to deliver what we have promised our schoolchildren and their families. When you go to a low fee paying Catholic school, your fee is not covering the cost of running that school—the federal government is kicking in to do that. Catholic schools know what the SRS is, they know what they are aspiring to. This government is breaking a deal. It is breaking a promise that it made with schools across this country. It is asking all of us to accept low expectations, low aspirations and low commitment to education in this country.
I am pleased to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill. We can do nothing in this place that is more important than making sure our children get a quality education. No matter where they come from or how much their parents earn, every Australian child should be able to access the school that they deserve and need. That way we give our schoolchildren the best possible start in life. But, it is an investment in our future. We are never going to beat our competitors in South-East Asia and Asia or Africa or indeed South America or other places on the basis of driving down wages; we are going to beat them with the creativity, ingenuity, skills, talents and abilities of our people, which we will foster in education, from preschool through primary school, high school and tertiary education. This is why the Labor Party has consistently fought for Australia to have the best education system in the world. It is why we introduced the original Gonski reforms, to give every student, no matter what their circumstances, access to an excellent school experience; it is why we enacted the Schooling Resource Standard, to establish clearly and definitively the level of funding required for schools to deliver a first-rate education; and it is why we will today fight against this government's disgraceful attempt to drag school funding levels down through its sham of an education policy.
The government's education policy is nothing more than a sham—it is a con. Their own documents that they produced when they announced Gonski 2.0 show a $22 billion cut to school funding in this country. They have no credibility, and it is why the various sectors—Catholic, state sectors, state education unions and indeed conservative governments at the state level around the country—are up in arms, as well as Labor governments. This is a budget that hands millionaires and multinational companies huge tax breaks. It is shameful that the government cannot find the necessary money to match Labor's commitment to Gonski needs based funding. I was a candidate, as member for Blair, at the time, and who could forget those banners, those corflutes, on election day in September 2013? Liberal candidates—certainly the candidate who ran against me in 2013, and then fronted up in 2016 again—were saying that the Liberals would match Labor's education funding dollar for dollar, only to break that promise in the first budget in 2014, slashing, according to the budget papers, $30 billion in education funding. They have no credibility.
Debate interrupted.
It is my pleasure today to rise and congratulate the Ipswich Show Society for their great work in hosting the 2017 Ipswich Show. Held this past weekend, the Ipswich Show is a three-day event exhibiting the very best that Ipswich and the West Moreton region can offer. The show society committee is led ably by President Marcia Cruickshank and Vice President Darren Zanow. The show society always puts on a fantastic day out—an experience for the people of Ipswich and its surrounds, with this year's edition no exception. Tens of thousands of people pass through the gates each day. It is why the Ipswich City Council estimates the show contributes $13 million to the local economy every year.
I have been a proud supporter and sponsor of the show for many years. I recall, as a very young boy, being taken by my parents to the Ipswich Show. So I was pleased to hold a stall at the Ipswich Show for three days in the middle of the main pavilion, with the member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden MP, and the member for Ipswich, Jennifer Howard. It was a big Labor Party stall in the middle of the main pavilion. I was pleased to see the Labor candidate for the new seat of Jordan, Charis Mullen, turn up and campaign with us, and the member for Oxley, Milton Dick, was there as well on one of the days.
The Ipswich Show Society's contribution to the local area does not end with the Ipswich Show. The showground serves Ipswich all year round, supporting community groups, schools and sporting clubs. And, most importantly, the showground acts as the main evacuation centre in the event of natural disasters. Sadly, in my experience, we have had far too many of those, in terms of floods, in my lifetime, with our main floods being in 1974, 2011, 2013 and 2017—the recent floods.
Just recently, the show society announced their plans for a $40 million upgrade to the facility. It is an opportunity to establish a convention centre—or, should I say, an exhibition and evacuation centre. For Ipswich, this is really critical. And I am bitterly disappointed—really disappointed—that Ipswich continues to be excluded from the Building Better Regions Fund in terms of eligibility for funding. This was not the case when Labor was in power, under our Regional Development Australia fund. It was not the case under the previous National Stronger Regions Fund under this coalition government. And we saw great infrastructure being built Ipswich, such as the Ipswich Civic Centre upgrade, the Orion pool at Springfield, and the Robelle Domain parklands, funded under the former federal Labor government. We also saw the Somerset Civic Centre in Esk, the Fernvale Indoor Sports Centre, the Kilcoy Information Centre and the Somerset Regional Art Gallery in Toogoolawah, in the Somerset region—which still remains eligible, while, tragically, Ipswich does not.
I wrote to Senator Fiona Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, on 6 January this year and complained about the fact that Ipswich remained excluded. I got a letter back on 10 February this year, saying that the Building Better Regions Fund will be reviewed after round 1, which will allow for consideration of any changes before round 2 of the program. Much to my chagrin, can I say, I saw that, in the budget, Ipswich was again excluded, so I wrote to Minister Nash on 11 May, urging her to review this again. I understand there has been some latitude shown to at least one member of the coalition in relation to eligibility, and, given the Turnbull government's apparent willingness to reconsider boundaries for the Building Better Regions Fund, I urgently asked them to reconsider the program's boundaries and to include Ipswich and other, urban areas for consideration. Surely it is not the case, is it, that they are excluding areas that vote Labor in urban areas? Surely not! On behalf of the show society and Ipswich generally, I urge the minister to see reason and include Ipswich in the eligibility for the Building Better Regions Fund.
I commend the show society. Recently at the show we saw a bold new initiative which would cater for 4,000 people in an emergency situation and would seat over 600 people in the main auditorium. A beacon for expos and home shows, this would see more jobs and more profitable businesses in my area and would see the transformation of the current cattle pavilion into a four-storey exhibition and flood evacuation centre. There would be a thousand car-parking places.
This is a great project. It is one of many great projects, including the Woollen Mills arts precinct that Ipswich City Council wants upgraded. I am urging the government to reconsider, and I commend the show society. I urge community feedback in relation to this particular project.
I have the pleasure tonight to discuss my experience of travelling through my electorate last week. I have the largest federal electorate in the southern hemisphere, and I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan—you also have a large electorate—that to be effective representatives we have to keep moving. We have to be on the go all the time in order to travel vast distances.
On Monday of last week I was in Kununurra in the East Kimberley, attending a forum for the northern Australian local governments. It really was a fantastic and robust forum, where we explored the many issues faced by growing and improving communities in the north-west of this country. I presented on what we could to collectively to improve the shires' access to federal infrastructure grant funding. These types of grants are of vital importance to grow infrastructure and investment, and to encourage people to move permanently to some of the most remote, but also some of the most beautiful, parts of Western Australia.
My colleague and friend Senator Linda Reynolds delivered a very thoughtful address on the current and future Defence presence in the north-west, on how local and state governments can best encourage increased Defence industry and Defence personnel locally, and on the federal government's record planned Defence spending.
I also had the pleasure of visiting the Kununurra Clontarf Academy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Matthew Hamdorf for organising this really fabulous visit, as well as all the boys for presenting me with my very own signed Clontarf footy. How excited was I! I took the opportunity to ask the boys about what they would do if they were Prime Minister for the day. I was really blown away and quite touched by most of their responses. These students almost exclusively spoken about wanting to help other young Indigenous kids access the same services and education that they themselves were experiencing. They wanted all their friends to have the same experience, and they also wanted their schools to have greater resources.
Sadly, more than one student said that if they were Prime Minister for a day they would make sure that all the kids would be safe at home at night. Heartbreakingly, behind closed doors there are real and systemic family violence issues in country Australia. Sadly, Indigenous kids are often the victims.
This is one of the reasons why I pushed so hard for the introduction of the cashless welfare card in a number of locations around my electorate. That includes Kununurra, where, indeed, I was visiting these young people. We know that this parliament does have an obligation to keep those kids safe and to help them thrive. Certainly, we are seeing that currently with the use of the cashless welfare card.
I then had the opportunity to travel to Karratha, which is some 1,800 kilometres away, with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Minister for Women, Senator Michaelia Cash. We had the pleasure of attending a lunch with a group of local businesswomen. I would like to thank the CME representative, Nicole Roocke, for organising and the representatives from Yarra Fertilisers, Citic Pacific Mining, Woodside, Chevron and Rio Tinto for attending.
We discussed a variety of topics, but chief among them were the federal government's reforms to child care and the challenges faced by women in the workplace, as well as the good news about the increased funding for WA schools via this federal government. We also had the opportunity to drop in and speak to the year 11 and 12 girls at the Karratha Senior High School. Pleasingly, the Karratha Senior High School is going to receive $17 million in extra federal money under the coalition's full Gonski school funding arrangements. I would like to thank the principal, Jennifer Mcmahon, for her hospitality and generosity, and all the girls for their optimism and positivity.
We spoke to these bright young women about their hopes and aspirations for the future, and their plans post high school. It was inspiring to hear these young women speak, with the vast majority of them heading to university in Perth and also beyond. It was an opportunity for me to explain to them that the federal government has committed another $15 million to the Geraldton Universities Centre model, which is based in my electorate, which was very pleasing. Once I left the girls in Karratha I then travelled to Geraldton, where I had to the opportunity to speak with the Geraldton Universities Centre about the commitment of the federal government and also their plan for the Pilbara. Maybe in a few years time the sisters and their brothers of those girls in Karratha will have the chance to study at home. That would be a fabulous outcome.
Tonight I want to talk about my boots—the boots I am currently wearing. They are a fine pair of boots. They are made right in the middle of my electorate of Hindmarsh. They employ local people, they create Australian jobs and they help the local economy. It is my Rossi Boots I am talking about.
Rossi Boots is a longstanding family-owned company in South Australia. Founded by the Rossiter family in 1910, Rossi Boots is a significant contributor to our local economy. It is proudly 100 per cent Australian owned and employs about 100 Australian people. That is the reason I support them. They have had many opportunities to go offshore, like other textiles have, but they are persistent and devoted to their community, to South Australia, to creating jobs and to keeping our fine boots made locally in Australia.
There are many people around Australia who wear them proudly: farmers, construction workers and politicians in this place. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have seen a display I have in my window of Rossi Boots. I like to display local, Australian-made products that employ Australian workers and help our economy. I have a great display of a pair of boots in the window. I do this often with different businesses in my electorate.
It appears that Rossi Boots have gained a really good reputation for producing footwear that meets specific high-demand industries, notably supplying the Australian military. Unfortunately, in 2014 Rossi Boots lost their bid to provide boots to Defence and other uniformed personnel, costing the company a substantial amount of time and money in the bid they put forward. The explanation provided was, 'value for money'. A company that produces boots in Indonesia won this contract and was provided the tender, which is very sad, I think, when there is a great, iconic company that employs people here that missed out.
This decision was extremely disheartening. It is another example where local companies—especially in South Australia—have been overlooked by governments both state and federal. We must be doing something to ensure our procurement policies and support for our local companies by governments is much better. I have raised this issue. I have written to the Prime Minister directly. I have not had a response yet, but I am sure I will get one soon.
I have also raised it with the South Australian government. I wrote to the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation in South Australia. Luckily, the South Australian government came to the table. The Weatherill government offered support to Rossi Boots to the tune of $250,000. This funding was to allow the company, Rossi Boots, to expand the market for its elastic-sided boot, creating the opportunity for an extra 10 to 15 jobs, and securing the company the ability to manufacture in South Australia, to continue employing South Australians and to continue to put money into the economy in South Australia. The flow-on benefits in terms of jobs, innovation investments and economic growth are what South Australia need. I thank the state government for its generous support.
Rossi and similar companies are not asking for handouts; all they want is a level playing field where they can compete. I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, our products here in Australia are just as good as anyone else's from overseas, if not better. This comes down, of course, to a number of factors. I call on the federal government to take a serious look at the procurement policies that are in place to ensure it recognises the immense value for money local companies like Rossi Boots provide to our economy. Value for money is about more than just a figure on an invoice. For example, it is about the taxes paid by people who work locally. It is about putting money back into the economy. It is about a locally made product that helps invest in this nation. It is also about the value a contract provides to our communities and the jobs it creates in our economy, in our neighbourhoods and in our seats. The flow-on benefits in terms of jobs, innovation, investment and social cohesion should be factors in evaluating such bids.
Twenty-seven million dollars of footwear tenders are on offer with Defence and uniformed agencies next year. That presents a great opportunity to right this wrong. It is a chance for South Australia to continue to strengthen job creation and manufacturing in our state. It is a chance for a company like Rossi to secure a great contract. It would mean that they would employ more people and that they would put more money back into the economy. It would be good for all of us. (Time expired)
I must report to the House how pleased I am and how pleased my businesses are with the recent tax cuts that the government has legislated through and that will be flowing through to small and medium businesses from 1 July. We are, of course, immediately cutting the company tax rate to 27½ per cent this financial year for businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million. This will be extended to businesses with a turnover up to $25 million from 1 July and to businesses with a turnover up to $50 million from July next year. By 2026, that rate of taxation will drop to 25 per cent. The feedback I am getting is very encouraging, indeed.
We are also changing the definition of small business to include those with a turnover up to $10 million from the previous $2 million. Also, these small businesses will be able to immediately access the instant tax asset write-off, allowing business to write off up to $20,000 worth of new equipment and claim it back straight away. This special measure has been as a result of the budget being extended through to June 2018. I could certainly say that, as a member who has an interest in farming, even though I am not operating that farm at the moment, farmers are very pleased with that outcome. So are the small businesses. I was speaking to the operator of a large automotive supply business the other day, and a lot of the custom that walks in through his door is for the business community. A lot of the things they sell are under $20,000.
Businesses can also take advantage of simplified trading stock rules, with the option to avoid end-of-year stocktake if the value of stock has changed by less than $5,000. This measures in with the government's plan to try and reduce red tape. So there is no need to do this. We do not want to make you do it.
We have simplified the method of paying PAYG instalments as calculated by the ATO, removing the risk of under- and over-estimating PAYG instalments and the resulting penalties that may be applied. There is also an option to account for GST on a cash basis and pay GST instalments as calculated by the ATO. And there are other tax concessions currently available to small businesses, such as fringe benefits tax exemptions, simpler business activity statements and reducing GST compliance costs from 1 July.
Very importantly, I quite commonly get from people, 'The tax cuts that you announced are all about company tax. We're not a company; we're a partnership,' or, 'We're operating as a trust.' The government has not ignored this sector, either. Businesses that are not incorporated and have turnovers of less than $5 million will have an eight per cent discount applied to their total tax bill. So you could imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, that somebody who might, for instance, have a $20,000 tax bill will have that reduced by eight per cent, which is about $2,000—$1,600, to be precise. It is quite significant. It is a real shot in the arm. It is the kind of thing that makes businesses say, 'We are making a dollar here. Maybe we can employ someone else to make life a little bit easier for ourselves.'
The coalition government's lower taxes mean that we are taking less out of the hand of hard-working small-and-medium business owners who employ six and a half million Australians. That is quite a figure—six and a half million Australians. When we look around Australia today at the unemployment rate, it is not that bad. It has been worse before. But it could certainly be better. Certainly, in my electorate of Grey and in the upper Spencer Gulf regions—in particular, the industrial base—those unemployment rates are higher than that.
So we really do look to our small and medium businesses to expand. This is why we try to give them confidence; to have a go, to put on that extra worker and possibly find that new market. The whole thing is more than a direct win for half of Australia's workforce. It also allows the flow-on to the rest of Australia, with better productivity outcomes and the opportunity to grow those jobs. So I thank the Senate for finally agreeing to those changes to tax laws. My businesses in Grey are very pleased with the result.
Since my election on 2 July I have been inundated with emails, phone calls, Facebook messages and visits to my office about this government. They have been visiting me and they have been complaining to me about how their lives as ordinary Australians are getting continually harder and harder. Many of these complaints have been from seniors, who live right across the electorate of Longman. These elderly constituents are one of the groups in my community that need government the most, and it is not right that the government expects them just to sit down and be quiet and accept a tough deal.
I wanted to spend some time when I was first elected hearing about the issues and concerns of my constituents. So I organised a seniors forum, alongside my fellow federal Labor MP, the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan—he came up to listen to seniors with me. It was an open and honest discussion with constituents all across the electorate, with issues pertaining to seniors in particular in our community. It was a great turnout and by the sheer number of people who did turn out one thing was really clear: the seniors in my electorate felt really let down by this government.
That forum was a few weeks ago now; actually it was just before the budget was announced. Now what seniors are telling me is that they are not happy. Some were optimistic that the 2017-18 budget would change their level of happiness with the government. But it is not difficult to imagine how they felt when they heard that there was little in the budget to help them ease the day-to-day pressures. The budget would rather give a huge tax break to banks and big businesses than to look after our seniors. I will give you a hint: now the budget has been handed down, they are definitely not feeling any happier at all. Any reasonable government would recognise this and would take some remedial measures—any reasonable government, just not this one. This government makes things worse.
It was not that long ago that the failures of the government's Centrelink robo-debt scheme began to come to light. There were inaccurate bills, invasions of privacy, and the unnecessary inducement of anxiety and stress on those affected by the robo-debt scheme. Again, any reasonable government would have ended the scheme and found more suitable ways to reclaim the funds—just not this government. This government is instead looking to do exactly the opposite. Despite all of the complications and public furore, this government actually seeks to expand the program. And, to make things worse, the expansion is explicitly to target pensioners.
The previous iteration of the Centrelink debt collection saga caused many horrible effects. Many reported stress and anxiety, and one tragically took their own life. As everyone in parliament would agree, these are truly devastating outcomes, outcomes that should be avoided, outcomes that must be avoided, outcomes that can be prevented from happening. Targeting elderly Australians in this way is dangerous. They do not need the extra pressure. They do not need the extra stress and they do not deserve to be treated like this. The elderly are one of the most vulnerable groups in our society and they will suffer if they are made to endure the indecent persecution by the government's Department of Human Services.
Can I just be clear: I am by no means against government debt recovery in general, absolutely not. But what I stand strongly against is this government's cold and ill-conceived approach in targeting our country's neediest and most vulnerable. So, to this government, to the Minister for Human Services, I call on you to learn from your mistakes and to prevent the expansion of the robodebt program. I call on you not to target our pensioners with an ill-conceived and deeply flawed program that will no doubt encourage more issues than it resolves. I call on this government, I call on the Minister for Human Services, to instead look at ways in which they can help ease the day-to-day lives of our nation's seniors.
I call on this parliament to support me as I seek to raise support to make changes to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 to exempt superyachts over 24 metres in length from the provisions of this act. New research commissioned by the Australian International Marine Export Group, or AIMEX, and supported by the Queensland Labor government has revealed that the superyacht sector contributed nearly $1.97 billion to the GDP of the national economy last year. That is a lot of coin. The AEC Group economic impact study also found that getting greater spend in the industry is being held back by restrictive federal government policy—policy set here in this place—that, if relaxed, could see the superyacht industry contribute an extra $1.12 billion to GDP by 2021. That is a total of over $3 billion.
Australia is well placed, with our marine maintenance capability and infrastructure, to become the market leader of the superyacht industry in the Asia-Pacific region. Allowing foreign flagged superyachts to charter in Australia is the single key to gaining this position. The Australian economy will gain considerable revenue and jobs that will flow from the repair and refit if foreign flagged superyachts are permitted to charter here. Excellent progress has been made towards superyacht charter, with visa requirements, taxation and maritime safety issues all being solved by this federal government. A solution to the current restrictive requirements for chartering under the coastal trading act is the final requirement to unlock this important opportunity to realise over $1 billion more in GDP. There is no requirement for financial investment by the government to allow superyachts to charter. There has already been considerable investment by the industry in infrastructure—shipyards and marinas. A change to regulation is all that is required to unlock this.
Currently, very few superyachts—less than 1.5 per cent globally—come to Australia, because of the current customs legislation and indeed the coastal shipping legislation, which makes charting in Australian waters unviable. A superyacht must, by law, be fully imported and 10 per cent of GST paid on its current value just to charter in Australian waters. Clearly any superyacht making itself available for charter is simply not going to do that.
The ability for foreign flagged superyachts to charter in Australia is the single biggest inhibitor of growth in the Australian superyacht industry and growth of this sector. It is holding back billions of dollars. That must change. Changes in legislation have occurred to allow foreign flagged superyacht charter in neighbouring countries, such as Tahiti, Fiji and New Zealand, and these countries have seen a 40 per cent increase in vessel visitation and an increase of average stay from 21 days to 136 days. New Zealand enjoyed an increase of 56 per cent in superyacht visitations in 2014-15, with new legislation permitting a vessel to stay for up to two years and conduct charters. By contrast, Cairns, for example, attracted only 46 superyachts in 2015, which was worth $22 million to the regional economy. The Superyacht Group Great Barrier Reef expects an increase in superyacht visitation similar to that experienced in these neighbouring countries if foreign flagged charter is permitted. It is a simple change, but it has a huge, huge impact. In 2015 the government submitted into parliament changes to the coastal shipping act that removed a range of the impediments to chartering, but unfortunately they were defeated in the Senate.
The solution is quite simple. The federal government needs to permit foreign flagged superyachts to charter in Australian waters to realise the substantial economic benefits. There are no current superyachts of this size available for charter, so it is not as if any domestic industry is being displaced. Accordingly, foreign flagged superyachts must be exempt under the coastal trading act. Currently foreign flagged cruise ships enjoy an exemption to the coastal trading act until 31 Dec 2017 that allows vessels to operate commercially in Australia. A substantially sized superyacht has the same domestic spend as a cruise ship with 2,000 passengers. The exemption for cruise ships has been very successful in attracting increased numbers of cruise ships to the region. The exemption would of course need to allow for superyachts to conduct maintenance and refit when not on charter, which of course is directly employing Australians.
I am committed to this sensible change, and I think all sensible people are. I look forward to the parliament joining me and supporting me in these sensible changes.
House adjourned at 20:00
I rise to speak on an exciting local program aimed at assisting young people on the North Coast. The StoryBoard Bus is a travelling creative-writing program—in a bus, of course—that brings authors and illustrators into schools right across our region. It is in fact an outstanding, inspiring local initiative that really has the capacity to transform lives. The final product, the bus, was recently unveiled by author Leigh Hobbs, on 28 April, at the Byron Bay Public School. The StoryBoard Bus is an initiative created and developed by the Byron Writers Festival, a remarkable local event in itself.
The StoryBoard Bus is an amazing project that will give stories and the power of stories back to the children. Its aim is to make them better readers, to find joy in reading and, of course, to encourage them to further their education with confidence and a greater interest in reading.
The StoryBoard Bus is an interactive, interesting and exhilarating education program that helps young people to improve their creativity and literacy skills. The bus, coordinated by Coralie Tapper, will run more than 100 free school visits and master classes each year for the next three years. This will be done with assistance from many authors, including Tristan Bancks, Samantha Turnbull and program lead, Jesse Blackadder. I commend all of them for their dedication to this wonderful project. The authors will travel around in the bus, which is in fact an interactive learning hub. It is important to note that the bus itself is indeed an artwork, decorated by artist and animator Justine Wallace.
The program aims to excite young people about literature and influence and boost their creative characteristics. This is a crucial program for our area, because the Northern Rivers social profile in our region has high vulnerability rates for children's communication skills and general knowledge. The fact is, many of our children are not reaching the literacy levels that allow them to fully participate. This is precisely what this project is aiming to do. The project was achievable due to a range of funding initiatives, particularly assistance through federal government funding of $300,000 over three years through the Australian government's Catalyst program. As the local MP I was very proud to deliver funding of $20,000 through the Stronger Communities Program, as well. I would also like to acknowledge funding provided by the New South Wales government. The fact is that without all this government funding this program just would not have been able to exist. I acknowledge all those who contributed to it, because this program provides skills and confidence to young people, as well as providing them with those literacy and creativity skills.
One of the many great parts of this program is the ease of booking the bus. It is very simple. You just access the Byron Writers Festival website, email the coordinator with dates, and, once approved, the bus will conduct workshops free of charge to the school. The ease of booking is a really appealing aspect of the program. This service is provided at no cost to the schools and to parents. This community program will really make such a huge difference. I look forward to seeing the work conducted by the StoryBoard Bus and the results of this program. Can I finish by congratulating everybody involved. It is an exciting initiative for our region.
'Helping children speak … and find their voice' is the motto of The Glenleighden School, located in the leafy suburb of Fig Tree Pocket in my electorate of Ryan. This unique prep to year 12 school—indeed, the only one of its kind in the southern hemisphere—supports children and young people with disability for whom language is their primary challenge. Established almost 40 years ago, and supporting more than 1,000 students to achieve their goals during this period, The Glenleighden School provides comprehensive multi-disciplinary programs, through a combination of teaching and therapy, to prepare children for the next stage of their education and/or their career.
Last Thursday I had the privilege of joining the Prime Minister at The Glenleighden School to showcase the truly heartwarming work of a dedicated team of staff and support workers, and, more importantly, to create smiles amongst the astute students. School Principal Ms Debra Creed was there to greet the Prime Minister and me, literally with open arms. This was a very memorable occasion, for it was not only the first time a Prime Minister had accepted my invitation to visit the electorate, but it was also the first time a Prime Minister had visited The Glenleighden School.
For students like Isaac, whose father, Simon, wrote to me afterwards, this was a major occasion, and one which he and other students will never forget. Isaac's father also showed his gratitude for the Prime Minister's visit saying: 'I feel it is important that politicians hear about those occasions when, as a person, they have really positively touched someone's life.' The Prime Minister engaged with many students on a personal level, one of whom was Ben, who sold the Prime Minister some of his home produced honey. The Prime Minister also took time to sit in the reading chair and engage with younger students while reading them their favourite story, The Very Busy Spider.
The coalition is committed to educating Australian students to the highest possible standard. Equity and fairness is espoused in the teachings at schools right across Australia, and The Glenleighden School is a quintessential example of this. Often our speech is taken for granted as something we use in our everyday lives to communicate. Imagine being in the shoes of a person with disability for whom language is their primary challenge—not being able to speak with others or express emotions verbally. With the nurturing staff at The Glenleighden School, children with language disability are afforded the opportunities to fulfil their potential and live life the way most others do. Through the changes to education funding, students at The Glenleighden School will benefit because it will be a fair system and a needs based one. I would again like to thank the Prime Minister for visiting the electorate of Ryan and taking the time to appreciate the unique work undertaken by staff, pupils, family and friends at The Glenleighden School.
I thank the honourable member. Before I give the call, I acknowledge that in the gallery we have some students from Benalla high school. We welcome you. This is democracy at work; take note.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I join you in welcoming the young people from Benalla high school to the Federation Chamber this morning. Welcome; I hope you enjoy your time with us.
I rise today to address an issue that appeared in the Herald Sun during the week at home in our electorates last week. The Herald Sun featured an article with the headline 'Victoria's biggest welfare suburbs include Point Cook, Werribee'. I am here today to stand up for the community that I proudly represent. Lalor is the youngest electorate in the country. It does not take much to extrapolate the figures from the postcodes of 3029 and 3030 in a major growth corridor in the outer west of Melbourne with a population with an average income ranging from $52,000 to $70,000 per family, most of whom are PAYE wage earners who pay every cent of tax that they owe. With 230,000 people living across these suburbs, it is not surprising that in this community, where families are accessing youth allowance, child care subsidies and family tax benefits, we might rate in a table. But it is unfair to suggest that they are bludgers. It is unfair to suggest that they are causing a welfare burden, and on behalf of the people I represent I take umbrage that they are categorised as such. I note that Minister Porter was quoted in the article are saying:
There are obvious geographical concentrations of dependency but our approach is to tackle that by looking at the groups and problems that cause that geographical concentration, and tackle those problems wherever they are …
I proudly stand here to say I have some ideas that Minister Porter might want to take up. Minister Porter might want to ensure that in my electorate, the youngest electorate in the country, the electorate with the most young people attending schools, he might want to review the education policies of his government and ensure that, rather than cutting $21½ million from the state schools in my electorate across the next two years, he might want to review that and ensure that there is what my community is entitled to have spent on ensuring the education of our young people.
He might want to ensure that changes are made to ensure housing affordability in one of the most affordable areas in Melbourne. We might want to move this debate. Perhaps we could look at postcodes or areas where people are minimising their tax the most—areas like Park Orchards, Toorak, Vaucluse, Point Piper and South Yarra. Perhaps we need to flip this conversation and look at who is paying the tax in this country.
I rise today to lament the atrocious effort of the Queensland government in representing the good people of Central Queensland. Central Queenslanders like myself want investment in jobs, exports, trade, economic roads and water infrastructure to build on what we already have to provide our children, our ageing population and our disabled with the services they need.
So it is hard for Central Queenslanders like me to understand the ALP's approach to these subjects. I refer to the Adani Carmichael coalmine, west of Emerald. The project promises a $16.5 billion boom to the economy and 10,000 jobs. Driving jobs, exports and infrastructure—that is what Adani is about. The Premier and the region's mayors visited India in March this year and they saw firsthand what Adani's world-class coalmines—like the ones to be built in Central Queensland and the Galilee Basin—will do to help those Indian people have electricity, which they do not have at the moment.
When I talk about water infrastructure, I also raise the case, as I did with the Prime Minister on Friday in Emerald, that in the late sixties and early seventies the Fairbairn dam was built. Since those days—and this would not have happened without water—$5.6 billion worth of exports have come out of that region. From a population of 31,000, this is a tremendous effort for that region. They are punching well above their weight in exports. Also, to have those exports, they need to import $3.5 billion into the Central Highlands area. So this keeps the economy on the move.
The Queensland government decided in the middle of these important negotiations on the decision to give the go-ahead to Adani to have a war between the Premier and the Deputy Premier. Jackie Trad has disagreed with the Premier on this occasion and this has brought disharmony and uncertainty to the Adani mine. No-one is going to invest $16.5 billion in a project they cannot get certainty on. So it is not hard to imagine why Adani has put the whole coalmine— (Time expired)
As I rise in the House, I want to acknowledge the student leaders of Benalla P-12 who are here with us today. I say to Freya, Emily, Zach and Masie, 'Welcome.' Often young people are described as leaders of tomorrow. But I can stand here today and say these young people are not waiting for tomorrow; they are leaders in their community today. I bring a very clear message to this House: do not ever doubt how passionate, engaged and hardworking our young people are.
Last week I travelled around my electorate seeking the views of people, particularly young people, on the government's budget and how it would affect them. The message was clear. Young people are talking about connection—connection between health, education, art, employment and infrastructure. They told me that for those who choose to stay in their own community it often comes at great expense. There are fewer opportunities for employment and fewer opportunities for continuing their education. For others it means travel to a TAFE or university in a nearby city or residing away from home for extended periods of time and being faced with the financial and social pressures of re-establishing themselves away from home, friends and community. As students, employees, carers, community leaders, volunteers and advocates for better services for their community, young people in rural communities know better than most the importance of connection. It is what they do every day. And while this places great weight on their shoulders, it also brings with it enormous compassion and understanding for others.
We saw this compassion and understanding when students from FCJ College in Benalla joined forces with Cooinda Benalla aged care, celebrating in their own lip sync battle of the Queen classic 'Don't Stop Me Now' as part of the Let's Find Our Voice choir initiative. I recommend watching it on YouTube. We saw this compassion and understanding also in Muso Magic, where health and art come together as the young people of Benalla and surrounding shires draw on their experiences to co-write and record a song on mental health—a fantastic effort.
Regional communities are built on compassion, on making sure that people do not fall through the gaps. I say to you young people, who are representing all the young people of north-east Victoria: Thanks for coming to Canberra. Thanks for being part of it. I hope this experience stays with you for the rest of your lives, and you know that always parliament is here for you. It wants to hear your voice.
I call on the government to make really concerted efforts to hear young people's voice, to engage with young people, to understand that they have compassion, that they have the best interest of their community at heart and that they have so much to add to our country and our nation.
In closing, I call on the Prime Minister and the opposition to give serious consideration to appointing a minister for youth, who will enable these voices to be heard and government voices to engage with community.
I thank the honourable member for her contribution and join with her in welcoming our students again.
I rise today to honour the life of a remarkable Australian, Father Paul Gardiner SJ, OAM, the postulator for the cause of Mary MacKillop. Father Paul Gardiner was born in Melbourne in 1924. Father Gardiner began his Jesuit formation as a novitiate in 1940 and was ordained in 1955. He taught philosophy and lectured on scripture, Latin and Greek. A classical scholar, Father Gardiner was a man with a herculean intellect, a forensic understanding of the history of Western civilisation and a healthy sense of humour. In 1983 Father Gardiner moved to Rome to begin the work he is most known for.
In his own words, Father Paul arrived in Rome at the very end of 1983 to a mountain of documents. Ever the humble servant, Father Gardiner noted, 'During the many months it took to digest the material I could not but wonder at the patient labour of so many people over such a long period of time. My work would have been impossible without theirs.' For 25 years Father Gardiner worked on the cause. The initial years were spent writing the positio. The positio was the document required to present Mary's case to the Holy See, a comprehensive history of the life, activities, attitudes, challenges and reactions of the proposed saint, Sister Mary MacKillop. The positio was ultimately presented by Father Gardiner in 1992 to the authorities at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints at the Vatican, who approved Mary MacKillop for canonisation.
Acknowledged miracles were now required, and Father Gardiner moved his focus in that direction. Father Gardiner considered it appropriate to live in Penola, where Mary MacKillop commenced her work in 1866. And so in January 1999—coincidentally, the month of his 75th birthday—Father Gardiner arrived in Penola. There he lived and worked as chaplain to the Mary MacKillop centre, while remaining committed to her cause. In Penola, Father Gardiner's pastoral duties saw him celebrate mass daily and on weekends aid in the wider parish community. He often spoke to the many pilgrims and visitors who came to the MacKillop centre with an enthusiasm that was reminiscent of his religious, spiritual and historical appreciation of Mary MacKillop, whom he rightly considered to be an extraordinary Australian. Mary MacKillop was, of course, canonised in 2010.
Father Gardner died on Saturday, 18 March of this year, aged 93. Father Gardiner would often note that it was always about Mary, but, I wonder, if Father Gardiner's life had not intersected with Mary's story, would Australia still be waiting for our first saint? His legacy is one of deep faith in God, the certainty of God's love for us all and our need to understand, in Mary's words, that we are but travellers here. May he rest in peace. Vale Father Paul Gardiner SJ, OAM.
I rise to bring to the attention of this chamber an important development, a new treatment, for people who are experiencing spinal muscular atrophy. The drug Spinraza has been developed and successfully trialled and commercialised in the USA for patients with spinal muscular atrophy. This drug was approved by the FDA in December 2016 and is being recommended by the European Medicines Agency for approval within the European Union. The drug is the first of its kind and the first potential genetic treatment option for sufferers of this often fatal disease.
Spinal muscular atrophy is the No. 1 genetic killer of infants under the age of three. It is the childhood version of motor neurone disease and leaves young children who are diagnosed with this disease unable to do simple everyday tasks, such as playing with toys and cutting fruit to eat.
Spinraza works by injecting the protein, which sufferers of spinal muscular atrophy are deficient in, straight into the spine through a lumbar puncture. It is an extremely invasive procedure; however, the families of infants suffering from spinal muscular atrophy are desperate for a treatment option. In most cases, infants who are diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy have a short life expectancy, as there is currently no other effective treatment options available. This is why Spinraza is such a beacon of hope for children who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy.
The results, according to what I have been advised, speak for themselves. There is a young person, Aviana McElwee, who was born in Darwin in 2016. She was perfectly happy and healthy; however, three weeks after her birth, her movement started to deteriorate. She was diagnosed with SMA just one day after celebrating her three-month birthday. Luckily for her parents, they were invited to participate in a trial of this drug at a Sydney hospital. The effects of the treatment started to show within six to eight weeks after the procedure. Now, Aviana's physical development has improved so much that she is sitting up unsupported and playing with her toys unassisted.
However, I would not have heard about Aviana's story if it was not for the work of one amazing individual. I first met Julie Cini eight years ago when she told me the story of her loss and hope. Julie lost two children to spinal muscular atrophy. She also lost her partner in a tragic car accident during this time. Whilst most people would be unable to cope with such tragedy and loss, Julie became inspired to help other families so that there would be, hopefully, one day when people would not have to suffer as she did.
Through her tireless work with her charity, Spinal Muscular Atrophy Australia, she has been lobbying for the Spinraza drug to become available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This drug gives hope for those families who have no other options for treatment. Julie has asked that I bring this matter to the attention of this House and hopes that this drug will proceed through the testing process of the TGA and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
There has been a lot of talk in my electorate about the cashless debit card. I am unashamedly a supporter of the card, as I think it would bring positive change to my community. It is no secret that my electorate has struggled with unemployment and multigenerational welfare dependence, but if we continue to do the same thing we will continue to get the same outcome.
Change is hardly ever popular, and I acknowledge that it can be very difficult for some people to deal with, but I believe change in my electorate is absolutely necessary. It needs to happen. There are myriad misconceptions about what the cashless debit card can and cannot do, all being perpetuated on Facebook by keyboard cowards who do not live in the electorate and should not really be a part of this conversation. So I say to my constituents: if you have concerns, or you are looking for information, please call my office or visit my website, because that is where the real information is.
I would like to read some of the comments from people who support the introduction of the card and who have signed my online petition. One person said:
Bring it on. The sooner, the better. Welfare should be a temporary stop-gap. Not a lifestyle choice. Genuine welfare recipients should not be worried about this, the malingerers will though.
Another person said:
I totally support this debit card. To me you get all the necessities with it, if you need more money than go work.
Another person said:
Am so proud of the Government for at least airing this problem and offering a solution irrespective of whose idea it was! People of Australia will say that the Government is "Controlling" their lives BUT if the recipients of handouts had managed their finances properly drastic measures would not need to be enforced.
Another person said:
It has been a long time coming, and I thoroughly support it. Something had to be done.
Lastly, one person said:
I'm sick of seeing our regions children suffering from the selfishness of their parent's drug, alcohol abuse and greed. It's been going on now for too long, in plague proportions. Something needs to be done. I hope that these cards will help to make a difference in the welfare of our regions children and young people.
While I am being told that 100 students per day are being given breakfast at one of my local schools, I will keep fighting to make the lives better for individuals, their children and for their whole community that I was elected to represent.
Finally, on a different matter, I would like to give a shout-out to the local Friendly Society Private Hospital in Bundaberg, which is about to invest more than a million dollars to install a solar energy system, which will save $84,000 per year in hot-water bills. All four hot-water systems will be converted to solar hot water, using 660 evacuated tubes. The hospital recently received news of a 30 per cent increase to its $80,000 per month electricity bill, so it had to start looking for other options. The installation will provide 25 per cent of the hospital's electricity needs, and solar hot water will pay for itself in just over three years. I congratulate Alan Cooper and his team at the Friendlies for looking at ways to reinvest in their patients and in the community. However, we should be absolutely certain that the reason for this is the unaffordable and unsustainable price of electricity in Queensland, and it needs to be addressed.
There is a wonderful group of buildings in Parramatta known as the Female Factory, not because it made women; in fact, it broke more women than it made. An early colonial governor, Governor Hunter, called the convict women who worked there 'a disgrace to their sex', 'far worse than the men' and 'generally found at the bottom of every infamous transaction committed in the colony'. Perhaps it was not every one, but there several riots—the first female workers riot, in 1827, and four more after that.
The Female Factory was not the first female convict factory in Australia. That one was in 'Gaol Green' in Parramatta's Prince Alfred Park in 1804. It was a room above the jail which held nine looms and 40 common wheels. The Female Factory as we know it today was the second, but it was the first purpose-built factory in the colony and it produced our first export—which was linen, by the way. The factory was designed by Francis Greenway, and Governor Macquarie laid the first stone not far from what was a sacred women's site, a birthing stone on the banks of the river. In 1821 the convict women moved in, and the Indigenous women of the Burramattagal clan had to move out.
A more recent female factory, the Cascades in Tasmania, is far less intact but is listed on the World Heritage register. Many people in my community, and I am one of them, believe that the Parramatta Female Factory should also be World Heritage listed. But the Female Factory is not on the World Heritage List; in fact, it is not even on the National Heritage register, largely because the state government has resisted because, to quote state member Geoff Lee, heritage listing impedes development. Well, it may impede property development, particularly high-rise and medium density developments on top of our heritage, but it does not impede community development, and it provides a sense of place and provides opportunities for economic development.
In spite of the lack of support at state level, the local community has been submitting applications for heritage listing over and over, and I am pleased to inform the House that the Parramatta Female Factory is currently before the Australian Heritage Council. The decision on its listing on the National Heritage List is expected in June 2017. Once listed on the National Heritage List, it can be nominated for UNESCO World Heritage listing, which it undoubtedly deserves. But—and it is a big but—it is a race against time. The state government are intent on cashing in on the sale of public land on which the precinct stands, to sell off our public land and our assets to property developers as super-lots for high-rise and medium density development. While they have backed off medium density within the footprint of the most significant sites, they are still planning on allowing it right up to the convict-built walls. For some reason we are told that if you want to maintain your heritage assets in Parramatta you have to sell them first.
I congratulate the many groups, including Parramatta Female Factory Friends and North Parramatta Residents Action Group, for the work they have done in protecting the site so far. Let's all get behind them.
Behind the horror headlines of 22 people dead in the latest terrorist incident, this time in Manchester, no doubt exist tragic human stories. Here we had the concert of a pop star, Ariana Grande, and you can imagine the young teenage girls who were so excited about going to the concert. For many of them, I am sure, it was probably their first concert. Yet life has been snuffed out for so many. It is a reminder to each of us of the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of young life. It is also a sombre reminder that in the West, our way of life is, indeed, under attack. And it is a sombre reminder that we need to remain resolute in celebrating and protecting that way of life.
It is why I, for one, celebrate the fact that our most recent budget included a measure of $1.5 billion for further investment in security agencies. We need to ensure that Australia as a nation collaborates further with other intelligence agencies; that we build more sophisticated surveillance, particularly around public areas, together, of course, with much better hard infrastructure assets to protect the public.
I think each of us also has a role to play—not just government and not just agencies. I think each of us has a role to play in protecting our way of life and in knowing that what binds us as a nation is a set of values. There is no more important principle foundation value than freedom. Freedom is something that each of us enjoy individually but its protection is something that has to be shared. The people of the United Kingdom, particularly the people of Manchester, have demonstrated that. I know everybody in parliament here in Australia not only shares their anguish but is inspired by the way neighbour has helped neighbour in Manchester.
I am too old to know Ariana Grande's songs, but I did grow up listening to the likes of the Hollies, another wonderful Manchester band, and in one of their songs the lyrics are:
The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where
But I'm strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
The Australian people like what they see in this year's budget. Whether it is lowering the deficit to $29.4 billion next year and returning it to a surplus of $7.4 billion in 2021 or restraining growth in real payments to 1.9 per cent, Australians know this budget is fiscally responsible. Whether it is guaranteeing Medicare, fully funding the NDIS or introducing Gonski 2.0, Australians know that this budget guarantees essential services. Whether it is easing the strain of the costs of child care, power prices or housing affordability, Australians know this budget also tackles cost of living pressures.
But the most important question is: what is in this budget for the people of the Sunshine Coast? Let us start with infrastructure. Thanks to team Queensland, my LNP colleagues from Queensland—in both the Senate and House of Representatives—we have $530 million allocated to the Bruce Highway for six lanes between Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, supplemented by $120 million for the Deception Bay interchange. These big investments on the Bruce Highway build on the $929 million spend between Caloundra and the Sunshine Motorway—the sod being turned only last week—and $187 million on the Bruce Highway around the Maroochydore interchange. Infrastructure and the Sunshine Coast are big winners in this year's budget.
But it is not just infrastructure, this year's budget gives peace of mind to residents about Medicare. On the Sunshine Coast last year, 1.7 million GP visits bulk-billed, which represents over 85 per cent of consultations. An additional $578 million will go to 70 locals schools in the region over the next 10 years. Over 3,500 veterans will have better access to mental health care, and nearly 6,500 DVA clients will benefit from faster service delivery. Through full funding of the NDIS, 4,790 people who are NDIS eligible will know they will be looked after upon full rollout. There will be 4,130 children who will benefit from a boost of $5.2 million for local child care, and 54,000 people on the Sunshine Coast will benefit from a one-off energy assistance payment, paid before the end of this financial year. There will be 1,580 people who will see their pensioner concession cards reinstated, and 37,311 local businesses who will not only see tax cuts but enjoy an extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off. Never in our history has the Sunshine Coast been the recipient of so much Commonwealth government funding. This is a brilliant budget for Australia and for Queensland, and an absolute cracker for the Sunshine Coast.
I am pleased to speak on the budget, without as much preparation as I perhaps would like. It is a budget that does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. The previous speaker, the member for Fairfax, talked about the government's fiscal objectives and the way that it seeks to get back on some sort of responsible fiscal track. The projected surplus in the early years of the 2020s is minimal, to say the least. I guess we are going to see whether the government is able to achieve that. The reality is that since the coalition came to government in 2013, on the back of what was described as a debt emergency, we have not seen any significant change in a positive direction as far as debt is concerned; in fact, we have seen debt blow out extraordinarily. The government talked at that time as though we were on the brink of some sort of fiscal apocalypse, and things have only got worse. And they have got worse in both directions. The government has not controlled spending and it has not taken advantage of the opposition's preparedness to look at sensible revenue measures.
For Western Australia, this is a budget of great disappointment. This is a government that claimed, under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, to be focused on infrastructure. I think Prime Minister Abbott described himself as seeking to be the 'infrastructure Prime Minister'. In the government's best year, as far as infrastructure spending is concerned, it has fallen below what the Labor Party delivered in its lowest-spending year. Nowhere is that more clear than in Western Australia. The budget does not provide one new dollar in infrastructure spending for Western Australia. What we have been able to achieve, and it really is something that the Western Australia community has achieved, is the return of $1.2 billion which was allocated to the Perth Freight Link and held over the people of Western Australia in a sort of 'fiscal hostage' manoeuvre. For a number of years we were told it was $1.2 billion for the Perth Freight Link or nothing. It was a project that was born out of the 2014 budget, the new Abbott government's first budget. It was a project that Western Australia had never asked for and that was not assessed by Infrastructure Australia until after it had been proposed. It had no environmental approvals and it had no detail beyond Stock Road. It was a project that would have done irreparable damage to precious wetlands in my community. We were told over and over again that it was $1.2 billion for that project or nothing. Of course, as I remarked the other day, it is funny what an election will achieve. We have seen a stark demonstration of the will of the people of Western Australia in relation to that project and in relation to policy across the board in my state.
Despite the threat by the Minister for Urban Infrastructure that those funds would not be forthcoming to a Western Australian state government for projects that Western Australians had determined were of importance to them, lo and behold, those funds have been handed over, and we are glad about that. In my electorate the projects include Community Connect South, which is the duplication of Armadale Road and the building of the North Lake Road bridge; the widening of the freeway northbound from Russell Road; and fixing the High Street-Stirling Highway intersection and the stretch of High Street west of Carrington Street.
All of these projects were identified by the incoming WA Labor government. They were campaigned on by me and my colleague the member for Burt. I am grateful to see that they will be delivered, but that is money that was allocated as far back as the 2014 budget. In fact, in the case of the upgrade of the High Street-Stirling Highway intersection, those funds were allocated by the federal Labor government in 2008. The member for Tangney was in here the other day banging on about why that project has taken so long. It took so long because between 2008 and the election earlier this year the Barnett government did nothing about it. Something will occur now, and that is fantastic.
Instead of seeing any new funds in infrastructure, which we desperately need, what the government has done—I can only assume under advice of coalition members from Western Australia—is put $1.2 billion in the budget papers as a contingent liability for the next government that comes along, whoever that might be, and delivers on the Perth Freight Link. You can imagine how that has gone down in Western Australia. That has gone down like a lime and sulphur scone. We are not getting any new money for infrastructure. Instead, $1.2 billion is put there as a contingent liability for this ridiculous project that should never have been conceived and will never be proceeded with.
I do not know what it is contingent on. It might be contingent on the member for Tangney inventing a time machine or the people of Western Australia falling under a cloud of delusion, the likes of which seem to have bound up coalition members from Western Australia. Those conditions are never going to come about, but it is bitter in the extreme to have there those $1.2 billion of funds, which we desperately need to address productivity obstacles or blockages and to address severe unemployment in Western Australia. Western Australia recently had the highest unemployment in the country and we are currently experiencing the highest underemployment on record.
The budget is disappointing in a number of other key areas. It is particularly disappointing in education. Western Australia is in a slightly anomalous position with regard to education because the former Barnett government was not interested in being part of needs based funding and it struck its own deal, so it is harder to assess what is going on in Western Australia compared to the rest of the country, where the Labor government came to arrangements with state governments about needs based funding over a period of time. We can now see that under the government's Gonski 2.0—or, as the member for Fairfax called it, two dot zero—Australian schools will have $22 billion less over 10 years and each school will have on average $2.4 million less.
In Western Australia the situation is bleak in a different way. The Barnett government struck its own deal with the Abbott-Turnbull government and it carried the basis of that funding deal in its own budget papers. The Barnett government knew that for the next four years it needed to have a figure based on what it expected the negotiation with the Commonwealth to deliver. That means that there will be a $650 million gap in Western Australia over the next four years. That is not a gap between this budget and what a federal Labor government would have delivered; that is a gap between what the Barnett government carried in its budget papers and what the current Turnbull government is going to give to WA. That is a $650 million black hole. It means that education for kids in my electorate and support for teachers in my electorate will be less than what it should be. I am the son of a teacher. My mum is 70 years old; she continues to work, teaching special needs kids. That is an area where you really see how needs based assistance can make a difference.
As most representatives would know, our schools vary. Our school education system compared to many other countries' is a good one, but there is great variance in primary and high schools across our electorates, which is generally related to socioeconomic circumstances. I can go—as I did at the end of last year, and recently in relation to Anzac Day services—to school after school and get a sense of how the challenges are different, the capital resources are different and the needs are different. That is what needs based funding is all about, but the current proposition put forward by the government, as far as funding goes, is not going to get us to where we need to be. It is not going to get us to the point where inequality and disadvantage is being addressed through needs based funding so that intergenerational disadvantage does not continue and so that children who grow up facing disadvantage, whether it is socioeconomic or because they live with a disability, actually have the greatest possible opportunity to be involved in social and economic life in this country.
I was in the chamber earlier when the Treasurer was introducing the bills to do with the Medicare levy. It is cynical in the extreme for the government to tie its approach to the Medicare levy to the full funding of the NDIS. It is invidious for people who have waited for a long time for the NDIS, a great Labor reform, to be caught up in this kind of debate. The reality is that any government has the ability, out of consolidated revenue, to support the programs it wants to support in the way that it wants to support them. The government is giving $65 billion away in tax cuts; that is its choice. That is its program; it can make that argument. But, if it chose to give away a bit less of that money at a time when a program like the NDIS is being settled in, that funding would be available without recourse to the Medicare levy in the way that the government proposes to pursue it. That is a choice. Tying those things together is, essentially, a political manoeuvre, and that is a shame.
I conclude by looking at the kind of narrative that the government has tried to introduce around this budget, which is, essentially, to look at some of the big reforms that Labor secured in its last government—things like needs based funding and the NDIS. It is trying two kinds of slipperiness: one is to suggest that these things were always going to happen—that we all agreed about them and they were always going to happen. That is rubbish. Labor governments come in and they make change. In the last government, we introduced the NDIS, we introduced needs based funding, we introduced the NBN and we introduced an approach to deal with climate change. Those four things alone are more significant and more momentous than anything a coalition government has done in living memory.
The people in this place like to look back at the time between 1996 and 2007 as a golden era of coalition government. What did those 11 years produce? The GST.
A government member interjecting—
If you are behind the wheel of an economy that was set up by the profound economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating government, there is no great surprise that you reap the benefits. But what was done with those benefits? Nothing. A Labor government came in, and, in a relatively short time—too short—introduced reforms to do with some of the biggest challenges facing this country, reforms such as the NDIS, the NBN, an economy-wide program to tackle climate change, and needs based funding.
Now we have a coalition government that pretends that it was always on board with those things and that those things were always going to happen—that is rubbish. Then it pretends that but for their excellent administrative capacity and funding know-how those things would not have happened—that is rubbish too. Those challenges are being settled, and they are going to take a Labor government to put them right, but there are further challenges ahead, and we cannot keep having this misconception perpetrated upon the Australian public.
There are great challenges in this nation. Labor does what it can, and has done a remarkable job in recent times of tackling some of those enormous areas. But we cannot have the government spend four, five or six years spinning wheels and indulging in political game playing, trying to shark the credit for the things that Labor governments have done and muddying the waters with facile and insubstantial arguments about money. We need to focus on the big picture. I am sorry that this budget is more smoke and mirrors than it could have been.
I rise today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. I would like to start by acknowledging the work that Treasurer Morrison has done. My colleague on the other side the member for Fremantle made a number of comments: I think his closing words were 'facile and insubstantial focus on money'. That is what budgets are: a focus on money. As much as we would like to live in a nirvana where we can do whatever we want with the magic pudding that is the budget of the Australian government, there are unfortunately consequences for that.
Politics is the art of the possible. Over the last couple of days, I have had some emails with some criticism of the budget in different parts. The budget is not a philosophical sheet of wants and needs of individual groups; it is for the management of the economy of the entire nation. It is a balance between supporting all facets of our population. I acknowledge the work that Treasurer Morrison has done on that.
I might start on a positive note, with the focus on infrastructure in this budget. Infrastructure is the skeleton on which our economy grows. The announcement of $8.4 billion, on top of the $900 million that has already been committed, for the Inland Rail project is probably the most exciting budget announcement I have seen in my time—certainly in my nearly 10 years in this place. I spoke in February 2008—the very first time I spoke in parliament—about the need for inland rail. Indeed, during the preselection process, I said one of the reasons I wanted to get off my tractor, leave my previous career in agriculture and go to Canberra was to promote projects that would grow the economy of the area that I represent, and of the country as a whole. I spoke about inland rail at that stage, and now it has gone from a concept to a reality. There are some issues with that reality. Being the member of an electorate that has over 300 kilometres of greenfield site for the inland rail, gives me some concerns about where the route will go and the disruption to farm activities and the amenity of people living in that area. We will work through that with the ARTC.
But I will say here today: I am committed to this project. This project is a nation-building project within the same scope of the Snowy Mountains scheme, not only connecting the intermodal traffic between Melbourne and Brisbane and taking the pressure off the increasing freight task that is mainly on the Newell Highway but also providing the opportunity for communities in western New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria to grow on that spine.
I have been studying rail for some time. I have been to Canada and looked at their system, and I have seen how the decentralisation of Canada right across the prairies has been driven by rail. Already we are starting to see some construction of culverts and bridges, ready to take the increased weights and traffic for the Inland Rail.
Also I was pleased to see in the budget the confirmation of the promise that was made last year of $25 million for the integrated cancer centre in Dubbo—the concept that the people of western New South Wales can have access to top-class cancer facilities not only for treatment but for diagnosis. In the area that that represents, people now are dying because of a late diagnosis. They are dying because they choose to stay at home in their communities rather than travel to Sydney or Orange for intensive chemotherapy or radiation. Having that service in Dubbo to service the people of the west not only for treatment but also for early diagnosis with a PET scanner is a great thing. I am working very closely with the New South Wales government to make sure that that centre is constructed as part of the redevelopment in stages 3 and 4 of the Dubbo Base Hospital. Hopefully, within 18 months or so, we will see that come to fruition.
We have heard a lot from the members of the opposition about our financial and tax changes in this budget. We have heard about gifts to millionaires and $65 billion being ripped out of the budget. I have a fundamentally different point of view to the members of the Labor Party. I believe that the economy of this country, particularly in my electorate, is built on the back of small business. These are people who have the courage to step out of their comfort zone, to risk what they have and to back themselves in starting a business. They might be someone who finishes their apprenticeship as a builder or a plumber or an electrician and borrows the money to buy a ute and start their own business and ultimately put on an apprentice of their own and grow that business. We need to back those people. If every small business in my electorate, 13,000 of them, put on one more employee, we would have a shortage of workforce. We would not be able to meet that demand. The idea that we can run the country with a top-heavy, government approach is false. We need to back our small business.
Already we are starting to see the benefits of the instant asset write-off for equipment under $20,000. The businesses in my electorate are doing a roaring trade selling chainsaws, quad bikes, computers, toolboxes and trailers—a whole range of equipment that businesses can use and write off their tax. But there are also the measures that were in the ag white paper, such as the accelerated depreciation for grain storages. If you drive around western New South Wales, you will see magnificent grain storages standing there, built because of the tax incentives that enable those farmers to put them in, giving them a greater control of their product and also increasing employment in the area, as the construction of these facilities is booming, for people selling the silos, electricians, concreters and a whole range of others. With the accelerated depreciation for water systems, we are seeing massive rollouts of water systems across farms. In the last drought, people were able to manage their pasture more effectively because they had a water system that covered the entire property. It is the same with fencing. All these things require work to put them in. They require small businesses, contractors and suppliers, and all of that is feeding through the economies of my electorate.
There has been a bit of discussion about the funding of schools and the massive cuts. The Teachers Federation have run stories in some of my towns describing cuts to funding to their schools. I find that rather puzzling. I have a list here of 153 schools in the Parkes electorate. I do not think there would be many electorates that would have more than 153 schools. According to the metropolitan newspapers, I have more Catholic schools than any other electorate in Australia. The funding is set out in this list, and not one of those 153 schools has had a cut; they actually have had an increase.
For members opposite who were not here at the time, a short history lesson as to how this message came about may be of benefit. Julia Gillard, when she was the education minister, started the process of needs based funding, and there is no argument about that. I reckon my electorate has more disadvantaged communities that any other electorate in Australia, so there is no argument from me on that. In government, we have continued a funding model through into the forward estimates for four years with increases every year. The final two years of the so-called Gonski proposal was a balloon, an escalation in funding that was not funded. It is a bit like saying to your kids, 'Okay, this year I'm going to buy you a motorbike. Next year I'm going to buy you a car. The next year I'll buy you a house. I haven't got the money but I'm promising you that in years 5 and 6 I'm going to buy you a shopping centre. I don't know where the money's going to come from. That's not my worry.' They said that, knowing that, at that stage, more than likely, they were not going to be in government. It planted a nice little time bomb there. The member for Sydney was probably already working out her lines three years in advance, when that time bomb would go into the balloon stage of the final two years.
It was irresponsible government; it raised the expectations of communities that they were going to get something that they never were going to get. Now they are scaring communities into believing that they are going to get a reduction. There are 153 schools—private schools, Christian schools, Catholic schools and government schools—on this list, and not one of them is going to get a reduction. I was at one of those schools the other day. It had six students, smart boards, a couple of support staff and a dedicated principal, and it is in a very remote part of New South Wales. The idea that kids in schools in far-flung regions of our nation are being disadvantaged by this government is false; it is dishonest. Quite frankly, it is vicious and vindictive, and I will take on the Labor Party and the Teachers Federation on this issue every single day.
I will finish up with something that is very important in my electorate: the NDIS. I do agree with the member for Petrie that the idea that, in a couple of years time, there will be an increase in the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS is fair. If a member of your family is disabled and you live in a city, it is a tough call. But if a member of your family has a disability—whether it is acquired or whether they are born with it—and you live in a small, remote town, it is an enormous challenge. I deal with families on a regular basis that have to make gut-wrenching decisions to leave the lives that they know and relocate to larger centres to care for disabled family members. The NDIS is being rolled out at the moment and, as with any rollout, there are some difficulties. My office is dealing with people who are having challenges with that, and we still have some challenges in my electorate. It is one thing to allocate funding to people; it is another thing to make sure that the services they require with that funding are available. My office and I are working through that at the moment.
I think this is a very fair budget. Treasurer Morrison has indicated a way back to a surplus budget, and that is very important. A lot of people in my area understand the need to be financially responsible.
Those opposite have this magic pudding approach and think that being financially responsible is just some sort of choice we make, but it is important. We cannot expect our grandchildren to be paying for the excesses of our country at the moment. As we head up to baby boomers needing care, we have to make sure we see this country in solid shape. When our grandchildren are the ones in the workforce funding baby boomers such as me in our later years, they are not only going to be stretched to find the finances; this country is going to be stretched to find the workforce. So we have a responsibility through this budget to put this country on solid ground so that our children and grandchildren can then build on and enjoy the wonderful lifestyle that the current generation has. I commend this budget to the House.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018—before the parliament. Labor has publicly committed to supporting the supply, so Labor will not oppose these appropriation bills. But that does not mean that we support the sentiments underlying these bills—sentiments that prioritise millionaires and multinationals over ordinary Australians and that seek to redefine fairness, turning it into a fairy tale. This budget is not fair, and all of Australia knows it. All of my electorate of Paterson knows it as well. In fact, everywhere I have been in the last two weeks people in my electorate have told me in no uncertain terms what they think of it—and 'fairness' is not the word that they have been using to describe it.
Last week I hosted 250 seniors in the Maitland Town Hall. They came along to express their concerns about the rising cost of living, the escalating barriers that the government is putting up, trying to make it so much harder for them, waiting an eternity on the phone to speak to someone or trying to access the internet with hopeless internet. At markets in Kurri Kurri and Raymond Terrace it was the same story. At Bayswater Power Station, AGL representatives talked about the lack of a coherent energy policy. It is now hampering planning for the future. This is a real crisis.
But hang on—the man from Snowy Hydro 2.0 is riding up to save the day! Except that the Prime Minister's $2 billion expansion of Snowy Hydro will likely require an extra $2 billion to be spent on upgrading poles and wires to deliver the energy to the national electricity market. It will take longer than expected. We heard this at the budget estimates hearing just yesterday. So that is unravelling as well. The Prime Minister's weekly thought bubbles do not constitute the energy policy that we so desperately need in this country.
The talk was also of the price of gas at Tomago Aluminium—a major manufacturer and employer in my electorate where I was pleased last week to host Labor's Mark Butler, the shadow minister for energy. The same manufacturers at a roundtable afterwards were talking about exorbitant gas prices. Those prices are being held over their heads like some sort of ransom. We are talking about real manufacturers who employ real Australians who just want to get on with the job of making and doing things.
At an Independent Education Union forum talk that I gave last week the talk was all about Gonski 2.0 and what a joke it is. 'When will the government get serious about education?' I was asked by the crowd, and I was asked, 'When are they going to talk to teachers and their representatives?'
At Williamtown during a long-awaited visit by the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, and Senator James McGrath people living in fear and limbo because of PFAS contamination from the RAAF base were wondering, 'What is in the budget for us?' Yes, there was some money for some health studies, but where is the money that will give them the chance to have a real choice to move out of the contaminated red zone? Where is that money for those people? I do hope it is going to be found somewhere.
The budget did deliver one win for my electorate in the funding of Testers Hollow—a $15 million promise. But it was interesting that it was only made when the Liberals were shamed into matching a Labor election commitment. We had to hound them all the way, and then I had to badger to get that money and make sure we received it.
The Treasurer and the Prime Minister are going about spruiking that the budget they handed down was fair, but they really do not understand the meaning of the word. People in my electorate know the meaning of the word. They know that it equates to treating people equally, without favouritism or discrimination. Well, what I see in this budget is favouritism for the big end of town and discrimination against ordinary Australians. Ordinary people in my electorate of Paterson just want a job, an education, a home, and a fair go.
Australia-wide, as in Paterson, we now have record underemployment; fewer hours worked per Australian than ever before; higher rates of casualisation and insecure work; record low wages growth and—the cherry on the top—cuts to penalty rates. And, of course, all of this feeds into the difficulties our young people have gaining finance in an increasingly competitive housing market. This government with this budget is doing nothing serious to address any of the economic ills that are plaguing our nation. I believe that this government does not know how to address these economic ills. It has been a policy void for the last four years. I think they actually forget they are the government.
But Labor knows how to govern, and we have made some excellent decisions in the past. We understand economic growth that is inclusive and that is the only way forward—economic growth that rewards hard work, not penalises it by cutting penalty rates; economic growth that prioritises a decent social safety net so we protect and look after our most vulnerable and do not leave anyone behind; economic growth that favours all sectors of society, not just the big end of town—the millionaires and the multinationals; economic growth that is inclusive of everyone who works and strives to work, who owns their home or is at least trying to own a home; economic growth that recognises that good education and training is not a cost but a benefit, that infrastructure investment is not a cost but a benefit, that good healthcare is not a cost but a benefit, and that the NDIS is not a cost but a benefit.
In labelling some debt good and some debt bad this government has branded many throughout our nation as simply not worth its investment. Yet, it has the hide to call this budget fair. Labor understands fairness, and Labor will not leave anyone behind. Labor will not cut $22 billion from schools—$23 million in the Paterson electorate alone—and call it a gain. Labor will not give tax cuts to the top end of town, while raising taxes for battlers. Labor will not let property investors run roughshod over first-home buyers, forever keeping them out of the housing market or forcing them to dip into their superannuation.
It is no wonder this government is spinning the fairness fairy-tale, because its jobs and growth mantra has certainly had its day. For all the talk about jobs and growth, we are not hearing very much about that now. We have sort of flipped. The new glib slogan is 'fairness'. Key parameters in this budget have actually been downgraded. These are the facts: growth is down, wages growth is down, employment is down, the unemployment rate is up and there are 95,000 fewer jobs forecast in this budget than the one before. These are the stats. Where are the jobs for the young people of Paterson, where the rate of unemployment has been one of the highest in the country? Where are the jobs for mature workers, who are being made redundant left right and centre but being told they need to work to the age of 70?
Only Labor will address the issue of local skills shortages and training, reversing the massive cuts to TAFE and apprenticeships. The disembowelment we have seen of TAFE and apprenticeships has been truly disgusting. Only Labor understands the importance of training the next generation of tradesmen and women, especially in a region such as the Hunter Valley. We will ensure these opportunities are available to our young people and those who need to reskill, which is also vitally important. Labor will not put its faith in the big end of town to do the right thing, like the Prime Minister and his government are with his nonsensical and quite frankly outmoded version of trickle-down economics, via corporate tax cuts.
This government promised to fix the budget, but their own numbers show record net debt for the next three years; a deficit for the coming year that is 10 times bigger than was predicted in their first budget, in 2014; and gross debt expected to crash through the half-a-trillion dollar mark within weeks, for the first time in Australia's history. Where is the talk of debt and deficit disaster now? You guys have the debt and deficit disaster smack bang on your hands. It does not sound like a fairytale that is going to have a happy ending. Considering that you are such economic maestros, I think you are doing a pretty poor job of running this band.
The Treasurer talks about better days ahead, but consumer confidence is at its lowest in a year and a half, and those better days are not likely to be celebrated by many women, some of whom will be forced into the effective marginal tax rates of 100 per cent—yes, 100 per cent—according to the National Foundation for Australian Women. No wonder this government no longer produces a women's budget statement; they are too ashamed. When you take into account the increase in the Medicare levy, cuts to family tax benefit and making lower income earners pay back university debts, some women will be handing virtually everything back to the taxman. Far from boosting women's workforce participation, this budget hits women hard. For women, this budget is certainly not fair. Rather than being a fairytale, it is a horror story. Labor has been calling on the Liberals to bring back the women's budget statement, but they have refused. So, for four years, Labor has produced a women's budget statement from opposition, and of that we are very proud. In their 2017 budget the Liberals could find $65 billion to give big businesses a tax break, but they had little for the services that women rely on.
This government cannot be trusted to look after anyone in our community, least of all the most vulnerable. After decades of trying to destroy Medicare, the Liberals now say that they believe in it, but they will not end the Medicare freeze until 2020. After years of saying that money does not make a difference in our schools, they now support needs based funding, but they have given Gonski a bad name with their half-baked version that actually amounts to a cut. Do not believe all the words of rhetoric coming from the member for Parkes, saying, 'The money was never there and it was never going to happen.' We made a commitment, we looked at the school resourcing standard and we said, 'This is where these children need to go, this is how they need to be funded.' We had a plan. This government from day one has had no plans, and it has scrambled, and continues to scramble, along every major policy platform. They will not fund schools and universities properly, they will not address housing affordability properly and they want to cut penalty rates.
This government does not know the meaning of the word 'fair', especially when it comes to young people. Young people, women and people who rely on Medicare are all targets of this budget. No budget will ever be fair which, on 1 July, sees millionaires in this country pay less. It is like Saturday Night Fever at the millionaire's house on 1 July, but let me tell you it is 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' on 2 July when people go to work and see their penalty rates being cut. This week the health department released new quarterly data showing huge jumps in out-of-pocket expenses to go to GPs, specialists and allied health services. Australians are paying $7.70 more to see a GP since the Medicare freeze was announced by the Abbott government in 2014. This is proof that the freeze the government has implemented is a GP tax by stealth. They might have stopped trying to push it through the parliament, but they were still determined to make Australians pay more.
Nor is there is relief for age pensioners, who will be the next target of the Department of Human Services' robo-debt debacle—talk about the rogue algorithm strikes again. This deeply flawed system will try to claw back nearly $1 billion from the pockets of pensioners. That is not going to fly in my electorate, and I am going to be telling my pensioners, 'How can that be fair?' In the past week I have had many conversations about the budget with many people in my electorate, and, as I said earlier, 'fair' is not the word they are using to describe it. Labor will not stand in the way of these appropriation bills, but Labor will continue to fight for a better deal for ordinary Australians. It is what Labor have always done and what we will always do. The people in my electorate of Paterson have told me, 'Give 'em hell,' and that is what I and my colleagues on this side of the House will continue to do in the face of such blatant disregard for ordinary Australians. This government wears fairness like an ill-fitting suit, but Labor know fairness, because it is the very fabric of our cloth.
Before I call the member for Forde I remind all members in the chamber to address their remarks through the chair.
That is 14 or 15 minutes that I will not get back! It just shows what those opposite stand for. It is a culture of complaint. Not a single positive solution or alternative has been proposed. That is typical of those opposite.
It is a pleasure to rise in this chamber today to speak in support of the 2017 budget, which will provide tremendous opportunities for the people, businesses and organisations in my electorate of Forde. We see, in this budget, the Australian government providing the opportunity and the incentive for many in our community to take advantage of the opportunity that is there. We see a budget that is framed around seeking to provide fairness and responsibility—importantly, through the guaranteeing of fundamental services that the people of Australia expect, need and use every single day. These services affect thousands of people in my electorate of Forde and will support them and give them the encouragement to take other opportunities that are presented in their daily lives.
I would like to start with funding for schools. We hear those opposite carry on about cuts to funding for schools. Well, when they were in government they actually never funded anything other than what was in the forward estimates. Everything outside of that was just a complete fairytale. Our needs based funding model for schools has been endorsed by the doyen of those opposite, David Gonski, and is about fairness. It is about fairness because we are treating every student in each system equally. Schools in every sector in every local community in the electorate of Forde will be receiving significant increases in funding because of our needs based funding model. We had a forum with the Minister for Education and Training last week where we went through it in detail. We had the vast majority of principals from our schools in Forde at that forum, and they were very, very happy with what they were presented with. So it is great news for the 41 primary and secondary schools in the electorate of Forde and some 32½ thousand students.
The total increase in federal government funding for schools in the electorate of Forde over the next 10 years is some $417 million. Importantly—and this is based on the discussions I have had with a number of principals—they would have been happy to receive what they were currently receiving, because in Queensland we had extra money put in after the 2013 election, some $800 million, that those opposite never committed to. Not only have we increased funding in this budget for schools in the electorate of Forde and schools in Queensland; we previously increased funding for schools in Queensland in the 2013 budget. That is reflected in programs, such as I4S, that the schools run. Those principals would have been happy with the existing funding, because it allowed them to run the programs that they needed to run, let alone the real increases that we are now providing to schools in the electorate of Forde and across Queensland.
Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows make a real difference in supporting our teachers and schools in improving student outcomes. This is a system that reflects the importance of students, the important work that parents do and the valuable work that teachers and school communities do every single day in our electorates right across the country.
The government is also working to continue to provide record funding for health and, in particular, Medicare. In the budget, we have set out a guarantee of Medicare's future, with a dedicated fund which will protect those vital services for this generation and the next. We have seen a record number of Australians in Forde accessing these vital services. Last financial year some 1.1 million GP services in the electorate were bulk-billed—a bulk-billing rate of 95.2 per cent, which is well above the Australian average of approximately 83 per cent.
In addition to that, this budget provides over $1.2 billion for cheaper access to medicines. We are listing more drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to ensure families have access to these vital drugs. These drugs and medicines will assist people suffering from conditions and diseases such as heart disease, pulmonary fibrosis, schizophrenia, psoriasis, severe asthma, myeloma and more.
Importantly, in this budget we will seek to continue strengthening our support for mental health and suicide prevention, with a package of over $170 million. As somebody who has a headspace in my electorate, I am well aware of how important this ongoing funding is. Part of this funding package includes some $80 million to continue community mental health services for people with mental illness who do not qualify for the NDIS. This is contingent on state and territories matching our funding to ensure we have a national approach and funding commitment. Additionally, Australians living in rural and regional areas will now have significantly improved access to psychologists under a new $9.1 million telehealth initiative set to rollout later this year. There is also funding for things such as barriers and signage at high-risk suicide locations, mental health research and, importantly, support for our veterans.
I had the pleasure last week of being joined by the Brisbane South Primary Health Network to announce a $350,000 suicide prevention and mental health trial program in Logan. This is a very personal issue for hundreds of individuals, and I am very pleased to say that this trial will be able to provide better support to those who need it. The trial is structured around people presenting to Logan Hospital emergency department with mental health issues or self-harm issues. They will then be engaged with the services of the people at Brook RED, one of our great mental health service providers, who are a peer based support group. They will go and stand alongside these people right from the get go to try and prevent the issues becoming worse.
As I said, our veterans also receive assistance in this budget. All past and current service personnel who have undertaken at least one day of full-time service will benefit from easier access to free mental health support and services. Enhanced access to counselling for veterans and veterans' families counselling services will benefit partners and dependants of contemporary veterans. I am sure many in this House have, from time to time, unfortunately seen veterans come into our offices who are struggling with mental health and other issues—both those who are contemporary, or recent, veterans and those who have served in the past, in conflicts a long time ago. These services will provide benefits for some 1,163 veterans and their families living in the electorate of Forde.
All DVA clients, including the 2,000-odd DVA clients in the electorate of Forde, will also benefit from an investment in this year's budget to modernise DVA's ICT systems, which will provide easier access to DVA services and improve claims processing times. I know, from when I regularly go to visit the Beenleigh RSL and talk to the veterans there about their dealings with DVA, they will be very happy to see that, because that is a frequent source of complaint. I am sure that for all of us it is a frequent source of additional work in our offices, so we will all be happy to see that investment and that upgrade.
One of the most important measures in the budget is the coalition's commitment to securing funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Australians with a disability deserve the best care we can provide and the National Disability Insurance Scheme was established to fund this. But, despite the protestations of those opposite, it was never funded properly to do the job that it was set up to do. Once fully rolled out, the NDIS will help an estimated 3,463 people in the electorate of Forde. I am very pleased to be able to go and say to those people that it is this government that is ensuring that the NDIS is fully funded, so that the services that they deserve and require will be able to be delivered. Funding these vital services will ensure that these people have the dignity in their lives that they so richly deserve.
As well as funding these vital services, we have also announced measures that will help grow the economy and create more jobs for Australians. Delivering tax relief for small business is a critical component of this. In this budget, we are extending the incredibly popular instant asset write-off for small business. There are some 14,600 small businesses in the electorate of Forde that will be able to take advantage of this measure, and I know that, in the small-business forum and roundtable that we had with the Minister for Small Business last week, the extension of this measure was very, very well received.
In addition to extending the instant asset write-off, we are also delivering small- and medium-business tax cuts benefiting some 3.2 million small and medium businesses, which employ 6.5 million Australians. This will help some 15,400 businesses in Forde, with turnovers up to $50 million if they are incorporated and up to $5 million if they are unincorporated, to invest and employ more Australians.
One of the issues that I see frequently in my electorate, and I think it has been a growing problem over time, is when I talk to businesspeople about access to people for apprenticeships. In this budget, the coalition government is creating a fund to help train Australian apprentices in key trades and skills to get more young Australians into work and to help Australian business grow. It is not just businesses that employ people. Many of these apprentices can go on to set up their own business. For example, my brother is a ceramic tiler. He did his apprenticeship—fortunately with our father, who is a ceramic tiler—and he has for the past 30 years very successfully run his own business as a ceramic tiler. That is just one of many stories.
Many, many people in our electorates who we get to do work in our houses or in our offices are self-employed tradespeople who did an apprenticeship and maybe worked for an employer for a little while to build their skills, but then they have taken the opportunity to strike out on their own path. We should look at rewarding that and ensuring that we have the next generation of tradespeople in our communities. That is what this fund is aimed at doing. This extra investment will help approximately 2,200 local young Australians aged 15 to 24 who are looking for a job or looking for more work in the electorate of Forde.
In our community last year, I launched the ParentsNext program. I am pleased to say that in this budget we have extended that nationally, with some $263 million of funding to help young parents who are looking to get back into the workforce to build their skills and capacities.
We have also announced the abolition of the 457 visa to ensure that we have a visa system that caters to the needs of our economy and focuses on ensuring that there are jobs first and foremost for Australians, particularly those who are apprentices but also those who are more generally looking for work.
It is the coalition government, through the range of measures that I have outlined in this budget, that is looking to provide support to families, reduce cost-of-living pressures and create opportunity. It is one of the things that we as Australians do very, very well. If we are given an opportunity, we can grab that opportunity and run with it and make a great success of it. There are other things in the budget which I do not have time to cover. The child care and preschool funding package has been enormously well received in electorates like mine, where over 11,000 families in the electorate will benefit. There are our affordable housing plans and greater accountability for our big banks, which I know is an issue for many. It is this coalition government with this budget that is looking to create the opportunity for Australians to grow, prosper and succeed. (Time expired)
This is another shocker budget that hits regional communities, particularly those in central Victoria, incredibly hard. Unfortunately, the press release I put out post budget was very similar to the press release last year and the year before. It is another shocker budget by the Liberal-National government. It makes ordinary, everyday working Australians pay more and do more of the heavy lifting while again this government and the Prime Minister give their mates in big business another handout and another tax cut.
This budget is unfair. It does not matter how many times the Prime Minister and his ministers say 'fairness'; this budget is not fair. It is unfair. It delivers more handouts to multinationals and millionaires whilst hurting every Australian family, including many in my own electorate of Bendigo. The people in Bendigo are frustrated. They are frustrated by how this budget has failed to deliver for them and our community in a couple of key areas.
The government, despite all of their rhetoric about investing in Infrastructure Australia and regional rail, did not commit to partnering with the state government to upgrade the Bendigo-Echuca line. We saw the member for Murray's audacity yesterday when he made a 90-second statement about how great the budget is but failed to mention the funding that is needed right now to upgrade the Bendigo-Echuca line. Echuca, of course, is in the member for Murray's electorate. If the government wanted to help the people in his community get to Melbourne right now, you would have thought they would have invested in that line.
Instead, post budget we had the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Gippsland, turn up in Bendigo. He did not go to the train line; no, he turned up at the Bendigo Airport to talk about rail. Maybe this explains why they are a little confused about infrastructure—they are turning up at airports to talk about rail. Maybe it is because he did not want to be confronted by rail users at the Bendigo train station about their lack of investment in the regional rail network.
This budget as well hits a lot of working people in Bendigo by asking them to pay more tax. Someone earning $65,000 will be expected under this government to pay an extra $325 in tax in two years time. Now $65,000 is higher than the median wage in my electorate. In my electorate people do work hard but they do not earn a lot. Like most regional electorates, the median wage in our area is about $50,000. All of these people and families will be expected to pay more in tax. As I have said, this budget fails the fairness test. Australians can never trust this government to be able to deliver a fair budget.
This budget fails the jobs test. Unemployment is going up. Underemployment is spiking. Wages are flatlining. We have a revenue problem in this country yet, rather than addressing the measures and introducing reform that would help increase wages in a sustainable way, this government again is doing nothing and allowing wages in some sectors to fall and wages overall in our country to flatline.
This budget fails the health test and the Medicare test. This government is delaying reversing the unfair cuts to Medicare for three years. Just after the federal election I held my own series of round tables in the Bendigo electorate to discuss with people their fears. They are scared about the rising costs of health care and they are angry and upset at the way in which this government is undermining Medicare, the universal healthcare safety net.
On average, people in the Bendigo region are $21 out of pocket when they see a GP. Bulk-billing rates in our area are stalling. There is one 100 per cent bulk-billing practice left in the 3550 postcode area. Some other practices bulk-bill only children and some others bulk-bill children and concession card holders. When we surveyed not just patients but 23 clinics in the 3550 postcode area we discovered that, on average, patients were $21 out of pocket. It may not sound like a lot to a millionaire, but $21 just to see a GP is a lot to people in Bendigo in central Victoria who are on low wages or fixed incomes.
In one particular case that again shows how the government are failing, a woman came and spoke to me about her experience of Medicare. She is trying to stay healthy. She goes for a regular Pap smear test and she is $16 out of pocket. She goes to see the GP prior to that, to get her prescriptions renewed and to have a discussion with the doctor about her health, and she is $21 out of pocket—just for standard preventive health measures. These are the costs that people in regional areas are facing more and more. Despite the government's rhetoric, they have failed to address this and to reinvest properly in Medicare. Their con around Medicare is something that they should be called out for. Everyday Australians are paying more whilst big business are not. Budgets are about priorities, and again the government have said that their priority is not everyday Australians, not the people of Bendigo, but big business and their mates.
The other debate that is going on in this place is the $50 billion handout the government are giving big business while increasing the taxes of Australians earning over $21,655. That is a lot of regional workers. We are talking about people in hospitality and retail who will get hit on 1 July with a cut to their penalty rates. They will then get hit with paying more in their Medicare levy. The problem with this government is that they are handing out money to big business and making ordinary working Australians on minimum wages pay for it. The frustration that people in the Bendigo electorate have around this budget is that people who are being hit with penalty rate cuts—people who are trying to survive on low incomes—are being asked to pay more in tax whilst the government prioritises giving a handout to big business.
To remind those opposite about the minimum wage in this country: if you have two children and are earning the minimum wage, and if that is the sole income of the household, you are actually living below the poverty line. Our minimum wage has not kept up with its original purpose of supporting a household with three children to, through frugal means, afford meals and the occasional holiday. That was the original intent with the minimum wage. It is not a decent wage these days. These minimum-wage workers, who are by definition living below the poverty line and who are trying to support their children through school, have been hit not only with penalty rate cuts, if they work in the hospitality and retail sectors, but with a tax increase. At the same time, the government are doing very little to crack down on multinational tax evasion and the rorts occurring in negative gearing and capital gains tax, and they are handing out $50 billion to big business.
Labor supports increasing the Medicare levy, but only for those who are in the top two income brackets. That is the fairest way. When wages are flatlining, you cannot increase the tax on those people; it is not fair. Why should somebody earning $55,000 pay an extra $275 in tax when someone on $80,000 pays an extra $400? People on low incomes spend every single dollar of their income. When you take more away from them, that is money that you are taking out of the local economy.
There are new nasties and old zombies in this budget. Again, I cannot understand why the government thinks that it is entirely reasonable to increase the pension age to 70, the highest in the developed world. Nurses cannot work until they are 70. Plumbers cannot work until they are 70. In regional areas, like Bendigo, we are reliant upon traditional trades and traditional caring, like nursing and teaching. It is hard to work in those industries until you are 70. This is the government trying to save money. It is not being realistic about the jobs that people have.
There are new cuts to family payments, which will again hit regional communities hard. There are new cuts to health for veterans. The abolition of the energy supplement for new people coming onto payments will leave pensioners, for example, $366 a year worse off, when energy bills are going up as a result of this government's inaction. Remember, prior to the 2013 election, it said, 'Abolish the carbon tax, the price on carbon, and energy bills will go down.' Well, what a con! They did not go down; they have gone up. This winter, people in central Victoria know that they will be hit by an incredibly high bill. And this government has done nothing at all to try to curb the energy market. Instead, we are seeing it proposing to cut an energy supplement which would help those most in need of getting on top of their bills.
The bank tax was exposed yesterday and on Monday in question time. Whilst the government say that it is a new tax, it is actually a levy and therefore will become a tax deduction for the big banks. So the expected $6 billion they hope to make is not actually $6 billion, because these banks can then claim it as a tax deduction. We are all still trying to work out exactly how much this measure will actually create for the budget.
In the few moments left, I want to reiterate how the cuts to schools are disastrous. This is not needs based funding. It does not matter what those opposite say; it is not needs based funding. I will demonstrate the impact of this government's cuts to Bendigo schools. We have the Bendigo Senior Secondary College, the largest VCE school in the state of Victoria. It has VCAL and VET programs. Under Labor and the original Gonski needs based funding model, this school would have gotten an extra $1.6 million next year to ensure it has the resources to give every student the quality education that they deserve. Under this government's model it is down to $265,000. It has gone from $1.6 million to $265,000. There is a significant gap there that this government is ignoring.
Another example is Lightning Reef Primary School. Under Labor it would have received much more, but this government is saying that it will only get an extra $35,000. This is one of the schools in the poorest, most disadvantaged parts of Victoria, and it is only getting an extra $35,000. Meanwhile, an independent school in the Bendigo area that has the capacity to charge fees and that charges quite high fees is getting half a million dollars, $500,000, from this government next year.
Our Catholic schools in the region are very upset with this government's funding cuts to Catholic schools. We have a large Catholic school footprint in Bendigo and central Victoria, and they are angry that the government is cutting funding to programs like the Doxa School program, which gives kids a second chance. Its ratio is about one teacher to five students, and that is what the school has worked out it needs to get these young people back into school and back into education. The school provides a lot of social work. It provides a lot of activities. It rebuilds their confidence. All of these kids are from disadvantaged backgrounds, homes and families where there is significant trauma. The school has worked out how to reconnect these young people to a love of learning and, more importantly, to their community. This school is working, and the Catholic education system should be congratulated for the Doxa School. Instead of learning from it, what have the government done? They have cut its funding, and they have said, 'We don't trust the Catholic schools to be able to deliver the needs based funding in accordance with their values and principles and the school's needs.'
What this government has done to education is a disgrace, and the fact that it continues to misrepresent what 'needs based' is is just shocking. Previous speakers have demonstrated how they misunderstand it. They say, 'We want every school to be equal.' Schools are not equal. Not every school is equal, and not every community in our country is equal. If that is the aspiration, to get to equality, then you need to increase the funding significantly for the disadvantaged schools—not, like I have just said, with half a million dollars to the most wealthy school in the Bendigo electorate, which charges parents a fortune, whilst the other schools like Lightning Reef and Bendigo Senior Secondary College miss out. That funding should have gone to schools in need.
This budget is a shocker. It rips at the heart of regional and central Victorians. It does nothing to create jobs. Whilst Labor are not blocking supply, we call on the government to partner with Labor in fixing up a number of these loopholes. (Time expired)
It is a delight to speak about this year's budget through the mechanism of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18. When you think about the Australian economy, it is really a remarkable achievement that we have had going on for 26 years of continuous economic growth—the longest period of economic growth of any country anywhere in the history of the world. Since the coalition government were elected in 2013, we have created half a million new jobs. We are continuing the program of economic prosperity through the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the introduction of the Registered Organisations Commission, which will improve productivity in all workplaces, particularly, with the ABCC, on building sites. It is also more than a thousand days since the last boat arrived, and we have restored confidence in the immigration system.
What we have in this budget are more of the government's achievements and more of its prudent economic management. I want to talk a little bit about the nature of the budget settings. The budget settings are around fairness, security and opportunity. I want to look particularly at the situation of the debt and the deficit, which is so important to those on this side of the House. We have reduced the growth in debt by two-thirds since we came to government in 2013. It was at 34 per cent; it is now at less than 10 per cent. We have cut the rate of growth in spending. It was more than 3½ per cent when we came to government; now it is less than two per cent. Over Labor's six years, they accumulated around $240 billion in deficits. Over the same period we too have run deficit budgets, but we have had $70 billion less in deficits.
Happily, from 2018-19, for the first time in a decade, we will no longer be borrowing to spend on everyday expenditure—we will no longer be putting things on the credit card when we go out to dinner! We are going to return the country to surplus in 2020-21, with a surplus of $7.4 billion. Since we came to government we have had $25 billion in savings passed by the Senate, but we have had savings of $14.7 billion stall and we are no longer going to proceed with them. It is like any company's balance sheet: if you know you cannot produce things, you take them off the balance sheet, and that is what we have done here.
We need to push harder. We need to continue to focus on debt and deficit. That is why it is so important that these bills are passed, why it is so important that these measures are undertaken. And it is why it is so important that the coalition is returned at the next election, because one can only imagine how bad the debt and deficit will be if those opposite get their hands on the kitty again.
Another of the important economic measures we have taken is to extend the life of the Future Fund. We are not drawing down any Future Fund money for an extra 10 years, and this will save a century of taxpayer money on what have been unfunded liabilities of Public Service pensions. And we have raised $3 billion from multinational tax avoidance laws. In one year we have raised that amount from just seven companies. Despite a fair degree of bloviating before the election, those opposite chose to vote against the bill that made that law.
I heard from the previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, what I have heard so often from members opposite: an obsession with the small-business tax cut that we passed at the end of this financial year, which allows tax cuts for businesses with turnovers of up to $50 million. Labor was only prepared to support a tax cut for businesses with turnovers of $2 million, but anybody who knows anything about business knows that a business with only $2 million turnover is a microbusiness, not a small business. It is very important that Australia's corporate tax rate becomes competitive with the rest of the world, because at the moment our corporate tax rate is massively uncompetitive. In this budget we are providing further opportunities for small business by extending the instant asset write-off for small businesses purchasing items of capital of up to $20,000. I know the small businesses in my electorate really think that this is a fantastic opportunity and a fantastic measure.
We are creating opportunities for first home buyers and in the housing system more broadly. One of the big issues in my electorate is the cost of housing, particularly for first home buyers. We are creating a super saver scheme, which will allow people to use their superannuation accounts to save money for a home deposit at deductible rates. There is a measure that I am particularly proud to see the Treasurer has included in the budget, which is releasing more Commonwealth land for the purpose of housing construction. We on this side of the House have been saying for a long time that the real issue in housing affordability is the question of supply. It is one thing for a Commonwealth government to say that; it is another thing for the Commonwealth to actually do something about it. So it is good to see that we are releasing Commonwealth Defence Force land in Moorabbin.
But there has been an element of the housing affordability debate where the settings have been unfair, and that seems to be where we have seen foreign buyers crowding out the market, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, making it more difficult for young Australians to purchase their first homes. That is why we have put together a range of measures, like the abolition of the capital gains tax exemption for foreign investors. We have mandated that 50 per cent of new developments need to be sold to domestic buyers, and we have put in place a foreign investment levy of at least $5,000 on all future foreign investors who fail to either occupy or lease their property for at least six months each year. There are more controls on interest-only and investor lending, and the government has made $120 million of divestments of property illegally owned by foreigners. We know what a problem this was under previous arrangements, where the Foreign Investment Review Board was not actually applying those measures properly, and how that has crowded out the housing market.
In infrastructure, this budget is replete with opportunities, with $75 billion spent on infrastructure for the Snowy Hydro; for the inland Brisbane-to-Melbourne rail, a great, nation-building project, an iconic project, which will help transport freight between two of our great capitals; and for the Western Sydney Airport. It is so good to see that the government is getting on with this particular proposal. I have to say it is particularly good to see that the government is building this airport, because I think that any people who live in Sydney know that the present Sydney airport is quite unsatisfactory, and you would want a completely different approach taken in the construction of a new airport. I commend Minister Fletcher for his decision in that regard.
In my own electorate in relation to infrastructure spending, there is an extra $50 million that has been put into the NorthConnex project. In acknowledging and speaking about NorthConnex today, I note that there was a worker on NorthConnex who died on site yesterday. My sympathies and prayers are with his family.
The NorthConnex project is a very important project. It will take 5,000 trucks and cars off Pennant Hills Road every day and provide the missing link in our road transport between Brisbane and Melbourne, cutting 15 minutes and I think about 21 sets of traffic lights off that journey. It is a very good Commonwealth-state-private-sector project that has been funded under an approach that we in this government have taken.
There is money for roads funding in Kenthurst, Annangrove, Asquith and Middle Dural: over $167,000 in construction on Citrus Avenue in Asquith; $750,000 on four sections of Annangrove Road in Kenthurst and Annangrove; $200,000 on resurfacing of Cattai Ridge Road and Old Northern Road; and almost $70,000 on road pavement patching on Kenthurst Road.
As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am very pleased to see the increase in security funding that has been provided in this budget. We have done this not only in this budget but in a range of measures. We are ending the 457 visas, and we have improved the citizenship test, tightening it up, ensuring that it meets Australian values and ensuring that Australian citizens have adequate English to fully integrate into our society.
Labor in government cut defence spending and left us with defence spending at prewar levels. It was so underfunded. We are increasing defence spending in this budget to two per cent of GDP. That was a goal that we had, and we have delivered it three years ahead of schedule. We are supporting our over 2,300 Defence Force personnel serving our country overseas and investing over $300 million in the AFP to help protect our country here at home and also on some assignments abroad.
One of the measures that is very important to me is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which provides fairness to some of our most disadvantaged Australians. At any point in time, Australians can have a child with a disability. You can be struck down with a disability. This is nobody's fault. Because it can affect anyone at any time, it is right and just that all Australians should make a contribution to it. That is why this government has put together in this budget an increase of 0.5 per cent in the Medicare levy in order to fund the NDIS, and that is a very important thing. The NDIS is available to around 2,000 residents of my electorate, and I know from talking to them how important having security of funding and a guarantee that the NDIS will continue has been to them.
Labor in government failed to adequately fund the NDIS. They left it with a $55 billion black hole. What we have done here is to guarantee its funding and to ensure that the NDIS complements and does not replace existing services and to ensure that the states and territories do not cost-shift.
I have been particularly pleased to see that Minister Porter and Minister Hunt have been working together particularly to address issues around mental health funding, some of which had been transferred into the NDIS and some of which had been reduced. They are looking at ways to ensure that we maintain those important mental health funding projects that were otherwise going to be defunded or rolled into the NDIS.
The school funding program provides a great degree of fairness. There is $18.6 billion extra for schools. Schools are some of the biggest assets in Berowra, particularly the quality of the schools. It does not matter whether they are government, Catholic or independent. Over $1.12 billion is to be spent over the next decade supporting the 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and the over 26,000 Berowra students who attend those schools. By 2027, 35 government schools in my electorate will have received more than $514 million in funding. The 12 independent schools will have received more than $467 million in Commonwealth funding, and over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education system on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate.
I acknowledge that there are two schools in my electorate that are among the 24 that will receive less funding than they had under previous arrangements. They are Mount St Benedict's at Pennant Hills and Oakhill College at Castle Hill. Following the Minister for Education and Training's announcement of these measures, I reached out to those schools to discuss the changes and see if there was anything I could do to assist them. I want to thank the principal, acting principal and the chairs of those two school councils for the constructive approach they have adopted. I am a strong supporter of the schools and communities in my electorate. They are the absolute backbone of the Berowra electorate. I have been advocating to the minister on behalf of all of Berowra schools to ensure he understands the needs of our schools. I look forward to continuing to work with the schools and with the minister as the funding program is implemented.
In health funding we are creating fairness. We are guaranteeing Medicare and we are restoring the GP indexation rate that Labor first froze. We are retaining bulk-billing incentives for pathology, diagnostics imaging, blood tests and X-rays. Indeed, bulk-billing rates have reached record figures under this government, with this March quarter a figure of 85.6 per cent being the highest bulk-billing rate for this quarter ever on record. We have guaranteed Medicare. We have added $1.2 million in funding on adding medicines to the PBS. Of particular interest to me is the additional funding we have put in place—more than $115 million—for mental health and suicide prevention. This includes: $80 million to maintain community psychosocial services through the NDIS; $9.1 million for telehealth, with improved access to psychologists; $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where there has unfortunately been a large spike in suicides; a further $15 million provided to three major mental health research hubs around Australia in Melbourne, Sydney and the Sunshine Coast; and a particular focus on veterans, because we know it is a group that is so sadly affected too often by mental health issues and suicide, with an additional $58.6 million in funding for the DVA, particularly focusing on supporting our veterans and now serving personnel in relation to suicide prevention and mental health.
Another area where we are providing leadership in this budget is through the banking levy. Banks are highly profitable—over $30 billion per year. They benefit from their dominant position in our market. They have the advantages of regulatory protection. They had the advantage of the bank guarantee during the financial crisis. APRA, the banking regulator, says that large, highly leveraged banks are a source of risk. The banking levy will apply on our biggest five banks, raising $6.2 billion. This tax amounts to 6c in every $100 of specified liabilities greater than $100 billion. It is about four per cent of bank profits. The ACCC will monitor banks to keep the banks from passing this on to customers. This will create more competition as there are 100 other banks, building societies and credit unions to which this levy does not apply. A similar levy applies in other advanced economies, such as the United Kingdom.
Importantly, the provisions will not apply to deposits of up to $250,000, mortgages, insurance and superannuation businesses, and tier 1 capital which the banks need to hold for their licences. I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and its cognate bills, which form part of the 2017-18 budget that was handed down by the Treasurer just a few weeks ago. It is a budget that those opposite have claimed is fair and a budget that those opposite promise will deliver better days ahead. They are four years in government, but we are still waiting for the better days ahead to come.
I am not surprised about the speaking points that each of the members of the government have been emailed from the Treasurer's office. It seems that it has colluded with the PM's office to make sure they get the word 'fairness' into every speech. I wanted to know where that word 'fairness' came from. I saw an article in The Daily Telegraph saying that the Liberal Party has spent $200,000 in polling that told it it should use the word 'fairness'. That is where the idea of fairness came from. I quote:
The Daily Telegraph has learned the Liberal Party commissioned research firm Crosby Textor—
to provide data—
to help Mr Morrison formulate his second Budget, at a cost of more than $200,000.
… … …
Mr Morrison drew on the research to help him convince Mr Turnbull of the likely public support for meaningful changes to housing affordability in the Budget.
Government members who are here today all signed off on polling to tell them what they should say and what should be in the budget. They did not bother going down to do a street corner meeting or a mobile office or go to a pub or club in their area and say, 'Do you think we're running a good show here?' We know that the answer, had they actually bothered to listen to the community, would have been: a budget delivered by the former Abbott government and the Turnbull government delivering all of those horrific, toxic cuts, which then had to be abandoned because they could not get them through the Senate. They abandoned them not because they rejected them because they were a bad idea—they still support all of those harsh and cruel measures—but because they could not get them through. That is why they abandoned all of those reforms—junked them—and moved to try to find a way to prove that they are fair.
This is not a fair budget. Anyone who lives in mainstream Australia knows that it is clearly not a fair budget. This is what you get when you have a fly-in fly-out Prime Minister who comes into Queensland and a Treasurer who—I will put this on the record—did not even bother to set foot in Queensland before the budget this year. It was in June last year that the Treasurer was last in Queensland. I will tell you where he did go. He went to Germany, twice, before setting foot in Queensland. Is it any wonder that we have a huge number of LNP MPs from Queensland who have never bothered to go in to fight for Queensland, who have never bother to actually stand up for Queensland? Talking about infrastructure, which I will do in a little while, this is a budget that delivers nil for Queensland, and particularly for the south-west of Brisbane, which I am privileged to represent in this place.
This is a budget with a deficit for the coming year that has blown out; it is 10 times bigger than first forecast under this government. It will now reach $29.4 billion in this financial year. That is right: from the first forecast at $2.8 billion it has increased to a staggering $29.4 billion under this government. That is not to mention that the deficit for the year just passed has reached $37.6 billion, which has tripled from the government's first budget under Joe Hockey. The deficit has blown out. It is not under control and is not arrested but has tripled under their watch.
Who can forget that infamous night of Joe Hockey's first budget, a budget so well received that he was dispatched to America. That is how popular that budget was. It was a huge budget that wreaked havoc across middle- and low-income Australia and that caused the government to lose 16 seats at the last election. That is the economic management of this government. On the night that Joe Hockey delivered that budget, delivering some of the cruellest and harshest cuts to our community, he cranked up the music and said it was the best night of his life—'Fantastic! I'm going to put the axe through your family's budget and I'm going to cut funding for schools and health, but I'm going celebrate that'—and chomped down on cigars with Mathias Cormann, the finance minister. Little wonder that the community in Australia reacted strongly, stood up to the bullies inside this out-of-touch government, ensured a huge number of coalition MPs were thrown out of office and almost ensured a change of government.
The debt is now $375 billion, more than double than when the Liberals first came to office, and after all of this the government has the gall to say, 'Just trust us; we're great economic managers.' The Australian community have woken up to this myth. The Australian community have woken up to this lie. When it comes to the economic management of this country Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, and Scott Morrison simply cannot be trusted. On the watch of the member for Robertson, who is in the chamber, and that of every other member of this government, Australians were paying the highest amount of tax they had ever paid—ever. Not lower tax, not paying less; paying more—the highest amount of tax that Australia has ever paid in our history.
That record net debt will peak over the next three years, with 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 are going down and, under the government's own budget papers, 100,000 jobs are expected to go—not stabilise, not increase; be lost, decrease. So let us not have any lectures from those opposite. Do not get up in this chamber and talk about fairness in any way, shape or form. Wage growth has hit record lows of just 1.8 per cent, which has fallen behind the cost of living, which is increasing at 2.1 per cent, which means wages of Australians are now going backwards. Let me repeat that: wages in Australia are now going backwards.
So what is the answer to this problem that the government have? Are they looking at job creation? Are they looking at how we can stimulate the economy? No, they are going to cut penalty rates. While wages and standards of living are falling and inequality is growing and is at a 75-year high in Australia, they are going to cut wages. That is their solution. They are going to give around 10,400 workers in my community a pay cut. I will not stand for that, my community will not stand for it, and Bill Shorten and Labor will fight that every step of the way. They are going to cut the wages of 700,000 Australians. That is what is going to happen under this government. They are proud of it, they have been encouraging it and their speaking notes, straight out of the IPA, are all programmed to cut wages and to cut government spending. That is the Liberal way. That means higher inequality in Australia, at a record 75-year high. That is not something I would be proud of as a government.
The only better days that are apparently coming under this Treasurer are planned for a couple of people in Australia—that is, big business and millionaires. They are going to do very well under this government. They are going to do exceptionally well. Big business will get $65 billion worth of tax cuts, and millionaires will get a $16,400 tax cut. They will get a bonus, but under this budget someone earning around $65,000, living in my electorate and in great working- and middle-class suburbs right across Australia, will pay more. They do not get a tax cut; they get to pay $325 more per year under this government. How on earth could you ever describe that as fair?
The Prime Minister said in his speech that the budget was about choices, and the government have made choices. They have chosen big business over working families. They have chosen multinationals over Medicare. As we have seen time and time again, this budget fails the fairness test, it fails the jobs test and it fails the Medicare test. Yet there we were on budget night, with the government wanting some sort of congratulations for their supposed Medicare guarantee.
Let's talk about the facts. The Medicare rebate will not apply to 93 per cent of scans, including the X-rays, MRIs and ultrasounds used to diagnose some of the most common forms of cancer. The Medicare rebate will only be lifted on 59 of the 891 radiology items listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. That is just seven per cent, and the government wants to be congratulated. While mammograms and a number of CT scans will be indexed under the plan, X-rays, MRIs and ultrasounds for such common conditions as brain, lung, breast and ovarian cancers will not. The rebate on common scans for arthritis and nuclear medicine will also remain frozen. There is no Medicare guarantee under this government and there never will be. Time and time again this government shows its true colours.
The people in my electorate of Oxley know that it was this side of the chamber and a former member for Oxley that built and delivered Medicare. It was Bill Hayden who first developed universal health care for this country. During the 1973 second reading speech on the Health Insurance Bill 1973 to introduce Medibank, as it was called at the time, and opposed by the Liberal Party, Mr Hayden said it was to provide:
… the most equitable and efficient means of providing health insurance coverage for all Australians.
It was introduced by Labor, by Bill Hayden, and opposed by the Liberal Party. It was not just for the wealthy, not just for the few, but for all Australians. Let's be clear: Medicare is under attack by this government. It always will be as long as the Liberal Party has breath in its body.
This is a government which thinks it is fair for someone earning $1 million to get a tax cut while someone earning $65,000 will pay $325 more in tax. This government's new tax increases will affect every Australian, right down to someone on an income of $21,000. A truck driver in Goodna on $55,000 will pay $275 a year extra in tax. A small-business manager in Jindalee on $80,000 will pay an extra $400. The thousands of families living in Springfield, Forest Lake and Inala will be part of the 100,000 families that are worse off as part of this government's cuts to family payments. And this government still thinks that it is a fair budget. No fair budget would hike taxes for those earning less than $87,000. At the same time, they are giving a tax cut to everyone earning more than $180,000. That means that a millionaire gets a $16,400 tax cut on the same day that up to 700,000 Australians lose their penalty rates. On that same day, someone earning $65,000 a year gets a $325 a year tax increase. How on earth is that fair? No fair budget would give multinationals and banks a $65 billion tax cut at the expense of Middle Australia. No fair budget would be ripping $22 billion from our kids' real needs based funding for schools.
Three years ago, having promised no cuts to schools, the government ripped away $30 billion. Last week, they told the parents and students of Australia to be grateful that they were now only cutting $22 billion. Parents and teachers know that they are going to be worse off as a result of these cuts. As we have heard, that is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade or sacking 22,000 teachers. We on this side of the chamber know this, as do the parents, educators and principals of Australia. The Catholic parish schools in particular in my electorate have been contacting me. They are worried about what the impacts of this government's proposed education reform will mean. In my home state of Queensland, state schools alone are expected to lose $300 million. They are going to be $300 million worse off under this government's plan. We know that a lot of this funding has been pushed out to the never-never, with significant funding increases under this government not flowing to Queensland schools until 2027. We know that under the next 10 years we will lose funding.
We know the situation when it comes to jobs, skills, training and investment. We have seen this government rip out $2.8 billion worth of training. They have stood by while we have lost over 13,000 apprenticeships on their watch. Thousands of people are missing out under this government. I will defend what our community needs against this unfair budget.
I am very pleased that the member for Oxley has referenced me in his speech, because, to the member for Oxley, I would like to say this: Fairness in this budget is about funding, not just promoting your commitments. Fairness in this budget is about delivering real money, not monopoly money, to the people of Australia. Fairness in this budget is about ensuring more opportunity and more choice for all Australians, so that they can secure a better future for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren. To the member for Oxley, to members present and to those members of my community on the Central Coast, I say that this budget is about fairness, this budget is about opportunity and this budget is absolutely about security.
Our policies outlined in this budget will grow the economy and will generate jobs. It is the important issue that is raised daily with me in my community. Unlike Labor's approach, our policies in our budget that were outlined are paid for in full.
As a former school teacher and as a mother of two young schoolchildren, I would like to begin with the fact that this is a budget that delivers a vital needs based funding model for schools. Endorsed by David Gonski, this is about fairness. Schools in every sector, in every local community, in my electorate will be receiving a significant increase in funding. This is great news for the 48 primary and secondary schools in the electorate and their more than 23½ thousand students.
The total increase in federal government funding for schools in Robertson over the next 10 years is $311 million. These schools include Brisbane Water Secondary College Woy Woy Campus, which will benefit from a $14.9 million increase over the next 10 years; Kariong Mountains High School, which will get a boost of a $5.4 million increase over the next 10 years; and Gosford High School, which will receive $8.5 million extra over the next decade. There is also $9.2 million more for St John The Baptist Catholic Primary School, which is an extra $3,824 per student. But it is not just about the dollar figures. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows makes a real difference to improving student outcomes, and I am sure that is a goal shared by all of us in this place. This is a fair system. This is a system that is good for students, good for parents and good for teachers. I look forward to meeting with parents from many of these schools over the coming weeks to hear more from them about the benefits of this funding.
Another positive story from this year's budget is in health care. We have announced a further $12.5 million commitment towards the new Central Coast Medical School and medical research institute in Gosford to ensure that it can attract and retain world-leading health professionals. This takes the total commitment for this government to $45 million, with our partners the University of Newcastle and the New South Wales government, also contributing $20 million each to this major project. It is a game changer for Gosford and it is part of the already existing upgrade to Gosford Hospital being delivered by the New South Wales government. It is forecast to create more than 750 new jobs with an economic impact of more than $200 million. What is really exciting is that it is not simply a building but a hub that could one day develop into a precinct or a growth centre that elevates Gosford to the same level as some of the great university cities in the world, and that is, certainly, one of my dreams as the member for Robertson.
We have established a precinct taskforce whose scope is to work on building on the region's unique competitive strengths in the Australian health sector. Some of the world's best universities, including the University of Cambridge and the New York University, will join an international advisory board and become delivery partners in this project. The headline 'Cambridge, New York…Gosford', appeared for the first time in the Central Coast Express Advocate. I am determined to see more of these headlines again and again as this project and our collaboration grows.
To start the process, the university will allocate 30 existing medical Commonwealth support places annually to the new school building, to a total of 150 places, meaning no new medical placements are required. With $12½ million in transition funding over the next five years committed in this budget, we are also ensuring the best in world-class researchers are in Gosford to help ensure we can build a precinct that generates groundbreaking work in patient-centred, supported health care.
As I have been hearing from constituents in my electorate at business round tables, community listening posts and stakeholder meetings, there has been resounding endorsement. Tahir emailed me and told me that the medical school is a great initiative and certainly the type of industry we should be attracting to the Central Coast to make it an attractive high-tech hub for other businesses. Gordon, another local constituent, wrote to me and said that the Central Coast deserves and desperately needs more of this type of investment. Paul wrote that he hopes that this positive momentum will stimulate more economic development on the Central Coast. To Paul and to other members of my community I say that, as part of this government, it is my commitment to work every single day and night to make sure that we do deliver on this commitment.
We have also received the backing of local businesses. Members of the task force and associated members who have been absolutely critical in delivering the outcomes achieved so far include Professor Caroline McMillen, the outstanding Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Newcastle; her colleagues Laureate Professor John Aitken, the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Faculty of Health and Medicine, who is a true visionary, I must say, and whose foundational work has been absolutely essential to this important project; Professor Brett Niness, the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment; Dr Brok Glenn, the outstanding Dean of Central Coast Campus; Professor Deborah Hodgson, Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation; Professor Kevin Hall, Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation); Kate Robinson and, before her, Chris Price, for their hard work in the Vice-Chancellor's office; the outstanding Dr Andrew Montague, the Chief Executive of the Central Coast Local Health District and his predecessor, Matt Hanrahan, who have both been a driving force in the hospital upgrade and have been a key part of this project as well, along with Kerry Stevenson, the Executive Director, Strategy and Innovation.
Others on the task force include Matt Kelly, the Healthe Care regional manager on the Central Coast; the state member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch; Alison Coutts, the executive chairman of Memphasys Limited; Regional Development Australia Central Coast CEO, John Mouland; the Central Coast Council administrator, Ian Reynolds; and Susan Wilson, who have also been intimately involved in this process.
We have also benefited from having the expertise and connections of MTPConnect, including Dr Alfredo Martinez-Coll and Sue MacLeman, the managing director and chief executive officer, as well Adrian White, the hardworking manager of health technologies policy at the industry growth division of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Adrian and his team are working alongside me and MTPConnect to develop a plan, which I look forward to saying more about soon, including about our links with industry and commercial partners.
I would also like to mention that, while I have been knocking on plenty of doors down here in Canberra to secure the $45 million from this government to ensure this project gets off the ground, there is no doubt we have seen an equally strong willingness from this government to recognise the importance of this project to our region. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Education And Training have all been instrumental in the work of the task force. I thank them for it.
On health, I would also like to commend the way the budget will continue to provide record funding and will guarantee Medicare's future with a dedicated fund to protect these services for this generation and for the next. We have already seen a record number of Australians on the Central Coast accessing these vital services, including a record bulk-billing rate of around 86 per cent in my electorate of Robertson. In fact, I am advised that last financial year more than 820,000 GP services in the electorate were bulk-billed, which means that the majority of patients paid nothing out of their own pockets when visiting a GP—and this is under a coalition government. Yet, frustratingly, in many areas like the peninsula there are still many families who cannot access a local GP when they are sick and they need to see a local doctor. So, in response to this crisis, we have developed the first real short- and long-term plan that will help people see a doctor when they are sick and they need it most in suburbs including Woy Woy, Umina Beach, Ettalong Beach, Blackwall, Booker Bay, Pearl Beach and Patonga. Around $100,000 will be made available to enhance a new regionwide health workforce that will address the issues faced in the region.
I would like to commend the Assistant Minister for Health, the member for Lyne, for his relentless assistance in helping us develop a unique solution that will put doctors and patients first. This working group, convened by the Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network, will enact strategies to help retain and attract GPs to the peninsula. With a large number of local doctors approaching retirement age and with fewer younger GPs and GP registrars stepping up to take their place, this will be a significant step forward. But Labor's response, can I say, is pitiful. The Labor candidate for Robertson was not even able to explain on local radio recently what the problem is, let alone what a solution is to this important issue, despite it being a problem that Labor did nothing about in the six years that they represented my community. They were in government and they had a chance to solve this crisis in accessing GPs on the peninsula.
It is important to also note how this budget will secure access to vital and life-saving medicines. It provides $1.2 billion to provide cheaper access to vital medicines and lists more drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to ensure families have access to vital drugs. These medicines will assist people suffering from conditions such as heart disease and severe asthma. We are further strengthening our support for mental health and suicide prevention, with a package of over $170 million.
I will also be writing a letter shortly to every veteran association and pensioner association in my electorate to make sure that they know about the important developments in this year's budget. This will include details on how past and current service personnel who have undertaken at least one day full-time service will benefit with easier access to free mental health support and services. We are also delivering better access to counselling from the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. I understand that this will benefit 1,129 veterans and their families in my electorate. Almost 2,500 clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs will benefit from easier access to DVA services and faster processing times for claims.
I am pleased to see that the government will reinstate access to the pensioner concession card for an additional 92,000 Australians. This will in many cases give back important access to discounts, such as the subsidised hearing services offered by the Commonwealth. From 1 July 2018, people aged 65 and older will also be able to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 to their superannuation after selling their home. This will be in addition to any other contributions that they are eligible to make. We are also improving the My Aged Care platform, with $3.1 million to increase efficiency and effectiveness for users.
As I spoke about in this place earlier, this budget secures the full funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Once fully rolled out the NDIS will directly help an estimated 2,900 people in my electorate, including through a local office based in Gosford.
Debate on this budget would not be complete without highlighting key details of how we are boosting what is often described as the engine room of our economy—small business. In this budget we are extending the incredibly popular instant asset write-off for small business. There are more than 14,100 small businesses in my electorate that can take advantage of this measure. We are delivering tax cuts to small and medium businesses—benefiting over 15,000 businesses in my electorate—with turnovers of up to $50 million if they are incorporated and up to $5 million if they are unincorporated, so that they can invest and employ more locals.
We are also creating a fund to help train Australian apprentices in key trades and skills to get more young people into work and to help the approximately 1,600 local young Australians aged 15 to 24 looking for a job or looking for more work in my electorate of Robertson. We will also put a levy on Australia's five largest banks, generating $6.2 billion over the forward estimates, to support the ongoing work in budget repair.
Finally, this budget includes a number of sensible measures to make sure more people on the Central Coast have access to affordable housing. It includes a crackdown on foreign investors who seek to exploit loopholes in our system and to help ease the costs for young people looking to buy their first home. We are also looking out for the 7,980 families in my electorate that use government supported child care, with reforms that are about making child care more accessible and more affordable and providing the greatest level of assistance for those who need it most.
We are delivering on our commitment to fix more local roads, including in Copacabana, Kariong, Umina Beach and Booker Bay. I have been working with the Central Coast Council, the New South Wales government and my federal colleagues to ensure that these works start and finish as soon as possible.
To conclude, in short, this is a budget that the Central Coast desperately needs and deserves. It is about generating more local jobs, growing the economy, including our local economy on the Central Coast, and helping out those who need it most. It is a fair budget and it is a budget that does make the right choices for people on the Central Coast. I commend these bills and the budget to the House.
The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills of course appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of government. Labor has a principled position of not opposing supply, unlike those opposite, so these bills will be approved. But they come on the back of what has been a shocking budget from this government, trying its best to imitate fairness whilst still making life more difficult for pensioners, families, working Australians and students.
The budget will see the country's fiscal position worsen. Remember the rhetoric in the lead-up to the 2013 budget from the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, claiming that the coalition are always better fiscal managers and will always do a better job of balancing the budget. Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, the new Prime Minister, has taken on that mantle as well and taken up that rhetoric that conservatives do a better job. The facts tell a very different story. This year, the budget deficit triples from the original budget that was handed down by this government, to $37 billion. Net debt is just about to go through the half-a-trillion-dollar mark for Australia, an unprecedented record in net debt levels. Receipts are at 24.1 per cent of GDP and expenditure is at 24.8 per cent of GDP.
The very interesting thing about this budget, like in all of the other coalition budgets that have been delivered since 2013, is that it claims a surplus in the fourth year. If you look back at every single one of them—what do you know?—they said we would get to surplus down the track in the fourth year. I can tell you, according to their first budget, we are meant to be in surplus now. If you look back at the Abbot government's first budget, their projections were that we would be in surplus now, that the economy would be in surplus. They have done it again. The member for Cook has again made this claim: 'Don't worry. In the fourth year we'll be in surplus.' It is pie in the sky. Like with many of the commitments this government makes, you simply cannot believe it. It would be funny if it were not so harsh on Australian people. There are a number of disastrous elements contained in this budget, not the least of which is the fact that this budget gives a massive leg up to millionaires and makes life more difficult for struggling families, pensioners, students and working Australians.
Labor really are the only party that are committed to fairness, and that is evident in our approach to the budget, to ensuring proper funding of schools, hospitals and the National Disability Insurance Scheme and to taxation and housing affordability. We do not believe that someone who is a millionaire should get a tax cut or that someone that is on $50,000 or $60,000 a year should pay more tax. This government's priorities are so out of whack that, on 1 July, a person who earns $1 million per year will pay $16,500 less in tax as a result of what is in this budget, but someone on $50,000 or $60,000 a year will pay more income tax. In particular, someone who is on $60,000 a year, in two years time, will pay $324 more in tax. Only the member for Wentworth, one of the most out-of-touch Prime Ministers in living memory, could think to ask people on $50,000 a year to pay more whilst giving a tax break to the wealthiest Australians, while at the same time cutting funding for schools and universities, making life more difficult for families and pensioners.
This has been a bad budget for education. For preschools there are cuts. For school funding there has been cuts. TAFE funding has been cut and university funding has been cut. So much for investing in the future. The Prime Minister used to be big on investing in the future, saying: 'We're living in the most exciting times we've ever had. We need to invest in the future, and education is the key.' But it apparently is not if you are a student in Australia at a school and not if you are a prospective TAFE student or university student. Schools have been thrown into disarray by this government's cutting of $22 billion from the schools budget, compared to what the Labor Party had promised, in the wake of the Gonski recommendations, when we were in government. That includes about $850 million cut over the next two years alone from New South Wales public schools.
The New South Wales Liberal government knows this. The strongest critics of what this government is doing have been the New South Wales Liberal government and their education minister, because they know that the New South Wales public education system is being short-changed by the Turnbull government with these measures. They know that schools will be forced to cut back on resources and potentially sack teachers. They will deliver an inferior education system, compared to the one promised by Labor, which the New South Wales Liberal government enthusiastically signed up to, particularly when Adrian Piccoli was the education minister.
In my community I have already had people visit me, desperate about the cuts to schools. I recently saw a single mother whose daughter goes to a Catholic school in my community. After seeing the budget, and this government's massive cuts, and having spoken to the principal of the school, she is beside herself with worry that school fees will be increased. This is a single mum who is struggling to work and provide her daughter with a good education. She has been thrown into a state of panic and fear because of this government's education cuts. This particular school featured in a media story about cuts to Catholic schools and the potential for fee increases.
With universities, as well, $3.8 billion has been cut over the next few years from universities across Australia. Students will pay eight per cent more to get a university education here in Australia. In the age of trying to compete with Asia and of trying to boost productivity in our nation as a means of growing our economy, this is not the right thing to be doing. Cutting education funding for universities and asking students to pay more is not the right thing to be doing. It means quite simply that some students will miss out, that university will become unaffordable, and the productive capacity in our community of those individuals is reduced. Instead of investing in local jobs and skills, this government's budget is cutting funding for TAFE, vocational education and apprenticeships by over $600 million.
Labor, in contrast, as Bill Shorten outlined in his budget reply speech, will invest in TAFE and apprenticeships by establishing a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund. We will restore TAFE to the backbone of our skills and training system by guaranteeing two-thirds of all funding for TAFE. Bill Shorten has also announced that on future infrastructure projects funded by the Commonwealth government one-in-ten workers on those projects will be Australian apprentices. We will invest in training and skilling a new generation of workers that can deliver the productive capacity for our future economy.
On housing affordability, this government has completely failed Australians. It has completely ignored their pleas to do something about the massive tax concessions—some of the largest tax concessions in the world—that exist for property investors in Australia. They have particularly ignored the pleas of young prospective first home buyers, who are desperately trying to fight their way into the housing market. The government's efforts on housing affordability are little more than smoke and mirrors, designed to make the public believe they are doing something on the issue, but in fact they are actually doing nothing.
It is a fact that unless you are tackling negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions in this environment you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability. I think the Australian public now knows that. I met with a young constituent in my electorate last week who put it perfectly. She said, 'It is an investors' market.' If she goes along to an auction hoping to buy a unit, to buy her first home, she is competing with someone who is getting a massive tax concession from the government, in the form of negative gearing, so that they can buyer that as an investment property, rent it out to deduct the loss and get a tax deduction. In this market that is unsustainable. Numerous studies and numerous economists have identified that as unsustainable. Unless you are tackling negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability.
This government is actually attempting to make it worse, because the announced measure about superannuation funds and people being able to divert up to $30,000 into a superannuation fund in the form of a first home saver account and get a tax benefit when they withdraw that money will do very little to improve housing affordability in Australia. In fact, all it will probably do is push up the cost of housing, because developers and vendors will know that young people are coming along with the extra $30,000 that they have been able to save as a tax concession, so they will push up the price. That is the evidence that we have seen in recent decades when governments have put money into the pockets of first home buyers. It simply pushes up prices, and it is one of the contributing factors to the unaffordability of housing in Australia.
The second point I want to make is that, at the moment, $30,000 does not buy you a window pane in the community that I represent. Young people I have spoken to have said, '$30,000—what is that going to do to help?' By contrast, Labor is deadly serious about housing affordability. We have announced a series of measures that will tackle the housing affordability problem over time—most notably, restricting negative gearing to properties that are off-the-plan developments. That will grow the capital housing stock and create 25,000 jobs over the longer term. We will also restrict and reduce from 50 per cent to 25 per cent the outrageously unsustainable capital gains tax discount that exists for people who sell investment properties. When this measure was introduced by the former Treasurer Peter Costello in the 1990s, guess what? It was unfunded. That was during the glory days of the mining boom when John Howard and Peter Costello were splashing around middle-class welfare and cash. They introduced this capital gains tax discount, but it was unfunded in the budget. We are all now paying the cost of that. We are paying the cost of it not only through reduced receipts in the budget that could fund services but also through unsustainable increases in housing, because investors get an advantage over first home buyers. Labor will limit that tax concession. We will also limit direct borrowing by self-managed superannuation funds that invest in property. We will increase foreign investor fees and penalties, and we will facilitate a COAG process to introduce a uniform vacant property tax across all major cities.
This budget was a boon for the big end of town and, in particular, for big corporations. The government are delivering a $65 billion corporate tax cut, and that says it all. While the government is happy to stand by and watch penalty rates cut, while they are happy to hit women in unsustainable casual employment the hardest, while they are happy to ask pensioners to pay more, while they are happy to ask families to pay more, while they are happy to make life more difficult for people on unemployment benefits, while they are happy to cut funding for universities and while they are happy to make students pay more to go to university, they are very, very pleased to give a $65 billion tax cut to some of the biggest corporations in this country. That says it all about this government's budget priorities and their approach.
With regard to the banks, the government wants the public to believe that they are now tough on the banks, but the fact remains that the government is yet to say how they will stop the banks simply passing on the cost of this levy to their customers—particularly now that we have uncovered in parliament that they will get a tax deduction for this. While the government is playing smoke and mirrors, pretending to be tough on the banks, Labor is the only party that is going to have a fair dinkum royal commission—a fair dinkum inquiry—into what is going on in banking and put in place practices that protect consumers.
All in all, this is a bad budget for families. It is a bad budget for pensioners. It is a bad budget for students. It is a bad budget for the unemployed. And it is a bad budget for working Australians. But it is a great budget if you are a millionaire or you are a big corporation, and that is what is wrong with this Turnbull government.
Sit ting suspended from 13:19 to 15:59
These appropriation bills make provisions for the moneys required to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as part of the 2017-18 federal budget to fund the day-to-day operations of the Commonwealth. This budget forms part of the government's plan to build a strong, prosperous economy while funding the traditional functions of government, such as health, education, social services and national security. The total appropriation being sought by the bills is just under $105 billion.
One of the hallmarks of the budget is ensuring that the government lives within its means. Since the last election, the government has legislated more than $25 billion in budget repair measures, maintaining a credible path of reducing deficits each year, leading to a projected returned to balance in 2021. With continuing projected surpluses over the medium term to enable a reduction in national debt from 2018-19, borrowings will no longer be required to fund recurrent spending for the first time since the global financial crisis, so our government will not burden future generations with debt from today's recurrent spending. A fair and responsible path to budget surplus demonstrates the Turnbull government's commitment to maintaining our AAA credit rating.
The future outlook is positive, with growth within the Australian economy projected to rebound to 2.75 per cent in 2017-18 and three per cent in the following year as mining investment continues and growth in household consumption and non-mining business investment improves. Strong demand from Asia for Australia's tourism and education services will also drive further rapid expansion in our service exports. This budget seeks to promote growth in our economy through infrastructure investment, lower company taxes and a range of measures designed to increase workforce skills development and participation. We are positioning Australia to take advantage of emerging export markets, to diversify our economy and to harness the benefits of opportunities for economic growth.
Only with strong economic growth is the government best placed to sustain a high level of funding for essential social services. Health care is one of the most important services which the government provides. The budget provides $1 billion to strengthen Medicare by phasing in the re-introduction of indexation for certain items on the Medicare benefits schedule. Bulk-billing incentives will be indexed from 1 July 2017 in a bid to encourage general practitioners to bulk-bill children under the age of 16 and concession card holders. The following year, fees for GP and specialist consultation items will be indexed. From 1 July 2019 specialist procedures and allied health fees will be indexed and from 1 July 2020 targeted diagnostic imaging items, such as computer tomography, mammography, thoracoscopy and interventional radiology, will also be indexed. A further $1.2 billion will be provided for new and amended listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to provide patients with greater access to new services and affordable, often lifesaving, medicines. Since 2013, the government has listed more than 1,400 new or amended medicines on the PBS, averaging 32 new and amended listings per month. The new listings include breakthrough medicines to treat conditions such as breast cancer, hepatitis C, cystic fibrosis and severe asthma. In addition, $65.9 million of new funding for medical research will be provided from the Medical Research Future Fund to support preventive health research, clinical trials and breakthrough research investments. A further $5.8 million will be provided for research into childhood cancer.
The budget measures provide full and sustainable funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, giving Australians with a permanent and significant disability and their families and carers certainty that this vital service will be sustainable into the future. From 1 July 2019, the Medicare levy will increase by 0.5 per cent, from two per cent to 2.5 per cent of taxable income. The additional revenue raised will be directed towards the NDIS Savings Fund, along with NDIS underspends and previous contributions to the fund from across government, to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded and is on track to be fully implemented from 2020.
Major education reforms will result in fairer funding for student needs in the budget. An additional $18.6 billion has been allocated for states, territories and the non-government school sector over the next decade to achieve genuine, needs based support for all students, with 99 per cent of schools receiving increases in their Commonwealth per-student funding. The government is transitioning to a schools funding model which is needs based. The current funding arrangements contain 27 different agreements which are not necessarily based on the needs of the students. At present, students with the same needs within the sector can receive different levels of Commonwealth funding according to the state in which they live. Under the new model, a school will be funded for each student based on need, irrespective of location. From 2018 to 2027, funding is estimated to grow at an average annual per-student rate of 5.1 per cent for the government sector, 3.5 per cent for the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent for the independent sector.
To increase workforce participation, $263 million has been invested over the four years from 2017-18 to expand the ParentsNext services nationally, providing tailored support for parents of young children to plan and prepare for return to employment. Similarly, the provision of affordable, accessible child care is important for parents returning to work, particularly in my electorate, with many young families in a new suburbs. The recently legislated Jobs for Families Child Care Package will encourage workforce participation and place downward pressure on childcare fees. The government will invest $37.3 billion over five years to deliver more affordable child care, including before- and after-school care for some one million families.
From 2 July 2018, a single, simplified, means-tested childcare subsidy will replace the childcare benefit, the childcare rebate and the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program. The childcare subsidy will ensure that families on low to middle incomes of $185,710 or less that need to use more child care will not face the annual cap. However, an annual cap of $10,000 will apply to families earning more than $185,710 in 2017-18 terms.
The government remains committed to ensuring that the welfare system is fair and supports those who are genuinely in need. A new targeted jobseeker compliance framework will commence on 1 July 2018 and will apply stronger penalties for those who deliberately and persistently fail to turn up for job interviews or take suitable work, while ensuring that genuinely disadvantaged and vulnerable jobseekers are supported. The Youth Jobs PaTH Program—the prepare, trial, hire program—is assisting 120,000 young Australians to obtain work by providing them with practical pre-employment training with real work experience through internships. Businesses are also being encouraged to hire young jobseekers through wage subsidies. An additional $375.3 million has been allocated in the budget for frontline services to help the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. A number of measures have also been instituted to strengthen the integrity of the welfare system by identifying and recovering overpayments. In total, these integrity measures are expected to return around $4 billion to the budget in cash terms by 2021.
The budget focuses on creating more Australian jobs, workforce skill development and supporting Australians into work. Businesses employing foreign workers on certain skilled visas will be subject to a new levy to fund training for Australian jobseekers. This new approach will introduce an annual foreign worker levy of $1,200 or $1,800 for temporary skilled visas and a $3,000 or $5,000 one-off levy for those on certain permanent skilled visas, depending on the size of the business. Over the next four years, more than $1.2 billion is projected to be raised from this new levy that will contribute directly to a new Commonwealth-state Skilling Australians Fund.
The budget delivers tax cuts for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $50 million. Some 3.2 million small businesses employing 6.7 million workers will benefit from a reduction in the new tax rate for companies of 27.5 per cent. I was pleased to host the Minister for Small Business, the member for Riverina, the Hon. Michael McCormack MP, at a business forum in my electorate of local businesses Logsys and Kitchen Craftsmen. Similarly, the Minister for Employment, the Hon. Michaelia Cash, visited the Hillarys Fish Market, MAX Employment and Sisters Supa IGA with me to speak to business proprietors about the budget.
The budget continues investment in the rollout of the National Broadband Network. By mid-2017 the network will be available to half of all Australian premises, further expanding to around nine million premises by mid-2018 and on track to be completed by 2020.
In terms of national economic development, the government has made a $70 billion infrastructure investment in the budget leading to 2021, including transport infrastructure across Australia, using a combination of grant funding, loans and equity investments of which $7.7 billion has been committed to WA over the forward estimates. In particular, $145.8 million will be spent locally on vital roadworks at three key sections along Wanneroo Road. Wanneroo Road will be widened to a dual carriageway between Joondalup Drive and Flynn Drive at an estimated cost of $31 million. That busy intersection at Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road will be grade separated, with the traffic signals replaced by new bridges and flyovers to take traffic over Wanneroo Road at an estimated cost of $50 million and $64.8 million respectively. These roadworks will benefit residents through a boost in local economic development. Joondalup CBD will become an attractive centre of banking, professional services, retail and hospitality for businesses in Neerabup, with improved access to other local commercial and district centres for professional services, retail and hospitality. During the construction phase, it is estimated that 805 construction jobs will be created.
Regional areas are where Australia's economic wealth is created. In addition to infrastructure investment, the Regional Growth Fund will invest $472 million in regional infrastructure projects to support economic development and help regional businesses adapt to the changes taking place through globalisation and technological change.
The budget provides the Australian Taxation Office with $28.2 million in additional funding to continue to target serious organised crime, removing wealth generated by these organised criminal groups and returning an additional $408.5 million in revenue to the government.
A black economy task force has been established to target black economy transactions, which represent a significant complex economic and social problem which creates an uneven playing field for business plus the exploitation of workers and results in lost government revenue.
This budget forms part of the government's plan to get the national finances back on track and build a strong, prosperous economy while funding the traditional functions of government such as health, education, social services and national security. The total appropriation being sought by the bills is just under $105 billion, and I commend the bills to the House.
) ( ): This budget is designed to signal better times ahead without overly contributing to their arrival. This is predominantly a budget that makes you wonder just what the Abbott and Turnbull governments have been up to for the last four years. It is a budget most notable for trying to sweep aside, or under the carpet, the policy missteps and blunders of those four years. It has been called a step to the left. In fact, it is really a stumble rather than a step, although I think the government thinks it is more a redemption song. It seems to achieve that end by jettisoning the surviving remnants of the infamous Abbott-Hockey budget of 2014. That document is now officially dead, buried and cremated and, with it, the Prime Minister no doubt hopes, the political aspirations of its surviving co-executor, the member for Warringah.
This is a budget where climate change, cost-of-living pressures, innovation in housing affordability policy, falling real wages and lack of job opportunities are either ignored altogether or left swinging in the breeze. This is a budget that, apart from a few eye-catching initiatives like the bank tax, is about hoping the patient will not expire while the government waits for its luck to improve. Most of the modestly rosy forecasts, including a return to real GDP growth rates of around three per cent and nominal wages growth of 3.75 per cent in three years time, rest on expected improvements in the world economy or on major indices returning to trend.
Additional infrastructure spending has been either mooted or identified, but, as the member for Grayndler has noted, that will not kick in until many years down the track. Disappointingly, some major projects, such as the rail line to the Badgerys Creek second Sydney airport, still have a far-from-certain future. This significantly affects the quality of life of many in my electorate and ignores most of the value-capture opportunities. However, it is a budget that capped a couple of weeks where this government finally realised that, if it was to have any hope of recovering public approval, it would have to start addressing the issues that most matter to people.
The budget, in a sense, caps one of the most brazen pieces of political shapeshifting in living memory. In quick succession, there was a deathbed-like recognition that energy security and pricing policies have been teetering on a precipice. There was recognition, after many years of denial, that not all government debt is bad for the economy. We saw a bold, if highly skeletal plan, for Snowy 2.0 wheeled out as a thought bubble, and there were encouraging noises that the government might finally want to face up to the housing affordability crisis that has fuelled record levels of household debt. The government even appeared to become, in extremis, more or less agnostic on the question of public ownership. It even trumpeted a re-embrace of needs based school funding.
Again, one wondered a little why the government had taken so long to find its political courage. The rhetoric looked promising, but it was only rhetoric—and, mostly, it still is. A paraphrasing of an old song keeps coming to my mind: not signed, not sealed and certainly not delivered. Budget night came and went and the picture was further muddied by government announcements that many commentators saw as 'Labor lite'. In the process, the government revealed that the true cost of the first 10 years of its 'locked in forever' tax cuts to business and multinationals was $65 billion—a mere $15 billion higher than was consistently touted during the budget week.
I react to that term 'Labor lite' the same way that many journalists do to the expression of 'fake news'—that is, with considerable scepticism and some distaste. Although, while I think the term 'Abbott lite' is not nearer the mark either, it does at least have a certain irony to it. My objection to the term 'Labor lite' is that it portrays that Labor is the party of fixed policy positions rather than one of consistent values. This is an important distinction which I think our leader, Bill Shorten, made very well in his budget reply but which some commentators missed or misconstrued.
Labor and the coalition each have their own values and priorities, but it does not follow that they are wedded to a particular approach to problem-solving or policymaking. Let's be clear: neither side of politics are strangers to pragmatism nor, in the main, the enemies of moderation. It is the norm. It is only when either side of politics is captured by those at the extreme that we enter dangerous times, and that is when governments lose sight of the common good and common sense and things start going off the rails.
The problem with the 2014 budget was not just that it was unfair or broke numerous election commitments. Its enduring weakness, which has continued for the last three years, has been its unrestrained embrace of ideological spin. Claims such as 'Governments don't have a revenue problem; they have a spending problem' come to mind. 'Lifters and leaners' is another one. If this budget allows Labor to claim a small victory because the government has been forced into adopting a more measured and pragmatic mindset, that is fine by me. But I think it is more accurate to say that there is now a wider taste for moderation and even-handedness out there in the electorate. The smarties advising the government—people such as Mark Textor—know that the days of ideological indulgence for this government are over if it is going to survive.
We now see a Treasurer, in his words, reaching across the aisle, just getting on with things and being results focused. He even came to my electorate to claim he had a comprehensive policy on housing affordability. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. Yes, I can see positives in this budget that Labor want to acknowledge and may want to build on when we are in government. Jettisoning the so-called zombie measures from the 2014 budget allows this place and policymakers to have a sensible and more productive discussion about budget repair. Recognising the distinction between good and bad debt, although adopted for reasons that might not entirely spring from rational disinterest, makes some sense too. Hopefully there is also some recognition that the economy is functioning below full capacity and that bringing it up to speed ultimately will be good for the budget bottom line. There is also a somewhat shy acknowledgement from the government that tax increases and levies are legitimate policy tools. This is simply a sensible but tentative return to policy orthodoxy. The budget too is less blinkered on the provision of public goods, public services and even public ownership. And, yes, as Labor has always intended, the temporary freeze on Medicare rebates is finally being lifted, but far too slowly. Medicare bulk-billing rates are still going down, and for many people it is impossible to get in to see specialists. This government intends to cling on to the last elements of the extended rebate freeze until July 2020.
Nonetheless, this budget is flawed and will make little real difference to the majority of Australians. The budget's failings can be grouped under four headings: missing inner connections; proceeding on outmoded assumptions; letting prejudice and populism overrule logic; and fighting the wrong battles. Apart from its failing on health policy, which I will leave for another time, the greatest failure of this budget is in the area of housing affordability and taxation policy. For the last four years, the government has persisted with policies that have simultaneously fuelled runaway house prices on much of the east coast, added between $10 billion and $12 billion annually to the federal budget deficit, reduced homeownership rates and helped push private debt to Australian and near-world record levels, both as a percentage of individual income and GDP. It has fuelled a speculative bubble and exacerbated inequality. As the shadow Treasurer has noted, 70 per cent of the tax concessions that fuel this speculation go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. The government quite simply refuses to recognise the connection between limitless negative gearing concessions, concessional capital gains taxes and historically low interest rates. That is why the measures contained in this budget are the equivalent of trying to defuse a time bomb with a toothpick. The best that can be said is that most of the small measures it has put in place might help a little bit at the margins and probably will not make matters worse, except for one thing. That is the first home super saver scheme, which will, in all probability, simply add to the already overheated demand and force up prices further. If this scheme has any saving grace, it is that the take-up is likely to be very small.
Although I do applaud the government for making permanent Commonwealth funding on homelessness to the states and also for focusing more on supporting victims of family violence, more could be done. The effect of excessive home loan borrowing on general household debt levels also gives increasing cause for concern. It is time that the coalition paid far more attention to private debt levels and focused less extensively on government debt, as has been the case for many years. Public gross debt levels are high by Australian standards but are relatively modest compared with those elsewhere. Private debt however is at historic highs, both as a proportion of household disposable income and as a proportion of GDP. Private debt levels are primed for catastrophe.
One wonders if anyone in government is also mapping the cumulative effects of budget measures on millennials and, more generally, Australians under 35. This budget, if anything, makes life harder for young people. House ownership amongst 25- to 35-year-olds is in freefall, and rates of unemployment are stuck at over five per cent and, for those aged 15 to 24, above 13 per cent. About a million Australians who are in work cannot get enough hours. The 15 to 24 years age group has consistently had the highest underemployment rate. This has risen from May 2008, when it was 11 per cent, now to 17.4 per cent in November 2016. This is an evolving Australian tragedy. Wages are also stagnant and penalty rates are under threat. The proposed further increase to the Medicare levy and to university fees will make a not atypical graduate, currently on around $50,000 a year, about $1,250 worse off. For those without a job, the Newstart allowance remains entirely inadequate. Instead, the government has ramped up its rhetoric against the unemployed and instituted yet another 'crackdown' on welfare and pensioners. The so-called 'wee for the dole' program is a poor attempt to treat a medical problem as a social security problem. It is discriminatory. We are told that it is not going to check for alcohol, the drug that causes the most social dysfunction. It is thought-bubble policy of the poorest level, and I condemn it.
Another area where the government needs to revisit some fundamental assumptions is in regard to tertiary fees. The latest round of proposed HECS changes and tertiary funding changes represent a very poor deal for students. Funding to the tertiary sector will be cut by around $3.8 billion over the next five years. To someone of my generation, who had free university fees and no problems with job availability, this is an anathema. The government has done very little to address this. For someone of my generation, it is very difficult to look at this with our own children. In short, students are paying more and more for the cost of degrees, which are, in many cases, providing ever diminishing rates of return. In many fields of study—the humanities, law and economics—the government is now providing much less than 50 per cent of the cost of the degree. Are there better times ahead? Clearly not if you are a student, a young person looking for a job or house or both.
This is the budget of a government that knows it has just about burned its bridges with a rightly disappointed and despondent nation. Even though it has been called a step or a stumble to the left, there are clearly ideologues in this government that continue with an ideology of punishment of those who are most vulnerable and little understanding of how difficult it is for average people to live their lives. The pity is that after four years this government has left the economy ill equipped and exposed to forces that may now prove to be beyond anyone's control.
This Friday, 26 May, is the 50th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Anyone of my generation would find it hard to believe that it is 50 years since the release of this album! This budget needs, to paraphrase the Beatles, more than a little help from its friends. Lucy may well be in the sky with diamonds, but the economy is not getting better. It is not fixing a hole. She is not leaving home, because she cannot afford it.
I thank the member for Macarthur. In the words of John Lennon, 'Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.'
It is good to have the opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018—today. There are a significant number of very important initiatives for my electorate of Banks that I particularly wanted to focus on this afternoon. The federal budget is a very big thing—about $400 billion or so of revenue—but it is very important to focus on the local impacts of the appropriation bills. There are a number of important impacts in Banks.
Firstly, car parking in Beverly Hills today is a mess. There is not enough parking and it is causing massive problems in our community and, frankly, has been doing so for years. Some of the best restaurants in southern Sydney are located in Beverly Hills. We have cinemas—the GU Filmhouse, formerly Beverly Hills Cinemas—and a wide range of other small businesses that employ hundreds of local residents. The big problem at the moment is that, if you try to come to Beverly Hills on a Saturday night, good luck, because you are going to have to park a very, very long way away.
I am really pleased that in the budget the federal government has provided $2½ million of funding towards a much needed car park at Beverly Hills. This is a critical step in finally fixing the unfinished business of the parking at Beverly Hills. I want to thank my friend Cliff Yung, from D to D Cafe in Beverly Hills. Cliff has really galvanised the small-business community in Beverly Hills by standing up and saying, 'We are not going to put up with this anymore.' This is having a massive effect on the livelihoods of small-business people in Beverly Hills, and it is having a massive effect on the lives of local residents too because it is making it very difficult to access Beverly Hills, particularly on weekends. Cliff, along with the small-business community, has on two separate occasions organised petitions, signed in each case by about 1,000 people. I also conducted a community survey on this some time ago, which was very, very strongly supported in the community.
We have got $2½ million ready to go; what do we need now? We need Georges River Council and the state government to take action and build this car park. I have been very encouraged by recent statements from Georges River Council about it looking at this project and about plans being prepared. What we need now is a firm commitment to build this car park at Beverly Hills. We need that commitment from Georges River Council. We need it from the state government. We have got $2½ million of cash sitting on the table ready to be used to build this car park. Let's build it. It needs to be built.
Another important issue for my electorate that is covered in the budget is the issue of the M5 east-facing ramps at Riverwood. Back in the nineties, the M5 was built. As a former Sydney resident yourself, Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with the frustrations that people encounter on these roads every day. But there is a particular frustration at Riverwood in my electorate. If you want to go in a westerly direction, entering the M5 to go west, or to come off the M5 if you are coming from the west, you can. It works really well. You get on and drive away, and everything is okay. But if you want to go towards the city, or if you want to exit the M5 coming from the city, you cannot. The reason is that the ramps have never been opened. That is despite the fact that the space is clearly there. It was provisioned for in the original build of the M5 back in the nineties, but no-one has ever actually acted on it to open those ramps.
I was very pleased last year when the Prime Minister visited Riverwood to announce that the federal government would commit $15 million to opening the M5 east-facing ramps at Riverwood once and for all. The state government has also committed $15 million. In this budget, some funds are provided to get this project started. The state government is currently conducting geotechnical work on the soil structure and so on in the area, and we expect further documentation from the state government very shortly. We look forward to seeing that and to having a clear plan from the state government on the geotechnical and further works required to get these ramps built. It is going to make a massive difference to travel times in our area, and it is very good to see that this federal budget is allocating funds for that project.
Sport, as in all communities in Australia, is incredibly important in my electorate. I was again pleased that the budget provides for important funding for projects for the sports community in Banks. Now, the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre is somewhat misnamed, because whilst it does have aquatic facilities—and very good aquatic facilities—it also has a lot of non-aquatic facilities, such as basketball courts and so on. In my electorate of Banks, we have one of the largest table tennis communities in Australia. The table tennis community makes use of the Hurstville aquatic centre's court facilities. We have dozens and dozens of table tennis tables set up there every week, and people play.
As part of the million-dollar federal government grant towards the upgrade of the Hurstville aquatic centre and Penshurst Park, we will be getting two additional basketball court areas in the Hurstville aquatic centre. That means more space for more tournaments for the St George and Sutherland Shire Table Tennis Association, arguably the strongest table tennis association in our nation. We were very fortunate to host the national titles a few years ago. I am very pleased that these funds will be available to improve the lot of the table tennis community, and I want to thank Douglas Flood, the president; David Sutton, the treasurer; and Connie Chan, a board member, and her husband, Simon, who are fearless and frank advocates for the table tennis community. It is going to be great when these new courts are opened, and it is great to see the money in the budget to do just that.
The increased number of basketball courts at the Hurstville aquatic centre is going to make a big difference for our local basketball teams. The St George basketball association, which is led so well by Ray Barbi, has about 1,500 members. There is frustration at times because it can be really hard to get access to the required courts. We have limited facilities. The bottom line is the Hurstville aquatic facility courts are pretty much it when it comes to quality basketball facilities in our area. Ray and his team, Anna Pazanin and others, have strongly advocated for the need for these additional courts. The money is there to build these additional courts. I am looking forward to Georges River Council making use of that federal funding and opening up these two additional courts. I thank the St George basketball association for their very persistent advocacy on this issue.
Another very important issue, related to traffic, is the duplication of the M5 East. The M5 East can be a carpark at times. For whatever reason, back in the nineties they built it two lanes in each direction, but it should have been three or more. We are going to duplicate it. The state government and the federal government, working together, will duplicate the M5 East. Over the life of the project there is $1½ billion of cash from the federal government and a $2 billion concessional loan that have assisted in bringing this project forward and making it happen more quickly. Work is underway at all of the key locations for the opening of these tunnels, which is expected by 2020. When that happens, just three years from now, that is going to be a massive improvement for residents driving to the city, particularly from the Beverly Hills area, because instead of having two lanes you are going to have four. Some people will use the new tunnel and some people will use the old tunnel. The bottom line is: more tunnels, more space for traffic and a faster commute to and from the city. So this project is very important. It is good to see that funding in this federal budget, as well.
There are a range of small community organisations in my electorate that play a very important role. They rarely call upon the government, because the vast majority of their efforts, their enterprise and their positive impact on our community are not driven by the government; they are driven by them, by their volunteerism and by them rolling up their sleeves and making things happen. But on occasion it is good when the federal government can provide some support through the Stronger Communities Program, and other programs, for these important local organisations.
An organisation I would like to highlight this afternoon is St Joseph's Riverwood Sports Club. St Joseph's Riverwood Sports Club does a fantastic job in our community and next year will celebrate its 50th anniversary. It does not provide sports just for kids from St Joseph's at Riverwood but also for kids from the broader community. It provides cricket, netball, T-ball, Oztag and touch football. There is a really strong sense of comradery in this club. It was great recently, on 6 May, to attend their annual trivia event. It was good to see Anthony Hayes, Mick Finn, Matt Carr and all the members of the committee. It was good that we were able to provide support through the Stronger Communities Program for some much needed storage facilities for the club, for storing their sporting equipment. I thank the club for their efforts. Over $8,000 was raised on the night and a lot of fun was had by all. Congratulations to St Joseph's Riverwood.
Another great organisation in my electorate, which in recent times has benefitted from federal government support, is the Riverwood squadron of the Australian Air League. In my view, there is no better unit of the air league anywhere in Australia. Through the efforts of its commanding officer, Chris Bailey, the Riverwood squadron has gone from being quite a small group to being a really central part of our community. More than 100 young men are involved in the air league. They visit its premises at Riverwood every week to learn about aviation. A lot of them learn about music as they have a very active band that has travelled to Japan and to Denmark in recent years to perform at international events. They are the sort of people who always put their hands up for the community.
An example of that occurred recently with one of our Anzac Day dawn services. A group that was scheduled to play a key role unfortunately pulled out at the very last minute. Riverwood Air League got a call at 3 am on Anzac Day asking, 'Can you please come along to the Mortdale combined Anzac Day service to provide the catapult party?' and they did. So the phone call was at 3 am, and a couple of hours later there is a group of young men from Riverwood Air League supporting this most critical community commemoration.
It is a fantastic organisation and it was great to attend their diamond jubilee celebration recently, at Dalton House in Sylvania Waters. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the squadron to our community. The efforts of Chris Bailey are truly exceptional.
Banks has a wonderful geographic feature in the Georges River—it is the jewel in the crown of the Banks area. In the federal budget funds are provided for a significant number of environmental projects to clean up the Georges River. The Myles Dunphy Reserve at Oatley is a beautiful piece of bushland in what is a very beautiful suburb. As part of the federal budget we are providing funds for a team of people to work at Myles Dunphy Reserve for several months on various environmental remediation projects and also to put in place a walkway to enable the area to be better accessed. It is a really important area of our community. I thank the Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society for their efforts in preserving Oatley. It was good to join them on a bushwalk last Saturday. But I do look forward to these federal funds being provided to help to preserve and protect the environment of Myles Dunphy Reserve at Oatley.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018, because it is with some bemusement that over the past couple of weeks I have been watching this government to continue to refer to the 2017 budget as a 'fair budget'. I must say that there is a big difference between the empty rhetoric of fairness and fairness that is at the heart of party values, because the fact is that there is not much at all that is fair about this budget. There is nothing fair about a budget that gives big business a $50 billion handout while increasing taxes for Aussies on low incomes. There is nothing fair about a budget that rips out $22 billion from schools. There is nothing fair about a government choosing to give a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires, where someone earning $1 million will pay $16,400 less tax, while someone of $65,000 will pay $325 more tax in two years' time. I cannot understand how they can even remotely be constructed as fair. There is nothing fair about a government that continues to support penalty rate cuts that will reduce the take-home pay of around 700,000 Australian workers, while we, the parliamentarians, including those on the other side—the very people who claim to be fair—enjoy a nice tax. I for one am willing to forgo my tax cut in order to help those less fortunate, those who are doing it hard. In my electorate of Cowan the second-largest employment group is in hospitality—cafes, restaurants and takeaways. They are the very people who are going to be more adversely affected by penalty rate cuts. By all accounts, this budget fails the fairness test. Those opposite can aspire to be us, and that is very—
An opposition member: Noble!
Very noble—it is a very noble aspiration, I might say. They can claim that suddenly they are the party of fairness and equality, but that is a joke. They will never be us. They will always be a government that look after the top two per cent, because when it comes down to it they do not know what fairness means.
This budget fails the fairness test. The Turnbull government fails the credibility test. The budget fails the economic credibility test. Let us start with this: growth is down; wages growth is down; and unemployment is up. The government went to an election with the mantra of jobs and growth. Here are the fiscal facts. There are 10,000 fewer jobs forecast in the budget—sorry, that is 100,000. Gosh, I had to look at that twice. It is 100,000 fewer jobs forecast in the budget. Gross debt will pass half a trillion dollars in the coming months. That is $20,000 for every Australian man, woman and child. Gross debt will hit $725 billion—I cannot even imagine what that looks like—in 10 years. The deficit is 10 times bigger—a whole 10 times—than was predicted in this government's first budget, from $2.8 billion to $29.4 billion. Talk about fiscal failure! The deficit for this year has tripled. Net debt has blown out by over $100 billion since the Liberals came into government and will be at record levels for more than three years. Yet this government, the government that claimed to be delivering fairness, persists like a dog with a bone in handing out $50 billion of tax cuts to big business while slugging hardworking Australians again and again and again.
I am disgusted. That is the only thing I can say. I am disgusted that this government can even utter the word 'fairness' in relation to this budget. I am disgusted that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer can even look at themselves in the near each morning and use that word 'fairness' in reference to this sham of a budget. I am disgusted that they could treat Australians with such contempt—the people that they are elected to represent in good faith, the people who voted for them in good faith. I am disgusted that they would be so arrogant as to try to con those people into believing for one second that they have their best interests at heart, that they would have them believe this government is even remotely interested in fairness.
There are many aspects of this budget that I could speak on, but I do not have all day to do that, unfortunately—well, fortunately—so I am going to focus the rest of my time on three issues that are particularly affecting the people of my electorate of Cowan. The first issue is the unfair zombie measures that are included in this budget along with some new, hidden measures. These include keeping the age pension at 70; new cuts to family payments; new cuts to veterans health—my gosh, at least leave that alone—and the abolition of the energy supplement, leaving pensioners, pensioners like my mum, $366 a year worse off. All of these measures target our most vulnerable, because they are easy targets when your core principles, your core values, are at their very heart unfair.
These measures are not there because this government has suddenly had a change of heart and, by some miracle, some overnight epiphany, now believes in the principle of fairness. No. These are remnants of a raft of unfair zombie measures that the government took out of the budget. They did not take them out because they are unfair. No, they regret taking them out of the budget. They took them out because they could not pass them. They still believe in them. They still want those unfair measures in there, but they just could not get them passed.
Let us take a look at how these measures adversely affect the people of Cowan. As of March 2017, Perth's northern suburbs are facing 3.6 per cent unemployment. That is 21,100 people in the north-west and north-east of Perth, where my electorate is located. One in four people in the suburb of Girrawheen—that is just one suburb in my electorate—are unemployed. Youth unemployment in Perth's northern suburbs is at a whopping 13.5 per cent. There are over 3,000 people in training in my electorate of Cowan and over 5,000 people at university, which leads me to the second issue, which is higher education.
I have four university degrees. It is not because I like punishment and it is not because I have been a perennial student; it is because I tend to get interested in things and like to learn about them. I did not have access to free education. I do not come from that generation. I have paid my debts for three degrees. For the fourth one—my PhD—I managed to get a scholarship. I paid my HECS debts as a single mum on a low salary. I paid those off and it was hard. I was able to do that, despite how difficult it was, but I understand that young people on low incomes who have just finished a university degree and may have their first job are also finding it hard. They have high levels of financial stress. They are finding it hard to purchase their first home. They are finding it hard to get married and do all the kinds of things that young people look forward to.
The government's proposals in the budget around higher education are going to have a huge impact on the very people for whom higher education is not an opportunity that is easy to attain—those for whom entry into university is already limited: women in particular, Indigenous Australians even more particularly and those for whom these kinds of opportunities do not often come around. In this budget Malcolm Turnbull is proposing to cut funding to universities, increasing university fees, and also make changes to how HECS will be repaid.
Not all people should, want or can go to university. That brings me to my third issue—skills and apprenticeships. In the budget the government is cutting $600 million from TAFE and apprentices, on top of $3.8 billion from universities and $22 billion from schools. Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when this government was first elected. I remember a time when Australia had a world-class training system. When I travelled the world people would come up to me and say: 'You guys have the best training system. We want to emulate your training system.' That is no longer so. TAFE and vocational training funding and the number of supported students are lower than they were a decade ago. This is despite increasing numbers of jobs requiring vocational skills. There is no plan for education and no plan for Australia's future. Labor will reverse this $600 million cut to skills and training and will invest in TAFE and apprenticeships, as we should be doing. Only Labor will provide more opportunity for Australians to gain the skills they need to get good quality jobs.
I return to my original point about the fundamental unfairness of this budget. On all measures—on education, pensioners, higher education, training, families, veteran health, Medicare and housing affordability; on every measure—when it comes to fairness this budget, I am afraid to say, fails dismally. Australians can continue to trust, as they always have, that Labor will block these unfair measures, because we know how these measures adversely impact the people in our communities. We know how they adversely impact workers who rely on penalty rates to get through the day. I was one of those workers once and I know what it is like. I know what it is like to go through a week when you do not have enough money to cover the rent, to cover the groceries or to feed your kids for the week. I know that for those who rely on penalty rates they are not a luxury. They do not use the money to go to the cinema or to buy avocado on toast. They use the money for their essential needs—to keep a roof over their head, to keep food on the table and to keep their kids in school. I know; I have been there.
And now, as a parliamentarian—and, prior to this, as a professor—I am blessed. I am blessed that I am in one of the most highly taxed tax brackets in Australia. I am blessed that I can earn the kind of money that I have. But I did that through education. Education gave me the opportunity to lift myself up, to lift my family up and to put my kids through school and through university as well.
If you cut that essential opportunity of education from so many people—if you take away, rip away, that opportunity from so many young people—you know, that could be the next Einstein out there. That could be the next Nobel prize winner out there. That could be the next person to cure cancer out there. We have to think about it. When we take away opportunities for education, for higher education, for TAFE or for a good, strong, school education, we are taking away Australia's future. We need to be thinking about that.
When it comes to fairness, there is no such thing as 'Labor light'. There is no such thing as a 'Labor wannabe', as flattering as that may seem, as noble an aspiration as that might seem. There is only one Labor Party, only one party that puts people first, only one party that understands the needs of workers, of pensioners, of veterans, of the people most vulnerable in our society, and is not a party that puts big business first. That party is Labor, and that is fairness.
This 2017 budget is one that delivers for all Australians—for the Australians living in the suburbs and living in our regional centres; for the Australians who work in small businesses or who are salaried, who battle every day to put food on the table, to put a roof over their head and to buy a house. Every one of those mainstream Australians is a beneficiary of this budget.
The previous speaker was quite right: this is not a Labor budget, because it does not indulge in the glib class warfare of those opposite. We do not believe in that. We believe in a pragmatic approach where we want to create opportunities for every Australian to have a crack, to have a fair go. That is what fairness is actually all about. In that spirit, it is a comprehensive plan that guarantees the essentials that Australians rely on in order to capture those opportunities.
In my portfolio areas, this budget is an absolutely once-in-a-generation budget, with a $75 billion infrastructure commitment. Central to that is a $10 billion National Rail Program in which we will consider projects like AdeLINK; the Tullamarine rail link; Cross River Rail, in Brisbane; the Western Sydney rail link, which I will come back to in a moment; and the Brisbane Metro. On all of those projects, we want to work closely with state governments to shape the best possible projects and deliver the best outcomes, playing an active role as a government alongside our state and local government partners. Central to this is our new Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency, which will help us to make those right choices, the right investments, delivering more bang for the taxpayers' buck. Within that agency, we are recruiting commercial people with the experience to make active, effective, high-impact investments.
In Western Australia we are investing in a $2.3 billion jobs and infrastructure package with the state government, with over a billion dollars to be jointly allocated to future Metronet projects in Perth. This offers the opportunity for the outer suburbs of Perth in particular to better connect to the rest of the city. That package also strongly aligns with our Smart Cities agenda, and we will continue to work with the Western Australian government, the state, on opportunities to deliver a city deal.
In Victoria, we will make a $1 billion fund available for regional rail and other infrastructure projects, including $30 million to develop a business case for a rail link to Melbourne airport at Tullamarine—sadly, a project which the state government until now has ignored. A new, $500 million, Victorian regional rail fund will include $100 million to upgrade the Geelong rail line. This is a real focus on these satellite cities around our capitals, better connecting them and making sure we can grow them as major job centres. Alongside that is $100 million for our north-east rail upgrades in Victoria.
In Queensland, the government is using $844 million in savings to reinvest in critical infrastructure projects in the state.
Closer to home for me, in my electorate of Hume, the budget provides over $5 billion to build a new airport for Western Sydney at Badgerys Creek, creating 20,000 direct jobs in the early 2020s and 60,000 in the long term. We know that is just the beginning, because if we look around the world we see that airports are magnets for jobs. There are no faster growing areas in most cities of the world now than their airports. This is an extraordinary opportunity for Western Sydney to have more jobs closer to home. A genuine 30-minute city is within reach through the work we are doing in Western Sydney.
The Western Sydney City Deal will harness the economic opportunity created by the airport. We were absolutely delighted, only a few days ago, to be in Western Sydney to announce that the first anchor tenant for the Badgerys Creek airport—around the Badgerys Creek airport—will be Northrop-Grumman, which is a defence contractor, a major player, with high-quality jobs. It is setting up a centre in Western Sydney, which ultimately will be based around Badgerys Creek as well as having a presence at Richmond.
Delivering the right mix of housing in the right places will be absolutely critical for the population growth we are seeing, and will continue to see, across this dynamic, fast-growing region. Of course, Western Sydney will be a beneficiary of the Treasurer's very comprehensive housing package. Unlike Labor, which wants to take a chainsaw to the housing market with its single focus on taxing more—and how taxing more was ever going to be a solution to the housing market problems we are seeing in Melbourne and Sydney is beyond me—we are bringing to the table a comprehensive set of initiatives that we think will deal with the underlying issue over both the shorter term and the longer term. This package includes three key areas. The first and most important is unlocking supply in the right places. Any economist will tell you that our fundamental problem in housing, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, has been a lack of supply. When the Labor New South Wales state government declared that Sydney was shut in the early 2000s we saw a complete failure of housing supply response to fast-growing population demand. Sydney should have been building about 35,000 houses a year, and when we look back between 2004 and 2014 we see it built less than half of those—17,000 houses a year. No wonder we have an enormous backlog in demand for housing supply in Sydney, and we have seen similar dynamics in Melbourne.
The government will establish a $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility to fund the infrastructure needed to unlock development, particularly around job centres and transport hubs, and that funding will be rolled out in new micro city deals, agreements that apply the City Deal model of integrated planning across state, federal and local government to get more houses in the right places connected to jobs and connected to transport.
The budget also includes funding for a specific Western Sydney housing supply package and will tie funding to planning and zoning reform, supporting state and local governments to cut red tape and the delays that hold back that all important housing supply.
That is supply. The second area is creating the right incentives around the housing market. We are focused on improving opportunities in the housing market for all Australians, both younger and older. At the younger end, through the First Home Super Saver Scheme, Australians will be able to salary sacrifice contributions of up to $15,000 a year and $30,000 in total within existing contribution caps. At the older end of the scale, we are supporting older Australians who want to downsize. From 1 July next year, people 65 years and older will be allowed to make a special non-concessional contribution into superannuation of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of selling their home. Important in creating the right incentives, we will make changes to foreign investor rules to make sure that more homes are available for Australians and particularly young first home buyers trying to get into the market.
The third area we are focused on in this package is strengthening assistance for social housing and homelessness, making sure that the vulnerable have a roof over their heads. This has to be a priority. We will work with state and local governments to ensure that we have stronger tailored agreements around homelessness and social housing. We have committed $375 million to provide certainty to frontline services that help Australians who are homeless or who are at risk of becoming homeless. On top of that, a national housing, finance and investment corporation will be established to administer an affordable housing bond aggregator. This is about making sure that there is more capital available at a low cost to get these crucial houses in for people who are most vulnerable.
On the other side of my portfolio—in digital and IT—this government not only is investing in physical infrastructure in cities and infrastructure portfolios but also has invested in its digital infrastructure in this budget. We have put $200 million into my portfolio to increase the capability of government to deliver more effective programs and services. That includes $70 million for the second stage of our Digital Transformation Agenda and $130 million over the forward estimates to improve our data driven capability. These projects include things like Tell Us Once—a single notification platform. Tell Us Once allows Australians to go on to government websites and tell us about updates to their address and circumstances and not have to tell every department the same thing time and time again. These projects also include things like notifications so that we better engage with citizens and businesses about where they are at, simpler payment platforms and a federated data exchange. This is so that, as I said, we can fulfil some of these simplifying projects that make it easier for citizens and businesses to deal with governments.
The projects will build on the new myGov version that was delivered just this week by the Department of Human Services and the ATO, along with the DTA, as well as the ongoing GovPass Program. To put it simply: this will allow all Australians, if they choose, to update their details once and to logon once to find any service they need simply and quickly. The investments are targeted and effective and are already delivering real benefits.
Turning to my electorate of Hume, in 2017-18 alone the federal government will invest almost $640 million in Hume road and bridge projects. This is an extraordinary amount. We have confirmed our $50 million towards the upgrade of Appin Road. The first of that money will be spent this year. The planning has to be right and, of course, will be delivered by the state government. It is an important project as part of that broader package of well over half a billion dollars.
In addition to that, the budget delivers great opportunities for small businesses in Hume, including initiatives like extending the instant asset write-off for small businesses—a very popular way of investing more in the electorate. I see that farmers, small-business people and tradies have applied this instant asset write-off to great effect. That is also generating enormous activity from service providers around the electorate. Robert Mills, who owns and operates Mount Annan Quality Meat, which is a great butcher's in the north of my electorate that employs eight people, said the tax breaks would have an immediate effect. As well as that, we are reinstating financial assistance grants. Councils in my electorate have done very well in recent years from a range of different programs, and this will help them to continue to meet their needs.
In health and education, we have seen great commitments to spending in my electorate. Across Australia we have put an extra $2.4 billion into assurance of Medicare for the next four years. We have also seen in recent years a strong increase in bulk-billing rates. For Hume in 2015-16, the bulk-billing rate was 88 per cent. Almost 90 per cent of visits to the doctor were bulk-billed. I note the member for Macarthur was here a few moments ago. He would be interested to know that the national bulk-billing rate was, under Labor, just over 82 per cent—82.2 per cent. It is now 85.4 per cent and continues to increase.
The budget confirms the government's commitment to reining in energy costs and ensuring reliable supply, with initiatives like the one-off energy assistance payment this year of $75 for single recipients and $125 for couples. On the education side we are seeing very significant commitments. In my electorate of Hume, every one of Hume's 79 schools will receive significant increases in funding. For instance, the funding will grow for the Catholic education schools, with the average amount per student rising from its current $8,780 to $12,562. That is true. Those increases are in every school—every Catholic school as well as every government and independent school—throughout the electorate of Hume. In fact, the total increase in federal government funding for schools in Hume over the next 10 years sits at $282 million.
Hume is a diverse electorate. The benefits to the good people of Hume, those mainstream Australians who, as I say, run small businesses and work in businesses, schools and hospitals around my electorate, of this budget are real and tangible. They will be enabled. They will be in a position to capture those great opportunities that Australians have always been offered over two centuries since the first European settlement. This is a wonderful country, and Hume is benefiting from a great budget.
It was the former US President Harry Truman who once noted that, 'It is men and women who make history, not the other way around.' Truman said:
Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
The great, former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating had a similar view. Keating said:
The great changes in civilisation and society have been wrought by deeply held beliefs and passion rather than by a process of rational deduction.
In the history of Australia, it has always been the Australian Labor Party, driven by our beliefs and our passion, which has changed this country for the better. We built universal health care; the coalition opposed it. We delivered access to university for all, based on merit, not the individual's bank balance; the coalition opposed it. We created compulsory superannuation, providing for the first time the prospect of a dignified retirement for all Australians, and those opposite opposed it. Indeed, while Labor's concern was dignity for all in retirement, the coalition's view is best summed up by the member for Warringah, who once described compulsory superannuation as:
… one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by a government on the Australian people.
Labor built the Snowy Mountains scheme; those opposite opposed it. Labor established Infrastructure Australia; those opposite opposed it. Labor created the National Broadband Network; those opposite opposed it. Indeed, the Liberal leader at the time ordered his shadow minister to demolish it. Of course, that was the member for Warringah and the member for Wentworth. The current Prime Minister is now pretending to support the NBN, but he made an absolute hash of the project. He is delivering a copper based, second-rate broadband rather than the fibre based, high-speed broadband our nation needs to remain globally competitive in the 21st century.
The origin of these nation-building Labor reforms, along with countless others, has been the philosophical touchstone of the Australian people. The idea that we all deserve a fair go is Labor's guiding light. It is the notion that, whatever our gender, age, colour, background or sexuality, we all deserve a fair go.
By contrast, the Liberal and National parties have, for the entirety of their existence, devoted themselves to resisting change and entrenching privilege. Their philosophical touchtone is not the fair go; it is the law of the jungle. Fundamentally, they have been on the wrong side of history on so many issues. For them it is the law of the jungle. They do not want progress. It jars with their sense of entitlement. They do not want fairness, because it means less for their friends at the top end of town. They see economic growth as an end in itself. We see economic growth as a means to lift living standards, create opportunity and spread fairness.
Budget 2017 is confirmation that the Labor Party is leading from opposition. This is the budget of ideological retreat where the coalition is desperately seeking to narrow the rhetorical difference between itself and Labor. They have changed the rhetoric but they have not changed their lack of conviction. They say that they embrace needs based education funding, but they are cutting investment by $22.3 billion over the next decade according to their own documents. They say they support Medicare, but the budget locked in billions of dollars in cuts and maintained the freeze on the Medicare rebate in the short term. They say they understand the importance of infrastructure investment, yet the budget cuts it by $1.6 billion in this financial year alone, with annual investment to fall off a cliff over the next four years to $4.2 billion. Of course, they say they support the NBN. Yet we know that in the last week they have purchased some 15 million metres of copper wire—not fibre, copper; technology of the last century or perhaps even the century before.
The fact is they talk the talk but they never walk the walk. It is just like Malcolm Turnbull's attitude towards public transport. He loves taking selfies on trains, trams and buses. He just will not fund trains, trams and buses.
In that context, people should be cynical about the coalition's claimed conversion to a position of support for universal health care in this country. We know that Gough Whitlam created Medibank after the coalition opposed it not once but twice, requiring a double dissolution election in 1974 and a joint sitting to create Medibank. As soon as Malcolm Fraser was appointed as the Prime Minister after the 1975 election he of course tore down Medibank. It took Bob Hawke in 1983 to reintroduce universal health care by creating Medicare. This is what the new Liberal leader, John Howard, who is the icon of those opposite, said about it in 1988: 'Australia's health care system is in a shambles. The real villain is Labor's doctrinaire commitment to a universal government health insurance system, Medicare.' We know that, given any opportunity, they will undermine universal health care, because it contrasts with their concept of entrenching privilege rather than creating opportunity.
The same principle applies to infrastructure investment in this budget. In the weeks leading up to 9 May, the government sought to convince people it would invest in infrastructure. They went out there and created a distinction between good debt and bad debt. We heard hints of major new spending initiatives. But on budget day the cupboard was bare. They cut funding. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia is a peak representative body for the infrastructure sector in this country. The organisation is apolitical, but it is a passionate advocate for increased infrastructure development. After four years of coalition inaction on nation building, the IPA has lost patience with this mob, exposing the fact that the budget cuts federal infrastructure funding by $7.4 billion over the forward estimates. In its post-budget commentary it said: 'Foremost, the budget confirms the cut to real budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade, using a mix of underspend, reprofiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure.'
That industry assessment comes as the Prime Minister wanders around the country claiming that he is interested in infrastructure. If you look at the budget figures, you see that just a year ago they promised $9.2 billion in the current financial year. This year's budget papers revealed that the actual spend is $7.6 billion, representing a cut to investment in major road projects like the Bruce Highway and the Pacific Highway, a cut to the Black Spot Program, a cut to the heavy vehicle safety program and a cut to their own Bridges Renewal Program. More than two years ago, the government announced their Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, but they are yet to allocate a single dollar to a single project. In this budget, they have created a new NAIF, the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. In fact, the only new on-budget infrastructure project over the next four years anywhere in the country is $13.8 million for the Far North Collector Road near the New South Wales town of Nowra in the marginal seat of Gilmore. This is a project that hardly anyone had ever heard of until budget night. This is what the local paper, the South Coast Register, said in its editorial of 17 May:
Interestingly the announcement in the budget was the first many of us had ever heard of the Northern Collector Road.
… … …
… former Mayor Joanna Gash never mentioned a Northern Collector Road.
Meanwhile, they do nothing about the Nowra Bridge, which is the issue that they need to address in that particular part of Australia.
Right across Australia we saw cuts. For example, in Victoria, home to one in four Australians, they continue to receive less than 10 per cent of the national infrastructure budget. In Budget Paper No. 2. it says, under 'Infrastructure Investment Program—Victorian infrastructure investments', there is zero this year, zero next year, zero the year after, zero the year after, and zero the year after that. Why they included that table in Budget Paper No. 2, quite frankly, is beyond me. They should have just pretended that Victoria did not exist, because that, essentially, is what they have done. Indeed, funding for ongoing projects in Victoria goes from a paltry $800 million this current year, representing under 10 per cent of the budget, to $280 million in 2020-21. That is from a position where we have already seen infrastructure investment per Victorian halved, from $201 per year under the former federal Labor government to $92 under the current government.
There is also no investment to tackle one of the most serious impediments to economic growth in our nation, traffic congestion in our cities. In spite of the government's rhetoric, there is no new funding for public transport. Instead, we have a grand announcement of a $10 billion National Rail Program. The problem is that there is no money this year, there is no money next year, there is no money the year after, and then, the year after that, $200 million trickles down. So there is not a single dollar for a new project between now and four years time. The fact is that this budget failed by producing no funding for the Melbourne Metro, no funding for Western Sydney Rail, no funding for AdeLINK in Adelaide and no funding for Brisbane's Cross River Rail project. Indeed, the budget included nothing for cities. In spite of the rhetoric of this government, City Deals got not a single dollar. All that we have is a matching of Labor commitments for Townsville stadium, UTAS in Launceston, and an obscure Western Sydney deal with a paltry amount of funding attached.
When it comes to freight rail, they have attached more than $8 billion of so-called equity to the Inland Rail line, but the government said themselves, in a report by John Anderson, that it will not return the capital investment for more than 50 years. How can this investment be off budget? We know that the line will stop 38 kilometres short of the port of Brisbane. Now we have the Inland Rail stopping short of the port of Brisbane and not going to the port of Melbourne either, just like the Perth Freight Link project did not go to the port of Fremantle and WestConnex goes nowhere near Port Botany, Sydney, which was the basis of the project.
Respected journalist Michael Pascoe said about the budget:
Morrison has got away with rehashing Hockey's infrastructure PR trick—think of a big number and keep adding years until you reach it.
… … …
Wake up, people! Spread over 10 years, the Commonwealth is only offering $7.5 billion a year, much of it already in Hockey's numbers and a fair swag of that dating from Labor government commitments.
You can get away with spin only for so long. The government continue to count the 2013 budget as if they were in government at the time of that budget. The fact is that is not the case.
Then we have the Infrastructure Financing Unit. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is not a lack of available capital in this country; there is a lack of government support and a lack of proper planning for infrastructure in this country. Former US President John F Kennedy once noted that things do not just happen but are made to happen. Labor made infrastructure happen in this country. We invested in freight, we invested in roads and we invested in public transport. The fact is that this government has failed when it comes to infrastructure. What this country needs is what Paul Keating once described as the two key elements of leadership—imagination and courage—and it will get that only from a Labor government.
I would like to use this opportunity to talk about what the budget does for the residents in my electorate, which covers most of the Knox area in outer eastern Melbourne. As other members of the parliament will know, our overall objective with this budget was to create stronger economic growth, because that ultimately underpins jobs and wealth creation; to create more opportunities, particularly for young people; and, finally, to make a safer community, which is of course desperately important, particularly in Melbourne.
I would like to start, though, by discussing education, particularly school education, and what the budget does in that regard. We all know that if you get a good school education then the opportunities arise for the rest of your life. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that every kid, no matter what their background and no matter what school they go to, gets that great start in life by going to a good school. Funding is an important element of that. Through this budget every single one of the 39 schools in the electorate of Aston, which covers most of Knox, receives an increase in funding. They have surety that over the next decade, year on year, they will have funding increases. A school like Rowville Secondary College, which is one of the larger schools in my electorate, will go from $4.7 million of federal funding this year to $4.95 million next year. Over the next 10 years it will have an increase, collectively, of $16 million. Of course, a good school education is about more than funding—it involves great teachers and good teaching practice—but funding is important, and we recognise that in this budget.
I would also like to discuss infrastructure, particularly road and rail infrastructure. Everyone in Knox knows just how congested the roads are getting. We have seen this over the last five or so years. It is almost like the roads in Melbourne are coming to a standstill. This is in part because the infrastructure has not been built to keep up with the growing population. We particularly feel that in outer eastern Melbourne.
I am pleased to say that the federal budget this year allocates $7.4 billion to Victoria. Some very important projects will directly benefit residents in my electorate, perhaps none more so than the $500 million dedicated to upgrading the Monash Freeway. People refer to that sometimes as the Monash car park in the morning—I know for myself that it often is—and this will enable additional lane capacity on the Monash Freeway to get that freeway moving better.
There is also some money to do the next stage of the airport rail link. This is an important project for everybody in my electorate and across Melbourne and Victoria. We have put money to get the next stage done. We have put money towards another very large project—the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. It will largely be used for freight, but it will generate thousands of jobs. There is a commitment in this budget as well to get that project going.
Of course there are other smaller projects that are occurring in Knox that were election commitments of mine. We have already found funding for those, and those projects will soon be underway. The largest one of those is the Henderson Road bridge. This will connect the two sides of Henderson Road—the side in Rowville with the side in Knoxfield—and will provide an additional north-south link across Knox and take a bit of pressure off Stud Road as well. That is a really important project that is already funded and will be getting underway. It will be completed I hope within a couple of years.
I want to move to housing affordability. This is something that young people raise with me all the time. Indeed, their parents raise with me the fact that it is so difficult now for young people to get into the housing market because house prices have risen so much in recent years, and we certainly see that in our area and our community. There is no silver bullet for this, but in the budget we have announced a number of very practical measures that we are going to do to help young people get into the housing market. The most important is a new scheme that will enable people to save for a deposit more quickly. In essence, a young person will be able to put $30,000 into a dedicated part of their superannuation account. By doing that they will obviously get tax advantages. That means that they will be able to save a deposit potentially 30 per cent faster than they can presently. That is a real direct benefit to young people saving for their first home.
We are also taking other steps on the housing affordability front. An important measure there is cracking down on some of the foreign investment. We have already taken significant steps on that front and we are taking more steps again in this budget, including, for example, placing a limit on foreign ownership in new developments and introducing an annual charge on foreign owners who buy residential property and leave it vacant. We certainly know many properties like that in Knox.
Further, there are also measures that encourage and provide incentives for people to downsize, should they choose, to a smaller home. They will not be disadvantaged in doing so. There are special incentives there. That might free up some of the larger family homes for young families coming in who might benefit from those homes. There is no compulsion; it is a choice for the people who own that property at the moment, but there will be incentives for them to take up those opportunities.
Next I want to briefly discuss small business. Small business is the backbone of the economy in Knox. There are about 14,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in my electorate, which covers most of Knox. We know that, because they are the ones providing most of the jobs, when they do well the whole community does well. There are so many families where it is the plumber, the carpenter or the driver who has their own business. We want to encourage them and help them to grow and to employ more people. We are doing that through a number of steps.
The most important one is small- and medium-sized business tax cuts. It does not matter if you are a company or not, you will benefit from a small business tax cut directly on your income earned. We are also extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off. That means that you can purchase equipment—any number of pieces—up to the value of $20,000 and immediately write that off in the current financial year. Obviously that can help with your cash flow. There are a whole bunch of other smaller measures as well which will help small business people. We strongly support them. I strongly support the small business people in my electorate, as I said, because when they do well the entire community does well.
I will touch on something which goes across the board. I have personal responsibility, with Christian Porter, the Minister for Social Services, for overseeing some of the important welfare changes that we have made. In essence, we are trying to put stronger incentives in the welfare system to encourage people at every opportunity to take the job when it is available. If there is a good job there, we want people to take it rather than languish on welfare. For those who are trying to skirt around the system—and we all know some people are like that—it is going to be so much tougher for such people to do that under our new regime.
We are also, importantly, introducing trials of drug testing of new welfare recipients—new people going onto unemployment benefits. This is going to be an important trial. The aim of the measure is to identify people who, in some respects, may have a drug problem and assist them to get off it, because if they are on drugs today the chances of them getting a job are so much more diminished. Of course, they will not get the jobs which require regular drug tests, and many jobs these days do exactly that: require a drug test. If you think about truck drivers, if you think about any job in the mining industry and if you think about some of our big companies—Qantas, Toll et cetera—these sorts of companies require drug tests. The Defence Force and border security et cetera require drug tests. We want to make sure people have opportunities to get those jobs. For them to get those jobs they have to be drug free, so this drug testing is going to be important. It is a trial stge. We have not identified the locations yet, but we will be working very quickly on that and getting that up and running.
I will talk about the macro budget settings. Everybody knows that we have been deep in deficit since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years where they destroyed the surpluses which we had and put us deep into the red. We now have a pathway back to surplus. This budget ensures that by financial year 2021 we will be back in surplus and can start paying off that debt again. That is not just very important not just for today but it is critically important for the next generation, because if we continue to run large budget deficits, as the Labor Party would like us to do, in essence we are just borrowing from our children, and they will have to pay higher taxes in the future because of our expenditure today. We do not think this is fair. Our aim is to get back to balance in a couple of years and then to start paying back the debt as soon as we get there.
There is so much more in the budget which directly impacts and supports the residents of Knox. The NDIS scheme, which is going to be fully funded and rolled out, is going to directly help thousands of people who have disabilities. I am very proud of the fact that we are going to be doing that. There are so many other smaller initiatives which are going to directly benefit the local residents as well. I have tried to touch on the big ones: the schooling initiatives, the housing affordability initiatives and the extra roads and rail. We are making some really important changes to support small business growth. We are doing important welfare reform measures to encourage young people, able bodied young people, to take those jobs when they are there, and introducing drug testing. And, perhaps, overall, ensuring that we get the finances back under control, so that we are not handing over debt to future generations. I am very proud of this budget. It is a good one for the residents of Knox and it is a good one for all Australians.
You cannot punish someone for not finding a job that was not there. The youth unemployment rate in this country is 13 per cent, and, when you factor in the number of young people who say they would like to work more hours than they currently have, it is 20 per cent. A couple of decades ago it was below 10 per cent. We have 20 per cent of young people in this country saying that they want to work more hours but they cannot find it, and we have youth unemployment at 13 per cent.
What is the government's response in this budget? Is it to say, 'We are going to make education more available to everyone so that you can get higher qualifications without putting itself into debt'? Is it to say, 'We are going to start using our purse strings to create the new industries of the 21st century that might provide jobs for people'? No. This government's response in its budget is to stand by and watch young people's wages get cut further as they lose their penalty rates, and then ask, 'If you happen to be someone in this country who is looking for a job and you have tried hard and you have not found it, what are we going to do? Are we going to give you a helping hand? No. Are we going to lift the level of Newstart for you? No. We are going to treat you like a suspected criminal and you have to subject yourself to random drug tests, because—somehow—it is your fault that the jobs aren't there.'
Youth unemployment is rising on this government's watch. Unemployment and under-employment are going up and up and up. At the same time, if you are a young person in this country then housing is even more out of reach than it ever has been. Back in the 1990s it used to be that an average house cost six times an average young person's income. Fast forward to this government, and it costs 12 times an average young person's income. So, the jobs are not there, the people who have jobs want to work more hours—if you are young—and they have not got it, housing is increasingly out of reach, and wages are being cut. The government's response is to say, 'Well, we are going to treat you like a suspected criminal.' And in this budget they say they are going to put you further into debt if you do go to university. 'We are going to increase the fees.' The universities are going to have less money—they get a cut as well. The education you get is going to be tougher for the university to deliver, because the government is going to cut them. 'And we are going to make you start paying your debt back earlier.' Imagine being a young person now, graduating and looking for a job. You cannot save up your house deposit because housing is out of reach, wages are low, growth is sluggish—in fact it is going backwards in real terms—and with what you do have the government is going to put its hand in your pocket and take more of it by putting you further into debt and making you repay it earlier.
This budget is a continuation of the government's war on the young. This government has declared war on the young and it is continuing. Increasingly, people are realising that this government is going to be the one that leaves the future for young people worse than when they inherited it. That is what people are experiencing every day. There are things we could be doing here in this parliament for people who come into this place after us, people who are leaving university now or are at school now, wondering what kind of life they are going to have. We could make life better for them. We could start by saying that we are not going to put you further into debt, which is what this government is doing. Secondly, we could say that housing is a human right and instead of spending billions of dollars a year, like this budget does, to help people who already have a house to buy their second, third, fourth or fifth house, giving them a generous tax break, we could say that we are going to take those billions and instead put it into building affordable housing that young people and key workers are able to access. What a sensible use of government money. What a sensible use of several billion dollars a year it would be to help people to get into their first home instead of helping people to get their third, fourth or fifth and push up prices and rents and put housing out of reach for so many people.
We could be saying that we have a wonderful opportunity in this country. Australia could be a renewable energy superpower. We could be the country that the rest of the world looks at going into the 21st century. We could be the country where there are over 100,000 jobs in renewable energy, as the Germans have. On proportionate terms—they are a bigger country—they have nearly 400,000 people working in the renewable energy industry. We could have that happening here. We could be saying, 'Isn't it amazing that people working in this country, at universities in this country—and thanks to CSIRO—have just worked out how to print solar cells, basically off a commercial printer, onto almost any substance so that you can just print out a free and infinite source of energy.' We could be saying: 'Isn't it wonderful that'—at one of the same universities—'at Newcastle they have worked out how to get microscopic solar cells into paint. If we proofed that up, you would just paint the wall of your house and it would become a solar panel. You wouldn't need to install a new solar panel, because it is one.' These are the kinds of inventions that we could be building here in Australia, and we could be owning the IP of those and we could be exporting them.
As we look around, we see we have another remarkable opportunity, which is that when our coal fleet is ageing, as it is in Australia at the moment, and when many coal-fired power stations are at the end of their usable life we need to switch them off and get onto renewable energy to meet the climate challenge. The best bit is that it is now cheaper to build new renewable energy than it is to build a new coal-fired power station. In fact, it is cheaper to build renewables than it is to build a peaking gas-fired power station. Even better, the cost of storage is coming down so quickly that we can build renewables with storage attached, so that we have power available when the wind is not blowing in a particular place or when the sun goes down at night, and they are cheaper to build than new fossil fuel power stations. What a remarkable job-creating, way-of-life-protecting program it would be for this country to dedicate itself to getting onto 100 per cent renewable energy—to putting the money behind it and creating real jobs for the young people who are wondering where jobs are going to come from in the 21st century.
It is not just the Greens saying this is what needs to be in the budget. At the other end of the spectrum, we now have AGL, the country's biggest polluter, operating the biggest coal-fired power station, saying: we want a plan to get off coal and onto renewables; just tell us what that plan is. A couple of weeks ago the CFO of AGL said that because of rising gas prices:
… the energy transition we have all been anticipating will skip "big baseload gas" as a major component of the NEM's base-load generation and instead largely be a case of moving from "big coal" to "big renewables".
This is what the people who are running our coal-fired power stations are saying at the moment. They are saying: give us a plan so that we can start building big renewable power.
We know, as we have just seen in Victoria, we are going to have to start switching off our coal-fired power stations because they are getting very old and they are very polluting. So what does this budget do? Does this budget lay out a vision for the country to get off coal and onto renewables? No. This budget backs in gas even when the likes of AGL are saying: it is too expensive now, it is not going to be the transition fuel, we are going to jump straight to renewables. It backs in coal and it backs in a billion dollars to multinational company Adani for a coalmine that is a ticking climate bomb.
If we burn the coal that is left in the ground then we are giving a death sentence to the Great Barrier Reef. It is as simple as that. It is not just the Greens who are saying that. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have been saying that in recent days as well. They have been pointing out that whilst Adani claim in court that there are 1,400 jobs—I know the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland like to talk about tens of thousands of jobs, but when Adani are under oath they say there are 1,400 jobs—there are over 60,000 jobs that are dependent on a healthy reef. People are not going to fly from all around the world to Australia to visit a dead reef. There are 60,000 jobs in Queensland that are dependent on that, and for the sake of 1,400 jobs, because a multinational company has asked them to, the government is prepared to write a billion-dollar cheque and say: we do not mind if that means the Queensland economy goes to pot when the reef dies.
The budget says, 'We are going to have a look at Snowy hydro.' There is not money in this budget for construction; there is money for another feasibility study. Already, as we found out through estimates during the course of this week, the bill has gone up an extra couple of billion dollars. And, as we found out also through estimates this week, there were about two weeks between the plan coming across the government's desk and the government making the announcement. Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into it from the government's perspective.
Yes, it is worth looking at whether Snowy Hydro pump storage is viable. Of course it is. But that is years away and there is no money in the budget for it. What are we going to do in the meantime? The government in this budget has passed up the opportunity to make sure that the lights stay on as we switch from coal to renewables and that the prices come down. What we know is that under this government wholesale power prices have doubled. It loves to run around and say, 'It is all about state governments having renewable energy targets.' Well, wholesale prices have doubled since this government got rid of the Greens-Labor carbon tax, and do you know where the highest increases have been? They have been in New South Wales, where there have been Liberal governments at state and federal level overseeing the highest price increases.
What is absolutely criminal in this budget is that the government has turned its back on the people of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria and on coal-fired power station communities right around this country. I have been spending the last few months visiting coal-fired power station communities to talk about the need to transition from coal to renewables and making the point that as we do this, as the country makes this transition, because that is the way we are going to tackle climate change, we have to look after the workers in the communities that have kept the lights on and that still keep the lights on, right around this country. It is not their fault that coal is a toxic product that we need to move away from to get onto renewables. We owe them a debt. This government owes them a debt. I went to the Latrobe Valley to ask, 'What is the federal government doing to assist in the transition away from coal, given that that is going to mean some significant dislocation for you?' The answer was: 'Nothing.'
The state government has stepped in at the last minute with a transition authority, but it is too little too late. The federal government needs to come to the party. It is time that at a federal level we put aside the money we need to ensure that we can transition away from coal to renewables and to ensure that by the time we switch off the next coal-fired power station, which is probably going to be only a few years away, as many of these private operators know that the end of the line has come for their old coal-fired power stations, there will be secure jobs and strong industries for those people to move into. That requires a bit of planning now. It requires that the federal government use the power of the budget to say, 'Maybe we need tax breaks for industries that want to go and set up in the Latrobe Valley. Maybe we need some industry assistance so that there are secure jobs that are grown there. Maybe we need to look at the existing transmission infrastructure—the poles and wires that come into and out of the valley—and say, "What if we attached some pumped hydro or some other forms of generation attached to that? That way, we could make use of all those lines and transmission assets that are there." Maybe, it is saying that agriculture needs a boost in the Latrobe Valley in a way that has not been subject to serious focus before. Maybe food processing in the Latrobe Valley needs some support.'
All of these things need to be on the table, but the federal government has got to be serious. But in this budget, the federal government has turned its back on the people of Collie in Western Australia, where Muja has just closed down, and on the people of the Latrobe Valley, where Hazelwood has closed down, and it does not care. It is more interested in coming into the parliament and throwing around lumps of coal at the same time as the owners of the coal-fired power station companies are saying, 'We're closing. We're getting out of coal and we want the government to have a plan.' This budget is committing people in the Latrobe Valley to higher levels of unemployment. This is a budget that will ensure that young people's futures continue to be sold out. This is a budget that should be condemned. (Time expired)
I have great pleasure in getting up and speaking to these appropriation bills because they are part of what was such a wonderful budget for regional Australia. I will go through some of the highlights of the budget that I see for the whole of regional Australia and, indeed, for my electorate.
Firstly, I want to talk about the Building Better Regions Fund, which was increased. There is now a total of $500 million for that and the major regional projects fund. These programs have already funded, in my electorate, things like a multimillion dollar upgrade to redevelop Oakes Oval in Lismore so that it can retain its position as one of the premier sporting venues in our region. Nearly $2 million has been provided to upgrade the Maclean Riverside Precinct, which is going to increase tourism turnover in Maclean. It is a beautiful village on the Clarence River, and certainly this riverside precinct upgrade is going to improve tourism visitors there.
There has also been money given to the Bridges Renewal Program. Kyogle has 200 or 300 wooden bridges that are ageing. They have quite a small ratepayer base of less than 10,000. They do not have the resources to fully upgrade all of these ageing wooden bridges. Already through this program, which has been re-funded in the budget, there are 14 or 15 bridges we are replacing. In fact, last week I was out west of the range in Old Bonalbo. We opened a new bridge there on Duck Creek. That was a highlight for me and certainly the local residents around there. On the way home—just as an aside—we also popped into Bonalbo to turn on the new mobile phone tower there. They have certainly needed that for a long time, and it was great to do that—but I digress.
This Building Better Regions Fund has also funded things in my electorate, like the upgrade that we are going to do of the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club. It is also going to fund a $500,000 amphitheatre and casino. It is going to fund a $500,000 new Wollongbar multisports facility, which is a new sports complex that the Ballina Shire Council are building up on the plateau. That is going to be spectacular. It is going to have panoramic views from where it is up on the plateau. It is going to be a great facility.
This program funds things like CCTV cameras in Grafton and South Grafton. It is going to fund the Our Kids driver-training facility at Lismore. The origins of the funding for that are actually quite sad. We had a tragedy just over 10 years ago when four young men all died in a car accident. From that, Southern Cross LADS was born. Some of the parents and community members there have changed the driving rules in our state. The extra hours for P-platers and also the fact that P-platers cannot have passengers in the car after a certain time at night were brought in because of that horrific accident. We are funding a driver-training school that is going to help our youth get better training and have better driving skills.
Also from this we are doing things like funding the Kyogle aquatic centre. There is going to be a pontoon at the Woodburn foreshore. Woodburn, a beautiful place on the Richmond River, is going to be bypassed by the Pacific Highway upgrade. I am going to get to the Pacific Highway upgrade later, which is obviously a huge infrastructure project. When it gets bypassed, I think Woodburn is going to flourish. It is a beautiful place beside the Richmond River. There is going to be an upgrade happening there and many other things.
Also, the Stronger Communities Program has been funded in this budget as well. Deputy Speaker Wicks, I am sure you are aware of this as well. This is a great program where we can help fund small community programs of between $5,000 and $20,000 to help small community clubs get the infrastructure and services they need. That has been funded in this budget as well.
I alluded earlier to the Pacific Highway upgrade. This is directly employing about 3,000 to 4,000 people in my region. The part of the highway left to upgrade is predominantly between Woolgoolga and Ballina. When you count indirect jobs, we are probably talking about something like 6,000 to 7,000 jobs because of this program. You cannot drive up and down that highway without seeing a massive amount of equipment and a massive amount of work going on.
Why are we doing that? We are doing that primarily because, statistically, the number of fatalities has fallen dramatically where the dual duplication has already occurred. In fact, fatalities on the Pacific Highway are at multidecade lows. When you think about the increased traffic on the Pacific Highway relative to what was happening multidecades ago, the reason that fatalities have decreased is the dual duplication. So that is the reason we do it, and that is the reason we are going as fast as we can to finish it. All of the money needed to finish that is in the budget. It has a target completion date of 2020. Obviously there is a commercial benefit while we build it. Post the building of this highway, the increased tourism and the better transport networks we will have around our region will make it flourish.
Also in the budget was the Roads to Recovery funding for local councils. We have restored the indexation of the Financial Assistance Grants to local governments and also have healthy spending on Roads to Recovery. Roads are very important in my electorate and to my local councils. They need help to maintain local roads to the standard that they do.
And then, of course, there is the major infrastructure. Besides the Pacific Highway, there are other major infrastructure projects in this budget. The Inland Rail between Melbourne and Brisbane is very exciting. That has opened up the whole of the west of New South Wales. It will make it easier for that area to flourish in getting product and things to port. It is going to make us more efficient—indeed, on an international level—which is great news for jobs in regional Australia.
We have the Western Sydney Airport, again a great decision that has been made by this government. We see the funding for that in the budget as well.
Not only is Snowy 2.0 a wonderful infrastructure project; we know the importance that this has for our renewable energy targets. What we understand on this side of politics—as I think the member who spoke before me does not quite get—is that we appreciate renewables, but we need a reliable source of power for renewables, not an intermittent source of power for renewables. The Snowy scheme will certainly help us do that.
Education—wow! What great commitments we are making to education: an extra $18.7 billion. When we got into government, the federal government before us, up to 2013, was spending roughly $13 billion on education. This is going to increase to $30 billion by 2027. These are real increases in education. All my schools, given our SES classification, are going to do exceptionally well out of the education funding, and I have had great feedback from my local schools and parents about that.
Also in this budget, regardless of all that, we are going to get back to surplus. We are going to get back to surplus because we have targeted some really good revenue measures, which I will talk about in a minute.
We have lifted the Medicare freeze, which was, as we know, implemented by the previous Labor government. We have reversed that freeze. We have guaranteed the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and other things in the budget as well.
There is bipartisan support for NDIS. The only thing that was not bipartisan was that we knew we needed to fund it. The previous government, I think, came up with a good idea to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent to do that, and we have said, 'To fully fund it, let's do that again.' We know it is progressive. We know that people on lower salaries pay a much smaller amount than people on larger salaries because of the progressive system of our tax.
On banks: I know we talk about how we are spending money and we are getting the budget back into surplus. We are doing that, because we are putting a six-basis-point levy on the banks. I think this is very fair because we are taxing banks, or putting this levy on banks, which have an explicit guarantee—or that is what the rating agencies think. If you look at Standard & Poor's, they say there is basically an explicit guarantee of the four majors. That dates back to the global financial crisis 10 years ago, when the government at the time gave them a guarantee and said, 'The four majors cannot fail.' Standard & Poor's themselves say that that guarantee gives major trading banks a 20-basis-point funding advantage over the small banks, so we think it is very fair that those banks pay a little bit of that—six basis points of 20, which they already have as an advantage, according not to me but to the rating agencies—in helping us get our budget back into balance.
We certainly understand that small business is the driver in all economies and certainly in regional economies. I have a few large employers in my electorate, but certainly small business is the biggest employer by far. What are we doing for small business? Much as the other side may have fought us, we have given small business a tax cut. We understand that they need to remain competitive. The more cash flow that a small business has, the more it can grow, the more people it will employ and the more it will succeed in its endeavours. We have given them a tax cut, which we are thrilled about. I do not have to walk far down any street in my electorate before people come up to me. I do not even have to ask small businesses, who say, 'The instant tax write-off that you have given us for the last two years and indeed you have now extended in the budget is an absolute boon for us.' Now, what is that, Deputy Speaker? I know you understand that, if you are a small business, you do not have to depreciate over a number of years any capital item that you purchase for under $20,000; you can have an instant tax write-off on that. We have done it for the last two years, and we have extended that. This has been a great windfall. I know that a lot of people who have small businesses have taken advantage of this, and people who sell capital equipment have told me that the customers started flowing in the day after we announced that two years ago. That is to continue, and it is very important.
Affordable housing is something that we all know is important, and there have been some wonderful things done in the budget for that as well. The salary sacrifice, where you can save your deposit into your super, is going to be a great success. It is a good initiative. With some of the funds that we are giving to state governments, there are going to be some things that will encourage supply, because, if you want to make housing more affordable, it is not hard to work out that you need to build more. We are encouraging the processes so that we can build more houses and get more supplied to the market.
Regarding foreign investment, there is going to be more tax on foreign investors, especially those investing in residential real estate. As a result of legislation that was passed a year or so ago, we are already cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, and we have budgeted to increase the take from that.
There has also been an appreciation from this side of upskilling and making sure that apprentices continue to flourish and get opportunities in our community. We have introduced an annual worker levy on foreign workers. This will be paid so that there is a fund put by from which we can help and employ apprentices.
We want everyone who does not have a job to get a job. So what have we done? We have done a few things. We are doing a trial, which I think is a wonderful idea. We have done a trial for 5,000 people where, if you have a drug habit, we will do two things, because we want you to get a job. We do not want you to be sitting at home on the couch thinking that the best thing you can do is suck back on a bong. We want you to feel as though you have a great opportunity to get a job. We will do two things for those with a drug habit. There will be a punitive side of it. We will give you a cash card so that you cannot buy drugs if you are on welfare and you have a drug habit. That is one side of it. The other side is that if you test positive more than once you will get free medical and rehabilitation services.
There are so many great things in this budget on so many fronts. I would like to talk about some more local things as well. I ran through many before, but there are just a couple that I wanted to go through but did not get to.
Mental health is obviously a thing that I think, as a community and as a society, we have much more recognition of than we have had in previous years. We make it okay to talk about it, and we certainly hope that people who feel mentally unwell feel that it is okay to talk about it, to be up-front about it and to seek help for it. When anyone takes their life it is a tragedy. The community of the Clarence Valley in my electorate has had some youth suicides that have been an absolute tragedy. They have really rocked the community to its core. We are doing what we can there as well, and it was wonderful not that long ago to fund a new headspace facility. The money for that is in this budget. This is going to be built in Grafton to service the wider Clarence area, and there are some other services that we are going to fund as well, because we do not just need to do the early intervention of a headspace. One of the things that has been identified is that, when people who have been admitted to a hospital or to a mental health institution are let out, it is a very dangerous time. Some of our local health people said the follow-up as a person was discharged was not good enough and it was found that there was a bit of a vacuum in the follow-up services and care there. We are certainly going to be putting a lot more resources into that too.
As a whole, there are a few points I would just like to leave us with. It is a wonderful budget for regional Australia. It is a wonderful budget for infrastructure spending around the country. It will have more job-creating opportunities around the whole nation. We are responsible and we have funded it, and that was a very important aspect as well.
Like others tonight, I rise to talk on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 and related bills and the budget delivered by this government. It has gone from a slogan around jobs and growth to a budget around tax cuts and education cuts. That is my summary of this budget. We all know that budgets are about priorities, and the government's priorities are quite clear in this budget. Their priority is the top end of town. Their priority is to give tax cuts to multinational companies and millionaires and to cut funding for the things that would make a difference in Australia, the things that would impact on the current situation in this country where we are at a 75-year high in inequity.
The current climate is a 75-year high—those with and those without are the furthest they have been apart for 75 years. This is a climate where wage growth has flatlined to the lowest it has been since records have been kept and where company profits are at a 10-year high. This government's answer to that, and its priority, is to prioritise tax cuts for the very wealthy in this country, for multinational companies and for the four big banks. Although the government has hidden in the budget a new tax for banks, that will not actually end up being what it claims it will be because, at the other end of that, it is going to give them a whopping great tax cut.
In a time when we have 700,000 people unemployed, when over a million people are saying they are underemployed and when casualisation of our labour force is at its worst, this is a government that delivers a budget off the back of a legislative program that has failed to do anything about labour hire companies or sham operators. It had an opportunity in the chamber. It brought into the chamber a piece of legislation that was called 'protecting vulnerable workers' that failed to deal with the critical issues.
On top of that, the government are bringing in a budget that shows clearly what their priorities are, and their priorities certainly do not include the electorate of Lalor that I represent. The government certainly have not prioritised the 200,000 people who live in the electorate that I represent. In fact, many of the things in this budget are going to hurt the people who live in my electorate. There are 70,000 families in the electorate of Lalor, a lot of whom are dependent on the minimum wage and on penalty rates. From 1 July, over 12,000 people will take a hit of up to $77 a week in their take-home pay, and there is nothing in this budget to support those families. There is absolutely nothing in this budget that is going to make a difference to their lives.
This is a government that talked a big game going into this budget. If you remember, it was going to tackle housing affordability. Now, member after member of the government come in here and, mealy-mouthed, they stand there and tell us that they are going to fix supply. The federal government has levers that could impact on housing affordability and make a difference in a community like mine. There are levers that Labor have begged it to take up, levers that Labor took policies on to the last election. We laid out a suite in front of it and said: 'Here, take these. These are great ideas. Let's make some changes to negative gearing. Let's make some changes to capital gains tax. Here's a revenue source for this government.' The government claimed it did not have a revenue problem—but, suddenly, it does. Suddenly it has a revenue problem.
This is a government that has tripled the deficit, and then walks in here and talks about surpluses into the never-never. This is a government that has paid no attention to the residents across this country, to the people who live in this country and what they need. This is a government that wants to come here and talk a big game about infrastructure, and yet the infrastructure spend has not increased. This is a government that wants to talk about infrastructure. It wants to say it is an infrastructure government and claim that its budget papers contain a big spend on infrastructure. Well, it is not if you are Victorian. Victoria has 25 per cent of the population and got only eight per cent of the infrastructure spend and none of the money that was promised to Victoria under the asset recycling. That is not going to be delivered. So, in regard to the commitment the Andrews Labor government made in their budget around that being spent on regional rail across Victoria, they are going to be sadly disappointed because this government has refused to fund Victoria for what it deserves.
The other amazing thing about this budget, which I hear members opposite proclaiming as good thing, is the Building Better Regions Fund—it has cut out the electorate of Lalor, a major growth corridor. We cannot apply for those funds now. In the past we could, but now we cannot. It is another slap in the face for the people who live in the electorate of Lalor, a slap in the face for the west of Melbourne and another slap in the face for the people who are doing the hard work of raising families and paying their taxes.
In this country it is time we had a conversation about tax—a really hard conversation about tax. In my electorate people are predominantly PAYG wage earners. They pay their taxes and they have minimal deductions they can make for the tax they pay. Yet here we have a budget that takes the deficit levy off millionaires and gives them a $16,000 pay cut and puts on a Medicare levy where people earning $20,000 a year will be paying more. This government simply fails to understand what the priorities are for people raising families and going to work every day—absolutely fails to understand it.
This is a government that held ice forums around the country, going from electorate to electorate to talk to people about the scourge that is ice. I have listened to government members come in here and talk about the forums they ran, and what is their answer? Is their answer increased access to the kinds of support that communities like mine need when they are faced with this? No. What they introduced were punitive measures to address what is an absolute scourge in communities across this country. They went out and listened but I just do not know who they were listening to, because when I listen to the people on the ground in my electorate who are doing the hard work at the coal face with people with addiction problems, they reject what this government announced in the budget. They were not listened to, so I am not sure who they were listening to.
I want to talk about what is happening in this budget with education, and I will have another opportunity to talk about that legislation a little later tonight. But across education what we have here are cuts—cuts to fund tax cuts for millionaires; cuts in a once in a 100 year opportunity to get funding right in schools, to ensure that we have accessible and affordable higher education and to ensure that we rebuild our TAFE sector. None of that is important to this government and this budget clearly proves it. They are paying absolute lip service to the power of education, without any understanding. When it comes to education this government understands the cost but they have no understanding of the value. In regard to health, they talk a big game about health. They told us they were legislating and it was going to be enshrined to protect Medicare. They told us that they were going to stop the Medicare freeze, and then we get to the budget and 'Wait a minute, not for another two years, not from another three years, depending which rebate we're talking about.' It is a sham. It is smoke and mirrors that are being delivered by this government, while they are intent, and their budget proves it, on continuing to deliver largess to the big end of town.
Labor has a different attitude to tax. One of the things we are committed to is the $3,000 cap on deductibility of tax agents or lawyers who give advice for tax deductions.
An honourable member: That's fairness.
It sounds fair to me too. This government wants to pretend that it is fair, but we know that there are millionaires in this country who pay a million dollars for tax advice and then claim that million dollars and end up paying zero tax. If you want to talk about fairness, then we need to talk about our tax system. I do not know what happened in the homes of those opposite when they were being raised, but I was raised on a really simple thing: if everybody paid the taxes they owed, people would pay a lot less tax. It is a really simple concept. If everybody paid the taxes that were required of them, it would be a fairer system. Everybody uses the roads; everybody uses the schools; everybody uses the hospitals; everybody uses the facilities and the infrastructure those tax dollars put on the ground, so everybody should just pay their fair share.
Look at the government's $65 billion in tax cuts for big business. We asked what modelling it had done. It claims it will create jobs, and yet the modelling shows that the impact is out in the never-never and it is minimal—statistically irrelevant. It will make little to no difference to the people in Lalor finding a job. I will tell you what would make a difference for the people in Lalor: if Victoria got its fair share of infrastructure spending. What would make a difference in the seat of Lalor is schools getting the money that they have been told they were going to get by this government and not having it ripped away. That is what would make a difference, but this government is oblivious to that.
I want to go to something that I have spoken on in every appropriation speech I have made since I joined this parliament, and that is this government's shameful attitude to women—the attitude that means that it no longer prepares a women's budget statement and that it no longer looks through that lens to see what impact its budget will have on 51 per cent of the population in this country. Since 2013, Australia has fallen from 19th to 46th place in the global gender gap report. I stand here proudly as a member of the Labor Party. I stand here with Deputy Speaker Claydon, who chairs the Status of Women Caucus Committee for Labor, to say that we will not forget and that we will continue to look through this lens. What are some of the things that we see through this lens? There are some scary stats when you look at this budget through the lens for women. The government needs to spend $400,000 to unfreeze funding to the National Women's Alliances.
In 2015 and 2016, we saw a 17.5 per cent increase in older women seeking help from homelessness services. That needs action. I have not heard one member opposite stand up and tell us what this government is going to do about homelessness. I have not heard them telling us what spend they are going to make there. All they have in terms of housing is a plan that undermines the superannuation scheme and a plan that will get people to save $30,000. I live in the most affordable electorate in Victoria. The most affordable place to live is in my community, where we build thousands of houses every year. Thirty thousand dollars will not get you a deposit in the most affordable suburbs in Melbourne; it certainly will not get you a deposit in Sydney; and I would not have thought it would get you a deposit yet in WA.
This government needs to take a step back from its ideologically driven tax-cut mantra, have a serious look at fairness and equity in this country and tackle some of the big issues in this country. It needs to tackle the things that matter. It needs to make sure that it is creating jobs. There are 700,000 unemployed people in this country as we speak and 1.1 million who say that they are underemployed. Your $65 billion tax cut is not going to put a dint in that. This government should hang its head in shame.
I rise today to provide my resounding support for and endorsement of the Turnbull coalition government's budget, which was handed down just over a fortnight ago, and the many positive measures that it will provide for my electorate of Dunkley. The federal government are continuing to make the right choices so that we can ensure our nation's economic growth, the future provisioning of our health and wellbeing through fully funded institutions, and support for our intellectual, innovation and enterprise sectors.
I have previously spoken of my enthusiasm for our significant tax relief measures for small and medium-sized businesses and extending the instant asset write-off for another 12 months. Ninety-nine per cent of businesses in Dunkley, over 16,000 businesses in total, will benefit from these changes when the tax rate for small business is lowered to 27.5 per cent from 1 July.
Another measure that I have previously touched on is reform to child care, making it more accessible and affordable and providing the greatest level of assistance for those who need it the most. In Dunkley, 6,040 families use government supported child care, and the Turnbull government has recently secured the full 15 hours of preschool.
The issuing of 92,000 pension concession cards Australia-wide will also benefit a large number of people in my electorate whose senior healthcare cards were not accepted for discounts by many Victorian state government institutions. This will be remedied, and many of my constituents will see their situation improved because of it.
Through the Roads to Recovery program, the federal government is also delivering for the people of Dunkley. For example, the intersections of Foot and Baileyana streets in Frankston and Barkly Street in Mornington are just two of the projects which the federal government has provided funding for, overseen and announced the completion of since the federal election last year. I am thrilled therefore that the program will be continued.
In addition, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that is hotly anticipated and sorely needed on the Mornington Peninsula. I have had many people speak to me of their concerns about the welfare of family members once they can no longer look after them. I am thrilled to be communicating back to my constituents that, because the Turnbull government has now fully funded the NDIS, 2,431 people in Dunkley will be directly helped by a number of providers on the peninsula so that their families can rest easy.
One of the most positive stories to come out of the budget, though, is that the coalition will continue to provide record levels of funding for health and Medicare and will continue to guarantee Medicare's future with a dedicated fund that will protect these vital services for this generation and the next. This proves the 'Mediscare' campaign of those opposite to be false, misleading and a cruel attempt to cause Australians to panic. There have never been plans of the type asserted by those opposite. Last financial year there were over 862,000 bulk-billed GP services in Dunkley—that is, 82.9 per cent of GP visits.
While these are all wonderful outcomes, there is one component of the budget that is a stand-out to me in how it impacts upon the people of Dunkley. Our funding for schools is a prominent move towards simplifying and increasing the funding that we spend on equipping our children for the future. Twenty-seven different funding deals that Labor set up have been simplified into one consistent, needs based funding model, meaning that the funding gets to the schools who need it the most. Long-term funding certainty for Australian schools, with an additional $18.6 billion over the next decade, means that we can focus on how that money is used to support initiatives that boost student outcomes.
It is a shame that those opposite not only have shunned such a positive news story but furthermore have attempted to completely deny the facts. Any child that they are claiming has lost out on education funding could tell you that you cannot fulfil a promise or claim that you will do something if you do not have the resources to do it. Unfunded promises do not travel very far in the real world, especially amongst children, who are often the most straight to the point of us all. Government funding in schools is due to reach a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027. Students from similar schools with similar needs will no longer receive different amounts of Commonwealth funding because of special deals, historical arrangements or their location. This is a real commitment to true needs based funding with quality outcomes that meet community expectations. These reforms will see differences made in every classroom for every child and teacher. This is Gonski 2.0.
It is regrettable that Labor, both at federal and state level, have already started the campaign of misinformation regarding the education funding in Dunkley. I contemplated listing all the schools in my electorate and their funding increases in this chamber to stress my point. But, if anyone concerned would like the figures, the full funding increases for each school can be found in my media release that will be going out this week. I will be more than happy to forward concerned colleagues a copy. Any parent can also look up the schools funding estimator online. Indeed, all 51 schools in Dunkley—each and every one—is receiving a funding increase under the coalition government's budget. This includes all government, Catholic and independent schools. The growth in funding to government schools will be 5.6 per cent between 2017 and 2018 and eventually 66.5 per cent by 2027. The average growth across all sectors is anticipated to be 53 per cent by 2027, which is not only necessary for all schools involved but reflects the government's enthusiasm and drive to ensure that our schools are properly funded in a responsible way that can be guaranteed. This funding is budgeted and included in the forward estimates.
Schools in my electorate are set to benefit with a total increase of federal government funding of $331 million over the next 10 years, bringing the total Commonwealth funding for Dunkley schools to $1.42 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. I will name just a few of the schools in Dunkley receiving a boost in their funding. Mornington Secondary College will receive an increase of $229,300 next year and a total increase of more than $14 million from 2018 to 2027. Frankston High School will receive an increase of $233,000 next year and a total increase of $14,405,400 from 2018 to 2027. A final example is Elisabeth Murdoch College in Langwarrin, which will receive an increase of $247,600 next year and a total increase of more than $15,300,000 from 2018 to 2027. I encourage parents and concerned residents to bypass the virulent campaign of misinformation and see for themselves how their local school is to benefit by using, as I mentioned, the school funding estimator calculator online from the Department of Education and Training.
The funding changes have been welcomed by schools in my electorate, as demonstrated in a letter that I recently received from Chris Prior, the principal of Bayside Christian College, as recently as Monday. To paraphrase the principal, Chris Prior, they were very much in support of the policy as the new method of funding schools would result in the current discrepancies in school funding disappearing. They anticipate the certainty of funding in the future with great enthusiasm. I was very pleased when the Prime Minister, in answering a question in question time on Monday, mentioned these comments by the principal of Bayside Christian College.
Schools in my electorate, across all sectors, will receive an average increase in funding of $6,557 per student over the next decade. This funding could make the difference in being able to support a specialist teaching assistant to support a group of struggling students in a maths class or to perhaps tutor for a group of students in an accelerated engineering program. This federal funding growth means that schools will be better equipped to support teachers and new or existing initiatives such as specialist teachers or targeted intervention programs.
Commonwealth funding to government schools has been growing faster than state funding in Victoria, and this revitalised funding model is consistent with this tendency, with funding being increased for the 9,000-odd schools Australia-wide. These reforms from the Turnbull coalition government mean that families in Dunkley can be assured that they, their children and their grandchildren will receive the support and opportunities in future that they need, right throughout their schooling lives. I cannot stress enough the importance of these reforms for my electorate of Dunkley. These reforms mean that my local schools will be able to better support their students and teachers in engaging in the best methods to educate our children. These reforms mean that we can all better focus on improving student outcomes and achievements. Having a fairer funding model not only means that we can ensure that our schools will see sufficient funding but also means that the funding will be going where it is needed most and will be distributed according to a real needs-based system. Furthermore, our Gonski needs based funding provides our schools with funding certainty, enabling them to operate without fear or hesitation and to focus on the wellbeing and success of their students.
Our long-term plan to ensure transparency and consistency in the way our schools are funded will fix the deals mess that we were left by the former Labor government. This is our opportunity to secure fair, responsible, needs based funding that will benefit the 27,909 students enrolled in school in Dunkley. I implore all members not to deny my constituents, particularly the children at the schools in Dunkley, this funding for their education.
This new model of federal funding for Australian schools is wonderful news for my electorate. As I have noted, every single one of the 51 schools in Dunkley will be positively affected. We welcome the guarantee of regular funding and the increase of $371 million under our Gonski funding model. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows make a real difference in supporting our teachers and schools to improve student outcomes. This is a fair system that is good for our students, good for parents and good for teachers.
In conclusion, the federal budget handed down a fortnight ago contains many things to be excited about, especially for the constituents of Dunkley and me. Substantial funding has been committed to the Dunkley electorate across a number of areas. There are positive developments across all sectors and the outlook is optimistic across our health institutions, including around the security of Medicare; the rollout of the NDIS; infrastructure projects, when we receive the cooperation required from the state government; support and tax relief for small businesses; and our childcare reforms, which I mentioned previously. The change to education funding really is one of the things that I am most excited about with wins for all 51 schools secured for the next decade. It is a good thing living in Dunkley under this federal government. I commend the federal budget recently announced not only for Australians but also for my electorate of Dunkley and everyone within.
This budget represents the very worst of everything Australians have come to expect from this government and this Prime Minister. When they were in opposition, their Treasury spokesperson, Joe Hockey, the former member for North Sydney, said he would deliver a budget surplus in the first year of government and every year thereafter. The information that is produced by the Treasury papers and the official figures show the following. Just five days ago it demonstrated that gross debt was up $220.8 billion since the September 2013 election and that gross debt, incurred mainly under this government, is now up to $493.8 billion. Decisions this government has made have increased the gross debt.
They parade themselves as economic managers who are fiscally responsible. Financial rectitude is what they go on about. We heard an absolute claptrap of nonsense from the previous speaker, the member for Dunkley, about the fact that they made savings and they were finding the money for it. They are borrowing money to pay for it and they are giving away $65.3 billion in corporate tax cuts. Do they really listen? If only they looked at the documents in relation to their education announcement. I suggest that they have a look at this document about education funding. It is a government document produced by the Turnbull government. It is headed: 'Key funding figures quantified 30 April: agreed cost.' It shows a saving—a cut—of $22.9 billion in education funding. So they are actually restoring some money from the $30 billion in cuts they inflicted in the 2014 Abbott government budget. Mind you, those cuts came after he said in that wonderful statement at the Penrith football stadium just before the election that there would be no cuts to education and no cuts to health. They inflict a $30 billion cut to education; restore some money, admitting in their own documents it is a $22.9 billion cut; and then want to give themselves a pat on the back for being so good. They do this dodgy figure in the estimator.
What is happening for the schools of the previous speaker is that they are slashing funding for state schools, private schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. They are slashing funding for schools, and they want to pat themselves on the back. That is why conservative governments in New South Wales and elsewhere are up in arms about it. The Catholic sector, which did special deals under the Howard coalition government, is up in arms as well. There have been headlines about the Catholics declaring war on the Liberals—honestly. That is even from news outlets that are favourable towards them.
This budget has an appalling set of numbers. They are giving millionaires and multinationals tax breaks but are hurting vulnerable families, schools and workers. They are doing nothing about the fact that, from 1 July, 700,000 Australian workers are going to get a $77 cut to their wages, on average. Australians are feeling left behind by a government that is treating them with utter disdain. Unemployment is at a near constant 5.9 per cent. That is what it was during the global financial crisis. So unemployment is up and underemployment is up. There are 1.34 million Australians who are underemployed—that is 8.7 per cent, the budget papers show. Wages growth is down. At 1.9 per cent, it is the lowest on record. Economic growth is stagnant. Yet those opposite have this optimistic idea that, somehow, wages will grow by 3.75 per cent, according to the budget, and that that, magically, mysteriously, like some sort of elixir, will get them back into budget surplus.
They have given away resources and funding from the carbon pricing scheme. They have given away billions of dollars by getting rid of that. They straightaway gave away $8 billion or $9 billion to the big banks, when they came to power. What they have done since then is make budget decisions that have not been good. They do nothing about capital gains tax reform and nothing about negative gearing, which could bring in about $37 billion. They give away $65.3 billion of taxpayers' money, for what? For an increase in wages of about $2 a day in about 10 or 20 years time. Honestly, there is not a shred of evidence that they can produce to show that this big tax giveaway will have an impact on wages or economic growth of any substance at all in the foreseeable future.
This government is bereft—it exists for one purpose only, to keep the Labor Party out of power. There is no reason for conservatives who are worried about prudent economic management to vote for this government. It gives them no reason whatsoever. It has betrayed its own base and is trying to be like us. Those opposite come to the middle, give a bit more money, restore a bit more money in relation to the Medicare rebate indexation freeze—but only seven per cent is actually going to be restored—but they do it over time. They throw a bit more money towards education. They make it look like they are a bit of an infrastructure government by saying, 'I've got this great idea for an inland rail scheme.' There is only a few hundred million dollars across the forward estimates towards the Inland Rail project, by the way. They have no infrastructure projects on the go at the moment, and look at how they have completely stuffed up the NBN. This government exists for one purpose only. It exists so that Labor cannot be restored to the treasury bench. Every single reform, as the member for Grayndler said earlier today, that has made a difference to the lives of Australians has been implemented by the Labor Party. Think about native title, Medicare, superannuation, the age pension system, the minimum wage, the big infrastructure projects—all under Labor.
This government puts the AAA credit rating at risk. And why in the world are they giving millionaires a $16,400 tax cut from 1 July? For the life of me, I cannot understand why they are doing that. In my home state of Queensland, we have a situation where, since their Medicare rebate freeze, the cost of visiting a doctor has skyrocketed 11 per cent. That means patients pay $7.70 more every time they see a doctor. We have data from the Department of Health and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We know that 804,000 Australians are putting off seeing a GP because they are worried about the cost. We know that 600,000 are putting off seeing a specialist for the same reason. But, to add insult to injury, the indexation is finally going to be reintroduced but it will not apply to 93 per cent of scans, including ultrasounds, X-rays and MRIs. As a result, no more than a laughable seven per cent of tests will become cheaper. It is an extraordinary thing. It is a broken promise by the Prime Minister, and he should hang his head in shame for the failure.
On top of that, there is education, which the previous speaker lauded. On average, schools are going to lose about $2.4 million as a result of their failure. That is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 schoolteachers. In my home state of Queensland, we have a situation where state schools will lose $300 million in the next few years. They will be worse off than under the current arrangements. There is no significant funding to Queensland schools until 2027. But, thanks to these cuts, local Catholic parish schools will be hit hard, and parents will face fee hikes and potentially even closures of schools as a result of this. We do not need Gonski 2.0. We do not need another report from this government. We need equitable, substantial, needs based funding in this country, and we need it right now. We cannot afford to strip away $22 billion in investment in the social capital and the future of this country, denying our children the education that they need.
We are going into the 21st century. If we are going to take our place in our region, we have to do it by using our ingenuity, our creativity, our intelligence. We have to do it because our workers are smarter and they work in a cleverer way. We are not going to drive down wages—at least, under a Labor government, we certainly are not going to do it. We have to do it because we are smarter. We will invest in our children. That is an investment in the future. That is clearly the case. The Australian Education Union has said that the Prime Minister's new school funding model is fast becoming exposed as a con which leaves schools short of the resources they need. I support what the Australian Education Union has said.
I was there on election day in 2013. Who could forget those corflutes and the bunting we saw on polling booths from LNP candidates in my home state of Queensland and from Liberal and National Party candidates. They said they would match Labor's Gonski needs based education funding dollar for dollar. That is what they said. They then proceeded to cut $30 billion from the budget, and they are still keeping a cut of $22.9 billion. It is extraordinary what they have done across the space.
In my electorate of Blair I would like to see upgrades to the Willowbank interchange. I would like to see extensions of rail lines from Springfield Central out to Redbank Plains, the biggest suburb in Ipswich. I would love to see infrastructure projects beyond stage 1 of the last section of the Ipswich Motorway between Darra and Rocklea completed. I want to see stages 2 and 3 back towards the Oxley roundabout done and I want to make sure that all these service roads in and around that area are done. I acknowledge the bipartisan commitment of $200 million in the budget towards the initial stage of the last section of the Ipswich Motorway from Darra to Rocklea, but there are other infrastructure projects I want to see done.
The 2016 budget promised $9.2 billion in commitment to infrastructure. They spent $7.6 billion on projects and they quickly have dropped it down to $4.2 billion by 2020-2021. I am not making up those figures; they are actually in the budget documents. They are the official government figures. Infrastructure falls off a cliff. When infrastructure falls off a cliff, guess what happens? In regional and rural areas and in cities around the country and in places like the Somerset region and in Ipswich in my electorate jobs go. We have got a very high unemployment rate locally. Apprentices are going. We have 130,000 fewer apprentices in this country under this government than we had when Labor was last in power. They are not investing; they are cutting. What is $600 million in terms of TAFE funding? They have cut $3.8 billion from higher education funding in this budget on top of the $22.9 billion they are cutting from primary and secondary schools. It is simply astonishing that this government is not an education government. It is not about doing anything.
On top of that, they then have this extra funding for the Building Better Regions Fund. In my area, the Somerset Region to the north is eligible for the funding, but the area around Ipswich is not. I have written to the minister about this. I wrote to Minister Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, back in January asking her to reconsider Ipswich's eligibility for Regional Development Australia. I would like to see projects in areas around Ipswich, like the exhibition and flood evacuation centre at the Ipswich Showgrounds and the Woollen Mills arts precinct, potentially funded. I would like to see those sorts of projects eligible for funding, but no. I got a letter back from Senator Nash saying, 'We'll review this after the budget.' I have written back because, in the budget, I see that Ipswich is not eligible again.
Under this government's former National Stronger Regions Fund, places like Ipswich were eligible. Under our Regional Development Australia funding, Ipswich was eligible. Why should places like Ipswich be excluded and discriminated against because this government does not want to provide funding in Labor voting electorates in urban areas? When we were in government, we did not discriminate in relation to Regional Development Australia funding. We made sure that even if you were in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan or, indeed, the Moreton Bay Region in Queensland you could apply for Regional Development Australia funding on good projects with evidence based funding. I call on the government to do the right thing and review the eligibility.
It is about time the government did the right thing. This budget is not doing the right thing by the people of this country and certainly not by the people in my electorate. I think they have some real questions to answer in terms of the recent evidence in relation to the bank tax as well. We have asked those questions during the time. It is time for the government to wake up to themselves—to have a look at a budget that works for all Australians. It is time for them to implement a tax system that is fair and equitable. It is time for equitable funding and needs based funding for education. It is time to immediately lift the Medicare rebate freeze and to do the right things in terms of infrastructure. And, for heaven's sake, how about we get a NBN that actually works and that the people of Australia can be proud of?
The budget handed down by the Treasurer on 9 May has been an excellent budget for Calare, country Australia and the nation generally. I think all members would agree that there are better days ahead. A highlight of the budget, of course, was the new Gonski funding—$18.6 billion over the next 10 years for schools right across Australia. That is great news for the 111 primary and secondary schools in the Calare electorate and their 27,362 students. That is fantastic news. Pensioners are also winners in this year's budget, with almost 93,000 pensioners getting the pensioners concession card. That is excellent news. Plus, the energy supplement of between $75 and $125 is also being made available, which will help with this winter's power bills.
I was also delighted to see the $472 million has been allocated for the Regional Growth Fund, which will certainly help to grow our regional infrastructure. Of course, speaking of infrastructure, we have the Inland Rail, which was one of the big nation-building projects announced in this year's budget. For Calare, of course, that will mean that our primary producers will have another option in terms of how they get their produce to market. Certainly our electorate is the nation's food basket—it is commonly referred to as that—so this is a very important development. But it will also be a big economic driver for our neighbours in Parkes. I know they have been pushing for this for many years, and I congratulate them, including Mayor Ken Keith, on their efforts in Parkes, because that was a big event for them.
I would particularly like to focus on two important measures in the budget which are going to make life better for people in my electorate. Of course, the first one is the full funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This has been welcome news right across the electorate. It gives certainty to people living with disabilities, their families and their carers. It is wonderful for them to know that their needs will be met as the NDIS is rolled out. Of course it is going to be paid for with an increase in the Medicare levy. This will ensure that the funding gap that did exist under Labor will now be filled. That is really important news. I think we all agree that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a very important initiative, but it is one that needs to be paid for. I think with this budget we have for the first time certainty in terms of it being funded. There will be no more funding gaps.
There are close to 30 registered service providers for the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the electorate of Calare. I would like to mention a few of these providers. LiveBetter, formerly known as CareWest, is a not-for-profit community service organisation that has been operating in our area for a number of decades. The LiveBetter team are dedicated to the people of regional Australia, including the central west, where it had its origins. They pride themselves on integrity, cooperation, empowerment, respect and excellence. The decision to change the organisation's name from CareWest to LiveBetter was derived from something a customer said to them—'We all want to live better.'
LiveBetter operates in 15 locations, including Mudgee, Bathurst, Dubbo, Wagga, Parkes, Cowra, Bourke and Broken Hill. They are the largest regionally based provider in eastern Australia. As well as providing disability services they offer aged care, care and respite, and home and community care. Behind this vital service are more than 850 staff members and volunteers, who are led by an incredible team. Tonight I would like to mention some of those team members. The chief executive officer is Tim Curran. I have known Tim for a number of years. He is certainly a dynamic chief executive officer. He always has the best interests of country people at heart. I note that after the budget he highlighted the importance of fully funding the NDIS.
I would like to mention Tony Pierce, the chief financial officer; Nerissa Marat, the general manager for people and culture; Craig Tye, the chief information officer; Peter Quinlan, the general manager for strategy and business development; Steve Stanton, whom I have also known for a long time, the general manager of community services; Ben Wyatt, the general manager of disability services; Frances Shannon, the senior manager for quality; Dr Gregory Dresser, the senior manager for research and evaluation; Marc Bonney, the senior manager for corporate communications; Liz Evans, the business development manager; Peta Larsen, the senior manager for clinical services; Patrick Wilsmore, the regional manager for disability services; Shane Raynor, the senior manager for out-of-home care; and Sim Madigan, the marketing and public relations officer, who does an outstanding job for the organisation. She is someone whom we in my office have worked closely with, both at the federal level and previously at the state level. She does a great job. I also have to mention LiveBetter Board President George Blackwell, who is a well-regarded and well-respected solicitor in Orange. He has shown great leadership in that role.
I congratulate the team from LiveBetter. I had the pleasure to work with them on the upgrade and transformation of the old Apex House site at Orange, which is part of the old Orange hospital precinct. I cannot speak highly enough of the team and the work they do in our country communities, so congratulations, LiveBetter.
Bathurst is home to Glenray, which is also a not-for-profit organisation that offers residential, respite, vocational, community support and day activities for people with disabilities. Glenray started from humble beginnings in 1957 by the Dowling family and Mrs Glen Fogarty, who wanted to see a school in Bathurst that catered for people with disabilities. The name Glenray comes from Mrs Fogarty's Christian name and from the ray of hope that was kept for the school.
Today, 60 years on, Glenray has 200 staff and a wonderful board and executive team. Brian Adams is the chair. John McMahon is the vice-president and a board member. Ian Hooper is the treasurer and a board member. The secretary is Evan Dowd. Judy McGirr is on the board, as is John Ireland and also Steve D'Allesandro. Jane Watson is a highly valued board member at Glenray. The CEO is Susan Williams, who does a terrific job. The chief financial officer is Scott Green, and the general manager of support services is Greg Oastler. The laundry manager is Richard Smith. The Glenray industrial services manager is Scott Gold, and I thank Scott for the tour that he gave me of his part of Glenray recently. The manager of people and culture is Craig Shiel, and the marketing manager is Tamara Townsend, who does a terrific job. Glenray also provides laundry and linen hire and industrial services such as the construction of bed bases. And as I said, I had the opportunity to visit Glenray and to see firsthand the wonderful work they are doing for Bathurst and its surrounding districts.
I also want to mention the Mudgee Disability Support Service. This is a not-for-profit organisation that covers the Midwestern area, including Mudgee, Gulgong and Kandos. They have about 20 staff and an amazing board of directors. I would like to make mention of them in this House today. Christine Puxty is the chief executive officer. Fred Smith is the chair, Sue Field is the secretary, and Simon Byrnes is the treasurer. I also need to make mention of Adam Woods, who is a board member, and also of board members Simon Bennett and Annette Petrie.
In 2004, a purpose-built children's group home was built to provide 24-hour, seven day a week care to five children, and four are still looked after and cared for by the Mudgee Disability Support Service. They also offer day programs, respite care, drop-in support and a range of other services including social programs. For over five years they have been putting on an annual show that is held on the Mudgee Town Hall. The clients choose what show to perform, and this year it was a parody of Willy Wonka. I am told it was sold out, with 370 tickets, so congratulations. Those 370 tickets were sold for the evening performance and matinee.
I want to make mention of the Lithgow Information & Neighbourhood Centre, which is also providing crucial support to the community. I would like to make mention of the chair, Julie Murnane; vice chair, Shirley Vernon; Bev Wiggins, a director; Michael Wilson, the public office director; Toni Macdonald; Bronwyn Webb, Pat Okon and Ray Thompson, who are all directors; Pam Haddin, who is the secretary; and also John Stack, the treasurer. I would also like to make mention of service managers Lydia Commins, Kim Scanlon, Jennifer Wilson, Leventay Boda and Meg Benson. The centre has been running in its present form, with its current services, since 2000; however, the records date back to early 1989. Their programs include disability services, support coordination, assisted living options, respite, drop-in support and support for community and children. I would like to congratulate and thank those organisations and all organisations in Calare working for people with disabilities and related services.
As we know, another highlight of the budget was the extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off for a further 12 months, and this is going to be of great value to small businesses in our electorate. All manner of businesses are going to be able to benefit from this, from big to small. In the time I have left, I want to make mention of a number of businesses: Papadino's Pizzeria in Lithgow, which is—
An honourable member: Great pizzas!
They are great pizzas, as the member rightly points out. It has been owned by Brian White for the past 20 years and has two valuable staff members in David Bartley and Theresa Pilla. It is a unique operation in that they have an old record machine, and when you go in there they will put on a disk of your choice. The last time I was in there, fairly recently, we had Frank Sinatra. I would recommend it to members. It is in the main street of Lithgow, and it is a Lithgow institution.
In Wellington, I also need to make mention of a legendary shearer by the name of Hilton Barrett, who is the owner of Help'em Shearing. Help'em Shearing is based in Wellington, but they also go to Dubbo, Mudgee, Forbes, Walgett and all over the west of New South Wales. Hilton has represented New South Wales in a number of shearing competitions and has been crowned Australian champion twice and set a number of world records. As I said, he is an Aussie shearing legend and a small business operator. Hilton, this House collectively doffs its hats to you tonight.
Now, to Blayney and the famous Akehurst Bakery—previously owned by Frank Akehurst for more than 40 years, and now owned and operated by Matthew and Denise Hutchison, who took over the business 12 months ago. A year later, they say business is going well. In fact, they started delivering into Molong this week, and, just this morning, they hired a new apprentice, Norton Ellis. I would like to make mention of the other members of the team at Akehurst, including baker Tom Elkins, pastry chef Scott Wolfson, cake decorator and shop supervisor Ashley Wonson, and staff members Dianne Hanrahan, Megan Eberhard and Joanne Bratby.
I would also like to make mention of another local success story, PJL Group. This company was started in 2006 by three mates: Luke Buckland, Phil Wilkin and Joel Spagnolo. They founded the mechanical and engineering business in a shed on Luke's Molong property. Now, they operate in Orange, Parkes, Cobar, Mount Isa and Perth with more than 300 staff—150 in Orange. Dean Jarvis is their major projects and tender coordinator. They are interested in moving into defence contracting. They have developed their own hybrid version of an underground loader and secured their first sale, so manufacturing is alive and well in Orange.
The Aden Hotels Group in Gulgong needs special mention. In 2012, the local Adendorff family purchased the Comfort Inn in Mudgee and started their business. They now own the Gulgong Motel, Aden Apartments in Mudgee, and the Palate Restaurant and Conference Centre. The Aden Hotels Group boasts 20 staff, and I would like to recognise owners Joe and Deon Adendorff, their son Joe and his wife Jill, general managers Patrick and Sonya Brennan, chef Dylan Mackinlay, and head housekeeper Shannon Smalle. Aden Hotels Group recently won the Excellence in Small Business award for western New South Wales, and they will head to Sydney in November for the state awards as finalists.
I need to make mention of Barkers Butchery up in Oberon, which is owned by Wayne Barker—he is the president of the Bathurst Harness Racing Club as well. He took over the business in 1978 after completing his apprenticeship, and he has got some wonderful staff members there in Kevin Hanrahan and Jaden Madiziala. Arrows Newsagency in Oberon is another integral part of the community. I need to make mention of Roger Arrow and his wife Joan. They have five part-time staff, including Pat Robinson, Christine Culley, Beryl White, Donna Gilmore and Denise Voytilla. Can I congratulate all of those businesses on the important work that they are doing, and those businesses just like them. We certainly value their contribution to our local economies, and it is fitting that we pay tribute to them here in this House today.
Ten kilometres from Parliament House, in 2017, in the nation's capital, Canberrans are experiencing some of the worst internet speeds in the world. Upload speeds and download speeds in Canberra are some of the worst in the country and in the world. Over the last 18 months, I have been campaigning through my Send Me Your Speeds campaign to get the people of Canberra to send me their internet speeds, and to send a message to the government that Canberra needed to be on the NBN rollout map, because, until a few months ago, Canberra was not even on the rollout map. We were one big blank space when it came to the NBN rollout. But, hooray, two months ago, Canberra was finally put on the NBN rollout map after 18 months of campaigning.
But our work is not done yet. I am still encouraging Canberrans to send me their internet speeds because, even though we are on the rollout map, we are still not going to get NBN rolled out to large parts of the electorate until the second half of next year and early 2019. I am asking Canberrans to continue to send me their speeds so that we can mount the campaign to get Canberra prioritised on the rollout map, and also avoid what looks like being an absolute patchwork of different technologies right across the electorate. In some streets, we have a patchwork of fibre to the node, fibre to the premises and fibre to the kerb in one street. That is what is happening in Canberra. I do not know what is happening in your electorate, Deputy Speaker—you have probably got NBN! But we have not.
I am going to share with you some of the parlous, appalling speeds that my constituents are experiencing in 2017 here in the nation's capital, some of these suburbs just 10 kilometres from Parliament House, which is why we need to be prioritised on the NBN rollout map and we need to get an even approach to the technologies that are going to be rolled out right across Canberra. Ritesh in Gordon has an upload speed of 3.44 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.43 megabits per second. Aasif in Calwell has an upload speed of 1.12 megabits per second and a download speed of 2.77 megabits per second. Richard and Lois in Isaac—and this is shocking—have an upload speed of 2.06 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.26 megabits per second. Malcolm in Conder has an upload speed of 1.27 megabits per second and a download speed of 2.29 megabits per second. Peter in Isabella Plains has an upload speed of 3.43 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.32 megabits per second. Richard in Gowrie has an upload speed of 0.69 megabits per second and a download speed of 3.85 megabits per second. Elisa in Fadden—listen to this one, remembering that Fadden is about 15 to 20 kilometres from Parliament House—in 2017 in the nation's capital is dealing with an upload speed of 0.76 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.18 megabits per second. It is absolutely breathtakingly bad. Andrew in Calwell as an upload speed of 3.24 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.40 megabits per second. Jason in Narrabundah—everyone knows where Narrabundah is, because we are talking five kilometres from Parliament House here—has an upload speed of 0.11 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.01 megabits per second. We are talking five kilometres from Parliament House, in the nation's capital, in 2017, and poor old Jason in Narrabundah is dealing with an upload speed of 0.11 megabits per second and a download speed of 0.01 megabits per second. If poor old Jason in Narrabundah is not reason enough as to why we should be prioritised, I do not know what is. That is why we are going to maintain the Send Me Your Speeds campaign. I want Canberrans to continue sending me their speeds. We have to maintain pressure on this government to get Canberra prioritised. We had a victory, Canberra, with the rollout. We finally got on the rollout map, after 18 years, and now we need to be prioritised.
I will just quote from the messages some of my constituents send me when they send me these absolutely appalling speeds—I mean, poor old Jason! 'No company appears to be doing anything as they seem to be focused on NBN, which is not due till 2019,' so they are having huge problems getting any connection. 'What an absolute disgrace for the nation's capital.' 'It is of course frustrating that I can sometimes not even answer work emails or do my banking of an evening. But on the other side of town people use the internet to watch movies during the day or to play Xbox games. I assume that some people in Tuggeranong, such as the elderly, wouldn't have the capacity to make complaints or trouble-shoot problems, like I have been able to do, and are thus paying a lot of money for an unusable connection.' This is what Canberrans are dealing with, which is why we need to be prioritised on the NBN rollout map, which is why Canberrans need to continue to send me their speeds and why we need to avoid, as far as possible, a patchwork of technologies, often in the same street. I have outlined to you the challenges that Canberrans are having with internet connections and why we need to be prioritised on the NBN rollout. That is why I was very disappointed that there was not any funding for that in the budget.
I now want to turn to the fact that not only are Canberrans not getting the NBN for some time but they are also caught in this crossfire at the moment. They are caught in this valley where they are waiting and no telcos will actually help them out, because we are awaiting the NBN. I hold a lot of mobile offices and coffee catch-ups across my electorate and there is one issue that Canberrans time and time again have said they need my assistance with, and that is telecommunications infrastructure. The issue we face in Canberra is that unless you live somewhere near the fibre rim that was built by TransACT your internet experience is going to be limited. One of the telcos who has taken advantage of the existing infrastructure in Canberra is iiNet. While iiNet offers a good service, great speed and connectivity, an increasing number of people in my community have had a disastrous—and I am talking disastrous—customer experience with the telco. Many people have contacted my office, frustrated with their inability to contact iiNet regarding complaints with their service. I do not know whether anyone else has had an experience with iiNet, but it is very difficult to find a human body at the end of the line, and iiNet fails to address the problems raised by its customers within an adequate time frame.
Tony is a good example and a representative of many here in Canberra. The first time I heard from Tony was in September last year. His telephone problems started in June last year. He contacted me out of frustration from his experience with iiNet and the TIO. I wrote to the minister about Tony's experiences and waited for a response. Tony contacted my office in October last year, letting me know that my letter must have done some good—some action was being taken by iiNet, but there was concern over whether he could keep his landline telephone number. Go figure! The phone number issue dragged on, and in December last year I wrote again to the minister about Tony's frustration and the inability of the telco to resolve the issue to his satisfaction. I am still waiting for a response from the minister. The 'Fifield triangle' strikes again! In January this year, I wrote directly to the manager of customer services at iiNet for the first time. It was the first time because up until then we had been unable to get the contact details of someone—a warm body, as I said—that we could talk to or escalate customer issues with, unlike the other major telcos such as Telstra, Optus and Vodafone.
I talk about this issue because communication, whether it is landline, digital, wireless or satellite, is important for all of our communities. Customers are left waiting too long for their issues to be resolved by providers, and in Tony's case it was months. As consumers, we are not getting what we pay for.
Let me share with you Jenny's experience with TPG and Telstra. Jenny and her husband operate a small business from their home in Fadden. I outlined some of the appalling speeds in Fadden. They had a faulty line and outages had occurred several times since March this year. When the outages occurred, Jenny contacted her retail service provider, TPG, who sent someone out to investigate. Jenny was advised whether the TPG engineer would arrive in the morning or the afternoon—we have all experienced that. That was the best time frame that she could get. This meant that Jenny lost half of a day in wages—she is a small-business owner—waiting for someone to arrive. When the TPG engineer finally arrived, he or she determined that the fault was with the infrastructure provider, Telstra. TPG then advised Telstra of the fault, and the same process happened. The Telstra engineer contacted Jenny and let her know whether they would arrive either in the morning or in the afternoon. Again, half a day's wages were lost for Jenny's small business. When the Telstra engineer visited the property to look at the line, he agreed that the line was crumbling and told Jenny that it would not be fixed, because the NBN is coming.
This is what I mean. They are caught in this halfway house. NBN is not coming to large parts of Canberra until late next year or early in 2019. You have all these issues with telecoms, and everyone is just saying: 'Oh, no, just wait. Just hold your breath and wait for NBN.' It ain't coming soon enough! The advent of the NBN does not divest telco providers of their current responsibilities. As I said, a lot of these places are not getting the NBN until late next year or early in the year after that. These telcos have a responsibility to the people of Canberra until that time—until the NBN is rolled out and it is up and running. Given how bad our current services are—as we can see in my Send Me Your Speeds campaign—telco infrastructure across Canberra should be a priority, particularly for those worst affected areas in the south-east area of Tuggeranong.
People in my community are not getting the support for the services they pay for. Small businesses in my community cannot work effectively without access to adequate phone and internet services. Even when the NBN is rolled out—and who knows whether the current rollout dates will be adhered to?—there will still be a need for infrastructure to be maintained. At the moment, it feels like the telco providers are shirking their responsibility. As I said, Canberrans are caught in this halfway house. I have written to the Minister for Communications on this issue. I have requested a meeting with him to discuss Canberra's communications needs more generally. I just hope that the minister does not shirk his responsibility on this one too.
Finally, as shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity, I want to touch on the communication, or lack thereof, around the WannaCry incident on 13 to 16 May. The WannaCry incident affected about 12 Australian small businesses, four in the NT. These are the latest figures, and I am sure they are not definitive. The fact that the small businesses fell prey to WannaCry is very unfortunate, but it comes as no surprise to Labor because, since the release of the government's cybersecurity update, Labor has been calling for the government to focus as much attention on the engine room of our economy as on the boardroom. But it was only four days after the WannaCry ransomware attack on the NHS that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security issued a statement urging small businesses to be proactive about improving cybersecurity and updating operating systems.
In November last year, after the whole census incident, the incident communication was highlighted as a major weakness by all and sundry, really, but particularly by the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister on Cyber Security. He said in a follow-up interview after the release of his review:
With cyber security you cannot design out all problems. If we accept the fact that we do our best to reduce the likelihood of it happening, but know that we will fail, then we need to get much better at that whole crisis communications and crisis incident management.
You just wonder. After that review late last year, we had this incident where no-one really knew what was going on. We heard that 200,000 people had been affected in Europe—150 countries, from memory. We heard these significant figures, and what happened in Australia? Was a crisis communication plan rolled out immediately? Were we as individuals and small businesses inundated with tweets, Facebook posts, media releases and messages through the media? Not at all. Despite the review into the census last year, despite the fact that there was a lot of hand-wringing and commitments made on much better crisis communication, nothing changed. At a later stage I will be going through the lack of communication from government agencies and from the government over that time, when there was so much uncertainty. I know from being in a communications business that crisis communication has to be out there urgently, treating situations seriously and ensuring that people are kept safe.
I am pleased to talk about Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2017-2018. The budget was handed down a couple weeks go by our Treasurer, and I think it is a budget that fosters fairness, security and opportunity. The zombie bills worth $13.5 billion have now been wiped off the slate. The general thought was, 'What is the use of holding them in the forward estimates if they aren't going to be passed by the Senate?'
With the sad events that happened in Manchester with the terrorist attack two days ago, the Treasurer can be congratulated on the fact that he has added $321 million extra funding to the Australian Federal Police. The police and security services do a fantastic job in Australia, and incidents have been kept to a relatively low number, with nothing too serious apart from the Lindt Cafe disaster and the police incident down in Melbourne. Basically they have kept Australia very safe. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that Australians as a people feel safe when we know we have the Australian Federal Police and the Defence Force looking after our borders and looking after our safety in general. Sad as it was in Manchester, we are fortunate that a terrorist attack on that scale has not happened in Australia yet, and we hope it does not happen in the future. But we have extra funding for the Australian Federal Police so they can upgrade their facilities, their IT and their infrastructure to protect us.
I am pleased to say that over 90,000 pensioners who lost their concession cards back on 1 January this year will have their concession cards reinstated. This is a godsend to those pensioners who lost their cards, because the concession card does help them a lot with their weekly budget, inasmuch as they get discounts across the board for rates et cetera. I am pleased that that was introduced.
There was funding across Australia for the Bruce Highway in Queensland and the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Toowoomba, and I am pleased to say that I have $250,000 for a feasibility or business case study to continue that railway line from Toowoomba through to Gladstone, which is a very important part of the project for exports and local commodities, whether it be getting product to the Toowoomba airport or getting product down into the other Australian states. There was $8.4 billion for Inland Rail. There are other rail projects throughout the country that the budget allowed another $10 billion for. That will help other projects like the one I have 20 kilometres east of Emerald at the GrainCorp terminal where the cotton gin is. We are looking at creating an intermodal transport hub. That will be a centre of exports from and imports coming into Emerald. Emerald exports $5.6 billion of product and imports about $3.6 billion of product yearly, so there is a lot of freight goes in and out of that central highlands area.
There was $1.2 billion for skills funding. We have somehow fallen behind with our skills, and a lot of tradespeople have dropped out or retired. These need replacing with other skills that we need to keep our country going. Defence will get a boost to about two per cent of GDP. There is more money for health, with another $1.4 billion in research and development. Of course, the NDIS has now been properly funded for the first time.
The $18.6 billion for school funding will be spread across all schools in Australia. I am pleased to report that not one school out of the 128 schools in my electorate will have its funding decreased. In fact, on average, they will all go up by around five per cent, and that is future funding until the year 2027.
Government spending will be reduced from 26½ per cent to 25 per cent of GDP. The lowest it has ever been is 24.8 per cent. Our prediction is that the budget will be in balance by the year 2021. The five banks who got hit $6.5 billion did a bit of bleeding; we all know that. However, they must have forgotten about the protection we gave the big four banks during the GFC, when the government guaranteed those top four banks' funding. We did not do the same thing for the smaller banks, the building societies et cetera. So they should not feel so bad, especially if they can write that $300 million off as a tax deduction.
I am pleased to say that, as part of the National Party program, our Roads to Recovery Program will continue. The seven councils in my electorate will benefit under the Roads to Recovery Program.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Flynn will be given an opportunity at a later date to continue his speech.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30