I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to improve its quality and accuracy.
The process of correcting the statute book and repealing spent provisions and acts has been undertaken regularly since 1934.
John Latham, the third member for Kooyong and Attorney-General at the time, and later to become Chief Justice of the High Court, had this to say about the introduction of the first of these types of bill in 1934:
There is an obligation resting upon the Government of the Commonwealth, and upon this Parliament, to present the statute law of the Commonwealth in a convenient, accessible and readily intelligible form.
These update bills are an essential tool in the process of keeping an orderly, accurate and up-to-date Commonwealth statute book.
The main purposes of these bills are to:
This bill contains four schedules.
Schedule 1 corrects errors in 17 principal acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law.
Schedule 2 amends six acts where cross-references were not updated after changes were made by the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015to rename the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 as the Legislation Act 2003 andrenumber some provisions of that act.
Schedule 3 to the bill repeals 19 spent and obsolete provisions of acts.
Schedule 4 repeals four redundant acts.
These amendments enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill will implement recommendation 11 of the July 2014 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's report into Commonwealth procurement procedures, for the Department of Finance to establish an independent and effective complaints mechanism for procurement processes.
The bill is consistent with obligations in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, to which Australia has submitted a bid to accede, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was signed on 4 February 2016.
These obligations require Australia to maintain an impartial and independent body to review and provide remedies for government procurement complaints.
The bill designates the Federal Circuit Court (FCC) with jurisdiction (concurrently with the Federal Court of Australia) to receive and review local and international supplier complaints in relation to a breach of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs).
The bill requires the supplier to first complain to the Commonwealth entity responsible for conducting the procurement. The entity must investigate the complaint and if the supplier is not satisfied with the outcome of the procuring entity's investigation, they can seek remedies from the FCC, including compensation.
Compensation will be limited to the reasonable costs for the preparation of the tender, or the costs relating to the challenge, or both.
The FCC, with its streamlined processes, will provide an accessible way to lodge complaints, particularly for regional suppliers as it maintains a continuous presence outside major capital cities. Suppliers from rural and regional Australia will not need to travel to major cities to lodge a complaint.
The bill is not intended to fully prescribe the procedures by which the FCC hears procurement complaints, but rather address three key areas where the FCC will need different jurisdiction and procedures than its current functions.
I will briefly outline the key elements of the bill:
Jurisdiction
The bill will confer jurisdiction on the FCC to hear government procurement complaints where the CPRs are breached.
Suppliers must provide evidence of their complaint, including attempting to resolve the complaint with the procuring entity in the first instance.
Timely, Transparent and Effective Review Procedures
The bill will ensure that the FCC can facilitate timely, transparent and effective review of complaints. Timeliness is an important feature for current procurements, where there still may be an opportunity for the supplier to continue to participate.
Remedies and Corrective Action
The bill will preserve a supplier's ability to participate in procurements by offering remedies and/or compensation if the FCC finds the CPRs have been breached. Any compensation ordered would be limited to the supplier's reasonable costs incurred in preparing the tender and/or seeking to resolve their complaint. The FCC will not be able to overturn awarded contracts.
The decision to vest jurisdiction on the FCC was informed by extensive consultation between the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General's Department. This included the development of a scoping study considering three options for a body to hear supplier complaints. These were vesting a federal court with jurisdiction, designating an existing administrative entity, and establishing a new tribunal.
This bill shows the government's commitment to transparent and competitive procurement by giving suppliers the opportunity to seek remedies and improve Commonwealth procurement practices.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill to amend the legislation implementing the government's superannuation taxation reform package. These changes support the integrity of the superannuation taxation reform package and ensure that it functions as intended.
The bill also includes refinements to changes to personal and corporate insolvency law made by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016. These refinements will reduce legal complexity, increase certainty for insolvency practitioners and remove unnecessary costs from insolvency proceedings. The amendments also assist the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program in its work reclaiming funds paid out under the program.
For the benefit of the House, allow me to take you through the contents of the bill in some detail.
Schedule 1 of the bill makes changes to measures in the superannuation taxation reform package announced in the 2016-17 budget that were enacted through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation Act) 2016. The changes support the integrity of the superannuation taxation reform package and ensure that the law operates as intended.
The Turnbull government's superannuation taxation reform package delivered the most comprehensive suite of superannuation taxation reforms in a decade, improving the fairness, sustainability, flexibility and integrity of the superannuation system.
As our population ages and fiscal pressures increase, it is important that our superannuation system is used for its core purpose of providing income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension and not for tax minimisation or estate planning purposes.
The superannuation taxation reform package made sure that the superannuation system is fair and more sustainable by ensuring superannuation tax concessions are well targeted and affordable. It also introduces important flexibility measures that will provide more Australians with the opportunity to become self-sufficient in retirement.
In the process of implementing these reforms, concerns were identified about the ability of self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) members to circumvent the new cap on tax-free retirement phase assets through the use of limited recourse borrowing arrangements (known as LRBAs).
The integrity concern being addressed in schedule 1 of this bill will ensure that SMSF members are not able to use an LRBA to facilitate the payment of retirement phase liabilities from accumulation phase income.
This measure will ensure that LRBA repayments that have the effect of shifting value into the tax-free retirement phase will be captured by the transfer balance cap.
The measures will only apply to LRBAs that are entered into on or after 1 July 2017. They do not apply to LRBAs that were in place before 1 July 2017, refinancing of the outstanding balance of these LRBAs or contracts entered into before 1 July 2017.
This integrity measure supports the government's superannuation taxation reform package by ensuring that tax concessions are better targeted and sustainable. These measures are not about banning borrowing by SMSFs, but about ensuring that borrowing is used appropriately.
Schedule 1 also introduces a number of minor and technical amendments that will ensure that the superannuation taxation reform package operates as intended.
Amendments in the schedule ensure that pooled superannuation trusts, which are wholesale investment vehicles for a complying superannuation fund, can access the capital gains tax relief provided to other superannuation funds. This relief supports superannuation providers in rebalancing their asset pools as individuals adjust their affairs to comply with the transfer balance cap or the transition to retirement income changes (or both). This ensures that member outcomes are protected.
Importantly, the schedule also introduces changes to the treatment of structured settlements and personal injury orders under the transfer balance cap to ensure people who receive compensation orders of this nature as a result of suffering a serious or catastrophic injury are exempted from the transfer balance cap as intended. This will ensure those who need access to large amounts of funds to meet their daily healthcare and living needs, will not face a faster depletion of their lump sum. Following these amendments, an individual with an existing structured settlement or personal injury order will now receive a debit equal to the value of their income streams on 30 June 2017. This ensures that these vulnerable individuals never breach their cap, and that earnings on a structured settlement or personal injury order are not counted against an individual's transfer balance cap, regardless of when the contribution is made.
The schedule also clarifies that earnings on income streams for individuals who have satisfied a nil condition of release, generally by retiring or reaching age 65, are to remain tax free. Consequently, where the superannuation provider is satisfied that a member has reached a nil condition of release, transition to retirement income streams will now be eligible for an earnings tax exemption. A superannuation provider will generally be satisfied when the member notifies them that they have satisfied a nil condition of release, or when the provider knows the member has reached age 65. And the eligibility is prospective—it only applies when the provider is satisfied the condition of release is reached, regardless of when it was actually reached.
The schedule also introduces a new regulation-making power to support the operation of the transfer balance cap. With this regulation making power, the government will be able to define new credits and debits that apply against a person's transfer balance cap. This will ensure that the transfer balance cap continues to operate as intended as superannuation products evolve and change. In the near term, this provision will enable regulations to be made to ensure that innovative income streams are treated appropriately under the transfer balance cap.
During the course of consultation, concerns were raised that reserves could be used to circumvent changes in the Superannuation Taxation Reform Package. The schedule does not make changes to the current treatment of reserves. The Australian Taxation Office will continue to monitor the use of reserves to ensure that they are not being used to circumvent the law.
Finally, the schedule also contains a number of minor and technical amendments that address some minor and technical errors in the law.
Schedule 2 of this bill refines changes made to personal and corporate insolvency law by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016. These refinements will reduce legal complexity, increasing certainty for insolvency practitioners and removing unnecessary costs from insolvency proceedings. The amendments also assist the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program in its work reclaiming funds paid out under the program.
To increase confidence in insolvency practitioners, the Insolvency Law Reform Act introduced a prohibition against an insolvency practitioner deriving a profit from an administration, except as approved by the Corporations Act 2001 or the Bankruptcy Act 1966. As drafted, the prohibition may create unnecessarily high compliance costs. This schedule clarifies the operation of the prohibition and removes the requirement for creditors to approve a single profit or advantage each time it is on-paid to a related entity of the practitioner including, for example, payments made to the practitioner's employees in the ordinary course of their employment. These amendments will reduce costs without weakening the prohibition's intended protective purpose.
This schedule also repeals a provision inserted by the Insolvency Law Reform Act which prevents public access to reports made by controllers appointed by creditors to manage their assets during liquidation. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program relies on information contained in these reports to verify a controller's compliance with their obligation to pay employees of the company out of the assets under their control. Repealing the provision ensures that the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Recovery Program can access the information it needs to reclaim funds paid out under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee.
This schedule contains other minor refinements that will increase legislative certainty and create clarity for both insolvency practitioners and regulators.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I introduce a bill to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to bring into force in Australia a renewal of the bilateral Loan Agreement between Australia and the International Monetary Fund signed in October 2012.
The amendments to the International Monetary Agreements Act will ensure that the standing appropriation that allows the government to make payments to the IMF under the current bilateral loan agreement continue for the renewed bilateral loan agreement.
The renewal of Australia's bilateral loan agreement forms part of a broader global effort to maintain the current level of IMF resourcing to ensure that it has sufficient financial resources available to effectively fulfil its global role in economic crisis prevention and resolution.
As a successful open trading economy, Australia's prosperity relies on strong and stable growth in the world economy.
Importantly, ensuring that the IMF has sufficient lending resources in place provides confidence to markets and other economic actors that the IMF has the resources it needs to continue to play its role effectively, which is an important factor that underpins ongoing confidence to trade and invest.
Further, the experience of the global financial crisis indicates that it is important that the IMF has financial resources in place before they are needed, rather than hurriedly having to seek new funding commitments in the midst of the crisis response.
The bilateral loan agreement, signed by Australia in 2012, provides a line of credit to the IMF of around A$8 billion. It is one of 35 agreements the IMF signed with member countries and institutions between 2012 and 2016 to provide a third component to the IMF's lending resources, after quota resources and resources available to the IMF through the New Arrangements to Borrow. To date, these agreements have not been called upon.
On 19 December 2016, Australia signed a new agreement with the IMF to extend Australia's $8 billion funding commitment to 31 December 2019, with the possibility of a one-year extension to 31 December 2020 with Australia's consent. This agreement remains subject to the completion of domestic processes.
The IMF is seeking to renew all 35 agreements with member countries or institutions and undertake new agreements where possible. The broad terms and conditions of these agreements remain largely unchanged, with the addition of a new multilateral voting requirement for the activation of the agreements. This amendment will improve the governance and oversight of these agreements by participating countries.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I rise to introduce another bill which backs small business.
We know small businesses employ almost half of our country's workforce.
We know our economy grows when the small business sector is strong.
And we know every small business starts as the spark of someone's idea, someone's dream, with hard work and dedication to see it become a reality.
So, if you are an Australian in small business, this is the bill to back you.
This bill amends the tax law to help small businesses to invest and grow. It builds on the plan for jobs, for growth and for opportunities through small business tax cuts and other support measures as part of the past two budgets.
On any day, 5.6 million Australians are at work in small business, earning a wage from one of our 3.2 million small businesses.
Small businesses make up 99 per cent of all Australian businesses and annually contribute $380 billion to our gross domestic product—to our economy.
This means a strong small business sector means more jobs for Australians and more opportunities to build vibrant local communities right across the country.
The government is committed to cutting small business taxes and helping them invest and grow.
The measure this bill enacts today was delivered as part of the 2017-18 budget, delivered to parliament a little over two weeks ago.
On that day—9 May—this government kicked its biggest goal yet for small business: a cut in the company tax rate.
Thanks to laws passed in this parliament on that day, the tax rate for small business is now at its lowest level in many, many decades and small businesses have more money to invest in themselves today.
That change in the law also means more than 90,000 additional businesses can have access to tax concessions as a result of redefining small business to those turning over $10 million per annum.
The 2017 budget continues the government's plan to back small business.
Whether it is the local small business owner in Western Sydney, the mature-aged worker in Noosa or the young jobseeker looking to start their career in Gympie, this budget is full of opportunities.
In the 2015-16 budget the government increased the small business immediate deductibility threshold from $1,000 to $20,000 from 12 May 2015 until 30 June 2017.
This bill extends that measure by 12 months so small businesses with turnover less than $10 million can immediately deduct purchases of eligible assets each costing less than $20,000 first used or installed ready for use by 30 June 2018.
This continues the government's strong record of backing small business to grow and deliver more and better-paying jobs by helping them replace or upgrade their machinery or capital equipment. It has been welcomed right across the nation.
This measure will improve cash flow for small business, providing a boost to small business activity for another year, helping them to reinvest in their business.
Improved cash flow will also give businesses the flexibility to hire more employees and pay staff more.
Over the past few months I have visited small businesses right across the country, listening to the real issues, hearing about the opportunities and meeting with the men and women who employ more than 5.6 million Australians.
I have heard many stories from small business owners about how they have made use of the instant asset write-off to grow their business and increase productivity.
Recently I visited Alana Laliotitis and her husband Peter, the owners of Kouzina Greco—a Greek cafe and restaurant—in Parramatta.
The new equipment she recently purchased helped her business run more efficiently on Mothers' Day and, as Alana told me, helped get through one of her busiest days of trade which is so vital to her small business.
It helped immensely.. necessary for us to produce good food, for staff morale and it actually had a chain reaction.
That is what she said. She purchased equipment for kitchen from local suppliers and engaged the services of a local tradesman to do the installation work. The result: more efficiency, greater productivity, more customers and even, as Alana said herself, a lift in staff morale.
Another practical example is Adrian Moscheni, who runs Straitline Blinds in the Northern Territory. Adrian has used the instant asset write-off since its introduction and says it has been important to help his business grow. He said:
It has been a great incentive for us. It has already helped me purchase vehicles and a forklift for the business. Any time you are going to get a full tax relief up to $20,000 is very helpful.
A Riverina or Central West farmer, or table grapegrower in the Sunraysia can purchase machinery and other equipment to help move their product to port more efficiently, saving time and saving money.
These tools and equipment can be expensive and the rules around depreciating them can be time consuming to understand.
Under the extended immediate deductibility measure, this business can write off each and every item under $20,000 that is purchased until 30 June 2018. And that goes for all small business.
In the process, small businesses support other small businesses and by purchasing new or second hand equipment they are spending money locally, which has a flow-on and multiplier effect. This is impact which is beneficial for our regional towns and for our communities.
Those of us who have run a small business—as I have before entering this place—understand the daily demands and constraints. Small business people are time poor.
Under this measure, the business does not have to keep track of the item records and can use the extra cash-flow to reinvest in the business.
Assets valued at $20,000 or more can continue to be placed together into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.
Once assets are placed in the pool, there is no requirement to track each item's depreciation over multiple income years.
This reduces paperwork and allows small business to get on with doing what they do best.
The pool itself may also be immediately deducted if its value falls below $20,000 at the end of the financial year, providing an additional cash flow benefit to small businesses.
The law previously included 'lock-out rules' that stop small businesses that elect out of the simplified depreciation regime from re-entering for five years.
These rules were relaxed when the threshold was increased to $20,000 and will continue to be suspended until 30 June 2018 to allow all small business entities to access this measure.
The small number of assets not eligible for accelerated depreciation, such as capital works, will continue to be excluded under this measure, consistent with the current law.
On 1 July 2018, the thresholds for immediate deductibility of individual assets and the value of the pool will revert to $1,000.
The instant asset write-off has proved to be one of the most popular small business incentives and encourages Australia's 3.2 million small businesses to invest in their business and create more jobs.
This government is about creating more jobs. That is why we made the decision to continue to back small business in this year's budget. Extending the instant asset write-off is the highlight in the budget for small business and part of our plan to increase business confidence.
Small businesses, industry groups and business leaders right across the country have been vocal in their calls for an extension to the program. The response from business and stakeholders has been very well received.
Since budget night, the support from small business welcoming the extension of this program and the Government's ongoing commitment to small business has been truly overwhelming.
Peter Strong, CEO of the Council of Small Business of Australia said, 'the Federal Government has demonstrated a genuine commitment to small business … The Australian Government is clearly walking the talk when it comes to supporting Australia's … small businesses.'
Last year the CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, James Pearson, and I travelled to each state and territory as part of a nationwide roadshow when I first became the small business minister.
We heard firsthand from small businesses while visiting the Australian, State and Territory chamber network for the instant asset write-off to be extended as well as the call for more reductions to regulation and red tape.
On budget night two weeks ago James pulled me aside and said the 'extension of the instant asset write-off is terrific.' He said, 'This budget will encourage restaurants to buy more kitchen equipment, landscape gardeners to buy more lawn mowers and tech companies to buy more hardware through the extension and expansion of the instant asset write-off. This is good for small business and good for jobs.'
Therehas been such a positive response that I could go on for hours yet, but I will share one more.
Denita Wawn, the CEO of the Master Builders Association, who looks after the interests of 32,000 members in the building and construction industry—such an important sector—responded to the budget saying: 'The budget's small business measures will particularly benefit the building and construction industry which is 98 per cent made up of small businesses. The building industry is a big winner from the extension of the accelerated depreciation measures by one year and to businesses turning over up to $10 million.'
That is what she said. She was delighted.
This government stands up for more small businesses being able to take advantage of the instant asset write-off, to be able to invest in their capital equipment and in their businesses, and to be able to employ more Australians.
This government is backing small business. We are extending the instant asset write-off to hardworking small businesses to ensure they can continue to get ahead, to progress, to employ more Australians.
Small business deserves the confidence this bill proposes and I encourage all members to get on board and back small business.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Last evening, I had the benefit of having dinner with school principals and school P&C presidents from Gladstone, Cairns and Loganlea. They stressed to me the importance of the full Gonski funding—Labor's commitment to restore the $22.3 billion. I promised to Suzanne Zahner—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The minister will be quiet.
Also, I appreciate the support and the information given to me by Principal Belinda Tregea. This is what Loganlea State High School has done with the Gonski funding—and I promised that I would read this out in parliament today:
In more recent years, the ''Gonski Funding'' in the form of the I4S (Investing for Success) program … has enabled us to build on our many successes from the NP program. As a school community we chose to invest the additional funds in ''people and programs''. Our goal was to improve attendance (we jumped from 79% to 86% in two years), improve students' Literacy and Numeracy and to improve Senior Schooling outcomes. We want to ensure our students complete Year 12 and ensure they are well positioned for a successful pathway beyond secondary schooling. We employed an engagement officer to improve attendance, a Transition officer to improve retention and post-secondary pathways, and additional Guidance Officer to assist with social/emotional challenges, a Literacy Coach to improve reading outcomes, a Numeracy Coach and a Head of Indigenous Education to support our students to effectively access classroom learning.
All of this is at risk with the coalition government's failure to fund the full Gonski funding.
How do we know that they are cutting $22.3 billion? We know because their own document says so. The document that they produced and put around the Press Gallery is called, 'Key funding figures and qualifiers - 30 April agreed costs'. It says here—this is the total recurrent funding:
So if the minister at the table here cares to have a look at his own document, it might be a good thing. There are savings, or costs, to the education system in this country—they are actually not delivering $22.3 billion. This is not produced by the national secretariat of the Labor Party; it is a government document which says they are cutting funding for students around the country in primary and secondary schools.
We should never forget that the Gonski reforms were introduced by the former Labor government. It came about as a result of the 2011 Review of funding for schooling reports, chaired by David Gonski. The reports identified serious flaws in the way resources were allocated across the Australian education system. It made clear that Australia's education standards were slipping, putting at risk our status as one of the world's top performing nations in that respect. There is a definite and incontestable link found between students' circumstances and their academic performance, with those from disadvantaged and low-social-economic backgrounds, from regional locations and from Indigenous and or Torres Strait Islander heritage not receiving the support to perform to their potential.
There was a clear need to coordinate funding arrangements between the federal and state governments to make sure that the arrangements were coherent and effective at achieving outcomes for students. This is really, really important. At the same time, we saw 45 per cent of school principals report their schools were under-resourced and underfunded. Put simply, there was not enough money going to the right places, and students were suffering academically and were not achieving their potential. So the then Labor government heard the message loud and clear. We committed $37.3 billion in funding to implement the Gonski reforms in full, on time—not years down the track.
Who can ever forget, as I said last night, those banners, the bunting and the corflutes from the coalition in the September 2013 election campaign saying that if elected the member for Warringah and his colleagues, the Liberal and National parties—would match the Labor government's commitment dollar for dollar. It did not happen; they broke their commitment in the 2014 May budget, and today coalition MPs, as you will hear in speech after speech—we have heard this already—are coming in and saying, 'It is great, we are putting a bit of money back; fantastic, we are getting some more money.' But they are starting from the baseline of having committed the sin of cutting $30 billion out of the education funding of the country. They talk about 27 deals around the country—of course there are different arrangements and different systems. It may shock those opposite to hear this, but we actually have a federation with different states and different state education systems. There is the Catholic system and there is the independent system. The Catholic system is up in arms on this issue.
The government have ripped away $22 billion from education—the equivalent of $2.4 million from each of the 70 schools in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland, and equating to 22,000 people losing their job across the country. I mentioned Loganlea State High School—people's jobs are at risk there as well. They ripped up the agreements that were achieved by the Labor government which saw real and concrete funding being delivered over the next two years to bring under resourced schools up to fair levels of funding. That funding will fall off a cliff as a result of this government's proposal—95 per cent of the funding will not begin to flow for 10 years. In Queensland, in my home state, schools will not even receive this funding until at least 2027, meaning that a whole generation of students will miss out on any tangible increase in support. Schools in Queensland cannot wait 10 years to get their fair share of funding—they need it now, whether it is big schools in my electorate, like Bremer State High School with nearly 2,000 students or a little school with a couple of dozen students like Linville State Primary School in the upper Brisbane Valley.
The government's model will see less than 50 per cent of extra funding going to public schools, or state schools as we call them in Queensland. It is simply unfair. This is in contrast to the Labor Party's plan, which would provide 80 per cent of additional funds for state or public schools. I know that seven out of 10 children with disability go to a state school; I know that seven out of 10 children for whom English is a second language go to state schools. I know that eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are in public schools. One of the most egregious aspects of the government's proposal in this legislation is that many schools in the Northern Territory, which has so many remote and regional areas, with kids in small country towns like Maningrida, Mutitjulu near Uluru and places like that, will suffer. The Northern Territory gets left out terribly as a result of this; the same with Tasmania. There are tens of billions of dollars not flowing to Tasmania. It is outrageous that the schools in the areas where the need is so great are going to lose out. It is simply unacceptable that the government will keep these people disadvantaged in the sense that their school is under resourced. I remember being in a school up in Mutitjulu with Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, when I was the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs in the last parliament. We were talking with the school principal and looking at the challenges that particular school faced. Schools in those remote areas deserve as much help as we can possibly give them.
The impact is certainly being felt in the Catholic sector. In my electorate, we have some fantastic schools in the Catholic system—schools like St Peter Claver College, St Mary's Primary School and St Mary's girls high school, at St Mary's College in Ipswich, and St Edmund's boys college. They are fantastic Catholic schools with great reputations. There are also the little Catholic schools like St Joey's, the nickname for St Joseph's Catholic Primary School in North Ipswich. They are fantastic schools. About one in five Australians send their kids to a Catholic or parish school. We want kids to have the opportunity to go to an excellent school, whether it is a state school or a private school. Parents should have that choice. Hitting them with real funding losses is not the way to go. Those opposite really threaten the good work being done with those schools, whether it is literacy and numeracy training or professional development.
I make it a point after every election—I was first elected in 2007—to visit as many schools in my electorate as possible. I have about 70 schools, from way up at Mount Kilcoy, north of the Sunshine Coast, down to the urban parts in the eastern suburbs of Ipswich around the growing suburbs of Springfield. I visit as many schools as I possibly can after every election. That is my task for the first few weeks after every election.
When visiting school principals I talk to them about what the Gonski money is doing for their schools. They invariably tell me that it is going towards literacy and numeracy training, professional development education, guidance officers and teachers aides. All of that is at risk from a government that does not understand or appreciate the need for kids in these remote and regional areas, and for kids in lower socioeconomic urban areas like Ipswich, to get the help they need. They need funding certainty, to be able to commit funds for schools in the next few years—not the decades ahead.
With this particular piece of legislation, the Prime Minister is trying to send us back decades: robbing schools of a clear and transparent funding model. The Minister for Education confirmed as much in his Press Club speech, where he made clear that the government would not be obligated to work with the states on this funding model. The states, ministers and premiers across the country, both Labor and coalition, have not wasted a moment in criticising the government's plan. I commend the New South Wales coalition government for the fact that they have been standing up for kids in remote and regional areas in New South Wales and in Sydney, in the Illawarra and in Newcastle. They have been standing up to their colleagues and comrades here in Canberra, telling them that they are not actually delivering what they promised to kids in New South Wales.
The consequences of this $22 billion cut are clear: fewer teachers in classrooms, bigger class sizes and inadequate support for those students who need it most. I commend the campaign of the Queensland Teachers' Union. I think they have done a terrific job in what they have done to stand up for kids—not just for teachers but for kids and parents, particularly those in state schools around my electorate and across the state of Queensland.
Fewer teachers means not just lower class sizes but more industrial action, potentially, and less individual attention to those kids. There is a link between class size and student outcomes that is indisputable. I commend the education unions for the campaign. Small class sizes are important for all students, regardless, but particularly for those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I support the amendment and I ask the government to revisit this whole issue and to do the proper and full Gonski funding.
It is always great to see the ministers in the chamber, debating these bills, and having an input because they are so passionate about it. I rise today in support of the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, but not in support of the amendment moved by Ms Plibersek, the member for Sydney.
The bill greatly improves the Australian Education Act 2013 and it finally ends the school-funding wars that have been waged for as long as I can recall. The proposed amendments reflect the core concepts recommended by the Gonski review whilst removing the inequities and special deals created by the previous Labor governments—special deals which included at least 27 vastly different agreements, haphazardly put together. They saw money thrown every which way except the way of the students.
As a parent, I know that our children's education is paramount. Parents all strive to provide their children with a strong education that will hold them in good stead in whatever path in life they choose to take. A good education provides our children with the building blocks to life. It sparks their curiosity, nurtures their strengths and encourages them to be the best that they can be. A good education develops our children into productive citizens who go on to use their talents, their skills and their drives to better our society.
As the member for Swan for almost 10 years, it has been a pleasure to go to countless graduation ceremonies and to watch our young adults take on their next exciting chapter—confident and trusting that their education has prepared them for whatever lies ahead. That is why this government is guaranteeing the essentials to increase opportunity and fairness for Australian students. We are focused on aspiration in education—the aspiration for quality education everywhere, delivered as fairly and efficiently as possible.
By way of background, I would like to provide a brief overview of the bill before expanding on what it means for schools across Australia and in my electorate, and, in turn, what it means for families. The bill implements the commitment made on 2 May for an extra $18.6 billion in recurrent schools funding, on top of already record and growing funding for Australian schools over the next 10 calendar years. This will bring this government's total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027. The amendments to the act will implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools, and tie funding to reforms that evidence shows improve student outcomes.
The bill will amend the act to set Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond, apply new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding, and transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. It will also 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 levels to both government and non-government schools, to prevent cost-shifting. In addition to this, it actively improves accountability and transparency of school funding arrangements through ministerial reporting requirements, whilst removing the requirements in the current act for schools to have onerous and prescriptive implementation plans and making technical amendments, including to improve the efficient operation of the act.
This government is delivering fairness and quality to our education system. At last we will be able to see all Australian students treated equitably, after the complex and inconsistent arrangements put in place by Labor. Under Labor, some schools would not have attracted their theoretical needs-based funding entitlement for more than 100 years—100 years; a little late, I would suggest, and I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labor's election promises were all about money. Labor has continued to throw out false promises on education, with funding black holes they cannot explain.
What we, on this side of the House, understand is that how much funding we provide is important, but what we do with it is actually what counts. While our funding has been growing results have been declining, and that is why this government has made it a priority that this funding is tied to improvements in student outcomes as part of an evidence based reform package. Our funding model will see funding for schools 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.
The government will transition all schools to consistent Commonwealth shares of the Schooling Resource Standard by increasing funding, (1) from an average of 17 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for government schools in 2017 to 20 per cent in 2027, reflecting the Commonwealth's role as a minority public funder of this sector; and (2) from an average of 76.8 per cent in 2017 for non-government schools to 80 per cent in 2027, reflecting the Commonwealth's role as a primary public funder of this sector. At the national level, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase in real terms, seeing an annual per-student funding increase over 10 years 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.
In true Labor form, they have started a scare campaign against these reforms, similar to countless scare tactics we have seen before. I have had number of parents in my electorate contact me after hearing the lies that Labor have been spouting. To each of these constituents I have responded with the results of the funding calculator relevant to their children's school, and they have been pleasantly surprised that their children's school will in fact receive an increase in funding.
In Swan, our needs based funding model for schools will see a total increase in federal government funding for the schools in Swan of $312 million over the next 10 years, going to the 55 primary and secondary schools which educate nearly 21,000 children in my electorate. I am very proud to be a part of a government that is delivering a better education for the 21,000 children of today in my electorate who will go on to be the adults, the inventors, the teachers and the leaders of tomorrow.
The Labor Party has abandoned needs based funding and the principles of the Gonski review that they lauded—until it was no longer going to score them any more cheap political points. When the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education announced the $18.6 billion reform plan, David Gonski himself 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 …
This was praise from the very man behind the landmark educational reforms—the very reforms that the Gillard government accepted, adopted, and then decimated until Mr Gonski's reforms were unrecognisable.
I still do not understand how the Labor Party, who initially adopted the reforms, can stand opposite and argue against our government's plan to deliver funding to schools. I support the Minister for Education and Training in calling on Labor to explain a few things. Why do those opposite, after using his name for years, now insist on going against David Gonski's endorsement of the coalition's plan? Or is it that Labor prefers different funding methodologies that advantage some non-government schools over others? And why will Labor vote for schools of identical need to receive different levels of federal funding for the Schooling Resource Standard just because they are in different states? Finally, perhaps the biggest question of all: why do those opposite continue to use educational reforms merely as a pawn in their game, denying Australian children the right to a strong education through needs based funding?
I must admit I could not believe it when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, went to not one but two Catholic schools to hold a doorstop interview to sprout about our reforms and threaten major funding cuts to these schools. The first was the Holy Family School in Mount Waverley, which over the next 10 years will receive an additional $4.3 million. Next year alone, the school will receive $73,000 in additional resources. Just a day later, the Leader of the Opposition trotted on over to Our Lady Help in East Brunswick, again threatening cuts. But, had he done his research, he would know that this school was going to receive $3.5 million extra over the next 10 years. Time and time again, Labor have misrepresented this funding package. They misrepresented and lied about Medicare during the horrific 'Mediscare' campaign, and now they are doing it again with education.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister for education and his office for the work they put into these amendments. They have been developed to ensure all our children receive a good education. The work put into these amendments will last for decades to come, as record Commonwealth funding has grown exponentially under the coalition and will continue to grow. I know sometimes you have to keep your ear to the ground to drown out Labor's misrepresentations and negativity, but the support by third parties for these changes has been resounding. The support is not only from certain sectors but across the board.
On Monday I received a letter from the Rehoboth Christian College which supported this government's changes. It reads:
Dear Mr Irons,
Rehoboth Christian College has been operating for over 50 years, and we have been very thankful for the funding that Federal and State governments have provided over that time. Approximately 42% of our operating budget for 2017 is received from Federal funding and 19% from State, with the remaining 38% derived from tuition fees paid by over 150 dedicated families. Rehoboth has grown from just 23 students and 2 staff in 1966 to over 717 students and almost 100 staff across two campuses in 2017. This growth is a testament to the support extended by the Federal and State governments to non-government schools such as Rehoboth. However, the lack of predictability with the funding model often causes us concern, and I am writing to convey our support of the Gonski 2.0 proposals.
Over the past four years, we have encouraged the government to embrace the Gonski principles. We believe they offer stability and a long-term funding model that is needs-based and sector-blind, thus giving non-government schools a 'fair go.'
Now, with the Gonski 2.0 proposals, we encourage you once again to seriously consider lending your support to them as basis for a policy framework that has a good chance of legislative success, and as a means of dealing with the inconsistencies and unpredictability of the existing funding model.
The reforms proposed provide a model that can be fairly applied across all sectors and jurisdictions, including the consistent application of the principles and formula informing SRS funding.
Rehoboth is one school within a network of 125 Christian schools, many of whom we know will be writing to their local Members to express similar thoughts. The Gonski 2.0 reforms would positively impact hundreds of schools and thousands of students. We ask you to consider our voice, raised against the strong campaign we know some in the non-government sector have mounted in opposition to these reforms.
This issue is not about self-interest, but what is best for all schools, and the sector, in the long term; indeed, overall schools in our network would be better off should the 2013 Act remain intact. But the policy that would result from these reforms would be fair, affordable, and consistent.
We encourage you — do not let schools be unnecessarily caught up any longer in the "funding wars" of the last few decades. This is a rare moment when it is possible to resolve a long-standing issue for the benefit of all.
If you'd like to know more about the specific implication for Rehoboth, I would be pleased to talk further with you.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Steyn
Chief Executive Officer
Association for Christian Education
Operating Rehoboth Christian College
I invite the members opposite to contact him as well to find out about his support for our program. Also, from Mr Phillip Spratt from the Australian Council of State School Organisations:
The move to reduce the 27 funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors.
From Martin Hanscamp, the executive officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools:
AACS would like to express its profound support for the bold schools funding policy... This is good policy and our bunch of Christian schools want you to hear that loud and clear.
From Shelley Hill, from the Australian Parents Council:
It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools.
As I said, I have plenty more that I could share with you in the House. I would like also to note some points from the Australian Association of Christian Schools, who also said:
Well done for: providing a long term funding model; providing a model that can be applied fairly across all sectors and jurisdictions; addressing deals and inconsistencies; affirming a needs-based and sector blind approach; the consistent application of the SRS funding principles and formula; developing a policy framework that has a good chance of legislative success; tackling the timidity of 'no school will lose a dollar'; offering 10 years of adjustment and even extra transition arrangements where there's a reasonable case; continuing to provide a generous measure of most reasonable funding (for the Commonwealth's part that is).
As I said, there is plenty more that I could tell you about, but time constrains us. This is a good policy. It is good for our students, our parents and our teachers, who are eager to provide our children with an education that every single one of them deserves. I encourage Labor to put aside politics for once and support these amendments so we can provide for Australian students. I am in full support of the amendments and commend them fully to the House.
Some people make 15 minutes feel like an eternity. But I know it is not going to be enough for me to explain why I support the amendments put forward by the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek, and oppose the Australian Education Amendment Bill that this government has put forward.
I vividly remember the day, in August 2013, only a month before election day, when the then leader of the opposition, the member for Warringah, declared a unity ticket on school funding. The promise was 'not a dollar different—we're on a unity ticket'. I was the Labor candidate for Macquarie at that time, but I had only recently stepped down as president of Winmalee High P&C. So a bit of me was incredibly relieved to hear that at last the politics were going to be taken out of education funding. But of course, they should never have been trusted. They should never have been trusted to treat school students, teachers and parents with respect.
There are 51 public schools in my electorate of Macquarie. Every one of those 51 public schools in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains will lose money under the government's changes to the way it funds students. These changes are part of the budget that the Prime Minister claims loudly and proudly is fair. How can it be fair, when every public school in my electorate will be worse off under their formula? How can it be fair that the nine Catholic schools in my electorate have their funding agreement tossed away? Schools like St Monica's, St Matthew's, Bede Polding, Chisholm, St Finbar's, St Thomas Aquinas, St Columba's, our Lady of the Nativity and St Canice's. Greg Whitby, the executive director of Catholic Education in the Diocese of Parramatta, has written to me of his disappointment that Catholic Education leaders were not even consulted prior to the radical change to the funding levels. He fears that these low-fee Catholic schools in my area will be impacted.
I have heard repeated claims by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and every MP on the other side who has bothered to speak so far that the funding is fair. Just saying it is fair does not make it so. It is the facts that determine whether it is fair or not. So let us look at the federal government's own briefing paper for journalist, for a start. It reveals $22.3 billion of savings over 10 years. In other words, in case those opposite do not understand that language, that is money your government is saving by reducing the amount of money that it had planned to go to schools.
If you do not want to trust the government's own briefing paper, what does the New South Wales Minister for Education say? Well, he talks about having had a deal with the Commonwealth, that he expected that deal to be honoured and that the result of these changes was that there were millions and millions less than was expected to go into schools in New South Wales over two years. And the New South Wales Department of Education wrote to every school principal warning them not the trust the Commonwealth department's calculator—the same calculator they so gleefully refer to when trying to prove their claim that funding has increased. Nope: the data is dodgy. And how is it fair that the Northern Territory, with the greatest funding gap to bridge, gets the worst deal, which will not even keep pace with inflation?
By any independent measure, the facts show how out of touch this Prime Minister and this government are. While they blithely rip away $22 billion of funds from students and teachers across every school sector, they throw $65 billion at big business in the form of a tax cut and give millionaires a tax cut. They say it is fair, but just saying it does not make it so. The governments approach is not needs based. It is not sector blind. They have dressed up a massive funding cut with words to trick parents and teachers into thinking they care.
Let's keep in mind that schools in New South Wales have signed up with the Commonwealth to a six-year funding program. The state agreed to increase funding alongside federal funding, and of course that is not the case under this new plan, in which the expectations on states have changed and they no longer need to commit to helping their schools reach a nationally consistent level of funding. That is a massive flaw in the government's plan, and it will entrench inequality between school systems. And we are lumbered with an arbitrary formula, which does not come out of any Gonski panel findings, that the federal government will fund 20 per cent of public education and 80 per cent of private. That is the opposite of sector blind; that is sector specific.
Under Labor, every school in New South Wales would have reached a fair level of funding—95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard—by 2019. That is every school in New South Wales, not just independent schools but Catholic schools and public schools—all of them. And on the day that we celebrate public education—although neither the Prime Minister nor the education minister were inclined to be with us this morning, with the Australian Education Union, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and parents and teachers from all over the country—let's talk some specifics in my electorate to show just how much those opposite care, particularly about public education.
The four public high schools in the Hawkesbury will, between them, have $2.5 million less over the next two years. Richmond High School will be $151,000 worse off over the next two years. Windsor High School, with its special needs unit, will miss out on $659,000 of funding. Colo High School will be $597,000 worse off, and Hawkesbury High will get $487,000 less than had been agreed to. Public primary schools are also in the firing line, with hundreds of thousands of dollars missing in action from their funds. Over the next two years Hobartville will miss out on $443,000. This is a school that caters for a large cohort of students with special needs, as does Windsor Park, which will miss out on $338,000 in 2018-19. Windsor South, a school achieving great results with the additional funding it has had over the last 3½ years, will be down by nearly $430,000 over the next two years compared with their agreement. And Bligh Park now finds itself with $423,000 less over the next two years. Oakville Public School drops by $350,000.
It is not just these larger schools and these bigger numbers that are a betrayal of public education by the federal government. The smaller schools will also really feel the pain of the funding cuts they suffer. So, even though Cattai, with its around 60 students, will be only $36,000 worse off, and Colo Heights and its 50 students $78,000 worse off, and Kurrajong East and its 65 students $58,000 worse off, and Macdonald Valley, with fewer than 10 students, $15,279 worse off, those amounts will hurt. Being starved of those additional funds will have a profound impact on those schools' ability to support and extend their students in the way they would like to and in the way they deserve.
And let's think about what 'fair on every level', according to the other side, looks like for the rest of the Hawkesbury Schools. Comleroy Road, a school that earlier this year celebrated Harmony Day with songs from around the world, loses $84,000, and Ebenezer loses $91,000. This is a school near a church that the Prime Minister's family built. It is the oldest surviving church in Australia. Now he is happy to rip $91,000 not just out of that school but out of that community. They have their annual school art show and fair coming up and, I can tell you, they will not be able to replace $91,000 through those efforts. Freemans Reach will lose $200,000. Glossodia will lose $224,000. Grose View will lose $171,000—a lot of trivia nights to make that up. Kurmond will lose $130,000. Kurrajong North will lose $58,000. Kurrajong Public will lose $139,000. Maraylya will lose $62,000—a school with no school hall, where assemblies are held outside. Their job fundraising for a hall just got a whole lot harder. Pitt Town will lose $189,000. Richmond North will lose $180,000. They are using their current funding to see that every student learns computer coding, so they are seeing real benefit from the early funding, but they are going to miss out over the next two years. Richmond will lose $261,000. Wilberforce will lose $236,000. Windsor Public School will lose $222,000 over the next two years. If you could not keep up, that is $7 million in all over the next two years from Hawkesbury schools. I think what really gets me about the government using schools as a place to save money—$22.3 billion over the next ten years and $12 million in my electorate alone over the next two years—is that this is money that would go to pay teachers, support staff, speech therapists and counsellors. In areas like mine, where there are small, sometimes quite isolated locations, when you take money out of a school you take it out of the community.
I turn to the Blue Mountains, which is an area that has a higher concentration of teachers living in it than any other part of the country. Those teachers, who teach all over my electorate and on the plains of Western Sydney in all systems, will not be fooled by the deception of the Prime Minister into believing that this funding is fair. They can do the maths. Blaxland High School takes the biggest hit and will be worse off to the tune of $577,000 over the next two years. I spent time at Blaxland last week with the SRC and some of the Aboriginal students in their new garden space. This is a school that deserves additional funding. For Winmalee High School, where my son was educated, it is nearly half a million dollars less than they were due to receive for 2018 and 2019. Katoomba High School is $488,000 worse off and Springwood High School $406,000. These last two schools, like many others, are housed in buildings that could really do with a 21st century update. But if you take money out of teachers and resources, P&Cs are going to spend their scant funds trying to bridge that gap.
This supposedly fair funding is horrible for the public schools up and down the mountains, from the small school at Mount Victoria, where a shortfall of $60,000 will big a big hit, through to Lapstone primary school, which is hardly rolling in it—they are desperate for a new library, which the NSW government does not seem interested in providing. They will be $144,000 worse off over the next two years. From the top of the mountains to the bottom—Blackheath will lose $202,000. Megalong Public School is a tiny school where $6,800 missing from funding is going to have an impact. Katoomba North will lose $177,000. Katoomba Public will lose $182,000. Leura will lose $165,000. Wentworth Falls will lose $229,000. Lawson will lose $189,000. Hazelbrook will lose $290,000. Faulconbridge will lose $206,000. Ellison Public School will lose $214,000. Winmalee will lose $247,000. Springwood—where my niece and nephew attend— will lose $274,000. Warrimoo will lose $119,000. Blaxland Public will lose $106,000. Blaxland East will lose $237,000. Mount Riverview Public School—a really self-reliant school, which has not seen a lot of early money—will miss out on $154,000. And Glenbrook will lose $167,000—that is money they will not receive but should have received in 2018 and 2019. On the Blue Mountains side of my electorate, that is $5 million over the next two years alone. Across all of New South Wales schools we are losing $6.9 billion over the next decade. How on earth can that be fair?
Let us address the issue that somehow the funding in this bill is an increase in money. It is an increase if you remember the $30 billion cut in the 2014 budget—the worst ever cuts to education funding. That is the base those opposite are using to claim that what we are seeing now is a funding improvement. So it is not a $30 billion cut; it is a $22.3 billion cut. That means it is a $7.7 billion improvement. So if we do the maths that way, sure, it is an improvement. But we cannot get away from the fact that this is still a $22.3 billion cut—the second-biggest cut to education funding in our history. I cannot support it. Compared to the agreements the states and different systems have signed up to—what had been committed to by Commonwealth and state governments and by every system within the education sector—it is a cut. I cannot support it.
This is the other myth being created: that there were unnecessary deals done in different states. The reality is that there are three education systems in every state and territory, all of which were at different starting points in their funding. To even out the playing field—to make sure every single child received a basic level of funding and then to add loadings to compensate for special needs and disadvantage—was never going to lend itself to a one-size-fits-all model. Our model was fair. It was sector blind. It took into account the needs of each child. This bill does not, and I cannot support it.
Labor invests in education because we believe there is nothing better for our society or our economy than well-educated, well-trained Australians in good, well-paid jobs. Everyone should have access to that education no matter their post code and no matter their family's circumstances. This is not just about parents and their children, teachers and their students or principals and their teachers; it is about every small business that wants to hire a local kid when they leave school or even while they are still at school. It is about every household that want to see themselves living next door to people who are educated and employed. It is about every member of our society being given a fair chance to learn to read, to learn to write and to learn to learn so that they can be an ongoing contributing member of our communities. One a Prime Minister who is completely disconnected from reality would describe $22 billion of cuts to schools as fair. It is not fair, and I cannot support it.
It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. On 2 May the Turnbull government announced an extra $18.6 billion in schools funding on top of the already record funding for Australian schools to be delivered over the next 10 years. This will bring our total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027.
What we are doing in this bill is implementing the true Gonski needs-based funding model. As the member for Macquarie leaves the chamber—it is a shame because I did want to actually pick her up on a very fundamental flaw she made in her contribution. She mistakenly misrepresented the member for Warringah and the government's policy at the time. I want to make this very clear. In 2013 the member for Macquarie, as a candidate for Labor Party, was clearly not listening very intently, because out commitment was to commit on a unity ticket to the first four years of funding, not to the six-year package. The member for Warringah made that very, very clear. It just goes to show how easily the member for Macquarie can get up in this parliament and seek to misrepresent our commitment.
Why did we do that? We keep hearing from members opposite about this additional $22 billion, but the bottom line is that this was never in Labor's budget. This was never incorporated into the forward estimates. It was pushed off into the never-never, in years 5 and 6. All of that funding so-called increase was never delivered as part of Labor's budget. We made a very firm commitment we would agree to the first four years of funding. In fact, when we came into government in 2013 we discovered that the Labor Party had short-changed a number of states and we had to very quickly find an additional $1.2 billion.
What we found here was a lot of smoke and mirrors from members opposite about what the funding was that they committed to, because if the Labor Party were serious about this so-called $22 billion it would have put this money in its budget; it would have included this money in its forward estimates. What we have seen from the Labor Party, like in so many other budgets and in so many other slippery figures, is an absolute failure to deliver on what it said it would do.
We have done a lot of hard work, and I want to commend the Minister for Education for the incredible amount of hard work done to fix Labor's mess when it comes to schools funding. We have had a really astounding result in Corangamite: every school goes forward. In 2017, funding to all 66 schools in Corangamite is equal to $82.967 million. In 2018 this increases by $3.85 million, and over the next 10 years the Commonwealth will provide total funding to Corangamite schools of $1.063 billion—that is more than $1 billion over the next 10 years. That includes an additional $233.9 million, and that is through a fair, needs based funding model.
I do want to make the point that Australian government funding for schools has been increasing for several decades. But while our funding has been growing, our results have been in decline. This is an issue that was never really dealt with by members opposite, who tended to put their heads in the sand in looking at how our dollars were being spent effectively in our schools.
How much funding we provide is, obviously, very important, but what we do with it is what really counts. I reflect on when Julia Gillard first announced the so-called Gonski needs based funding model, before I was elected. What occurred very quickly was that it became evident, consistent with David Gonski's model, that some schools would either have their funding stagnate or they would actually go backwards, because that is what David Gonski intended. He intended to look after the schools which most needed the funding, including schools in Corangamite. When this list became evident and was published, Julia Gillard quickly—basically—completely demolished David Gonski's entire policy by committing that no school would be worse off.
The problem with that is that the Labor Party did not have the courage to implement a true needs based model. The very wealthy schools, which David Gonski had recommended might need to take either a small reduction or a freezing of their funding, actually were given the guarantee by Labor—by members opposite—and by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, that they would get an increase. That is not what David Gonski intended.
I say that we have actually demonstrated considerable courage, as a government, in saying to some very wealthy schools, 'You will not do quite as well because we are implementing a model that puts schools that need funding the most first.' That is why we really had to do a lot of hard work to fix the mess that Labor left behind—and we have heard a lot about the 27 different agreements and some of the various secret deals that were implemented with a whole range of different sectors of the school communities across Australia.
This bill before the parliament today will 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 it will tie funding to reforms that evidence improvement in student outcomes. The bill will also set Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond. It will apply new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding and it will transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027.
On 2 May, when this policy was announced, David Gonski joined the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and 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.
What David Gonski said on that day, with the Prime Minister and with the Minister for Education, is that we are implementing a true needs-based model, which Labor failed to do—and that is the fundamental problem.
Opposition members interjecting—
I will take the interjection from members opposite. They are saying, 'Rubbish!' It is not rubbish, because in the original formula some very wealthy schools were actually meant to lose some of their funding or to have some of their funding stagnate. Julia Gillard and the Labor Party panicked. They did not have the courage to implement the true Gonski needs-based funding model. And now we are fixing that mess. I am incredibly proud of what we are doing with needs-based funding. It is wonderful to see Gonski 2.0 being implemented by our government.
I want to reflect particularly on some of the Catholic schools in Corangamite and some of the increases that they will be receiving over the next 10 years. Sacred Heart, Colac, in 2017—$4.007 million and a total over 10 years of $48.5 million, which is an increase of $8.456 million; St Aloysius' School, Queenscliff—$1.18 million this year from the Commonwealth and a total of $14.4 million over 10 years, which is an increase of $2.5 million; St Brendan's Catholic Primary School, Coragulac—$570,000 this year and a total of $6.9 million over 10 years, which is an increase of $1.204 million; and Trinity College, which is a wonderful secondary Catholic school in Colac—$9.6 million this year from the Commonwealth $9.6 million and a total of $116 million over 10 years, which is an increase of $20.378 million.
I have been contacted by some parents from Trinity College concerned about their funding, and I want to reiterate to them that, of all the schools in Corangamite—and this is based on the Schooling Resource Standard and trying to deliver a fair and level playing field—Trinity receives more money per student than any other school in Corangamite. In 2017, each student receives $13,172 from the Commonwealth and in 2017 this will rise to $18,416 per student. This is a great outcome for Trinity College in Colac. This is a very substantial increase—$116 million in total over 10 years, which is an increase in excess of $20 million .What does this funding allow all schools to do when it comes to planning their future? It allows them to plan their future with certainty. The schools know that this funding is actually embedded in legislation. It starts—not in years 5 and 6, like Labor did, in the never-never—from 1 January 2018.
Today I am meeting with the principals of Colac Secondary College, Simon Dewar, and Sandra Eglezos, who is the new principal of Belmont High School. I am very pleased that, over 10 years, Belmont High School, which is another incredible school in Corangamite, will be receiving an additional $10 million from the Commonwealth, recognising of course that the majority, 80 per cent, of funding for government schools comes from the states. So we are the minority funder—heading towards 20 per cent. Colac Secondary College, led by the wonderful and very enthusiastic Ian Dewar, will receive an additional $5.45 million over 10 years.
I am incredibly proud of what this bill delivers. It delivers certainty. It delivers fairness. It delivers transparency. Every single school and every parent can now go onto the schools estimator website and look at what their school will receive not only this year or next year but also over the next 10 years. For the first time, schools will now be able to properly plan long term.
I was at the Christian schools gala dinner at Parliament House on Monday night. I sat with the principal of Covenant College in North Geelong, which has a lot of students from Corangamite. I know that schools like Covenant are very pleased with this certainty, with this funding model. One of the plans Covenant has is to provide more funding for those students with a disability. They have some incredible ideas and they really welcome the opportunity to plan long term.
I want to reflect on the comments of Craig Emerson, former Labor minister for tertiary education, in TheAustralian Financial Review on 23 May 2017. Craig Emerson worked very closely with former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in the previous Parliament. He said:
Now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lock in a school-funding system that can give every disadvantaged child a chance of a good education, and Labor has pledged to block it. It’s heartbreaking.
This is a former Labor minister for tertiary education who worked very closely alongside former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in the previous Labor government. He says it is absolutely heartbreaking that we see 10 years of funding certainty, a plan that delivers fairness, and Labor has pledged to block it. He has now basically revealed Labor members for what they are. They will stand in the way of any good policy. It does not matter what we bring to this parliament, the Labor Party is there to do one job and that is to oppose. It is very regrettable that the Labor Party is opposing this policy. It is wonderful for school students, it is wonderful for parents and it is wonderful for this nation. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Today is Public Education Day. It is a wonderful day to celebrate the contribution public education has made to the world and to our country. Education is an investment in our country's future. The costs of education, borne by the taxpayer, are very important to making sure that the kids of today have the skills they will need for the jobs of the future. That is important not just to those children and their future lives but to all of us—because in 10, 20 or 30 years time we will need those kids to be able to do the jobs of the future, earn incomes and pay taxes to make a contribution to the economy and to the federal budget.
That is one of the reasons education is so important, but another reason is the contribution it makes to the social and cultural life of the nation. We are a nation that needs to build social and cultural capital. For the purposes of cohesion, we need to have people who are educated not just in terms of understanding content and knowledge but are developing the skills they need to be part of our society and culture. I do not think you can really overstate the importance of schooling as a policy issue. That is why it is important to take great care in the way this parliament treats school education in this country.
As I said, it is Public Education Day. I am a product of public education. I went to a public primary school and a public state school, and I certainly got a great education. I am very proud of the fact that I went to some great public schools over the course of my life. I am also very proud of the fact that my children now go to a wonderful local public school in the electorate of Griffith. It is a school that is very focused on equipping kids with the skills they need to be great citizens and, more importantly, great people. It is a school that practices what it preaches when it comes to ensuring that kids have access to play-based learning in the early stages of their schooling, that teaches philosophy from prep, that engages with parents, that talks through the approaches to teaching at the school with parents and that is led by a really wonderful principal. I am really lucky to have that as one of my local schools.
I have also got about 59 other fantastic schools in the electorate of Griffith, all of which do an amazing job not just in educating the kids but in being part of the community for a very long time. Some of those schools have been around for longer than our Federation. Greenslopes State School celebrated its 125th anniversary recently. St Laurence's celebrated its centenary. There are a lot of other such schools in my area: Cannon Hill State School celebrated its centenary and Carina State School celebrated their centenary. A number of schools have been celebrating very big milestones. Of course, who could forget probably one of the oldest schools in the electorate, Bulimba State School, that had its sesquicentenary recently.
These are institutions within our community and we need to treat them with respect. On Public Education Day, it is apt to acknowledge the contribution of public education; but that should not be interpreted as meaning any disrespect or diminution of the importance of Catholic schools and independent schools. I have some excellent Catholic schools and independent schools in my electorate. In fact, the week that the government made it schools funding announcement, I met with one of my local Catholic schools, which is a fantastic part of our community. It is a school that is known for its cultural, sporting and academic prowess. It has incredible events that bring together people across the inner south side.
I met with the principal and the chair of the board. They were absolutely heartbroken by what this government is doing to education. They were talking to me about their worries about what would mean for local students and local parents if the school had to put up fees for Catholic education. They were talking about the fact that they work very hard to make sure that Catholic education is available to people whatever their means are, not just to wealthy people but to people—and the mix of students in this school bears this out—of ordinary means living on the south side. In fact, they—like all Catholics schools in my local area—take on a cohort of students who cannot afford to pay fees at all. What they do is they absorb the costs of that through scholarships or other means. They are worried about their ability to do that if these funding cuts go through.
It is a very grave shame that this government thinks that it is appropriate to cut funding to schools by $22.3 billion. That is a cut of more than $22 billion to schools funding, and a cut that the government boasted about in the briefing note that they distributed to journalists when they claimed that this was a saving of $22.3 billion. It is a cut that is not just admitted to but boasted about by this Turnbull government. That is a great disgrace. If we do not invest in education right now, then that is going to pose problems for our economy and our society for a very long time to come. If children do not get the skills that they need for the jobs of the future and if they do not get the skills that they need to be good and productive members of our society and our economy, then that will lead to problems down the track.
It is reckless and wrong to cut funding to schools education. That is particularly the case when we are talking here about a government that wants to give a $65 billion tax revenue giveaway to corporations, including the big banks. This is a government that wants to prioritise giving away tax breaks to companies while at the same time hitting parents and communities through cuts to the school education. I might add that it is also through cuts to university education, almost $4 billion in cuts over four years to tertiary education. That is what we are seeing from this government. It compounds the cuts we have already had from them in relation to vocational education, which is over $1 billion in cuts since they were elected.
But to say to the Australian people, 'You have to cop tax breaks for companies and, to pay for that, we're going to cut funding to schools,' is an absolute disgrace. People will not stand for it. People in my area, on the south side of Brisbane, are worried about what is going to happen to the school fees that they are paying, are worried about what is going to happen to primary and secondary education and are worried about what is going to happen in the state schools when they do not get the funding that they need.
What makes it so galling for people is that this is a government that was elected on the basis of claiming a unity ticket with Labor's needs based sector-blind education policy in 2013, to the extent that they had placards up at polling booths saying, 'We'll match Labor's funding dollar for dollar.' They were putting up signs trying to persuade people that they could vote Liberal and still get Labor's education policy—and it was not true. They did not flow on Labor's education policy, they did not flow on Labor funding, they did not commit to needs based sector-blind policy. They absolutely categorically failed to do that.
In my area schools have been telling me about the work that they have been able to do using what in Queensland is called the I4S money—the Investing for Success money. They have been able to get more resources, more support for kids, more one-on-one attention. That is what the money is doing. The consequence for them of losing funding, of not getting the funding that they had been anticipating, is significant. Of course it is—you cannot take $22.3 billion out of schooling nationally and not have that have an impact on the quality of schooling for our kids and for the future. I have schools that are very concerned, I have parents who are very concerned, and as a parent myself I am very concerned about what these cuts are going to mean for schools education, and as a member of parliament I am concerned about what these cuts are going to mean for the future of our nation. They bandy around this concept that money does not really matter, but if money does not matter why did the government make such a show of pretending to support our policy back in 2013 in order to get elected? Frankly, I always think it is people who do not know what it is like to not have money who say money does not matter. If money does not matter, then why is it that my schools locally have been saying to me that it has been so important to them to get the additional funding, the I4S money, the money that has flowed through from the commitment made under Labor, enabling them to deliver for students and for the community over the past four years.
I remember what it was like to be a schoolkid. I had some great teachers. I remember as a teenager an English teacher by the name of Mr Grossetti, and if nothing else I will always be grateful to him for introducing me to the poetry of Judith Wright. He was an inspirational teacher—he was an old school, North Queensland man who did not take any rubbish from anyone, but he was inspirational. He passed away the year after I finished school, I think at 52—very young. Teachers like him were inspirational to kids like me, and that is still happening now. I do not want teachers to lose the opportunity to be inspirational, to teach. I do not want them to be drowning in pressure from workload because of the pressure that comes through funding cuts to school education. I do not want to see teachers put in a situation where they leave the profession because it is just so frustrating—they can see what needs to be done but they cannot get the government support that they need in order to do it. I do not want to see teachers feeling broken-hearted themselves because they feel like this country does not value the work that they do. It is not just teachers—it is administrators, it is teacher aides, it is all the people who go into making a great school education system.
What message does it send to all those professionals, to all the people who support them, to the parents and friends and parents and citizens groups and to the kids themselves when the government of the nation is bringing to this parliament a bill that cuts funding to schools by $22.3 billion. I do support the second reading amendment that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved. I do not want to see a $22.3 billion cut to schools funding. I do not support it and I do not think anyone in conscience could support it. I do not want to see an average $2.4 million cut to schools and I think most parents and most people in our community more broadly do not want to see that either. On Public Education Day, I do not want to see public schools having to hold bake sales to be able to afford the basics. I do not want to see a situation where, to pay for corporate tax cuts, we are putting schools under pressure. I do not want to see Catholic schools having to do that, and I do not want to see independent schools in a situation where they end up worse off than they would have been under Labor's funding arrangements. I want to see schools getting the support that they need to do the best possible job educating our kids. Not just for me, not just for you, not just for my kids, not just for yours, but for the future of the nation, for the economy and for the society.
I support the second reading amendment. I am greatly concerned about what this government is doing to schools funding. I think it really illustrates the vast separation between the conservatives on that side of the chamber and those on this side of the chamber, when it comes to our values. Labor values people. We want to see all children given the opportunity to succeed—the best opportunity that they can be given, whether it is through public schools, Catholic schools or independent schools. We think that education is an investment; it is not something that should just be seen as a cost to the budget. In fact, it is not something that should just be assessed in terms of the immediate expenditure in the budget; it should be assessed in terms of its contribution to our economy. I think sometimes in this place there is a bit of a tendency to focus on the budget first and the economy last, and that is really the wrong way around. If we want economic growth, that means we are going to need productivity. If we want productivity, that means investing in our people. It means building human capital. Schools funding is foundational for that purpose. If you understand the separation in the values between the conservatives on the one hand and Labor people on the other, it is very clear to see that our values are community driven. They are values of supporting people no matter what their background and no matter what their parents' income is. We believe in creating a country in which everyone can get a world-class education. The Liberals and Nationals, on the other hand, are quite happy to cut funding to schools education. That is what they are trying to do through this bill, with, really, very little regard for the impact that that will have. (Time expired)
I rise today to discuss the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, but start with a story. It is a story that took place in my electorate in the cut and thrust of a federal election campaign. A week before the election, I returned a phone call from one of my constituents in Mount Waverley in Chisholm. I returned this call after a winter's day in the cold and rain. I called him late that winter's evening because something in the emotional undertone of this man's voice message compelled me to call him back that night rather than the next day. He spent the first few minutes conveying his immense gratitude for my returning the call, but then he said, emotionally: 'Julia, I'm so sorry to burden you with this. Yesterday my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.' He started to cry, and then said, 'There are so many tests and a lot of expenses with scans et cetera.' I wondered where this was going, and then he just blurted out, very emotionally, 'Julia, tell me it's not true.' 'What?' I said. He said: 'Last night'—the day of his wife's diagnosis—'I took a call on my landline. It was really late. It was about 10.30 at night. I thought it was more bad news, but it was someone'—in his words—'obviously from the Labor Party or a union guy, who, point blank, said, "The Liberals are going to sell Medicare." Tell me it's not true.' I then spent half an hour on the phone with this lovely man—an elderly gentleman from Mount Waverley—and reassured him that this was absolutely not true. Why do I tell this story? I tell it because it demonstrates that for those on the other side telling mistruths is second nature. Labor's opposition to the education reforms, their bullying approach and their misleading comments continue to this day. Worst of all, Labor have chosen to mislead in two of the most important areas in Australian's lives—health and education. It is outstanding, but not surprising, that they are excelling at creating mistruths. We have just heard the member for Griffith mention the words 'cuts' and '$22 billion' so many times, none of which exist.
When the Quality Schools program was announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham, with David Gonski standing alongside them, endorsing Gonski 2, Labor obviously did not know where to turn. Clearly they felt skewered. For many months now they have tried to lay claim to the value and equity of the Gonski name. But what Labor did not factor in is that their lies and misleading conduct just will not prevail this time. They will not get the trajectory they had achieved to a large extent from the 'Mediscare' campaign.
Upon the announcement, the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, for example, and his army of spin doctors, went into overdrive. They hurriedly announced that the opposition leader would conduct a press conference at a Catholic school in Melbourne, the key objective of which was to denounce the education reforms, particularly for Catholic schools. Labor and the army of spin doctors were hard at it—but hard at it with spin, untruths, getting false messages out, a very 'Mediscare'-esque type of campaign. What they did not bank on, though, was that this time they could not target the most vulnerable in the dead of night, like that elderly gentleman in Mt Waverley—those who do not have mobile phones and therefore cannot switch to silent mode in the evening, those who are the most vulnerable. No, this time they had to confront the facts—and they still have to.
They had the principals, the fine school leaders, and the parents and teachers of Australian schools to answer to in the cold light of day. They could not accommodate the fact that the Prime Minister was there standing with David Gonski, the man himself, which, on its own, ostensibly showed to Australia that he has endorsed the Quality Schools program as it has articulated his vision. It has not created this mishmash of secret deals and this rushed supposed implementation, unfunded. Moreover, what they really could not deal with was the absolute, solid transparency of the Quality Schools program. At every turn, every untruth they raise about individual schools, they raise flawed, inconsistent data. But the truth and transparency of the school funding estimator is all anyone needs to turn to.
Moreover—and quite bizarrely—notwithstanding that the opposition has the greatest number of Catholic schools in his electorate of Maribyrnong, Labor's spin doctors obviously thought it best and more strategic that the press opportunity for the opposition leader should take place in the Holy Family School in Mt Waverley, in Chisholm, and not in his local electorate. The opposition leader and his massive press contingent dragged themselves to my electorate of Chisholm, the seat we took from Labor in the last election. 'Let's put politics before the people', is likely what they would have said as they created this fictionally based outcry over these fair and reasonable reforms. They could rely only on mistruths, complete and blatant disregard of the facts. The shadow minister for education refused to commit to a $22 billion funding commitment for money they do not have, and the shadow Treasurer emotively declared that Catholic schools were in 'meltdown'—not according to the facts. Labor continued their media campaign, running around the country using alarmist, emotive language, and they have continued this truly remarkable campaign of lies this week. But what Labor really, really hate is the transparency. Every time they try to sell a fictional story about an individual school, anyone need only go to the estimator.
The Turnbull government will deliver the real, authentic Gonski needs based funding model that Labor did not. We will end Labor's special deals with states and territories, unions and non-government school leaders. Labor traded away the principles of the Gonski report and corrupted the Gonski brand and integrity and model for pure political expediency. The other thing they have not done is actually talk to the people who will be most affected by this: the fine school leaders of our country, who have our children's—and our children's children's—education in their hands. No: Labor have relied just on their media machine. Well, unfortunately for Labor, a key value and principle that our school leaders impart to our children is the necessity and integrity behind telling the truth.
I personally communicated with, spoke to and met face to face with many of the fine school leaders in my electorate of Chisholm, particularly over the last few weeks, to clarify the facts. I talked about the reforms and the specific numbers and increased funding that their individual schools would receive. School leaders, and every Australian, have a high regard for the facts, unlike Labor. And when the facts are presented to them in a transparent and clear way, it is more than appreciated.
As I discussed with the school leaders in my electorate, the facts are this. Fact: the government will commit an additional $18.6 billion for Australia's schools over the next decade, commencing in 2018. Fact: it will be distributed according to a model of fair, needs based and transparent funding. Fact: the investment will be tied to school reforms which are proven to boost student results. Fact: such a strong level of funding is vital, and what is more vital is how the funding is used. Fact: the Turnbull government's education reforms and needs based funding model for schools, endorsed by David Gonski, is about fairness—no more Labor generated secret deals; no more 27 deals and favouritism for certain sectors or schools; and not the mishmash of the rollout conducted by Labor.
Labor have decided to target Catholic schools particularly in this campaign of lies. Here is another fact for them: the Catholic schooling system around Australia will receive more than $1.2 billion in extra money over the next four years and around $3.4 billion in extra money over the next 10 years.
In relation to systemic arrangements, that is, school operated systems, including the Catholic schooling system around the country: they will still continue to receive their funding as a lump sum funding entitlement into the future—the principals know this—enabling them to redistribute that money across their schools as they see fit. There is no reason, with that scale of additional funding flying into their schools, that fees need to increase anywhere around the country. If they do, that is a decision for the Catholic education authorities, who are responsible for allocating that lump sum.
In fact, the only concern expressed by the school leaders I visited, particularly in the last few weeks, is more about the alarmist media campaigns and misleading commentary made by emotive language and untruths about the future of their children's education from Labor, all of which is counterproductive to the integrity and philosophy of Gonski 2.
Here are some more facts for the Labor Party—those on the other side: some facts about Chisholm. In fact, Chisholm has 48 schools. In every sector and in every local community in the electorate of Chisholm, those 48 schools, including 12 Catholic schools, will be receiving significant increases in funding because of our needs based funding model. In Chisholm, the total increase in federal government funding over the next 10 years is $244 million. This is great news for the primary and secondary schools in Chisholm and for their over 20,000 students.
The facts are what the Turnbull government relies on. Let me tell you some facts, Mr Deputy Speaker, about Holy Family School in Mount Waverley—the one where the opposition leader had his press conference but did not speak to the principal, interestingly enough; certainly not in public.
Opposition members interjecting—
He did not speak in public to him on the media. And I now know why, because here are the facts: full-time enrolment at Holy Family School is 360 students. As for all parents in Chisholm, the quality school reforms program—the needs based funding model—is all good news. This is clearly not what the opposition leader wanted to have happen in the press. The needs based funding model is all good news. The total increased funding for Holy Family School in Chisholm, from 2018 to 2027, is $4,306,600.
Needs based funding is important, because it allows schools to do things like invest in more specialist teachers to help kids who are falling behind in their classes. In this regard, let's talk about Berengarra School in Box Hill North, also in my electorate. Berengarra is a nonprofit, co-educational secondary school which meets the individual needs of students of normal intelligence but with social and emotional problems. They will receive a total increase in funding of $11,540,800. At Salesian College there will be a total increase in funding of over $17 million and the fantastic Mount Waverley Secondary College will get an increase in funding from 2018 to 2027 of over $14 million.
The question, 'Which school is your child going to?' is likely asked of every parent in this great land, or 'Which school do you go to?' is often asked of children. At some stage in their lives, it is probably asked of every Australian child. The importance of providing choices for parents to decide on which school for their kids is a defining and critically important element for Australians, regardless of their socioeconomic status or faith.
Like the thousands of people in Chisholm, my parents were like many—of hardworking immigrant heritage. They certainly were not rich, elite or privileged. In fact, they were the opposite.
However, they embraced the fact that they were lucky enough to live in this country, where fairness underpins our values and philosophy. To have the choice of schools is a principal and continuing tradition wholly embraced by liberalism. Every Australian child deserves to be the recipient of an education that is needs based. The Turnbull government's bold plan will transform Australian schools. It will set Australian students on the path to academic excellence and achieve real needs based funding for students from all backgrounds in every town, every city, every region and every state, in every classroom. Ultimately, every child needs quality teachers and schools with the right resources and the right tools and programs in place so they can succeed. That is exactly what the Turnbull government's Quality Schools plans will deliver. Just because Labor wants to secure a special advantage for certain schools is the antithesis of the Turnbull government's Gonski reforms. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms that evidence shows make a real difference to supporting our teachers in schools and to improve student outcomes.
This is a fair system that is good for students, good for parents and good for teachers. The Turnbull government is delivering a uniform model for school funding. Under that uniform model we are able to invest more into students who need it most. For example, students with disability will receive funding growth of 5.9 per cent per student through the life of the Turnbull government's reforms. The Turnbull-Birmingham reforms are sensible, pragmatic and fair. They are based on facts, not fiction. The principals and teachers who I have spoken to are quite justifiably alert to the changes, but they are not alarmed by rhetoric and emotive, baseless language, because there is absolute, total transparency in these reforms. Most importantly, these reforms are needs based, so regardless of which name, which faith or sector is on the school gate, every Australian kid has the same opportunity.
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. This is not needs based funding. It does not matter which way this government tries to spin it, it is not. In my contribution to this debate I am going to outline a couple of examples from my own electorate of Bendigo, a regional electorate that is not dissimilar to many other regional electorates throughout Australia.
Before I was fortunate and privileged to be elected to this place, when Labor was in government I had the great opportunity to go out to Lightning Reef Primary School. It was being opened by the then education minister. We had the state people there; we had our federal people there. It is a school in an area of extreme disadvantage. There are pockets of real disadvantage in the Bendigo electorate. These suburbs and postcodes, unfortunately, feature very highly in the low SES index at a state level and on the disadvantage index.
When I was there, wandering around and chatting to the teachers in the beautiful new classrooms that were built by Labor through contributions through the Building the Education Revolution funding, I noticed that there was a small group of about 10 children that were taking their classes in the shared learning space in the corridor. I looked at their artwork and sat with their teacher for a moment and spoke to them. They had two teacher aides—it was not enough. They were what the school had nicknamed the preprep class. These were kids who had come into the school without the skills that they needed to start prep. They struggled with language, they struggled with their colours. Their artwork was like the artwork of a three-year-old, not a five-year-old. They were from traumatised, broken homes in the electorate. All of them had significant trauma in their households. This school has a number of students that fall into that category. This school only has six households where they do not have a health care card. In this school they struggled to get someone on the school council who has a job.
This school, despite all of its challenges, is trying its very best. They prioritise teacher aides over watering their oval. They prioritise investing in numeracy and literacy over an arts or language program. This is the school of hard knocks. It needs extra funding. Under the needs based funding that Labor put forward, it would have started to receive the resources that it needs. It needs a cook to help with nutrition in the school; it needs social workers to help parents and kids who come to school who fear going home from school because of violence at home. Yet this school will not get needs based funding under this government's proposal and the bill that is before us. No, this school will only get $34,000—that is all this government will give this school: $34,000; that is it. This is the school most in need in the Bendigo electorate, and they do not even get enough money for an extra teacher's aide. They do not get enough money to water their oval. They do not get enough money to help kids who do not have lunches. This school talks about how Monday is the hardest day because they have kids who come to school who have not eaten all weekend and by Friday they send them home with food packages so that at least the older kids in the family can help feed the younger kids. This is happening today, in 2017, in the Bendigo electorate. Yet this government says all the rhetoric: 'We have delivered needs based funding.' Well, no you have not.
There are other schools in the Bendigo electorate that will miss out significantly on funding. Bendigo Senior Secondary College, under Labor's plan, would have got $1.6 million next year. This school has the largest VCE in the state of Victoria. They have the largest VCAL and VET program. They partner with the Catholic school system. They partner with other secondary schools in the area to deliver the most inclusive and comprehensive education plan. This funding would have ensured that every student had the resources, the teachers and the support that they needed. Yet this government is not giving them the $1.6 million that is needs based funding; instead, this government is only giving them $265,000. This is a school that does not turn away any student. This is a school that gives every single student an opportunity in their final two years of study—whether they are going on to TAFE, looking for an apprenticeship or going on to university—and gives them the skills and expertise that they need. I want to commend the teachers, their acting principal and their former principal, Dale Pearce, for the excellent work that they have done to prepare this school. But they deserve their needs based funding, not the joke of a needs based funding put forward by this government. They deserve that extra $1.6 million next year and the year after, to ensure that every student that goes there has the skills to go forward after their secondary school education.
They are not the only ones. Crusoe College and Weeroona College, which feed into Bendigo Senior Secondary College, will lose up to $800,000 in extra funding. They are getting nowhere near that from this government, whatsoever. Weeroona College has this brilliant program called SWT. SWT helps kids who have dropped out of schooling—kids having trouble fitting into their classroom, who have significant trauma at home and who may have had long periods where they were not in school at primary school. They pick these students up, give them hope and encourage them. It is intensive. It is a separate school within a school. They build the capacity in these young people to re-engage in education. And they are having brilliant outcomes. All of their students to date have been able to re-enter the rest of the school and the classrooms, or have been able to enter TAFE or another learning environment. This program is working. And it is being funded through the original Gonski formula. It is being funded through the extra resources that were committed. Why was this program possible under Labor but not under the Liberals? Because it is resource-intensive. They require a smaller student-to-teacher ratio. They require experienced teachers who have decades of education behind them and are able to work intensively with these young people to give them a chance. These are young people who have been broken, not by a school system but by society. They have not had the support that they needed in their junior years. They are now in secondary school, and this school has worked out how to help save these young people, give them hope and encourage their aspirations so that they can finish school with the skills they need to go on to have functioning lives. Yet this government wants to cut the funding that makes these programs possible.
I mentioned Crusoe College, another school that has an incredibly innovative program called SWITCh. The school cannot quite fathom how successful this SWITCh program has been. They are actually supporting about 10 per cent of the school population. Kids with anxiety, kids who may not be able to cope in a classroom of 30 and kids that are really struggling with catching up to the rest of their classmates because they just do not have the basic numeracy and literacy skills are able to go and be part of the SWITCh program. It might be for one class a day, it might be for a whole day, it might be for six months, it might be for six weeks. But this program, rather than seeing these kids disrupt the whole class, invests heavily with them at their level, builds them back up and gives them opportunities so that they can learn and grow. It is a highly successful program that is literally saving these young people.
In this program, they invest heavily in mental health. They use a combination of state-based funding, chaplaincy funding, equity funding or original needs-based funding to ensure that they have all of the resources. They have pooled it all together from these little pockets of money. These young people, some who have quite severe mental health concerns, are rebuilding their confidence and are re-engaging. They are doing incredibly well. We should be very proud of what these schools are achieving today, which is Public Education Day.
I want to share some personal examples of students—some stories—to highlight how invaluable the SWITCh program is. I have changed this young person's name to Tracey. She shared her story but wanted to make sure that she had anonymity when I stood up to share the story. It was halfway through 2016 when Tracey's mother heard about the SWITCh program. Tracey had gone to multiple other schools, but the big factor for why she was not succeeding and could not face going to school was her anxiety. After Tracey came to Crusoe, she became aware of the opportunity to engage in the SWITCh program and be part of the classroom. She started to attend school. At first, it was for a couple of hours each day. Slowly the teachers invested in building her confidence and her resilience to the point where she felt comfortable to come to school every day. It was not long before Tracey started to attend classes—first one, then two. By the end of the year, she was in full-time schooling again. This is the success of this program. It rebuilds our youngest people, our youngest adults into engaging properly.
There is an outreach program at Eaglehawk. I actually made a donation towards this program. I said to the young people there who were quite interested in gardening: 'Come up with a plan.' Not only did they come up with a plan but they did all of the costings. They engaged a local business. The business owner came in to support them. They did the costings, they did the measurements, they did the design. Then my small $500 contribution enabled them to build this magnificent garden. The community of Eaglehawk rallied behind them. But the whole point of this was the fact that they were practising their numeracy skills, design skills and literacy skills. They also had that proud moment of achievement. These are just some of the few examples. I could spend all day talking about the amazing work our schools are doing with genuine needs-based funding.
We have a large Catholic school footprint in regional Victoria. Their Doxa program is saving young people. Equally, at the other end they are giving their talented and gifted students the opportunity to participate and engage in education programs. Bendigo South East College is giving people who have a strong interest and association with defence the opportunity to partner with our local RSL to record and preserve our war veterans' stories from the Vietnam War. This was due to funding made possible through investing in teachers through the needs-based Gonski program. For our young sporting stars, we have accelerated sports programs within our state-based education system that mimic and marry what people get in the private system.
We have a government before us that will continue to fund and invest in their version of needs base, which is the very rich schools. They are not delivering for the schools most at need, like Lighting Reef, Crusoe College and Weeroona, who are trying to break the cycle of disadvantage. Education is a fundamental pillar in trying to break intergenerational poverty, and our schools can do it if they just get the right resources. Yet this government is ignoring that plea—they are scrapping genuine needs based funding and are instead going back to that old rhetoric of giving it to the schools who already are privileged and who already have significant resources.
It is not right that this government is saying to the people of Bendigo and central Victoria that Girton Grammar School, which is a very good school—excellent teachers, fantastic resources, amazing facilities—will get an extra half a million dollars in funding next year yet Lightning Reef, who cannot afford to water their oval, will get $34,000. Girton Grammar School is a brilliant school, and I have wonderful engagements and exchanges with the teachers and students at that school, but they have the opportunity, because of their school budget and their parent's capacity to pay higher fees—plus the extra money that they get from this government—to actually hire the Melbourne Theatre Company's set for Beauty and the Beast for their school production and put it on in Ulumbarra Theatre. Yet we have schools in our electorate like Castlemaine Secondary College, who cannot afford supplies for their art program. Needs based funding means putting that half a million dollars, matching that and going further for Bendigo Senior Secondary College, for Crusoe College, for Eaglehawk Secondary College.
Just because you said is needs based does not make it so. It is a con. They are misrepresenting what needs based is. Perhaps they need to go back to school to understand language, to understand education, to understand what needs based is and to understand what fairness is, because people will work it out—and very quickly. Our catholic school system is very upset. They are upset to be to receiving lectures from this government about fairness and about needs based. They deliver needs based funding to their schools, and this government could learn from them. Whilst we have one Lightning Reef only getting $34,000 but the school up the road getting half a million dollars, that is not fair. I urge the government to rethink this plan.
It is a pleasure to rise on the Turnbull government's Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. The amendments that the government is proposing will introduce real needs based school funding and increase the investment as part of a new initiative that will give Australian students the quality education they deserve. If the member for Bendigo wants to trade quips about education and the lack of some of the subjects that she was mentioning on our side, I would say that it always frightens me that our school system has not taught people the value of money and financial prudence. In her speech, the member for Bendigo continued to reveal that, if you do not understand where money comes from, what money is and how you pay for things, you will never be able to govern this country properly. What we have heard from her today is actually a recording of the fact that the government is increasing the amount of money we are spending on education again. In fact—and the member opposite shakes his head—the government is committing an additional $18.6 billion for Australian schools over the next decade. At the moment the case that the Labor Party is making is that $18.6 billion is not enough of an increase—that they would somehow, theoretically, increase it by much, much more. I will get to that shortly.
Of course, the one thing that the Labor Party does not talk about in this House and will not address in this debate is performance. Why is performance declining when funding is increasing? The government is growing record levels of recurrent funding. You will see $17.5 billion in this year, 2017—a record level of recurrent funding—and over the decade that will increase to $30.6 billion. That is a record increase by a Commonwealth government. It grows in real terms by 15.4 per cent over that decade. Of course, compare that to the states—their funding growth is only nine per cent. The member for Bendigo did not address that, because her Labor chardonnay socialist mates are in government in Victoria. But they are only growing state school funding by nine per cent over the decade, when the Commonwealth is growing it by 15 per cent over the decade—again, not mentioned by the Labor Party. This is money that is budgeted for, that is paid for, that is a real increase and sees a truly national model for the first time, delivering on the Gonski promise.
I am glad to see that the member for Macquarie is here. Her office is near my office and, I have to say, at the beginning of this sitting fortnight I walked in early in the morning and noticed that there was a Gonski poster in the member for Macquarie's office. I invite all members here and those listening to go past the member for Macquarie's office right now—you can walk out of here, go down the corridor and go past her office—and in the window you will see four pieces of tape where the Gonski poster used to be. There is no Gonski poster anymore. What happened between the Monday of this sitting fortnight and now? Gonski is gone-ski in the member for Macquarie's office. It is important to note that David Gonski has endorsed the government's plans, because this is truly a national model that is for the first time ripping away Labor's 27 separate agreements.
I was in this chamber, unlike, I think, both Labor members opposite, when these agreements were done. I remember the unedifying spectacle of the then Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard running out to the states, offering them as much money as they would accept. It was not a traditional Commonwealth-state negotiation or bargaining deal. She was offering any deal she could put on the table to get them to sign it. What did the state premiers do? They all ran around and signed because the Commonwealth was offering a blank cheque. There was no money there. There was no revenue stream that could possibly ever pay for it. There was no intention of ever paying for it. Those premiers signed on to those 27 separate deals at a premium price that would never have to be accounted for by the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard or a Labor government.
Every time a Labor member stands at this dispatch box and says, 'The government is taking away this money from schools,' it is absolutely and utterly not true. You can theoretically offer any amount of money for any purpose in this Commonwealth if you have no intention of ever meeting that commitment or funding that commitment—that is really phoney money. Those opposite know that almost every school in the country is getting a substantial increase in funding over the decade. They know that it is a needs based model that we are producing—and I can point to my own electorate in this regard. My electorate does have some big non-government schools. I have only two schools losing money over the decade, and they are the biggest and perhaps the best of schools in my electorate. There are only two in my electorate that are losing money. But the most pleasing thing as the local member, who has been elected for 10 years and has worked through, as all of us do, the great challenges in helping those with disabilities and most in need, is that every single one of the schools in my electorate that specifically provides services for students with disabilities is getting not a small increase but a massive, a substantial increase over the decade. I look at that and I think: 'Here is what Gonski was talking about.'
Why would the member for Macquarie take down the Gonski poster when what David Gonski's model and his report say is that you have to provide needs based funding, and the people who need it the most are students with disabilities? It is the whole case for the taxation system; it is the whole case for government to take so much money out of people's pockets. It is to help those most in need and those with disabilities. It is starting at that point. I will speak to my electorate. In my electorate—and it will be the case in your electorate, member for Macquarie; I am happy to go through it school by school with you—those schools that help with disabilities will receive the biggest funding increase over the decade.
Speak to the bill.
I am speaking to the bill. The member here is really losing the plot if he thinks I am not speaking to the bill. These are schools in my electorate that are getting funding increases because of the bill before us here in the House. They will receive those funding increases as a result of this bill.
I don't think you've read the bill.
What don't you understand about that? This bill is about the Schooling Resource Standard and the Commonwealth's contribution. I really do think that opposing for the sake of opposing, opposition for the sake of opposition, is a really bad place to be. I do not want to give you any advice, because I think you are doing a stellar job of being in opposition—and all power to your arm. But I would say this: we are massively increasing funding for schools over the decade, and you know we are increasing funding over the decade, but every Labor speaker who stands at this dispatch box says: 'The government is only increasing it by this much in real terms. We would have increased it by so much more.' If you believe those amounts then you have any think coming. I do not think people in this country do believe that. I think parents, principals and anyone who has taken the time to have a look at their individual school result—and they can go to the app, they can go to the website, they can go to the department—can see the funding increases over the decade. Those parents, citizens committees and principals do see that, as everyone does. For the first time, it is open to complete transparency and scrutiny.
That brings me to another point about this debate. Under Labor's 27 separate agreements which did not give the promise of the Gonski model, or one national model, transparency was absolutely missing from the entire schools funding debate. It was the case that there were complete distortions in the outcomes between states because of the special deals that were signed off by the previous Labor government. I will give you a good example of what happened under the 27 deals. Labor implemented a deal that saw one needy student in one state get up to $1,500 less than if the same student were in the same school, just because of the state they were in. There was no SES factor and no other relevant factor; it was just that that happened to be the deal that the Premier signed with the Prime Minister at the time—a $1,500 disparity between the same student and the same SES standard, just because of the state they came from. Everybody knows that that was unsustainable. Everybody knows that that was not a truly national model.
Everybody knows that the reforms that Minister Birmingham has brought to this parliament, the bill that the government is presenting to the House today and taking through this parliament, is a worthwhile bill. The Labor Party of course have decided to oppose it, purely because they keep positioning to the left on every single issue. They want to go further to the left on this issue and further to the left on education funding, pretending that we do not have an ongoing debt and deficit challenge in Australia, where government has to, in an economically environment, continue to fund vital services.
We are proposing a bill that will ensure that we meet a share of the Gonski recommended Schooling Resource Standard—up for government schools from 17 per cent to 20 per cent. And we are seeing an increasing from 77 per cent for non-government schools to 80 per cent—maintaining the Commonwealth's role as the majority funder of non-government schools but increasing the shares for both sectors and increasing the outcomes for all schools. But the Labor Party are saying, 'We're going to oppose this bill, because that is not good enough,' and they are going to oppose this historic $18 billion increase in schools funding—
Ms Templeman interjecting—
Order! The member for Macquarie will stop interjecting.
at a time when revenues are declining, whether it is company tax receipts or income tax receipts, and when expenditure is a challenge. The Labor Party will not help us with that challenge either here or in the Senate. The government has cut $26 billion out of the budget since the election but, of course, had more savings stymied by the irresponsible approach of those opposite to fiscal management.
We are putting forward a bill for education that will increase education funding by $18 billion. Of course, Labor say that they want to want to do it by an almost unquantifiable amount more for every single school without the ability to attach the real money to it. I think that, when people examine this debate and they look at the individual outcome for their school, they are going to see that this government's approach meetings the expectations of the community.
We have heard a lot about the different debates in the systemic systems around the place, including in the Catholic system. I can record that certainly in my community, in Western Sydney and the Parramatta diocese—having dealt with the Parramatta diocese extensively—the system and the model for the Catholic system in Western Sydney works very well. There are not challenges in funding for the schools in Western Sydney, and the Parramatta diocese knows it. So it would be good to see if the member for Macquarie can point to a Catholic school where there has been a reduction of funds. That would be good to understand from her point of view—as she shakes her head. So please name one.
If you go to government schools, independent schools, Christian schools and the Catholic system throughout Western Sydney you will see increases in funding under this model, as you would expect from any fair model put forward by a government. So I would encourage all parents to not listen to the rhetoric of the Labor Party, who are seeking to create pure political mileage out of opposing something that they know is a substantial increase for schools, almost across the board. Even in my own electorate I find that there are only two schools that are losing money over the decade—and, indeed, they are the schools that you could point to in my electorate that have historically been the most overfunded.
I look at the endorsement from David Gonski himself. I will quote him, as the member opposite challenges my assertion. This is David Gonski:
I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report—
That is David Gonski, saying that we have accepted the fundamental recommendations of the 2011 report—
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 not me—that is David Gonski, who presented his report. I know you are in denial about this. I know you are shaking your heads, but you can check it. That is an accurate quote. He has endorsed all of the elements of the government's plan as in line with what David Gonski recommended.
If members opposite would think about it in the real sense of what the government is trying to do, I think that is a sign that this is the right way to proceed with education funding in Australia. It will, of course, deliver a better outcome, a fairer outcome that will remove Labor's 27 separate agreements. It will certainly be welcomed by many of the sectors. I have pages and pages of endorsements, whether it be from independent Christian schools, from independent schools in general, from the Mitchell Institute, from the Grattan Institute, from the Secondary Principals' Council. There is page after page of endorsements that the government has received for its plan because it is a fair plan.
We are going to hear rhetoric from the opposition. We are going to hear some members attempt to persuade their individual schools that they are losing money, when in fact they are gaining real money. That is the purpose of the bill that the government is presenting. I think it is disingenuous for Labor members to get up and stand that this is a bad plan, when they actually know this is a good plan. The Gonski posters have come down out of the member for Macquarie's office, because they really have a problem in handling what has happened and in dealing with the challenge that David Gonski himself, who was regarded as the arbiter of what is fair and necessary for our education system, has himself endorsed the government's changes. He is a man of integrity. He would not do so without his complete and utter confidence that what the government was proposing was a national resourcing standard that he agreed to and a national needs based model that truly reflected his 2011 report.
I commend this bill to the House. I say to my electorate that I look forward to these funding increases being passed by the parliament, because it will ensure that education in my electorate, our state and our country continues to be well funded and well serviced by the Commonwealth.
Today, like every day, I am standing up for the students, parents, teachers, principals, education assistants at schools in my electorate and across the country. People tell me regularly that they are sick of all the fighting and lies in politics. This legislation is precisely why we need to fight. It is also a shining example of the sort of lies that Australians hate.
It all started back in 2013, when the then Liberal opposition leader, the member for Warringah, said that the coalition were on the unity ticket with Labor on education funding. Come the 2014 budget, the Australian people saw the true colours of the government on education. Now, we have the weasel words of funding increases coming from the Prime Minister and his education minister. They are having trouble bringing themselves to say it, but it is clear from their own documents: the government's policy will cut over $22 billion from Australian schools over the decade. This means fewer teachers and thousands of students who will not get the benefits of specialist programs, additional in-class help, extra literacy and numeracy programs and extension for gifted and talented students. You wonder why Australians turn off politics. It is because of behaviour like this from the Turnbull government.
Today is Public Education Day. It is a day when we should be celebrating the achievements of our public education system, the hard work and dedication of our teachers, and the difference to the lives of our children that they are making. You know what? On our side, Labor does celebrate public education and all that it does to improve the lives of so many Australians through the dedicated hard work of all of those working in public education. However, today is also a sad day. Flags at every school across Australia should be at half-mast, because schools are under attack by this government. In Western Australia, the Turnbull government's new education plan will short-change WA public schools by $93 million next year and have created an alarming funding shortfall for our local schools. That is on top of what looks like $3.5 million that is going to come out of funding for our WA Catholic schools, putting upward pressure on school fees for families that are already struggling to pay them.
I want this to be very clear: the Turnbull Liberal government is asking this parliament to pass a law that will see less funding for Armadale Primary School; Armadale Senior High School; Armadale Education Support Centre; Ashburton Drive Primary School; Bletchley Park Primary School; Brookman Primary School; Caladenia Primary School; Campbell Primary School; Canning Vale College; Canning Vale Primary School; Canning Vale Education Support Centre; Cecil Andrews Senior High School; Challis Community Primary School; Clifton Hills Primary School; Excelsior Primary School; Forest Crescent Primary School; Forestdale Primary School; Gosnells Primary School; Grovelands Primary School; Gwynne Park Primary School; Gwynne Park Education Support Centre; Harrisdale Senior High School, which only just opened this year; Harrisdale Primary School; Huntingdale Primary School; Kelmscott Primary School; Kelmscott Senior High School; Kingsley Primary School; Neerigen Brook Primary School; Piara Waters Primary School; Ranford Primary School; Seaforth Primary School; South Thornlie Primary School; Southern River College; Thornlie Primary School; Thornlie Senior High School; Westfield Park Primary School; Willandra Primary School; Wirrabirra Primary School; Wirrabirra Education Support Centre; Yale Primary School; the Alta-1 College in Canning Vale; the Australian Islamic College in Thornlie; Carey Baptist College; Dale Christian School; Good Shepherd Catholic Primary School; John Calvin Christian College; John Wollaston Anglican Community School; Langford Islamic College; Sacred Heart Primary School; Southern Hills Christian College; Sowilo Community High School; St Emilies Catholic Primary School; St John Bosco College; St Jude's Catholic Primary School; St Munchin's Catholic School; Thornlie Christian College; Xavier Catholic Primary School, my alma mater; and many more surrounding schools that also educate those in my electorate. I and Labor will not let this law happen.
I am a parent and, like all parents in Burt, I want the best education for our kids. Education is fundamental to the core Australian value of a fair go. Education is critical to ensuring that every young Australian has the opportunity to reach their full potential. That is why Labor undertook the landmark review into school funding. It is why we introduced the Schooling Resourcing Standard, a sector-blind model which clearly defined the funding all schools need to deliver a great education. It was a funding model that guaranteed extra funding to give kids with poorer outcomes the extra help that they need.
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 they can succeed—
That is, can achieve his or her aspirations.
… and contribute fully to their communities, now and in the future …
Make no mistake, that is what this government is walking away from. This bill proposes to remove those words, that intention and that objective from the act.
They are walking away from the targets that are also in the act, which were:
(a) to 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:
(i) for Australia to be placed, by 2025, in the top 5 highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science;
(ii) for the Australian schooling system to be considered a high quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025;
(iii) lift the Year 12 (or equivalent) or Certificate II attainment rate to 90% by 2015;
(iv) lift the Year 12 (or equivalent) or Certificate III attainment rate to 90% by 2020;
(v) 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 baseline in 2006;
(vi) halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and other students, in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 from the baseline in 2008—
That is next year. Seriously, you want to remove this? What sort of government are you?
The Liberal Party does not believe in education as a great enabler. That is clear. They do not want to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education that we can provide them. This legislation is a smokescreen, designed to try to kill a political issue for this government. But like their whole budget, it does not actually deliver on the words that they use. They say the word 'fair', but they do not do anything that is fair. They say the words 'needs based', but they do not deliver on needs. They talk about the right choices yet their priorities are all wrong, preferring tax cuts for Australia's highest earners and biggest businesses over properly funding our education system.
Those opposite have said time and time again in their speeches on this bill that if Labor proposes more funding for schools, then we need to say how we will pay for it. Well, that just shows how much attention they clearly are not giving to this issue, because Labor stands in clear opposition to the more than $30 billion of further corporate tax cuts that the government wishes to hand out to its friends—more than enough to pay for what should be one of our nation's top priorities: the proper education of our kids.
When 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, that is what the Labor government then did. The review said that what matters are the total resources that a school has for each and every child who walks through the school gate, not whether those resources come from the Commonwealth government or from the state government. People do not care about that issue; they just want to know that their kids are going to get the right education and that it is properly funded. That is why the Labor government worked with the states and territories to ensure that by 2019 every underfunded school would reach its fair level of funding, and in Victoria by 2022. It is very unfortunate, of course, that the then Barnett Liberal government refused to engage in those discussions with the federal government.
Labor said to those states that we would work with them to make sure that funding levels were brought up to the level that was required, and we recognised that they were working from different bases, because what was important was getting to the objective, not where we were starting. But only by working with the states and territories were we able to achieve that objective. The Prime Minister has said that does not matter anymore; it is not the total funding for schools that matters, according to this government. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister, the education minister, this Liberal government are walking away from a fundamental part of the School Resourcing Standard. They are walking back to the past when it was only a Commonwealth funding offer and did not lock in the states to keeping up their share of funding as part of the bargain.
Under what Malcolm Turnbull is proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027. That is 10 years from now and eight years after they would have reached it under funding from Labor. Under their model less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools. Labor was providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools because we know that public schools still cater for seven out of 10 kids with a disability, seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English, eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and around eight out of 10 kids from low-income families.
Our new funding model also had full public funding for all loadings for disadvantage so that Catholic schools and independent schools that educate kids who have extra needs would also get the extra funding that was necessary. We are very concerned that the government's funding model penalises some Catholic schools, that they will suffer real funding losses and will have to increase their fees or cut teachers and assistants at their schools. We are concerned about the inequities in this model. We support the proposal to gradually reduce funding for the 24 most overfunded schools, but we think what the government is offering is fundamentally unfair. There is no decent detail about how students who have a disability are going to be supported. I know from meeting with principals just this week how much they are concerned about this issue, and that is despite the government promising that it would fix that in the 2013 election.
For years the government has said that what matters is not money for schools but reform. Well, where is the reform package? The bill removes a commitment to deliver quality teaching and learning, to deliver school autonomy and to increase the say of principals and school communities, to deliver transparency and accountability or to deliver for students with extra needs. The government threw out the reform agreement that was in place with the states and has wasted valuable time over the last four years. And now they are saying we will have a new national agreement that will not get taken to COAG until 2018. They simply do not care about the quality learning and outcomes of kids in our schools. If they did, they would have pressed on with Labor's reform agenda. If they did, they would not be taking money out of schools, which prevents the kids from getting the extra help and support they need.
Over the next two years alone, a Labor government would have been investing about $3 billion more than the Liberals in schools, to get each and every school up to their fair share of funding. Labor will restore the $22 billion that the Liberals cut and properly fund our schools, because we believe that every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity. We want better schools, better results and better support for our great teachers. At the heart of our differences with the government lies a difference in values. Labor believes that no matter how rich or how poor your family is, where you grew up or which school you choose to go to, as a community we should make sure that everyone gets a great education. It is a promise we make to every Australian child.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to all of my great teachers at the schools that I attended—St Francis Xavier's School and Mazenod College. They had to put up with me; they deserve some respects for that, and some thanks. They all know that I would not have been able to achieve the things that I have achieved, or be standing in this place, without their great help and dedication. And I pay tribute to my family of teachers—my mum, Helen, my brother, John, and my sister, Jacqui—who are doing great work in teaching the next generation of fine young Australians. And I pay tribute to my friends who are teachers, who have given me a great exposure to understanding the great work and the hardship that goes into making sure we can deliver a great education to young Australians. There are many of them but, in particular, I want to give a shout out to Gerrard, Anne-Marie, Cathy, Lisa and Sarah. Sorry, I am running out of time, so I cannot list any more.
I support the amendment but I very much oppose this legislation and the government's cuts to funding to our schools.
This bill—the bill, not the amendment—should be greeted with nothing but acclaim in this parliament; it ticks all the boxes. Sadly, Labor members come in here bleating about non-existent cuts to non-existent funding. The funding that the Labor Party promised under Julia Gillard was virtual funding; it was the funding you have when you do not have funding. Remember that ad for Claytons, 'the drink you have when you're not having a drink'? Well, the Labor Party did not know where this funding was coming from; it did not exist.
So why are the Labor Party so upset? Why do they come in here all bitter and twisted? They are upset because, on a range of subjects, the government continues to do what they could not do. We have delivered tax cuts. They used to support tax cuts for businesses. We delivered them and now, of course, they oppose them. We delivered a free and independent Fair Work Commission. Fair Work Australia—remember that? The Leader of the Opposition told the Liberal Party to keep its hands off Fair Work Australia. And yet, when it came to the penalty rates decision, the member for Maribyrnong says, 'You Liberals must now interfere with the Fair Work Commission.'
We have established a naval shipbuilding industry in an area where they could not lodge one order for six years—and that is why we have a 'valley of death' that this government is dealing with as effectively and quickly as we can in the naval shipbuilding industry. We have delivered tax cuts for small and medium businesses. That is something they used to support. We have fully funded the NDIS. That is something they once espoused they would do. And now they will not reach across the chamber to assist us to do exactly what they did to fund the first half of the NDIS, and that is raise the Medicare rate.
Up until now, Labor has supported a true needs-based school funding policy. And of course we have delivered that—the true Gonski. But they no longer support that either. In fact, they support a system that has 27 different deals. That is not needs-based funding; that is political expediency. And Australians hate it. They try to convince Australians that the $18.6 billion extra that this government is allocating for education is not an increase but a cut! It is preposterous. And they hark back to the virtual $22 billion—the $22 billion that you have when you are not having $22 billion. Labor's contribution to the Gonski plan was to announce a six-year program, backloading the contribution, backloading the final two years, which were beyond the forward estimates. There was not much in the first four years, but beyond that point they said, 'The rivers of gold will suddenly materialise and we don't know where they will come from.' That policy had fairies at the bottom of the garden about it.
The reforms in this bill deliver to the Australian education system the true Gonski—the full Gonski, if you like, but I like to call it the true Gonski. How do we know it is the true Gonski? We know it is the true Gonski because it is endorsed by none other than David Gonski. It is true needs based funding, not based on 27 different funding models, not based on secret deals but based on a totally transparent system where every school, every student and every parent can look up their school and find out how much money it is receiving. Over the next 10 years—over the next 12 months—it is a considerable amount extra for all but about 24 schools in Australia.
Very importantly, this legislation locks in the proportion of Commonwealth contributions over the next decade, and it is rising. For independent and Catholic schools, the federal government contribution will rise to 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, up from the current 77 per cent. The reason for the different accelerator factors in different schools and different schooling systems is that they are coming off different bases, and we are heading for an even platform.
The Catholic sector has been voicing some concerns, highlighting the fact that their rate of increase over the next 10 years is not as high as that of the independent sector, but that is because they are currently funded at a higher level, nationally, on average, than the independent sector. As we move to an even funding platform, it is absolutely unavoidable that the independent sector's rate of increase will have to rise, in percentage terms, faster than that of the Catholic sector, until we reach the point where all non-government schools are funded at the same level—that is, at 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard from the federal government.
Most importantly, for the majority of students, including in my electorate of Grey, who are in the non-government school sector, the rate of SRS will increase from 17 per cent to 20 per cent. Over the next 10 years that will come in equal instalments, and that is very important. So there is not a frontloading for the first four years or a backloading for the last six years or whatever it might be that the Labor Party concocted. This is a simple, step-by-step 10-year progression, fully predictable, fully anticipated by the schools. It is a huge increase. The federal share of SRS funding to these schools increased from 8.9 per cent in 2005-06 to 13.4 per cent in 2013-14. This year that figure will rise to 17 per cent, and by 2027 we will be funding 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. This mechanism will ensure that all schools will end up on the same platform. We remind ourselves that state schools are owned and operated by the states.
Over the next 10 years, there will increase of 94.1 per cent or $6.4 billion in funding to the state school system—a new record amount in real terms every year. For non-government schools there will be an increase of 62.2 per cent or $6.7 billion. This is a huge extra investment in tomorrow's generation. There will no longer be any room for defenders of the education system to sheet home the failure to educate students to a lack of finance. This level of funding ensures that every child in Australia should have the opportunity to reach a good standard of education. Whether or not they achieve it will be determined by other factors in the education system.
I have looked at the schools of Grey, and every one of the over 130 schools is a winner. They are all better off this year, next year and for every year for the next 10 years—record funding every year. Take Ceduna Area School, for instance. This year it will receive $2.398 million. Next year, an extra $136,000. By 2027 a total of $31 million extra is going to the Ceduna Area School, taking their per-student assistance from $4,164 to $7,184. This is the 20 per cent contribution that the state is making to Ceduna Area School.
At John Pirie Secondary School in Port Pirie, this year they receive $2.137 million from the Commonwealth; Next year, an extra $129,000; and by 2027 a total of $29.38 million, or an extra $8 million over business as normal. Per student, they go from $3,518 to $6.070.
Let's look at a small primary school. Let's take Wirrabara, with 54 students. This year, they receive $163,000 from the Commonwealth. Next year they will receive an extra $9,800, and by 2027 they will have received an extra $611,000, and per-student will have been lifted from $3,023 to $5,216. These are very significant increases for government schools, and they lock this solid platform in.
I would also like to look at some schools in the non-government sector. Going through my list, I find that the schools that most need the help will get it. I recognise that some in the Catholic sector have taken issue with the model and are concerned that their low-fee schools will not receive as much money as they would hope. In this case, I have taken the opportunity to look at St Joseph's in Peterborough. It is a small Catholic primary school with 52 students. I point out that Peterborough is the lowest socioeconomic status community in my electorate of Grey outside the remote Indigenous communities. This is, essentially, the poorest town in the electorate. Next year St Joseph's will get an increase of $36,600, or an extra $620 per student. Even better, over the next 10 years the total increase is $2.17 million. On a per-student basis they will go from $16,075 to $23,057. This is a very clear example of the needs based formula at work. This, the most needy of communities, will get a very large premium over the less needy communities, the communities with more. It is an absolute graphic demonstration of the needs based formula at work.
A part from just a few—24 to be exact—extremely wealthy schools across the nation, every school is either no worse off or better off, and most by a great deal. That is certainly the case in the electorate of Grey, where every school is better off. So the non-government sector is pretty happy as well.
Just as a point of demonstration, I have been in parliament now for a little over 9½ years. At times when governments have announced policies that they have had to retreat from later, normally my phone is running hot. Whether it was when we were in opposition and the Labor Party may have got a couple of policy calls wrong—that happened on more than one occasion, as I recall—or when we have been in government and we have made decisions that people are really unhappy about, my phone runs hot. I have not yet received one call from a dissatisfied school—not one. No-one has initiated contact with me to complain about the funding future that is put in front of them. That demonstrates to me that they are all pretty happy.
We have hit the button on this. We have a number of sectors that have come out and expressed their support. The only people we can find who do not support this are those who sit on the other side and their bedfellows, the AEU, who are funding advertisements on our televisions telling people what a terrible job this government is doing. They have no other backers. They are on their own. This is a purely political argument that is brought to this place by those on the other side. It is disgraceful. Those opposite got what they want and the schools have got what they want. We have a true needs-based formula for true needs-based funding, and we have set in place a mechanism that will bring the entire sector level within 10 years. It is something those opposite should warmly endorse.
Even better, Mr Deputy Speaker—sadly, I have to say I have run out of time. I will have to tell you what is even better later on. (Time expired)
I stand before you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a proudly publicly educated Australian, speaking on public education today and about a bill for public education, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Unfortunately, it is a bill slashing funding for public education.
On this day, I want to talk about the public school teachers who brought me to where I am today—the public school teachers that made me into the adult I am today. I have to say that as a kid I would have been hard work at high school. I was precocious and not particularly controllable. I thought I knew everything. Maybe some of those things have not changed! But the teachers who were dealing with me in high school transformed my life. They shaped that raw material into someone who was able to go on and provide for a family and stand in this parliament today.
I want to thank Mr McGregor, my English teacher, for introducing me to Shakespeare, Fitzgerald and Alan Seymour. Mr McGregor was also my legal studies teacher, and he taught me about the Mabo case we celebrated in this parliament yesterday. He taught me about the way our Australian legal system could be used to fight injustice. I want to thank Mr Murdoch, who taught me about modern history. He taught me about how to think about power in our society, and how power was used within countries and between countries throughout the 20th century. I want to thank Mr Ryan, my history and geography teacher, who gave me my passion for Asia and my interest in Indonesia. He taught me about the history of our own region—a history that is all too often neglected in our education system. I want to thank Ms Graff, who taught me Mandarin Chinese and gave me a passion not only for Chinese language but for Chinese culture—something I continue to maintain an interest in to this day. I want to thank Mr Lentz, a primary school teacher who let me read cricket history books underneath the desk when I finished my work early, cultivating that passion for books, reading, curiosity and independent exploration. I even want to thank Mrs Moffatt, a primary school teacher who in grade 5 convinced me that grammar was not a conspiracy against me, designed to oppress me and repress my creative passions. It was not an irrelevance to my creative thought but a fundamental requirement for me to engage in our society.
Those public school teachers did a hell of a lot for me and our society, and they did it without much funding. I went to a rural public high school. They did a lot with not a lot. Everyone has stories like this. Everyone has stories about the teachers that transformed their lives. I see these stories playing out again as a member of parliament today.
There are stories of teachers like Mr Tim Blunt, the award-winning principal of Sunshine College in my electorate, a school that is identified by the Grattan Institute as a turnaround school. He is a principal who, when he started 10 years ago, inherited one of Victoria's worst-performing schools in terms of literacy levels and transformed it into a school that outperforms the VCE results of nearby independent schools within five years. He took over as principal in 2006 and had an enormous task ahead of him. About two thirds of the students in years 7 to 11 were barely achieving primary school levels of literacy. When we talk about needs based education funding, the students at Sunshine College are the students we are talking about. Sunshine is a suburb where two thirds of the families speak a language other than English at home. It is a suburb of significant financial disadvantage. It is a suburb that has the other needs based loadings: disability, Indigenous students.
But Tim Blunt took on that challenge. He changed the syllabus. He introduced an innovative maths instruction method that is now the envy of the world. Delegation come from around the world to see the way they teach maths at Sunshine College today. Tim introduced extra literacy classes to bring those students up to speed. And, importantly, he changed the expectations of the students. One of the changes he made when he arrived was introducing school blazers—school blazers, at a public school in Melbourne's west—because he wanted those students to know that the expectations of them were the same as the expectations of kids who went to a flash, school-blazer school on the other side of town. And it worked. He turned those results around.
I want to recognise teachers like Philip Fox, the principal of Footscray Primary School, across the road from my electorate office. Philip has used needs based school funding for Footscray Primary School to introduce teacher coaches in the school—coaches working with teachers in the classrooms to improve literacy instruction, to improve maths instruction, working from the evidence about what we know works in schools. That is investing in principals' agency to invest in their teachers. And the results are there for everyone to see. It has had a transformative impact. It has allowed students to advance multiple years in proficiency in literacy in a single year. This has a transformational effect on these kids. If you can move two years ahead in a single year in your literacy, that is a foundation that stays with you for your whole life. It helps you succeed in everything else you do throughout your school year. These early years are crucial years.
Investing in public schools is an investment in the future of our nation. Not only that, but it is an investment in the kind of nation we want Australia to be: an egalitarian nations, a nation where it does not matter who your parents were, it does not matter where you were born, it does not matter what your religion is and it does not matter where you came from—you can still realise your full potential; every child can have every opportunity to realise their potential. But, sadly, that is not what the bill before the House delivers. Under what the Prime Minister is proposing here, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027—some eight years from now. I can tell you, I have two kids. One of them is in grade 1 at the moment. She will be finished primary school by the time this is done. She is at a public school. She will be finished. This time is precious. Time for these children is precious. The more we delay, the more opportunities for those kids who might be a little bit behind, who need more assistance to catch up, will be squandered.
The delays in this bill will have real-world impacts. Under this model less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools, the schools that need it the most. Labor is providing 80 per cent extra funding for public schools, because we know that public schools still cater for seven out of 10 kids with disability, seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English, eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and eight out of 10 kids from low-income families—kids who need the most help now. Labor's new funding model also had full public funding for all loadings for disadvantage. So, the Catholic schools and independent schools that educate kids with extra needs would also get the funding necessary—some fantastic Catholic and independent schools in my electorate who also work with these disadvantaged kids.
I was really pleased to be able to welcome the Mother of God Primary School from Ardeer to parliament yesterday. Those opposite may not appreciate it, but it is extremely difficult for kids from these disadvantaged backgrounds, and from regional backgrounds—I know Deputy Speaker Broadbent will appreciate it—to get up here; it is an enormous effort for disadvantaged kids, financially and logistically. I was so proud and pleased to be able to welcome Mother of God here, because two thirds of their families speak a language other than English at home. Can you imagine the challenge they face, coming into our schooling system? And only one in seven public schools will get their fair funding level by 2027 under this bill, but, under Labor's model, we would have seen all schools move up to their fair funding level by 2022. Labor would have invested more than $3 billion, more than the current proposal, in schools in the next two decades alone.
I hear this argument over and over again from those opposite: that what this bill represents is not a cut; it is an increase. You set the level at where Tony Abbott cut it, the $30 billion cut, and then you only cut $22 billion and you ask for congratulations. It is like robbing a bank, returning 25 per cent of it and asking for credit for it. It does not work that way.
These schools were already planning what they could do with this funding. I know that because I have spoken with these principals, and I am sure those opposite know the same thing. The impact of these cuts in Victoria will be significant. There will be $630 million worth of cuts to Victorian schools under this plan. Schools in my electorate alone will lose almost $12 million, and these cuts will unfairly target the schools that need this funding the most—schools like Sunshine College. This school, which has transformed its output with so little and has been able to dramatically lift student results in literacy and numeracy, stands to lose $1.4 million from these cuts. Schools like this deserve our support, not cuts.
Footscray Primary School, which I was talking about earlier, will lose $400,000. Footscray City College, just along the road, will lose $900,000. Willy high is losing $1 million.
Victoria already needs 50 new public schools over the next five years to cope with the growing population demand. Sensibly, Australians are recognising that Victoria is the place to be. We are dealing with enormous population growth, and Melbourne's west in particular is the epicentre of this growth. So the Victorian state Labor government is building schools hand over fist, including in my electorate with work for the new Footscray education precinct. But we need to be putting more money into these schools at this time of growth, not less.
The fact that we are not responding with a sense of urgency to the state of our education system reflects the great Australian complacency. We are in a period of enormous economic change—global economic change. We are dealing with technological change, with the increasing prevalence of automation, artificial intelligence and machine learning threatening to replace very large numbers of jobs in organisations and markets around Australia. This race between capital and labour to see who benefits from this change will depend on education levels. It is a race between technological innovation and education to see who receives these productivity gains.
The rise of Asia means that we need to run even faster. The rising middle class in Asia means that we will not be able to simply export rocks and agricultural products to Asia in the way that we have in the past. We all need to be exporting to a middle class. That means services: health, aged care, financial and education services.
You're not serious, are you?
Education is our second largest export industry. Our second largest—
You're selling visas.
for not just high school but university.
The industry is the selling of visas!
This is our second largest export industry. The Australian education system is the envy of the world.
The industry is the selling of visas!
If it is the envy of the world for the upper class of Asia, for the middle class of Asia—
Mr Katter interjecting—
The member for Kennedy will stop being himself!
The member for Kennedy can get himself an education, and then he might learn not to speak when he is ignorant, because this is the second largest export industry in Australia. And, if we do not invest in it, I can tell you: other countries in the world are not complacent about this; they are investing in it. Look at the school investments happening in China. Look at the school investments happening in India. Look at the school investments happening in Indonesia. They are investing. Unless we invest, we will not catch up. But, unfortunately, Australia is falling behind. We should be the envy of the world for our education system, for all kids in Australia, not just for those who have the privilege of having parents who are able to fund it directly themselves.
We are falling behind. The latest Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study show that Australia is dropping from 18th to 28th out of 49 countries in year 4 mathematics, and the countries moving ahead of us are our regional peers—Asian nations. Australia has remained in the middle of the pack for the past 20 years while other countries are improving. Dr Sue Thomson, Director of the Educational Monitoring and Research Division at the Australian Council for Educational Research, has found not only that but also that a substantial proportion of our students are below the Australian proficient standard, with roughly half of students in remote areas at or below that level.
As Bill Shorten has said, every Australian child should have the same chance of succeeding at school as any other kid in the country, no matter what their background, where they live or what type of school they go to, whether government, independent or Catholic. Under this proposal, the bill before the parliament, there is no guarantee that any school—public, independent or Catholic—will ever get up to its fair funding level. A $22 billion cut means an average $2.4 million cut from every school in Australia. This is $22 billion being taken away from our schoolkids so that the Prime Minister can give a $65 billion tax cut to corporations, multinationals and banks. It is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. Labor will restore every dollar of the $22 billion that the Prime Minister is cutting from schools in this bill, that is because we believe that every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity. We want better schools, better results and better support for our great teachers.
I stand in this parliament as a publicly educated Australian. I have a commitment to the public school teachers and the public school students that a Labor government will deliver for them the funding that they need to build the egalitarian Australian society that we all believe in to ensure that every kid can realise their full potential in Australia. This is a bill about education but it is also a bill about the kind of country that we want to build. Do we want to build a country like many of our Asian peers are building, where if you are wealthy you can get ahead, you can do anything in life, but if you are not wealthy you are consigned to a second-class outcome, your aspirations are capped and your dreams have limits. That is not the Australia that I grew up in. That is not the Australia that I want to leave to my children.
I rise today to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. It is a pleasure to follow my good friend from the other side of the chamber, the member for Gellibrand. We have a few things in common. We are both public school educated. Unfortunately, he took a wrong turn. He barracks for the Bull Dogs. I have continued my passion for the Sydney Swans after they moved from Victoria. I welcome his contribution. I disagree with a lot of it, but I do welcome his contribution.
This bill will mean record funding for schools in the electorate of Gippsland. It will actually improve the way schools are funded. I would like to commend Senator Simon Birmingham, the minister in the other place, for the way he has approached what has been a very difficult task in coming forward with what I think is an excellent long-term outcome that will provide certainty and security for the education sector moving forward. This will mean that Gippsland schools will be funded in a way that is fair and equal into the future. Not only will there be no cuts to education funding; but this funding is locked into the budget. It is fully accounted for, unlike Labor's unfunded and empty promises. So I come to the dispatch box today with a very simple message: no school in Gippsland will get less funding under the coalition's education reforms, and I would encourage parents who have students at schools in my electorate to listen to both sides of the story before they cast a judgement in relation to the scare campaign which is being run by those opposite.
One of my favourite jobs as a local MP is meeting school children from the electorate. Just this week, I have had the pleasure of catching up with the students of grade 5 and 6 at St Mary's Catholic Primary School in Yarram, who are here on their Canberra camp. Incidentally, their funding goes up by $32,000 between 2017 and 2018. At other times, I go into the classrooms and I meet with the students and talk to them about my role in parliament and their future aspirations. Every one of those students has the chance to achieve their full potential because of the high quality of education they already receive in Gippsland, whether it is in the Catholic, government or independent sector. It does not mean there is no room for improvement. I believe that there are huge opportunities for us to work more collaboratively with our school communities and for parents to be more engaged with children's education. Simply throwing money at problems around literacy and numeracy has not proved to be a solution to the situation. We need to see greater engagement from all levels of community in our children's education.
The reforms that we are debating here today will target the areas that need it most, and I think that is essentially why the legislation is fair. These reforms underpin the intention of the original Gonski needs based changes. So the question is: what do these changes look like on the ground? In my community in Gippsland, it means that principals and teachers will be able to use the funding provided to their school in a way that best allocates the resources and addresses the needs of their students so that they can be responsive to the needs in the local community.
That greater autonomy means they can choose to invest extra funding, if required, into a speech pathologist or a specialist literacy or special needs teacher according to the needs of their school community. As the husband of a wife who works as a teacher's aide, I directly understand the challenges that she faces in helping young people in the primary school sector catch up when they have been left behind. Providing resources to allow that to occur is a fundamental principle of the need-based model which we are delivering through this legislation.
The previous speaker mentioned the jobs of the future. The jobs of the future will require a high level of technological literacy. It is essential to equip our school students with a strong foundation in literacy and numeracy, science and technology, engineering and mathematics—the STEM skills we often talk about in this place. This government has outlined an ambitious reform agenda for Australian schools, in our Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes, in the areas where evidence shows that it makes a difference. Those areas include strengthening teaching and school leadership, developing essential knowledge and skills, improving student participation and parental engagement, and building better evidence and transparency.
I would add one other key criteria, and that is getting our school community to open itself up to the wider business community and local communities and to be part of the community more generally. We have to open the doors our schools to utilise the skills of the business and trade environment that is available locally in many of our regional communities and to seek more opportunities to have older members of our community come back to school as mentors to engage with young students. We have seen that work very successfully in many different parts of Gippsland in the past, and I would love to see that extended into the future.
It is important in this debate that both sides remain transparent. I say that because I note the concerns raised in the media by the National Catholic Education Commission, including an opinion piece in today's Australian. I want to stress that no other Catholic school in Gippsland will get less money in 2018 than I did in 2017. In fact, some Catholic schools in Gippsland stand to get between $22 million and $23 million more in funding between 2018 and 2027.
Personally, I deeply value the role of the Catholic school system—and I understand that some of the smaller parish schools have pretty lean budgets as well—just as I value the role of the independent school system and the public education system. It is the right of a parent to choose where to send their child, and that child has a right to receive a high standard, well-funded education. I know that many parents in the broader Gippsland region would not consider themselves to be well-off. They work hard and often families have two incomes, and they spend whatever they can, when they can earn extra, on school fees to give their children the best start in life. They work hard to send their kids to the schools of their choice, and they rely on the Commonwealth to fairly and adequately provide taxpayer funding for their schools.
Before summing up, I want to refer to the opposition's misleading claims of cuts. There are two aspects to this. Every time Labor claim that there are claims, they are knowingly misleading parents in my electorate. Labor are not only misleading parents but also the students.
Opposition members interjecting—
I note the interjections. Claiming there is a cut is a bit like going to your boss and saying, 'Boss, I want a $100 pay rise,' and your boss saying, 'I can't afford $100 but I will give you a $75 pay rise.' So you have actually had a pay rise but you claim it as a cut. It is bizarre. Funding is going up year on year on year. Those opposite are making unsubstantiated claims and false promises to their communities.
Some older students will listen to these debates in parliament and watch the news and read posts on Facebook and see orchestrated campaigns from the likes of the Labor front GetUp! and some may actually believe what they read or hear: that there are cuts to education, despite the funding going up each year. This will affect a student's state of mind. It affects their confidence in the school system, and that is not fair. It is not fair of Labor to be scaring people and scaring families unnecessarily. It is not fair for Labor to play politics with the lives of students purely for political expediency. But, sadly, this is a growing trend within the Labor Party. This win at any cost no matter what the collateral damage may be type of approach is part of Labor's deficit of trust in the community.
In conclusion, I want to refer to an editorial in The Agenot known as a great supporter of the coalition or our side of politics, the old Melbourne Age. But in this edition yesterday, relating to the coalition's education reforms, The Age editorialised:
We believe the policy presented in recent days by the Coalition government, a package being referred to as Gonski 2.0, is a good compromise – and is the best chance our nation has of moving to a needs-based funding model.
Opposition members interjecting—
I am shattered to hear the members opposite disagreeing now that they have backed away from their claims of a cut and they are saying there is something wrong with doing a compromise. The Age also noted that opposition leader Bill Shorten's stance suffered a 'credibility deficit'. Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, claims he would spend $22 billion more than the increases which the coalition has actually budgeted for. Unfortunately for those opposite, they have not budgeted for it. Years 5 and 6 of Gonski—2018-19, which contained even higher leaps in funding—were never funded by Labor, and those opposite know that. Labor is simply spending money it knows it does not have. Nor has it any realistic hope of raising it without higher taxes or making cuts in other areas.
Those opposite will have the chance to speak during the continuation of this debate. I am quite happy for them to come in here and explain which taxes are going to increase or which cuts they are going to make to pay for their unfunded $22 billion. I am quite happy for them to come in here and explain it. I think what you will find, Mr Deputy Speaker, is not one of them will actually have a plan for how they are going to fund their unrealistic approach to this debate. It is not fair to the families, it is not fair to the students for Labor to be raising false hope and making false claims.
Our position is completely transparent. We being honest, absolutely, with the Australian people about our education reforms. That is why, as I said earlier, I encourage all parents to hear from both sides of the debate, listen to the details and avail themselves of all the facts. From that point on we can have a well-informed opinion on these reforms that will deliver record funding for all schools in my electorate and provide a real needs-based funding model to the students who need it most.
I thank the House.
I do encourage parents in our electorates to listen to both sides of the debate. Education is very important to me and my family. I cannot claim a public school education, but this is not about pitting one school against another. There are over 80 schools in my electorate from all sectors—public, private, Catholic, et cetera. I have visited every school in my electorate over the last 34 years. We have some special schools for kids with disabilities. Some schools are high-fee-paying private schools. We have some of the most disadvantaged schools in New South Wales.
There is no greater factor in society that enhances social mobility than education. For a child who has received a proper education, the sky is the limit. Knowledge is the most valuable resource in our society. It is the most valuable gift we can give our children. But Australia has an unequal education system when looking at other advanced nations. And I see that myself.
My colleague the member for Fenner gave a speech a few months ago where he talked about educational inequality—the gap between students in the top 10th of performers and students in the bottom 10th of performers. This is an area where, demonstrably, Australia does very poorly. As the member for Fenner said in his speech, the top 10th of Australian students are doing very well. You can send them to any advance nation in the world and, as long as they know the language, they will hold their own amongst the best students. However, in very stark contrast, the bottom 10th, Australia's lowest-performing students, are well below the average in any advanced country. In fact, they are on a par with nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic.
Australia is failing too many of its students. As in many parts of Australian society, we are seeing our egalitarian roots fall to the wayside while the gap between rich and poor grows. We know for a fact that the gap in educational inequality has been shown to correlate strongly with income inequality. This correlation between educational inequality and income inequality drastically limits the opportunities education can provide for many of the most disadvantaged students in Australia.
The only way to address the vast issue of educational equality is a needs based funding system. I think there is general agreement on that. This is why Labor created a policy that was not trying to pit one school against another but instead looked where the need was and ensured there was enough funding for every school to provide excellent education for all students. Labor understands that it is wrong when the quality of a child's education is determined by their postcode. Labor understands that every child has different needs in a classroom, and some need more supports than others. This is why, after undertaking a landmark review into school funding and introducing a Schooling Resource Standard, Labor introduced a six-year funding model that provided a base level of funding so every child could receive a high-quality education, with additional funding for students with poorer outcomes to give them the extra help that they need.
I saw the benefits of that policy developing in every school I visited in my electorate in the last three or four years. This was a policy that led the then Prime Minister, the honourable member for Warringah, to come out in the 2013 election and say that the Labor Party and the coalition were on a joint ticket when it came to the school funding model. All it took was an election win for the coalition and the member for Warringah quickly backtracked, coming out with the travesty that was the 2014 budget and not funding the final two years of Labor's school funding model, which he had previously committed to—a disgrace. Now we have the member for Wentworth, with a little help from his friend, and the member for Cook come out in this budget and say that they will reinstate some—I emphasise 'some'—of the funding required for the last two years of Labor's needs based funding model. And, for that, they believe they should be congratulated. Disgraceful. I can assure the House that the students, parents and teachers in my electorate will not be jumping to congratulate the member for Wentworth and the member for Cook. They are more worried about the over $25 million that will be lost from schools in Macarthur.
The bill being introduced by this government represents $22 billion in cuts to education across the country, and no-one is grateful for that. As a paediatrician who has seen over 200,000 children in and around Macarthur, I have got to know the schools in my electorate very well. I will give a few examples of where the coalition government is cutting funding in Macarthur. Campbelltown Performing Arts High School, one of the largest high schools in the area, caters for a wide diversity of students. Many are in a selective stream and many participate in the performing arts, but there are also many students with learning difficulties. This school will lose $1.276 million over the next two years. Ambarvale High School draws students from a combination of department of housing and private housing, mainly from the four surrounding suburbs of Rosemeadow, Ambarvale, St Helens Park and Appin, soon to be massively developed. The school has a large Aboriginal and Pacific Islander population, as well as a strong support unit for children with mild to moderate intellectual disability—many of them my patients. This school will lose about $1.2 million over the next two years. Rosemeadow Public School, a large primary school with a number of support classes, deals with children with a variety of learning problems and some of these children come from very disadvantaged families. This school will lose $1.14 million over the next two years.
Airds High School, a very disadvantaged high school in the middle of the suburb of Airds, made up of department of housing accommodation, has a large Aboriginal and Pacific Islander population and a large number of children with disabilities. A large number of single parent families live in Airds, and the school is just across the road from the Reiby detention centre—a detention centre for juveniles charged with serious crimes. It has support classes for children with both mild and moderate intellectual disabilities, and it serves one of the most disadvantaged postcodes in the state of New South Wales. This school will lose just over $1 million. Eagle Vale High School borders Claymore, a suburb primarily made up of department of housing accommodation. The school also has many students from private housing areas in the suburbs of Eagle Vale, St Andrews and Raby. The school services a large Pacific Islander population and has children with high educational support needs. This school will lose about $990,000 over the next two years. Sarah Redfern High School, a school located in the suburb of Minto, which once again services a mixture of private and department of housing accommodation, has support classes for children with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities and a variety of other disabilities including autism. It is attached to a primary school, with a similar population of students, and an SSP school, a special school, called Passfield Park, for children with severe intellectual disabilities
This school, Sarah Redfern, will lose $960,000 in the next two years, and Passfield Park will lose $125,000 over the next two years. Blairmount Public School serves the suburbs of Blairmount and Claymore, which as I have previously stated is primarily made up of department of housing accommodation. It has a large number of students with learning difficulties that and it will lose $980,000 over the next two years. Briar Road Public School is a school in the suburb of Airds. I have been to it many times for case conferences. It is right next door to Reiby detention centre. It is a very disadvantaged school which has classes with students with a number of difficulties including autism and mild and moderate intellectual disability. This school will lose $919,000.
The electorate of Macarthur is a very diverse electorate with nearly 29,000 students—one of the highest school enrolments in the country. As I have mentioned previously, there are over 80 schools in the electorate. We have a large number of students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin. We have many families who have come from New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, the Philippines, Bangladesh et cetera. We have many families who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and many student who have lived a life of disadvantage. We have many children with learning difficulties and disabilities who attend both mainstream schools and special needs schools. Labor, unlike the coalition, understands the diversity of schools like those in Macarthur. That is why we are providing 80 per cent extra funding for public schools: because many public schools, especially the ones in my electorate, cater for seven out of 10 kids with disabilities, seven out of 10 kids with a language background other than English, eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and eight out of 10 Pacific Islander students. The schools that I have previously mentioned are schools that are already drastically underfunded and disadvantaged. You only have to visit the schools to see how far behind some of the best schools that I have seen in Australia they are.
These students need a decent education, and we need to give significant attention to these schools to be able to provide this world-class education for everyone. We are talking about classrooms that can have almost 40 students to one teacher. We are talking about students who are forced to share one outdated textbook amongst many because the funding is not available to buy new ones. We are talking about schools that have rusting sports equipment, deteriorating toilets, a lack of exercise facilities et cetera. I can assure the Prime Minister that many of the schools in my electorate are far from the palace-like education institution that both he and I attended. Cuts in funding of over $1 million to some of the schools in my electorate are going to be felt, and it is our students who are going to be hurt by it. The Prime Minister just does not seem to understand. He is fine with students continuing to miss out because of a lack of funding. He does not want Australia to be leading the world in educational outcomes. Earlier in my speech, I spoke about Australia's big issue around educational inequality. Is was understanding this huge gap in Australia's education system that pushed the Labor Party to come up with a system that would raise the educational attainment of the bottom performers in Australian schools. That is why we had the inquiry into the best education we can provide for our students: because it is undeniable that we are falling behind the rest of the developed world—particularly for those students in the bottom 10 or 15 per cent.
The bill that the Liberal Party has put before the parliament walks away from the targets that were set out by the Labor Party in the current act. These targets are: for Australia to be placed by 2025 in the top five highest performing countries, based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science; for the Australian schooling system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2015-16; lift the year 12 or certificate II attainment rate to 90 per cent by 2015-16 and lift the year 12 or equivalent 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; and halve the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in reading, writing and numeracy by 2018 from a baseline in 2008. By walking away from this target, the Prime Minister and Treasurer are walking away from fair schooling for all, and this is something that is very important to me. Everyone should have access to the best possible education that Australia can provide for. We are a wealthy country and it is undeniable that we have been failing in our duty in the last 20 years. We need to improve our educational funding for every student that we possibly can.
I have a list here of about half of the schools in my electorate. They will all be losing funding from this federal government by the figures that were originally agreed to in 2014. I think it is a great shame and something that I do not want to see happen. I think the government needs to rethink its educational policy to provide the best education it can for those students who really needed. I myself will be doing all I can to visit the schools in my electorate over the next few weeks to see how they are going to cope with these funding cuts. I thank you all for your time, and I hope that we can see a better educational outcome for all Australian students.
I am delighted to be able to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, because it certainly is most pleasing to have an education policy in this country that is actually funded. It is an important part of the equation. It is one thing to have a policy, but the Labor Party had a policy that was nothing more than a mirage—the education mirage—that was unfunded, and they had no intention of ever paying for it or ever delivering it. That is not a policy; it is nothing more than a mirage. It was a huge confidence trick on the Australian people. They put out a policy that has a schedule of payments and when the real heavy lifting has to be done, it is not the budget. It is a policy that was never budgeted and there was never any intention to implement it.
The Australian people are smarter than that; they certainly are smarter than that. They have woken up to the fact that the Australian Labor Party did not budget for their so-called education policy in any budget document. It was out there in the ether. You can imagine Prime Minister Gillard going down to the supermarket with an arm full of groceries. She comes up to the check-out and she bolts out saying, 'The person behind me in the queue is going to pay for it.' That is the coalition. We are the ones who followed them on and it is our responsibility to deliver an education policy that is transparent, that is needs based and, very importantly, that is actually funded. There is $18.6 billion in additional investment in education over the next 10 years.
I am delighted to advise the House that—despite hearing member after member saying that this particular school's funding is going to be cut and that particular school's funding is going to be cut—I can say categorically to the people who I represent that every school in the electorate of Cowper will receive increased funding over the next 10 years. That is a very important point. Unlike Labor's unfunded mirage, every school in the electorate of Cowper will receive increased funding—and it is real money. It is budgeted for. It is affordable. That is as opposed to Labor Party, who are doing nothing more than attempting to mislead. I heard the member for Adelaide, the so-called shadow education minister, at press conference after press conference decrying the coalition's position on education. When she was asked, 'Well, are you going to deliver on the funding?' She said, 'Well, it's not for us to do. We're in opposition.' They are in opposition. We want to keep them there.
As I said, every school in the electorate of Cowper is going to receive an increase in funding. Whether you live in Coffs Harbour, whether live in Port Macquarie or whether you live in Bellingen, Dorrigo, South West Rocks or Urunga, if you live in the election of Cowper and your children go to school, there will be increased resources to assist them in their education. That is funding that is delivered under a transparent formula, funding that is delivered to those schools that are most in need and funding that is absolutely appropriate to the 21st century.
I would just like to quote a few examples to the people of my electorate as to the sorts of funding increases that are going to be provided. Let us take in the Kempsey Shire: Kempsey Adventist School is getting an additional $18.1 million and South West Rocks Public School is getting $2.5 million. Macleay Vocational College, a school that does great work providing an education for kids who are facing very severe learning challenges, will get an additional $19.6 million over 10 years. In the Port Macquarie area, St Columba Anglican School will get an additional $23.5 million. Westport Public School will get an additional $2.9 million and Hastings Public School will get an additional $5.1 million.
In Bellingen Shire, Bellingen Public School will get an extra $3.2 million. That does not sound like a cut to me. St Mary's Primary will get an additional $3 million. Dorrigo High will get $2 million in extra funding. That does not sound like a cut to me. In Nambucca, Macksville High will get an extra $6.3 million. Nambucca Heads Public School will get an extra $2.4 million and St Patrick's Primary School will get an extra $6.9 million. I certainly welcomed the opportunity to call into St Patrick's on my charity ride. The children welcomed me as I rode in, and the band was playing. It was a great day when I visited St Patrick's in December last year.
In the Coffs Harbour area, Orara High School will get an additional $6.5 million. John Paul College will get an additional $26.5 million and Coffs Harbour High will get an additional $9.3 million. This is real money. This is funded. These are real increases. They take into account increases in enrolment. They take into account increases in need. These are very important funding figures, and they debunk the myth spread by members opposite that school funding is going to be cut.
But we on this side of the House know it is just not about the money. Funding is very important indeed; that is why we are providing extra funding. We are not providing a mirage; this money is real; this money is budgeted. It is how you spend the money that is important. In recent years, despite increased funding, we have seen educational outcomes declining. That is why the government is absolutely focused on putting in place policies that are going to improve educational outcomes over and above merely increasing funding. I draw to the attention of the House the government's policy 'Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes'. We are looking at a range of areas to improve learning performance such as strengthening teaching and school leadership, developing essential knowledge and skills, improving student participation and parental engagement—it is very important to have the school community engaged in the activities of the school—and building better evidence and transparency. Our key reforms include year 1 phonics and literacy assessment to assist in early identification and intervention. There will be initiatives to keep our best teachers in the classroom—and nothing affects the outcomes in the classroom more than the quality of the teachers we retain and the quality of the teachers we attract. There will be reforms to strengthen literacy and STEM skills such as requiring minimum literacy and numeracy standards for school leavers and ensuring that English or humanities, and maths and a science subject, are studied to get an ATAR. These are important reforms. They are not financial reforms but they go to the heart of improving the educational outcomes that young people will receive. We are very focused on the importance of STEM. If we are to be an innovative nation going forward, we have to have young people with the skills that are required in the 21st century.
Looking at teaching and school leadership, we want to see improved career and professional capabilities for teachers aligned with professional standards for teachers, national teacher registration and professional learning. There will be certification for new principals. There are targets for STEM qualified teachers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers. Australian professional standards for teachers will underpin teacher workforce policies. We will establish incentives to attract and retain experienced leaders and high-performing teachers in disadvantaged schools and schools with a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. We want to increase the supply of language teachers—so important in a world that is becoming more international every day. We want to include literacy and numeracy as an area of specialisation for primary school teacher training. We want to ensure that teachers use a range of strategies, including explicit literacy and numeracy instruction.
We have a very broad policy canvas, as it were. We are looking at the issue of funding and we are providing the funding that is required. This is very much what Mr Gonski was seeking. We have actually delivered Gonski; Labor delivered nothing more than a mirage. They delivered nothing more than a mirage. There were lots of green posters and lots of Teachers Federation people protesting outside their offices. Rather than investing in professional development, they were out there protesting with their green banners. We are delivering the funding. We are delivering a strategy that is going to improve student outcomes and deliver better outcomes for our young people.
I do recall the contribution by the member for Bendigo. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can always depend on the good old member for Bendigo to say something a little bit unusual. There she was, carping on about schools in her electorate losing money. Where are they? She was talking about Bendigo Senior Secondary College, Holy Rosary School and Weeroona College losing money. So she claimed. The fact is this: all of those schools are going to get an increase in funding in 2018. They are all going to see increased funding. The member for Bendigo was having a lend of her constituents falsely claiming that the schools were going to be cutting funding when, in fact, under our proposals every school—every school in my electorate, certainly—is receiving an increase of funding. Similarly, the schools in the electorate of Bendigo are going to receive an increase in funding.
This is a very important debate indeed. I was so delighted to watch the press conference where the Minister for Education was discussing these reforms. The Prime Minister was there and David Gonski was there. It was great to see him there. I can imagine the members opposite would be wondering, 'How are we going to fabricate something now to mislead the Australian people?' when Mr Gonski himself was there with the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister, advocating the advantages and benefits of the proposals we have outlined. There is $18.6 billion, a massive increase in funding. The funding will be combined with a range of other measures with a strong focus on teacher quality and a strong focus on retaining teachers in the system. These are very worthwhile reforms indeed. I am delighted to be able to stand here in this debate to say to my constituents: you can be assured that if your child is attending a school in the electorate of Cowper there will be increased resources available for that child to ensure that child gets the education he or she needs to ensure that they are competitive in the job market into the future.
I will bring my contribution to a close now. I think I have made the point very strongly that we have a funded policy. It is compared to a mirage from those opposite, the greatest confidence trick in Australian political history. It is like the NDIS; they had the same funding model, they pushed all the expenditure out into the future, they pushed the expenditure off the budget and they left it to the next person in the queue to deliver.
Opposition members interjecting—
If members could be quiet!
We are about high quality education. We are about bringing the budget into surplus. We are about delivering education with additional funding that is appropriate so that we can continue that funding into the future.
What a ridiculous contribution from the member for Cowper! He is a member of the government. The analogy I like to use is: the government has robbed $30 from people and returned $8 and now they expect us to be grateful. They rob $30 and return $8 and expect us to be grateful that they now only owe us $22. The sad truth is that they are robbing the future of our kids with this policy. They are denying our kids and our grandkids the best possible education and the best possible start in life. That is why I am proud to rise today and talk about the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 and to join with my Labor colleagues in highlighting the Liberal-National coalition's total abandonment of the needs-based school funding that was the goal of the Gonski model.
Australians know that there is only one major party committed to needs based funding, and that is the great Australian Labor Party. Australian parents and grandparents in communities know that they have been blatantly deceived by the coalition regarding education funding. We were told before the 2013 election that Australians could vote Labor or Liberal and they would still get the same outcome regarding funding for schools. In fact, the quote used was that there was not a cigarette paper's worth of difference between the two parties. What a complete lie! What an utter mistruth! It is Australian students and communities that are paying the price for this.
The 2014 budget was proof positive that the coalition has abandoned this commitment. This legislation is further evidence of the Liberal's and National's complete disregard of needs based school funding, and their disgusting disregard for the power of a quality education to enable our youth to contribute to our society and to our economy.
Let there be no mistaking what this bill does: it cuts $22 billion from Australian schools over the next decade. But do not rely on my word—heaven forbid! Do not take my word for it, or the word of anyone from the Labor Party; take the word of the government's own documents. Documents that the government released and distributed to journalists said that this policy announcement constitutes a $22 billion saving against the 2016 election policy of the Labor Party in their 2013 agreement with the state governments and school systems. This was a $22 billion cut by them, out of their own mouths. They are effectively saying that they lied in that document, and I do not believe that. It is one of the very few times that I actually believe this government told the truth. Maybe it was an accident, but they actually told the truth when they admitted publicly that they cut $22 billion through this election education announcement.
On average, this represents a cut of $2.4 million for every school around the country. Most significantly, the bill removes the extra funding agreed with the states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all underresourced schools to their fair funding level. Of course, this was the aim of Labor's reforms.
My colleagues and I are particularly concerned about the impact on public schools that this legislation will have, if passed. Public schools will receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Liberal's proposal, compared to 80 per cent of the extra funding in Labor's plan. This is one of the mistruths out there, that somehow the Labor Party is standing up for rich private schools or that somehow Labor does not care for public schools. Let me repeat this fact: our fully-funded plan would have 80 per cent of the extra funding going to public schools. Their dog of a policy delivers less than 50 per cent to public schools. The real betrayer of public schools in this debate is the coalition. The coalition stands for less funding for public schools. The most basic fact is this: the government's gigantic cuts will result in fewer teachers and less personal attention for our most disadvantaged students.
I am proud to be part of a political party and a movement committed to education as the great enabler in ensuring economic growth, prosperity and social justice. The current Australian Education Act 2013 enshrines this noble objective. The act states:
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.
This statement so clearly demonstrates the commitment to a fair go for everyone—the Australian value of a fair go. It is a damning indictment on the Liberal and National parties that they are actually removing this commitment from the words of this act.
They are also walking away from this target in the current act:
… to ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high quality and highly equitable education for all students …
What kind of sick and depraved legislators would abandon a commitment to high-quality and equitable education for Australian children? Australians know the answer to this: those who sit on the government benches.
Before addressing the impacts these cuts will have on my electorate, I want to emphasise the significance of the funding reduction and what the government's focus is on. At the same time as cutting $22 billion from schools, denying extra support for children with disability, Indigenous children and children with learning difficulties, this government is giving a $65 billion tax cut to their big business friends who fund the Liberal Party. The government is also totally misleading in saying that they are introducing a levy on the big four banks, because at the same time they are giving a massive tax cut to those same banks.
I agree with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer when they say that the budget is about priorities, but their radical right-wing priorities are wrong for Australia. Australians want investment in schools, Medicare and infrastructure, not a huge giveaway to the big end of town. This is what this debate is about; it is about priorities—funding education on the one hand or a $65.4 billion cut for big business. This is what this debate is about.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Shortland will have an opportunity to continue his contribution at that time.
Just before Easter this year, I received an email from concerned grade 3 students from Wilmott Park Primary School, in my electorate of McEwen. Amalia, Kiana, Montana and Phoenix told me that they had found rubbish, bottles, plastic and a pram in Malcolm Creek in Craigieburn and they were very disappointed about the pollution. On behalf of those students, I wrote to the Mayor of Hume City Council, Drew Jessop, to express their concern. I asked the mayor what actions the council was taking to ensure the health of our waterways were protected against dumping and other forms of pollution.
The students were thrilled to see that, because of them raising this issue, because of their actions, Malcolm Creek was cleaned by the council and the council is committed to ensuring the creek is maintained going forward. It is fantastic to see these bright young kids taking an interest in our local environment and actively working to stop pollution. I am extremely proud to represent such wonderful students in the electorate of McEwen. It is promising to know that our future is in the hands of proactive, bright minds who will continue to be eco-warriors for many years to come.
Members of the Australian Ex-Services Atomic Survivors Association were present at a morning tea, which I held with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, at the Belmont RSL last week—at the end of budget week. It was fantastic to have the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Wannon, join me to update members on how the coalition government is delivering essential services to secure the future of our veterans. This year's budget provides funding that will allow for all past and current service personnel to gain easier access to free mental health support services, which will directly impact the 884 veterans and their families in my electorate of Swan.
In addition to this, $148.3 million will be invested to undertake reforms of the DVA, meaning shorter wait times and claim times for our veterans. As I said, members of the Australian Ex-Services Atomic Survivors Association were present at the morning tea. The association's president, Mr Rex Kaye, spoke on the members' experiences and the impact their work had had on them, their health and their families. Mr Kaye went on to publicly thank the minister for the $133 million in funding that was announced in the budget to fund gold cards for all veterans exposed to radiation during military service. I would like to thank Mr Kaye for sharing his story with me at the morning tea, and I would also like to thank the minister for coming out to Western Australia and for his ongoing work and strong advocacy for our veterans in Western Australia and Australia.
On behalf of Labor, I want to again express my utmost condolences to the families of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson, who tragically lost their lives in the Lindt Cafe siege in 2014. This was a terrible event, which must never be repeated. Yesterday, the final report of the State Coroner of New South Wales into the siege was released. It contains a number of recommendations. One of those concerned a letter written by the gunman, Man Haron Monis, to the Attorney-General two months before the siege in October 2014, asking whether it was legal to contact the head of Islamic State, described by Monis as Caliph Ibrahim. This letter was not passed on to ASIO.
It has been a battle getting this government to own up to this failure. First the letter was not passed on to a government review and then the foreign minister wrongly told parliament it had been. It took a week for her to correct her statement. The Senate inquiry held into the matter was damning, highlighting several failures in process in the Attorney-General's office and in the Attorney-General's Department. This failure to alert ASIO was unacceptable. It should not have taken the Attorney-General more than two years to say he regrets that failure. Let us hope we can trust the Attorney-General when he assures the Australian people that this will never happen again, and let us hope that the coroner's recommendations about government-wide processes for this kind of referral are put in place.
There is a very important radio receiving facility in Birkdale, Queensland along Old Cleveland Road East. It was there that General Macarthur had his communications with the entire Pacific operations, the USA and, of course, his troops in the field. This important location in Capalaba and Birkdale in my electorate is something that I think needs to be preserved. With ACMA closing its radio facilities in the very near future, this little-known site deserves to be preserved for historical purposes, for military tourism and for the important asset that it is, being a fortified structure and with a number of locals having worked in that location. How did Macarthur achieve this communication? The technology that was used is not well known, but interviews have been conducted with those who worked at the site. I want to commend Laurie Murray from the Thornlands for his devoted work in making sure that this very important asset is potentially assessed for its heritage value and available for those in future generations.
Yesterday's estimates confirmed what we already know about the Turnbull government's harsh, cruel cuts to our national institutions. The Turnbull government's cuts to our national institutions that we heard about yesterday are having a significant impact on our national story, on our national history, on our nation's voice, on our nation's music and on our nation's uniquely Australian interpretation of events, landscapes and environments. The National Gallery of Australia's director, Gerard Vaughan, told senators that 2016-17 had been a challenging year and that restructuring the gallery had been a difficult but interesting process. He also said—and this is where the rubber hits the road; this is what cuts actually mean—that tighter finances had forced the gallery to rotate its collections more slowly, from every six months to between nine and 12 months. With fewer people conserving, preserving and curating our national collection, there is greater potential that the collection will not be able to tell our national story, our national history and our language to future generations. Since the Turnbull-Abbott government came into power, it has been nothing but cuts, cuts and cuts for national institutions. We are not cutting into fat and we are not cutting into bone; we are cutting into vital organs.
The Queensland Labor government has shown complete ineptitude in its ability to deliver job-creating projects for Central Queensland. The Palaszczuk government has once again shown its inability to get an actual project off the ground. They took over a year to get the business case for Rookwood Weir started and now they seem incapable of deciding how to manage royalties to get Adani off the ground. Our local state members have become mere puppets to their Brisbane masters. The member for Keppel has been uncharacteristically quiet on this. I can only assume that she is toeing the line, just as she did with Great Keppel Island. Is she going to stand up for her electorate this time or stay in the pocket of the Deputy Premier, who relies on Greens preferences to retain her South Brisbane seat? The member for Rockhampton has said he will back the Premier with whatever decision she makes and has failed previously to back the $16 billion project. Despite ongoing and continuous attacks from lobby groups backed by Labor and the Greens, the LNP refuse to bow to pressure because we know our region needs jobs and investment.
It gives me no pleasure to rise in my place today to talk yet again about the terrible situation with sarcoptic mange affecting Tasmania's wombats—95 per cent dead in Narawntapu National Park, and it has now spread throughout the state. At least 50 per cent of the Tasmanian landmass is affected, including most of my electorate—Campania, Bagdad, Bream Creek and Nubeena. One of the few bright lights of this terrible affliction is that there is a community-led campaign to prevent it. It is community leading the way. It is the community doing the fightback. Wombat warriors, wombat rescue—people like John Harris from Kelso, in the north of my electorate. These are the people who are taking the fight up to this disease. Unfortunately, the Tasmanian government and, I am sorry to say, the federal Turnbull government are doing next to nothing. The state government has provided $100,000, but we need more. We need mobile treatment centres so that these wombats can be treated in the field. Too many of them are dying. Once they get this disease, they die, and they die a terrible, awful death. Ms Prentice is sitting here, and I know she is as passionate about wombats as I am. They are wonderful Tasmanian and Australian icons. There is a remarkable community effort underway. I hope the Turnbull government and the Hodgman government in Tasmania come to the party and do their part in rescuing these magnificent animals.
I would like to ensure that my constituents in the electorate of Hughes are not hoodwinked by the deceptive claims of cuts to school funding. The fact is, if we compare this year to next year, my electorate will enjoy an additional $4,164,800 in funding.
I will quickly go through some of the schools and the additional funding that they will receive next year as compared to this year: St John Bosco Catholic Primary School, $228,600 extra; Shire Christian School, $142,700 extra; St John Bosco College, $248,800 extra; Heathcote Public School, $33,800 extra; Yarrawarrah Public School, $31,600 extra; Engadine West Public School, $84,800 extra; Como West Public School, $40,800 extra; Grays Point Public School, $43,200 extra; Holy Family Catholic Primary School, $190,700 extra; Menai High School, $166,700 extra; Bundeena Public School, $23,400 extra; Holsworthy Public School, $75,300 extra; Loftus Public School, $47,200 extra. I could go on and on. Every school gets more in my electorate.
I call on members of the opposition not to go around telling untruths that there are cuts to schools in your electorate where no cuts exist. Do not frighten the children, do not mislead the teachers or—(Time expired)
For the member for Hughes, happy Public Education Day, Sir! Welcome to the public educators today that join us in the federal parliament. This morning, I had breakfast with public educators from across this country. They are people that I am incredibly proud of. I was once in their ranks. I know how hard they work. I want to give a shout out to every public school teacher in this country—those who do the heavy lifting, those who prepare our most disadvantaged children across this country for a future. I want to assure them that on this side of the parliament we support their work. We value the efforts they make, we value their professionalism, we value the work they do for our children.
Public education is the foundation of education in this country. It is on their heavy lifting that this country relies—for the future for these children, for our social cohesion, for our prosperity. I want those opposite to explain it to the teachers and the principals who are here today who have said to me this morning, 'How, Joanne, am I going to explain to parents? How am I going to explain to parents why their children cannot get the same intervention programs next year as they got this year?'
Government members interjecting—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
Order! The member for Lalor's time is up. It is Public Education Day. She will be in the naughty corner very soon!
Australia values its close relationship with Indonesia. We enjoy a high degree of cooperation, and so many Australians have experienced the warmth of Indonesian hospitality and the vibrancy of their culture. Our friendship with Indonesia has been strengthened by our perception of it being a pluralistic, democratic and moderate Islamic nation. Sadly, recent events have given us cause to question that understanding.
This week, two young men, by virtue of their sexuality alone, were subject to the most appalling treatment by the judicial system in Aceh. Cruel and sickening are the only words to describe the images of those men being caned at a public spectacle. We recognise the process that brought an end to civil strife in Aceh. Yet, nothing should absolve the Indonesian government of its obligation to ensure that all of its citizens are afforded the basic human rights it has agreed to uphold through its international commitments. That the operation of sharia law should allow two people to be so inhumanely treated is not something we can stand by and ignore, and nor should Indonesian authorities.
As Human Rights Watch documented in its 2016 report, what we witnessed this week reflects a broader trend to stigmatise and persecute members of the Indonesian LGBTI community. I am grateful that our foreign minister has personally raised the events of this week with her Indonesian counterparts. I also hope that others will exercise influence, including leaders in our own Muslim community, and will join to work to ensure that no person, because who they love or what they believe, is subject to this type of persecution. (Time expired)
Next week marks the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the Iron Chieftain off Newcastle. It is a little known fact that, outside of Bomber Command, merchant mariners suffered more casualties than any other service arm, and frequently they were not recognised for this contribution. I rise to talk about the economic decimation of coastal shipping. It is a sad truth now that thousands of maritime workers are out of work. A couple of weeks back I met with Jesse Stevens from Caves Beach and other unemployed maritime workers together with the MUA to talk about their plight—a plight that has been made worse by a government that is committed to ruining the Australian maritime industry, is committed to offshoring all these jobs and is committed to bringing in foreign crews working on $2 an hour. Do not just believe me; look at their own legislation that they tried to implement in 2015 and that they are trying to bring back right now. Their own explanatory memorandum for that legislation says that 90 per cent of the savings come from replacing 1,000 of the 1,100 maritime workers in this country doing coastal shipping with foreign crews. Their own explanatory memorandum says their legislation will cause the loss of 1,000 further maritime workers. That is a disgrace. We need to stand up for Australia's proud maritime history. We are an island nation and we rely on the merchant navy to get supplies to where we need them. It is an absolute disgrace that we have a foreign crews on $2 an hour, rather than employing Australians to do this vital work.
I wish to highlight the damage that rising electricity prices are doing in my electorate of Farrer. The High Court decision to reject restrictions on the amount electricity networks can charge sounds a death knell for many local businesses in regional Australia. I visited a local small business in Finley last week and heard their electricity costs will rise by 250 per cent from July. Sustainable is a word we hear a lot in this House. Believe me, power prices doubling every year for five years is not sustainable, and I quote from their letter: 'The flow on effect is that unemployment will rise and rural areas will suffer from less job opportunities and services.'
Our government is doing what it can to assist, but the High Court finding effectively gives back control to electricity networks to charge whatever they like, and the consequences be dammed. For the average homeowner in Farrer, this has just dumped another $300 onto their annual bill. What we need now is to abolish the so-called Limited Merits Review, the system being exploited by the networks at the expense of their customers. The coalition has a clear policy to reform the LMR, but states like New South Wales, which own network assets, are standing in the way. By doing so, they are clobbering their own constituencies—the businesses and people who keep the economy ticking. This has got to stop, it must stop and it can stop, when the COAG energy ministers meet in July. (Time expired)
Today is Public Education Day. On this side of the House, it is a day we celebrate. It is a day on which we also recommit ourselves to the fight for fairness when it comes to public education in Australia. I was proud today to join the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and so many of my Labor colleagues in meeting with an important delegation organised by Correna Haythorpe and the AEU—a delegation of teachers, principals and others involved in school communities to share our stories about what public education has meant for Australia and to share our resolve to fight for public education in Australia.
It is a day of celebration, but it is also a day of frustration, because in the House at the moment we have legislation that represents a retreat, an abandonment, by the Australian government of national responsibility for public education—a trashing of a commitment to a student resource standard which would support every child in every school to get the education they deserve and to be the pathway to a decent life. I stand here to acknowledge the work of all those in that delegation, and it is great to see so many of them here, and to commit myself, as the Leader of the Opposition did so memorably this morning, to fight for the full Gonski—to put $22 billion into much-needed education, with a particular focus on supporting our great public schools. (Time expired)
The sheer devastation associated with ice use is perhaps one of the most confronting issues facing communities right across my electorate of Maranoa. While sadly weaving a paralysing path through local towns and destroying families, I believe we have a unique role as the nation's representatives to bring each community together to find local solutions that stick. Our government is being proactive in prioritising assistance to our most affected communities. Our National Ice Action Strategy provided an extra $298 million over four years to tackle the problem, and we have established new local drug action teams that address the challenges in their community's hardships but also acknowledge their unique opportunities.
I am also looking forward to kicking off a series of community forums right across my electorate, commencing in two weeks time, to bring together our primary health networks, healthcare providers, hospitals, police, schools, councils and, most importantly, our community members, who are perhaps the most impacted, to discuss localised solutions. They will start in Chinchilla and Dalby on 5 June, before heading to Kingaroy and Warwick on 6 June. The south west and central west will not be forgotten. I will host forums in every major town this year.
To my constituents who have approached me and trusted me with their own personal stories, I thank you. Your words have not fallen on deaf ears, and these forums are a result of your advocacy. I encourage everyone in these communities to come together at these forums and help deliver better solutions across their local areas. The scourge of ice and drug addiction is not just the problem of those who are impacted but of all of us. So it is our responsibility as a community to come together and make a difference. (Time expired)
Today is Public Education Day, and I stand here absolutely astonished that we in this place have been debating the fact that $22.3 billion has been cut from the education system. The public education system is the very backbone of education in our country. Let me tell this government very clearly: I stand here proudly supporting the public schools in my electorate of Herbert—schools like Aitkenvale State School, where, for two-thirds of the population, English is a second language; a school where the principal has offered the most innovative language program to assist these kids to get the English language under their belt before they move into mainstream studies so that they are not left behind. I also stand here to say congratulations to Kirwan State High School, the second-largest state high school in Queensland, with very diverse school population. I pay my utmost respect to the incredible dedication of the principals and teachers in our public school system. They deserve to have the resources that they need to ensure that every child our community has the best possible education.
It was a great honour to attend and speak at the launch of the 2017 Toowoomba Red Shield Appeal official opening function at Fitzy's Tapestry Function Room last week. Together with local business and community members, we were guests of Lieutenant-Colonel David Godkin, the divisional commander of the Salvation Army Queensland Division, and my good mate Michael McNab, chair of the Toowoomba Appeal Committee. Launched by Mayor Paul Antonio, MC'd by Councillor Geoff McDonald, and attended by the state member for Toowoomba South, David Janetzki, and the state member for Toowoomba North, Trevor Watts, this was truly a community affair, focused on the vital need to raise funds for the Salvo's work. We heard a moving and heartfelt testimony from a young person from Brisbane who was being assisted by the Salvos on the next step in their life, given a difficult upbringing and a history of domestic violence. That person's assistance into their adult life, work opportunities and study, was truly a wonderful story to hear.
I am sure I join with all members of this House in encouraging all to give most generously to the Red Shield Appeal this year. God bless the Salvos and thank God for the Salvos.
Today, on Public Education Day, I want to rise to congratulate an outstanding public school student from my electorate, Williamstown High School student and Gumbaynggirr woman, Aretha Stewart-Brown, who today was elected as the first female Prime Minister of the National Indigenous Youth Parliament, an initiative of the YMCA and the Australian Electoral Commission. As the first female leader of this institution, Aretha follows in the footsteps of other female leaders from Melbourne's west, including Julia Gillard, our first female prime minister, and Joan Kirner, our first female premier—a great tradition for Aretha to follow in.
I had the pleasure last night—the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision and the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Indigenous referendum—of talking with Aretha at a function in the Australian Parliament House, and I can report that she was a thoughtful and inspiring young woman. She is showing leadership in her school, in her community and in our nation's capital. We were discussing last night the long journey that we have on the road to closing the gap and ensuring equality for our first Australians, but I was able to say to her that, while this road is long at the big-picture level, stories like Aretha's—the individual success stories; the individual triumphs of young Indigenous Australians—give me optimism about the road that we are travelling and the success we can achieve.
Aretha will be in action at the Australian Museum of Democracy on the weekend. I encourage Canberra residents to go and see her in action. I know that there are great things ahead of her. Congratulations, Aretha, and congratulations, Williamstown public high.
The budget announcement that the government will provide DVA gold cards to participants in the British nuclear testing program of the 1950s and '60s is welcome relief for our veterans—then young Australians who served at their country's call during the period of national service and who served in the very hazardous conditions in the Montebello Islands. Leon Watt, a national serviceman and former member of the Western Australian state parliament, lives in Tangney, and he provided me with a very personal briefing on his experiences and the experiences of his fellow servicemen.
I note the story of Air Force veteran Rex Kaye, who served at Woomera, as it was recounted in my local paper. They were washed in seawater around the bomb site. They breathe the contaminated air 24 hours a day. The crew of the HMAS Junee and HMAS Fremantle had ringside exposure to the 1956 tests. On the Junee, crews were lined up on the upper deck in their uniform of shorts, short-sleeved shirts and sandals, fully exposed to the heat, sound and radiation blast from the explosion. Also on the deck were British scientists, dressed in complete hazard gear. The scientists knew the dangers of exposure, and took every precaution—unfortunately, with no regard to the inappropriately dressed Australian servicemen.
Many servicemen who were involved in the atomic tests are still suffering or have passed away. I hope the DVA gold card goes a long way to supporting these veterans and recognising their service to our nation.
Today marks national public school day, and I want to thank the teachers and staff of the public schools around our great nation. There is a school in my electorate in Darwin called Anula Primary School, and I want to take the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to visit it—when they eventually visit the north—because, as noted yesterday by the shadow minister for education, the member for Sydney, 22 per cent of the kids in that school are Indigenous, and around half the students have a language other than English.
That school, Anula Primary School, is going to get only $4,232 per child from the coalition government. That is an increase of just $554 per student over the next 10 years! Compare that, Prime Minister, to a school in Sydney, a private school, that will receive an extra $2,734 per student over the next 10 years. That school in Sydney is going to get five times more than a public school in my electorate over the next 10 years.
We are the most disadvantaged school system in the country. So what did we do wrong, Prime Minister? Why do the Territory's schools deserve less? (Time expired)
I have received a letter from the South Gippsland Rural Australians for Refugees, outlining their concerns about the plight of refugees. I would like to table that letter.
Leave granted.
This morning, along with you, Speaker, the opposition leader and the Prime Minister, we attended the service at the British High Commission. In Manchester, they attacked our children. The times have now moved all of us from protection to prosecution, from defence to offence. As with the UK, this Great South Land will not be cowed by cowards.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday the Prime Minister said he would seek advice over the course of the next day from the AFP Commissioner about allegations involving One Nation, but today in Senate estimates the commissioner confirmed that he had not received a request for advice from anyone in the government. Why did the Prime Minister tell the parliament he was going to seek advice from the police commissioner and then do absolutely nothing? Did the Prime Minister intend to mislead the parliament, or do all the rules change when One Nation is involved?
That is quite a bit of overreach from the honourable member. As I advised the House earlier in the week, the AFP is evaluating the matter that I was asked about on Monday, and I confirm that they are evaluating it. The honourable member should know well that both by principle and by law the AFP should be allowed to complete that evaluation independent of any influence from the government. That is the situation. They are getting on with the job; you are trying to muddy the waters.
You tell him, Dreyfus; you ought to know.
The Minister for Justice will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the steps the government has taken and continues to take to keep Australians safe and secure, including in my electorate of Calare?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the investigation into the Manchester terrorist attack continues the picture is becoming clearer as to the methods and motivations of the attack. The UK Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has said that Monday's attack was 'more sophisticated than some we've seen before' and that 'it seems likely that the terrorist wasn't doing this on his own'. As honourable members know, there have now been six arrests. The authorities there have taken strong measures in the light of the real risk that there is a network and a broader and wider conspiracy. I want to say again that we are all united in this House, in this nation, in conveying to the people of Britain our solidarity and our love and our prayers for the people of Manchester and particularly the victims and the families of victims, so many of them so young. This morning I spoke with the President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, to offer our condolences and our resolute support to Indonesia as we condemn the murderous terrorist attack on civilians and police in Jakarta last night.
While we mourn, we must learn from these events, as we do, and sharpen our resolve to defeat the terrorists abroad and at home. Our first priority is to keep Australians safe. The complex outlook in this area continues to see innovation on the part of the terrorists as they change their methods of operation. We need to be as agile, or more agile, than them. I regularly discuss this with our agencies, and in fact I was discussing it with several of the premiers only today. We have boosted funding for our law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies by $1½ billion since August 2014. Through the budget we are investing an additional $321 million to ensure the AFP has the specialist capabilities it needs to address these threats—the single largest funding boost to the AFP's domestic policing capabilities in over a decade.
Our agencies have disrupted 12 major plots since September 2014. A number of them, if carried out, would have resulted in mass casualties. Honourable members will be aware of the plot to detonate devices and commit other assaults in the area of Federation Square prior to Christmas. Sixty-three people have been charged as a result of 28 separate counterterrorism operations. Just on Tuesday, a South Australian woman was charged with membership of a terrorist organisation. This is a very high priority; there is none higher. Our commitment, resolute, is to keep Australians safe. We have the best agencies in the world doing that job 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We will not rest in our determination to keep Australia secure.
The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.
The opposition wishes to associate itself with the remarks of the government. Along with the evil in Manchester, the events in Jakarta overnight are absolutely despicable. The death of three Indonesian policemen and the wounding of five civilians and another five Indonesian policemen at a bus terminal, at the start of the great festival of Ramadan, shows that terrorists have no respect for the faith, creed or background of any of their victims. We most wholeheartedly endorse the Prime Minister's remarks.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I have a document from the Prime Minister's own office which states that the government's schools policy is a $22 billion cut compared to Labor's policy. Does the Prime Minister deny that his own office knew it was a $22 billion cut, wrote that it was a $22 billion cut, told journalists it was a $22 billion cut? When will the Prime Minister stop misleading the Australian people and finally say aloud that his schools policy is a $22 billion cut?
What we have heard from this captain of fantasy is yet another claim to billions of dollars that he never, ever had—fantasy money! What could be less fair than promising resources that you cannot pay for, promising the NDIS but not being prepared to pay for it? What could be less fair than promising a needs based school-funding system and delivering—or threatening to deliver—exactly the reverse, promising fairness and transparency and delivering 27 separate deals? Fairness is not the long suit of the Leader of the Opposition—neither is consistency; neither is any commitment to equity.
We talk about fairness. What could be less fair than the '14 minutes of torture' the Leader of the Opposition delivered to his own caucus today? He is a cross between Fidel Castro and Kevin Rudd! He went on and on and on for 14 minutes of torture to his unfortunate crew. It only came to an end when it was interrupted by repeated snores and the dull thud of members of the Labor Party falling out of their chairs asleep!
The Leader of the Opposition can go on about fairness. He has failed to deliver a policy of any consistency, of any equity. Right across the board, Labor have abandoned all the things they said they stand for.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway!
They have abandoned needs based funding completely.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway is warned!
They have abandoned funding the NDIS. They talk about jobs and they want to jack up the tax on small and medium businesses. They talk about their commitment to employment and opportunities, and at every turn they want to crush business with higher taxes and fewer incentives.
Our commitment is to deliver fairness with the NDIS. We have made the promise. And we have all made the promise—it was a bipartisan commitment—so now let's pay for it. We have said there should be needs based funding. Let's deliver it—clearly, transparently. And Labor ran around for years claiming they were delivering a Gonski model; they were not; it was a corruption of Gonski, as Ken Boston said. We are delivering it. Our budget is fair, transparent and consistent. Labor has failed. This desperate Leader of the Opposition can bore his caucus for as long as he likes—or for as long as they will endure him—but he will not persuade the Australian people he is anything other than a fraud. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for—I could not quite see with the Leader of the Opposition standing. Before I recognise him, the level of interjections again is ridiculously high. Members will be ejected—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley will not interject while I am addressing the House! It might be good if he just stayed still and kept his mouth shut for a bit. The Leader of the Opposition?
I seek leave to table the Prime Minister's document which shows it is a cut of $22 billion to schools over 10 years.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering record school funding that is genuinely needs based? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Tangney will resume his seat.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The member for Goldstein! I am not recognising the Prime Minister yet. I have not been able to hear the member's question. The member for Goldstein will cease interjecting. The member for Moreton will repeat his question—
Honourable members interjecting—
Sorry. Mr Morton, the member for Tangney, will repeat his question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is delivering record school funding that is genuinely needs based? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternatives?
I thank the honourable member for his question. There are 47 primary and secondary schools and more than 27,000 students in the honourable member's electorate of Tangney that will benefit from my government's record investment in Australian schools.
We have heard the Leader of the Opposition ranting and raving about school funding. He has been exposed as a phony and a fake. He has been exposed as the author of 27 secret deals, the terms of which he is not prepared to disclose.
Our school funding model is transparent and needs based. It means that schools with the same needs gets the same funding. Isn't that what needs-based funding is about?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney says it is not. Right, okay.
Mr Khalil interjecting—
The member for Wills will cease interjecting and is warned!
The member for Sydney is trying to lead us into her parallel universe where needs-based funding does not mean schools with the same needs get the same funding.
Mr Khalil interjecting—
The member for Wills!
I wonder, in Labor's parallel universe of fakery and fraud, who gets more money? I guess it is determined on political grounds. That would have to be it. It is not a matter of science; it is a matter of political science. It is not a matter of educational needs; it is a matter of political needs. That is why Ken Boston, as I noted earlier, a distinguished and respected educationalist, described Labor's mishmash of failed, unfunded policies as a corruption—his words, not mine—of Gonski's model.
We know that under Labor's model a needy student with special needs in one state could get $1,500 less than a student with exactly the same needs in another state. The inconsistency, the injustice! No fairness. It is not needs based, unless one uses the member for Sydney's dictionary, in which things mean the opposite of what they ought to mean. This is literally black meaning white. That is what she is saying. That is what Labor is saying.
They had the opportunity to implement a consistent needs-based funding model. We are doing it, and we are spending $18.6 billion—additional money—over the decade. Every year we are spending that money. At the end of the decade—
Ms Butler interjecting
The member for Griffith is warned.
it will be $18.6 billion more than it was at the beginning. We are making that commitment to schools. We are doing it on the basis of need, and we are doing it honestly and transparently. (Time expired)
( ) ( ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Public school principals have travelled to be here in Canberra today. How can the Prime Minister claim that his school funding model is sector blind, when Lauriston Girls' School in Melbourne, with fees for primary school of up to $27,000 per year, gets seven times the funding increase of Anula Primary School in Darwin? How is that fair to the kids at public schools like Anula Primary?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. Before I call the Prime Minister: this level of interjections will not continue. I will take severe action, and members, if they continue, should not expect to be warned. The Prime Minister has the call.
The honourable member would be well aware that under the government's school funding policy—and, indeed, consistently with the practice of federal governments for many years—the federal government is the largest government funder of non-government schools, and of course state and territory governments are the largest funder of the schools that they own and operate. So the comparison the honourable member makes is completely inapt, totally inapt.
The position is that, under our model, by 2027, with all these systems getting different levels of funding at the moment—a system we inherited from the Labor Party—government schools, wherever they are in Australia, will receive 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard from the Commonwealth. And they will receive that whether they are in the Northern Territory or whether they are in Victoria or Tasmania.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
The member for Newcastle will leave under 94(a).
The member for Newcastle then left the chamber.
And non-government schools will receive 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, which is adjusted by reference to the SES formula that determines the community's capacity to pay—again, consistent with past practice. It is fair; it is transparent.
What Labor have is a mishmash of promises—inconsistent, incoherent, not transparent. Ours is fair, it is needs based and it involves $18.6 billion more spending during that time. It is a commitment of $18.6 billion over the forward estimates, rising from $17 billion a year now to over $30 billion in 2027. It is a massive increase in funding, and it is needs based, sector blind and transparent—that is the difference—as endorsed, as recommended, by David Gonski. The Labor Party sought to canonise David Gonski, but then they corrupted his vision. We are delivering more money, fairly, transparently and needs based.
My question is to the Minister for Health. The NDIS will support approximately 58,000 of the 489,000 Australians who have severe mental illness. That is just 12 per cent of those diagnosed, leaving 88 per cent of Australians who have a diagnosis of severe mental illness without NDIS support. By 1 July 2019 a number of mental health support services will be defunded, including Partners in Recovery and Mental Health Respite: Carer Support. How can $80 million in the budget from 2018-19 for community mental health services adequately support the remaining 88 per cent of Australians who have a severe mental illness?
I thank the member for Mayo for her question, and I hope, in good faith that, when the time comes for a vote in this House on the Medicare levy to support full funding of the NDIS, she will support full funding and not repeat Labor's mistake of short-changing the NDIS. I hope that when the time comes in the Senate her colleagues will support full funding for the NDIS.
In relation, in particular, to psychosocial services: I deeply respect the question; however, I have to correct, respectfully, a number of errors. Firstly, approximately $4.2 billion is being allocated by the government this year and in successive years to mental health. That includes activities under Medicare, under the PBS, through our hospitals and through community mental health services. Approximately $700 million a year, or $3.5 billion over five years, will go to community mental health services. So that is a significantly greater figure than the $80 million that has been outlined.
However, that has been supplemented in this budget, as the member noted. The reason it has been supplemented is that in the original design of the NDIS there was a flaw. That flaw was that some of those who were outside the NDIS would miss out on psychosocial services. Psychosocial services are in addition to the clinical services; they are support for those with severe mental health conditions to be able to go about their day-to-day lives.
That gap was real, and it was something which was identified in a meeting with the Prime Minister and me by people such as Professor Pat McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Jackie Crowe from the National Mental Health Commission and others. In response to the points that they raised, we responded with an additional $80 million, which both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer themselves championed. I really want to acknowledge and thank them for their work. That $80 million will go directly to providing additional services over and above the current community mental health services and over and above that which will be developed within the NDIS. It is part of a broad $173 million package which we laid out only two weeks ago in the budget for additional mental health services, including youth suicide, mental health research and dealing with suicide hotspots—fundamentally important things.
All of this, though, is predicated on a working, fully funded NDIS. We have addressed the gap outside, which is why it was welcomed by Professor McGorry and Ian Hickie, but we have also addressed the gap inside the NDIS. So I repeat what I said at the beginning of this answer: I hope that the member, along with all of those in her party, will not make Labor's mistake of short-changing the NDIS. There is a chance for every member of this House to support a fair and equitable National Disability Insurance Scheme. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the minister inform the House of how the government's needs based funding model will provide the greatest funding increase to the most disadvantaged schools, like St Mary's F-8 School in Robinvale and Jeparit Primary School, both in the electorate of Mallee? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Mallee for his question. I know that he strongly supports the Turnbull government's commitment to increasing school funding by $18.6 billion over the next decade—a 75 per cent increase which will see more than 9,000 schools benefit, including the 119 schools in the electorate of Mallee. Those schools have 23,000 students and they will all benefit from the Turnbull government's school reforms.
In the electorate of Mallee, the member referred to Jeparit Primary School. It will see its funding going from under $5,000 per student today to more than $8,000 per student. And the founder of our great party, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, went to Jeparit Primary School. Sir Robert Gordon Menzies rejected the sectarianism, the class warfare and the faceless men of those opposite, led at the time by Arthur Calwell. In 1963, Sir Robert Menzies, for the first time, properly funded the Catholic system—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned!
So we will not take any lectures from you, Leader of the Opposition! We were the ones who first supported funding for the Catholic system. We will not take any lectures from you. St Mary's Catholic school in Robinvale will, under the Turnbull government's plan, get an extra $6 million over the coming decade.
I am asked if I am aware of any alternative approaches. We know that those opposite have 27 secret and special deals. We know that those opposite support different funding for a student in South Australia who has the same needs as a student in Western Australia. We know that those opposite never provided sufficient funding for their school reforms. The member for Sydney, who gave up her high-flying shadow foreign affairs role so she could take some domestic portfolio and be close to the action, has been gazumped by our school funding model. The member for Sydney has to go to the 40 public schools in her electorate—like Bourke Street Public School, like Crown Street Public School and like Darlinghurst Public School—and tell them that they will be better off under the Turnbull government's plans. The member for Sydney is now looking at her phone. She knows that only the coalition will provide more funding for schools in her electorate and across Australia. (Time expired)
I have just been informed that the former member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan, is in the gallery this afternoon. I give her a warm welcome on our behalf.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. The executive director of the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, Mr Stephen Elder, has said about the Prime Minister's schools policy, and I quote: 'If this is supposed to be a needs-based funding model, why will some of the most disadvantaged public schools in the country lose money?' How is it fair that the Prime Minister’s $22 billion cut leaves the neediest students worse off, or is the Prime Minister also going to accuse Catholic educators of being dishonest in this debate?
The government's schools funding policy is rigorously transparent and needs based. It has been endorsed as such by David Gonski himself, who wrote the report upon which the Labor Party relied for years as they proceeded to corrupt that clear vision of David Gonski and his panel, which was to have school funding that was needs based and transparent. That is why it has been so well received across the nation. The Leader of the Opposition cannot convince his own caucus of the nonsense that he is talking, he cannot convince his own shadow cabinet and he could not even convince the editorial panel of The Age. The reality is this: he has been found out. He and the member for Sydney have been found out.
We have delivered exactly what Gonski recommended. Let us be quite clear: it is transparent and needs based. Government schools get 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard by the end of the period—that is, by 2027—as they are all progressively brought up to that standard. That Schooling Resource Standard is not discounted or diminished by reference to a school community's ability to contribute under the SES formula. That does apply to the Schooling Resource Standard for the non-government sector, as it always has, and for that sector the Commonwealth will provide, consistently with the past, 80 per cent. But right now, on average, the Commonwealth is funding 17 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for the government sector—we are increasing it to 20 per cent—and a bit over 77 per cent for the non-government sector, which we are increasing to 80 per cent. That is a difference. It is transparent, it is clear and it is fair. The facts are there and the methodology is there. It is one for everybody to see. What the Leader of the Opposition delivered was one shonky deal after another.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports will leave under 94(a).
The member for Melbourne Ports then left the chamber.
We have delivered a straightforward, needs-based, transparent system. It is fair, it is consistent, it is national and it is needs based, as it should be and as Gonski recommended.
I seek to table the press release from Mr Stephen Elder saying, 'The Liberal Party has forgotten Bob Menzies old primary school and about education.'
Is leave granted? No. Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House is quite right: the document is already on the public record, and I refer you to my previous rulings.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of providing certainty for Australians with disability as well as their families, their friends and their carers by fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Treasurer, are you aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the member for Barker for his question and his keen interest in supporting the families of those who are living with disabilities and their carers. There is a $55.7 billion funding gap for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and in this budget we announced how we would fill that funding gap by increasing the Medicare levy by half a per cent two years from now when the extra bills come in.
It was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard who, when it came to increasing the Medicare levy, said, 'The fundamental principle of the Medicare levy is we all put in and we all take out.' That is a principle that every single leader of the Labor Party has respected, both in government and in opposition, since Bob Hawke first introduced the Medicare levy in 1984, up until now. Now we have a Leader of the Opposition who has abandoned this principle like he has abandoned so many other principles in this place. He has abandoned that principle, as we know, while many in his own shadow cabinet think that principle should continue to be honoured.
Just a day after the French election, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about the election results, and he said that the lesson is that, when mainstream right-wing parties work with mainstream left-wing parties to block out the extremists, we do better, and that is the take-out of this for Australian politics. It seems that the lesson that the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to convey did not last a week in his own mind, because in his budget reply he chose not to reset from the divisive politics he has pursued as the Leader of the Opposition but to continue to engage in conflict and wrecking in this parliament and to not be a worker in this parliament. The Australian people want this parliament to work together, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue to be a wrecker, and that is the approach he has adopted with this budget.
The budget was a reset for the government in that it said that we want to work in the middle to guarantee the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to guarantee Medicare, to guarantee funding for schools and to guarantee support for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and all of these important services, including affordable housing. But the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to. Perhaps there are others in the opposition who think they are better able to work in the middle with the government and get things done. I know that Australians living with a disability support the measures put forward by this government and they are very disappointed in the Labor Party, which was the initiator of the NDIS, because they are not seeing that Labor Party in this Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, this week the member for Gilmore said about the reaction of school principals to the government's funding: 'They have certainty of funding going forward—for as far as they know, four years. There is guesstimate there for 10, but no government can absolutely commit to that.' Is the member for Gilmore correct? Isn’t the only certainty for schools a $22 billion cut?
I thank the honourable member for her question. She knows as well as we all do that the Labor Party's commitment to school funding was based on fantasy dollars. They did not even fund years 5 and 6 of what they claim to be the Gonski funding, so hopeless and hapless were they. They were running around desperately signing cheques they could not honour—one bouncing cheque after another. That was the Labor Party's approach.
We have fully funded our commitments, and Australian schools and Australian parents know exactly the basis on which the funding will be delivered. They know that it is based on the Schooling Resource Standard. They know that that will increase every year by the wages CPI with a floor of three per cent, after the next several years at 3.56 per cent. They know about that. They know that we will fund government schools to 20 per cent of the SRS. They know that non-government schools will be funded to 80 per cent. The methodology is completely transparent. In contradiction to the interjection from the member for Sydney, needs based funding, to be fair, means that people with the same needs get the same funding. She shakes her head! What is this parallel universe the member for Sydney is inhabiting? It troubles me, because her electorate is next to mine. I would be concerned if this sort of parallel universe, black-means-white thinking got across the electoral boundary.
It is absolutely plain that a just school funding system means that a school with the same needs gets the same funding per student from one state to another, from one denomination to another, from one system to another. That is fairness. That is what we are doing.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and ensuring that it is fully funded? Who supports this approach and are there any alternatives?
I thank the member for her question. As the member knows, the rollout of the NDIS to full operation in 2020 is now well underway. Moving from 30,000 participants to about 460,000 in 2020 is a massive and challenging enterprise. Already, as you are aware, 80,000 people have transitioned into and are receiving services. To give the House some idea of the scale of this enterprise, over the next two years there will be required another 60,000 new jobs in disability care.
All those critical services have to be paid for. The wages of the new disability care workers have to be funded. Labor designed the blueprint for the NDIS, and they should get real credit for that. It has fallen to the coalition to implement it, and that will take a lot of hard work. But the inescapable truth is that the responsibility to pay for the scheme falls on this entire parliament. Right now we have the opportunity of agreeing to a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. We can fill the funding gap in the NDIS if we just agree that it is fair for the average income earner to pay $1 a day in 2019. That will fund the scheme and give financial security to the scheme and put it beyond doubt.
To give an idea of what you get in return for that dollar a day, using the example of an Australian who would be born with a disability and receive care from birth: the NDIA have said that for someone in Australia born with a disability such as Down syndrome, the estimate is that they would receive care totalling $3.5 million under the NDIS during their lifetime. That means support for an Australian family; it means the opportunity to have a dignified life, either independently or in supported accommodation when the young Australian becomes an adult. In the decades to come thousands of Australian families are going to face situations just like that. They can be fully insured for that with a $1 a day increase to the average income earner under the levy.
What indicates that this is a reasonable approach is when economists starting agreeing with each other. Chis Richardson of Deloitte Access Economics said: 'Back in 2013 it was never funded. There was a promise to do something about spending cuts into the future. But, you know, unless you actually have the courage to say what they were—so no, it was never funded. I am all in favour of the Medicare levy to help fill this hole in the NDIS.'
Saul Eslake has said: 'I do think it's justified and reasonable. It's appropriate, if this is an insurance scheme, that there's an insurance premium to pay for it. I don't think that the entire additional costs of the NDIS should be funded by the top 15 per cent of taxpayers alone. I don't understand why the Labor Party continues to insist otherwise.' Neither does the coalition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the National Catholic Education Commission, which said today that the government's own modelling of its schools plan confirms—and I quote—'hundreds of Catholic schools will be allocated less Commonwealth funding next year, dozens of schools will be hit with a funding cut of 50 per cent or more next year, and almost 200 schools will be allocated less funding in 2027 than they are this year'? These are the department's own figures. Those figures cannot be disputed, and they cannot be manipulated.
Our new model of school funding—transparent, consistent, national, needs-based—adds $18.6 billion of funding over the decade. In total, school funding will be $242.3 billion over the decade and, as honourable members are aware, it will rise from in excess of $17 billion this year to over $30 billion in 2017.
The Catholic sector will see an average annual per student increase of 3.5 per cent over the next decade. Ninety-eight per cent of Catholic school students will see growth of more than 3.3 per cent a year from 2017 to 2027. That is well above costs and wages growth. Catholic systemic schools will receive a total of $28.3 billion in Commonwealth recurrent funding over four years, 2018 to 2021, and a total of $81 billion over the 10 years from 2018 to 2027. The Catholic sector has the highest per student Commonwealth funding in every state and territory now and into the future. This represents and reflects student needs and the Commonwealth's role as the majority funder of non-government schools.
The Commonwealth's estimator model demonstrates the basis upon which the funds are determined by the Commonwealth. It is designed to ensure that a school with the same needs will get the same amount of Commonwealth funding, whether it is a Catholic systemic school, an independent Christian school or a non-denominational non-government school. That is what needs-based funding means. As far as the Catholic system is concerned, it is able to reallocate, to determine, the funds that it gets as it wishes. So the Commonwealth is not directing that the funds be allocated in the manner set out in the estimator, but it is disclosing as a matter of honesty, integrity and transparency the needs-based model which delivers the calculation of the funds for the total. So the premise in the honourable member's question is utterly mistaken.
My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is taking action to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme and guarantee Medicare? Is the minister aware of any threats to these important services that Australians rely on?
I want to thank the member for Banks. Only last week I was able to join him in his electorate and visit a number of local practices. We visited the Brigadoon Medical Centre, a GP practice in Revesby, and also the Narwee Family Care Pharmacy. In both of those practices we were able to talk about the guarantee that the government has given to Medicare and the guarantee of support for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme through the agreements with the GPs, the AMA, Medicines Australia and the Pharmacy Guild—something of profound importance to each of those practices and of course to all of those who attend and benefit from their tremendous services to the community.
One of the other things that we talked about was the importance of guaranteeing the NDIS. I have to say that we were delighted by the support on the ground in the electorate of Banks for the government's commitment to fully and finally support the NDIS—something which never occurred under the previous government. When it was announced in the speech which was referred to previously by others, and by the Treasurer in particular, by then Prime Minister Gillard, she noted that 55 per cent of the NDIS—and that was all—was funded by the levy.
What we have done in this budget is guarantee for the first time full funding for the NDIS. And do you know what? It is the right thing to do. We did it because it was the right thing to do, and we actually thought they would agree with us. It was not some political manoeuvre, not some clever game; it was something for which we thought there would be bipartisan support.
We know that they in many cases also agree with us and believe in it. That is why we have seen the leaks reported in the last couple of days. Only today, there in The Australian, from Dennis Shanahan, on the front page, under 'Plain talk on politician speak in ALP’s shadow cabinet':
Bill Shorten can’t deny there was a split in Labor over his opposition to raising the Medicare Levy to fund the NDIS but insists his shadow cabinet is “on the same page".
Really? On the same page—member for Grayndler, member for Ballarat, member for McMahon? I do not think they are on the same page. Maybe they are, but I would like to know what the book is—Game of Thrones, perhaps? There is a new edition of Game of Thrones. It is called 'The war to end all wars'. It has just been announced today. Maybe it is War and Peace. Maybe it is Fight Club. In reality, they know he has done the dirty, not just on them but on people with disability, on the people he pretends to represent. In the end, if you do not back supporting the NDIS you are nothing more— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor's plan to retain the budget repair levy and protect low- and middle-income earners from a tax increase is a fairer and more responsible way to raise more money. Does the Prime Minister object because Labor's fairer and better plan raises $4½ billion more revenue than his plan does? Or is it because, under Labor's plan, millionaires will not get a tax cut on 1 July?
There has never been a less convincing advocate for Australian workers than this Leader of the Opposition. He has sold them out again and again, and he has sold them out to the big end of town. Obviously they are listening to the member for Grayndler now, because the member for McMahon is not running the talking points of the big banks in question time today. So they have retreated in disorder now. And now, fresh from the drawing rooms of Toorak, fresh from the boardrooms of Collins Street, fresh from selling out workers' penalty rates again and again, he comes here and wants to talk about equity and fairness. Only a few years ago his Prime Minister, Julia Gillard—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam will leave under 94(a).
The member for Whitlam then left the chamber.
and the Leader of the Opposition himself argued for the essential fairness and equity of increasing the Medicare levy by 50 per cent so that the NDIS would be funded. Now, it was not enough to fund it entirely, but he called on our side of the House, the coalition, to support it, and we did. We backed it in, because it was fair. Labor knew it was fair then, and in their hearts they know it is fair now. The member for Grayndler does. The shadow cabinet does. The caucus does. Not even 14 minutes of torture could change their minds! They know that national disability insurance is a great national enterprise of which the Labor Party can claim to own at least half, because it was a bipartisan effort. Labor can say, 'It happened under our government.' They can make that claim. We do not deny the history.
But what shames the Labor Party today is that, having made the promise, they will not pay for it, knowing the justice that we are setting out, the justice of being able to ask Australians to pay the Medicare levy—with low-income individuals and low-income households of course protected by the threshold, as has always been the case. Labor knows this is just, but their leader, trapped in his own political bind of constantly seeking one cynical tactical advantage after another, is not going to look into the eyes of the people to whom he has promised so much and say, 'We will pay for it.' Well, we will, the parliament will, and Labor will be shown up as the makers of empty promises—frauds and fakes, betraying the very people they promised to protect.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is driving Australia's economic growth by supporting major mining projects, such as Adani's Carmichael coalmine? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to the jobs and economic development this project will deliver to the communities of Capricornia and across Australia?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I know that she is intensely interested in making sure the Adani mine gets going, as all Central Queenslanders are, as the member for Flynn and the member for Dawson are and as the member for Herbert should be but of course he is not. The reason they should be interested in the Adani mine is the $34.5 billion that the coalmining sector brings into Australia and the 44,000 workers, predominantly blue-collar workers, who are employed in the mining industry—a group of people that once upon a time the Labor Party used to support. The Labor Party used to support labourers, but they have given up on that. I remind the member for Herbert that the unemployment level in Townsville, at 11.3 per cent, means that she should be a strong advocate for the Adani mine and she should be driving the Labor Party, that used to support labourers, to support the Adani mine, and in that quest to get the Adani mine going she should be supported by the member for Shortland. He should be supporting coal workers. The member for Hunter should be supporting coal workers. But they are not.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Shortland!
The Labor Party have given up on labourers, in hot pursuit of vegan burgers up and down Glebe Point Road, they have given up on people at the Fitzroy Hotel at Depot Hill and they have given up on people at the Railway Hotel at Cessnock. The Labor Party have lost their soul. They will not let the member for Grayndler, who actually is responsible for building things, speak. He is in splendid isolation—he can't say boo. The man has lost his tongue; he is talking in sign language. What happened to the party that used to be the party of Ben Chifley—Ben Chifley, a railway worker? Where are the Ben Chifleys in the Labor Party these days? Where are the Clyde Camerons in the Labor Party these days? Where are the Mick Youngs in the Labor Party these days? Where are the people in the Labor Party who actually did labour, who actually did manual work? We hear a lot about the school teachers and a lot about the solicitors, and fair enough, but they have given up on labourers. Where are the people who should be standing up for people in the CFMEU? What about the people in the CFMEU? When are you going to start standing up for workers?
How is Riverview going? You are attacking workers.
The member for Shortland will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Shortland then left the chamber .
When is the member for Calwell going to start standing up for workers? When is the member for Shortland going to stand up for workers? We are fighting for the Adani mine because we believe that men and women deserve a job—even if it is manual work, we believe that they deserve a job. We believe in the prosperity of Central Queensland. We are going to fight for these workers because we know that you are not. You do not have the ticker. The member for Maribyrnong does not have the ticker, as a former leader of the AWU, to stand up for workers—he has given up on them. He has left them; he has evolved. Policy is being delivered by the member for Sydney—and she is looking after the inner suburbs—but they have forgotten about those in Central Queensland. We will pick them back up.
My question is to the Treasurer. There is a $2 billion black hole in the budget from the bank tax. Will the Treasurer advise the House how he intends to fill it—or is he simply going to add it to the three quarters of a trillion dollars of debt revealed in the budget papers?
The shadow Treasurer can assert all he likes, but it does not make it true. The estimates for the major banks levy are set out in the budget papers. The shadow Treasurer has become the major banks' parrot—he jumps from shoulder to shoulder, squawking and squawking; on every occasion squawking on cue in this chamber, turning around to his colleagues and saying, 'Who's a pretty boy, then?' That is the shadow Treasurer—he has become the big banks' parrot. And he puffs himself and plumes himself up on every single occasion, coming to the dispatch box with his big tough voice. But the truth is that he has not even read the budget papers.
What we know is that on this side of the House when we make promises we pay for them. When we say we are going to increase spending in schools by $18.6 billion, the parents of Australia can take that to the bank. When we say we are going to ensure the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded, the parents and carers and Australians living with disabilities can take that to the bank because they know that, on this side of the House, when we make commitments we fund them and we support them and we follow through. When those opposite were in government, they ran up spending in real terms, growing at four per cent every single year. But their revenue growth was less than one per cent. There have been only two governments in the last 50 years that have ensured that their expenditure growth does not exceed their revenue growth: this government and the Howard government. When they were in office, when that shadow Treasurer was the Treasurer, he used to stand by Treasury forecasts every single day, and now he seeks to impugn those he used to praise. What a parrot!
My question is the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, representing the Minister for Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on the government's $75 billion infrastructure investment? Is the minister aware of any threats in regional Australia, including my electorate of Flynn?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He is a real fighter for jobs in his electorate and right around regional Australia. We are getting on with the job of delivering a $75 billion 10-year infrastructure investment program over 10 years. The Turnbull-Joyce government is getting on with the job of building the infrastructure that Australians want, making a better, safer, stronger regional Australia.
There is a long list of projects in the member for Flynn's own electorate. The member for Flynn has fought for these and he is delivering. He is delivering through the Kincora intersection upgrades; the duplication of the Capricorn Highway between Emerald and Gracemere; the Blackwater Aquatic Centre; six new overtaking lanes on that stretch between Emerald and Gracemere; the Gayndah disaster management centre; and $10 million for the Central Queensland University upgrade. The member for Flynn is fighting for his community and delivering jobs in his community. He is a champion for jobs in his community.
But he asked if there were any threats to jobs in his electorate. There is a threat. The threat is Labor. The Deputy Prime Minister a few moments ago mentioned the Adani project, for example. This is a project that will create 10,000 jobs, jobs that the community wants. Everyone on this side are on side. The unions want it. But I do not hear anything from Labor. Those opposite are hopelessly compromised when it comes to these issues, and I feel sorry for them. It is actually sad to watch. This is not the party of Bob Hawke or Ben Chifley or those other old Labor lions. Sure, they will get out there and they will roar like lions on the picket lines—they are starting to roar like lions now. But when they come in here, they are just little pussy cats, aren't they?—just little pussy cats. They come back in here and they take their orders from those inner-city lefties and the Greens and they lose their voices.
Remember when they sold out the timber workers in Tasmania? They are up to it again. They are doing it in my electorate today. They are selling out timber workers in Heyfield. They are putting possums before people. They know it is true. They campaigned to shut down the coal fired power stations in my electorate. They wanted Hazelwood to close. They had a policy called 'contract for closure'. No wonder the blue-collar workers are abandoning them. Now we have the coal workers in Queensland, and those coal workers in Queensland are seeing Labor's true colours. We are all seeing Labor's true colour. That colour is green. You need those Greens preferences in those inner-city seats. You need those Greens preferences. Do not take my word for it. Look at a real old Labor lion in Graham Richardson and see what he said. This week he said about Adani:
Protecting inner-city seats from attacks by the Greens or independents was the reason Bill Shorten went all wobbly over the Adani mine in far north Queensland.
That is a direct quote. They have sold out the blue-collar workers in regional Australia for those green votes in the city. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. This week the Prime Minister said:
… the bank levy is designed, its purpose is to raise the revenue we need to bring the budget back into balance and maintain our AAA rating …
Given there is a $2 billion black hole in the budget because of the bank tax, why is the Prime Minister placing the AAA rating at further risk with his government's incompetence?
I am concerned that this parallel universe virus is creeping across the opposition frontbench. The member for Sydney thinks that needs based funding does not mean that students with the same needs get the same funding, and now the member for McMahon thinks that whatever assertions he makes about the budget are right and the Treasury is wrong. The estimates, the forecast as set out in the budget papers, and the revenue that will be raised by the major bank levy will ensure that we bring the budget back into surplus in 2020-21, and will ensure that it stays there and that we retain our AAA rating, as has been confirmed by all the rating agencies.
The member for McMahon could not handle these figures. He could not deliver—he and his colleague, the member for Swanee? The member for Lilley! He has moved—he has vanished! He has disappeared!
He's lost his seat!
Members on my right!
That is right! He has temporarily lost his seat! The fact is that Labor's team cannot manage these figures. We have, we are bringing the budget back into balance and we are doing so while maintaining that all-important rating.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
No, I give the call to the member for Swan.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—not to be mistaken for the member for Lilley!
I do not know what the confusion is: we go from side to side—we have been doing it for 116 years!
Counting to two can be difficult sometimes! My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on the government's investment in rail, including the $10 billion National Rail Program announced in the budget? How will this transformational investment improve liveability and productivity in our cities and regions? I am sure that the member for Grayndler would love to hear the answer.
I do thank the member for Swan for this question. He is a very strong advocate for his electorate and a very strong advocate for rail and public transport. I have enjoyed visiting with him the Perth to Forrestfield Airport project, which of course benefits from $490 million of Turnbull government funding. And of course we have seen very significant funding for rail projects in the 2017 budget.
There was $792 million for additional projects in Perth, including the Thornlie to Cockburn Line and the extension to Yanchep. There was $500 million committed for Victorian regional rail and of course there was $30 million committed for a business case for a rail line from Melbourne city to Tullamarine airport. There is rail from the city to the airport in Sydney, there is rail from the airport to the city in Brisbane and there is rail from the airport to the city under construction in Perth; it is time we had rail from the airport to the city in Melbourne, and the Turnbull government is taking the lead.
This government has a clear and structured approach to rail. We have committed $10 billion to the National Rail Program, and this will support major rail projects around the country. We have a structured program, with urban rail plans being developed, working with the state governments so that we have a systematic approach to delivering rail and to supporting city-shaping rail projects.
Of course, by contrast we have the approach from Labor. We saw the shadow minister in April, announcing yet again and reprising the failed announcement of the New South Wales election campaign in 2015, when he said, mysteriously, that $400 million was apparently going to be sufficient for a rail line to Western Sydney Airport. What did the New South Wales transport minister say about that in 2015? She made the point that it was more likely to be $4 billion if you looked at an extrapolation from the most recently completed South West Rail Link.
It is a reminder of Labor's rank incompetence when it comes to delivering rail in New South Wales. Let's just remember the record. With the Parramatta to Chatswood Rail Link they promised, they delivered half of it. The Bondi Beach rail line was promised in 1988—delivered: zero. The high-speed rail link to Newcastle promised by Carl Scully: what was delivered? Zero. The Hurstville to Strathfield rail link: what did Labor deliver? Zero. The high-speed rail from Sutherland to Wollongong: what did Labor deliver in New South Wales? Zero. The North West Rail Link: what did Labor deliver? Zero. The South West Rail Link: what did Labor deliver? Zero. We had Carl Scully promise the CBD new harbour crossing. What did Labor deliver? Zero. John Watkins in 2008: what did Labor deliver? Zero.
Government members: Zero!
They had plans for the west metro. What did Labor deliver? Zero. The Western Express: what did Labor deliver? Zero.
The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will resume his seat. Members on my right!
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. The minister's time has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how is the government's funding system fair and needs based when New South Wales public schools lose $846 million over the next two years, while The King's School receives a funding increase of $19 million over the decade?
New South Wales public schools and public schools around Australia receive increased funding under our policy, as indeed do Catholic schools and as indeed do independent schools. To bring the matter close to home for the honourable member for Sydney, I can advise her that, under our budget proposals, public schools in her electorate will receive an extra $44 million over the next decade, which, of course, is not as much as the public schools in the electorate of the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition's electorate. They will receive $152 million over the decade in additional funding.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister update the House on how the government's small business tax cuts and instant asset write-off scheme are being welcomed by hardworking small business owners, including those in my electorate of Page? And are there any alternative plans that would threaten the creation of jobs by small business?
I thank the member for Page for his question. There are 18,173 small businesses in the member's electorate. He is working, as every member in this government is, to back those small businesses each and every day. I spent the day with the member for Page just last Tuesday, when we visited many local small businesses which are getting back on their feet after rising waters in the Wilsons River and Lester River caused devastating flooding in Lismore in the aftermath of Cyclone Debbie. The member for Page is working with his community, especially the Lismore Chamber of Commerce and Industry—the local chamber. They are restarting the heart of small business in Lismore. I commend the local chamber, the local community leaders, the member for Page and his state colleague, Thomas George, who know there is a bright future for small business in Lismore.
Andrew Gordon, who is the vice-chairman of the Lismore chamber, knows this government supports small business each and every day. He said: 'Every business's major consideration is outgoings, and tax is a big part of that, and any concession that allows us to reinvest, to sell more, to purchase new technologies and the like and even to put someone else on.' That is what Andrew says about our tax cuts. He runs a family-owned real estate firm and he knows what it is like to take a risk and to be responsible for the wages of local employees. Andrew also knows what a boost the instant asset write-off extension is—the bill I introduced this morning—and what it does to help small businesses invest in themselves. It is a massive relief to a number of small businesses, especially in the rural community, to help them invest in machinery and the like, which helps with productivity.
The member asked me if there are any alternative plans threatening job creation, and, sadly, I can inform him that there are. There are plans to increase the taxes on more than three million small and medium enterprises, there are plans to put grubby fingers in the till of every small business in the country and there are plans to cut access to the instant asset write-off. But whose plans are these? Surely they cannot be the member for Grayndler's, who told Lateline last year, 'Now, we support a reduction in tax for small business.' Surely it is not from the people's choice, complete with his own beer, who knows our tax cuts pass the pub test.
I hear there are plans to name a wine after the opposition leader, because that is all the member for Maribyrnong ever does—whine. He whines about lower tax rates, he whines about the instant asset write-off, he whines about the definition of small business as having a $10 million turnover. The member for McMahon once called tax cuts 'a Labor thing'. The member for Fenner's academic days were dedicated to calling for tax cuts. The member for Maribyrnong himself once stood at this dispatch box and said he wanted to create jobs. But now they make up the frontbench opposite and they have sold small business out. The message for small business is clear: the Liberals and Nationals back them all the way. (Time expired)
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I have three questions for you. Firstly, could you update the House on the review into the Department of Parliamentary Services data breach that occurred in March this year; secondly, can you outline to the House the remedial actions taken in the aftermath of the breach; and, thirdly, can you inform the House whether DPS is subject to the Australian Privacy Principles and whether you believe there was a breach of these principles by DPS or its contractors?
I thank the member for Chifley for his comprehensive questions, and I will ensure that he receives comprehensive answers. I will either report back to the House or write back to him in the coming days.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s incompetent handling of its unfair Budget.
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—
The Australian people already knew that the Turnbull government have unfairness ingrained in their DNA, but this week it has been rather spectacularly demonstrated that they are incompetent as they go about that unfairness. Unfairness and incompetence are a pretty unfortunate combination, but that is what is at the heart of the economic policy of the Turnbull government. Normally the first full sitting week after a budget is a good week for the Treasurer. It is a good week to highlight the initiatives in the budget, to show that the Treasurer understands what is in the budget. Normally the Treasurer is constantly at the dispatch box in question time and doing lots of media. Instead, this week we have a Treasurer in the witness protection program. He is not allowed to do media and he is only reluctantly let out for question time because they have to, because his budget has been exposed and, frankly, the Treasurer has been exposed as well.
There is a lot we could traverse in this discussion about the unfairness of the budget—we could talk about infrastructure, we could talk about health, we could talk about education, but we have to limit our remarks, because there is so much to say. So I will limit my remarks to the bank tax and to the important issue of the Medicare levy and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Firstly there is the matter of the bank tax, which goes to competence. Sometimes in the community—we have all heard it; people on both sides of politics have heard it—people say: 'Why can't we have more bipartisanship? Why can't the two sides work together? Why can't you support an idea from the other side, even if it is not exactly how you would do it?' We hear the message. So on budget night we looked at the bank tax and said: 'Well, the Liberal Party played a very obstructionist role when we introduced a bank levy. They opposed it. They said it would end Western civilisation. They did not proceed with it. But we will not take that approach. It is not how we would do it; it is not designed the way we would design it, but we will back it. We will support the government in introducing the bank tax.'
The Treasurer is very good at blaming the Labor Party for all sorts of things, but on this one he has got nobody to blame but himself. He has bipartisan support and he has still got it wrong. He has still managed to not implement this bank tax in a respectable way. On budget night it was very clear in the budget papers it would raise $1.6 billion in the coming financial year. The Prime Minister repeated it on Monday. The Prime Minister did not know whether it was tax-deductible or not, but at least he knew how much it would raise. We give him credit for that. There is a big problem, though, for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: the banks have reported to the Australian stock exchange—as they are required to do and required to be accurate under law—how much they are going to pay, and what does it come out as? It comes out as $965 million. That is rather short of $1.6 billion. So the Treasurer had a massive problem. What did he do? He had missed the goal, so he moved the goal posts. He came into the House and said, 'The accrual figure doesn't matter—it is all about cash.'
I am not going to detain the House and explain the difference between accrual and cash. Suffice it to say that the Treasurer got it utterly wrong. He could have fessed up and said, 'We think those numbers are wrong.' Instead, he tried to change the story. He did not realise—or perhaps he did realise but thought he might get away with it—that the bank tax is paid quarterly in arrears, so the cash figure was utterly irrelevant, because what the banks have reported to the stock exchange was the accrual figure. He was wrong. Either he did not know his budget or he chose to mislead the House. Either way he stands condemned.
So there is a $2 billion black hole in the budget. We know, therefore, that the government will have to fill that $2 billion black hole. That is why this is important. The other thing we know about this government is that they will find an unfair way to fill the black hole, and the Australian people will pay the price.
That brings me to the matter of personal income tax, the Medicare levy and the NDIS. Firstly, on the very important issue of the NDIS, which is one of the great social reforms of our time, introduced by this side of the House. The government says they support the NDIS. I have a very simple message to the government: if you support it, stop threatening it. If you support the NDIS, stop threatening to cut it, and stop threatening people who receive support from the NDIS and their families with the threat that that support might cease. Because that is what the government does all the time. Stop playing politics with disability—that is my message to this government.
The Turnbull government has signed agreements with the states to implement the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We welcome that. That is a good thing, that they are continuing with the NDIS. Are they really saying they intend to renege on those agreements with the states? I do not think they are. I do not think they will renege on those agreements—I give them credit for that. Then stop threatening to do that, because that is effectively what they are doing every time they say that the NDIS is under threat.
They say, incorrectly, that the NDIS is underfunded. Now to say that is morally and factually wrong. It is morally wrong because it concerns people who receive NDIS support when they hear it. They get worried. It is factually wrong as well. If the NDIS were underfunded, wouldn't you have thought that that would be reflected in the pre-election economic forecasts prepared by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, independent of the government of the day, in the 2013 election or the 2016 election? Wouldn't you think that the PEFO would have said somewhere, 'By the way, this major government scheme will fall short in funding.' Was it there in the PEFO in 2013? No. Was it there in the PEFO in 2016? No. The government should stop playing politics.
If the government is really concerned about raising enough revenue for the NDIS or anything else, they do have another option. They can adopt Labor's plan. They can take our plan, because it makes more money. They can spend that money on the NDIS if they want. They can spend it on health or education, heaven forbid, or they could engage in budget repair. It is all there, because there is $4½ billion more in Labor's plan for personal tax.
Could it be that the government does not want to do that because they do not like the implications? There is something very important to think about when we think of the 2014 budget, which we all recall. There were lots of measures in that budget which affected low- and middle-income earners. They were all permanent. The government did not say to pensioners, 'We are going to cut your pension indexation just until we are back in surplus.' They did not say to low-income earners, 'We are going to take your family tax benefits away just until we are back into balance.' They did not say to unemployed people, 'We're going to make you wait for Newstart, with no support, until the budget has improved.' Those measures were all permanent—forever. The only temporary measure in that budget was the only one that impacted high-income earners. The only measure where they said, 'We are just going to keep it until we get back into budget balance' was the deficit levy. Isn't that convenient? What a coincidence—the only temporary one is the one that affects high-income earners! As a result, in effect, high-income earners get a tax cut on 1 July this year. That is the fact. If you are on a high income you will pay less tax on 2 July that you paid on 30 June, as a result of this government's decisions. If you are on $1 million a year you will get a $16,400 tax cut, courtesy of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. But, under their plans, if you are on $60,000 a year you will pay $300 a year more.
There is a better way. We recognise the need for difficult decisions, but we say they must be implemented fairly. The fact of the matter is that both sides of politics—somewhat unusually in recent Australian history—will go to the next election proposing an increase in personal tax. But there will be a difference: this side of the House will say the tax rise should apply to people on more than $87,000 year; that side of the House will propose that the tax rise apply to people on more than $21,000 a year. That is the difference. That is the choice for the Australian people at the next election. Those are the competing plans being offered to the people.
And the government is doing this at a time when wages growth is at a record low. Last week, we saw figures confirming that wages in Australia are going backwards on this government's watch. People are falling behind; their wages are not keeping up with inflation. Living standards are falling, and that impacts most severely on people on low and middle incomes. And on 1 July, people who commit the crime of working on a Sunday will see their wages cut further. And this government wants to increase their tax just to help out that little bit more! This is at a time when inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. What is their answer? Increase tax for people on $21,000 a year and give away $65 million in corporate tax cuts!
They tell us about fantasy money—$22 billion to fund education. I will tell you what is fantasy money—$65 billion in corporate tax cuts. That is fantasy money, that is an unfunded promise from this government. There is a fairer way, which a Shorten Labor government will implement—with a mandate from the Australian people. When we go to the people with our plans and receive that mandate, we will implement them in a budget a whole lot more competently than this Treasurer has been able to do over the last week.
Once upon a time there was a Labor Party that stood for the true believers. Once there was a party of the workers—those who were not doing so well and those who wanted to get ahead. Once there was a party where small business was not penalised for growing, nor was the politics of envy in play—because, to them, politics is more important than people. Once there was a party that wanted more Australians in work and worked with the parliament to make possible the dreams of those who seek to make our nation fairer. And once there was a party that was up to the job that Australians deserve of their parliaments.
Unfortunately, those days are gone. This matter of public importance debate proves it. That the member for McMahon would lecture this government about incompetence is absolutely laughable. This is the shadow Treasurer from the one-time government of Grocery Watch, the incompetent government of Fuel Watch. He was the Minister for Immigration who oversaw huge numbers of boat arrivals, and chaos at the heart of government. He sat at the Treasurer's desk for a few sorry weeks, albeit he never delivered a budget. The shadow Treasurer has written a book on Labor's 'money men'. But as Labor's money man he has never had to write a budget. He has never had to make spending add up, nor fund the promises of those opposite—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
He agrees with me! That is good. Listen up, you might agree with what I have to say. That is why he stands in opposition to the fair and reasonable spending in this budget. Now we will see if it agrees with me. Just a little more than two weeks ago, on 9 May, this government delivered a budget for all Australians. It was an 'action' budget. It was not like the budgets written by the member for Rankin, opposite, for the member for Lilley, oh no!
Australians wanted action on schools, so we took it. Australians wanted action on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, so we funded it. Australians wanted to see the inland rail between Brisbane and Melbourne built, so we are building it. And Australians in small business wanted tax cuts, so we delivered that. It was a budget of security, of opportunity and of fairness for communities large and small, inland and on the coast. No matter where people live, it is a budget, as with all of our budgets, that backs small businesses and puts them in the driver's seat to grow our economy. It backs those who create jobs. It backs those who build our nation. And it is there for those who need the support the most: the vulnerable.
It was a fair budget. But, as we look to the Labor Party to get on board with some of our budget measures—which secure better days for all Australian, which make permanent policies that should make this parliament proud—those opposite just play politics. They are happy to sell Australians down the river, happy to see small business suffer, happy to play politics, rather than do the job they were elected to do. This year's budget had our commitment to fully fund the NDIS, because it is the fair, proper, right and correct thing to do. But while this government delivers the full funding of a bipartisan testament to that which is possible, when this parliament works together those opposite, again, seek to play petty politics, and none more petty than those of the member for McMahon opposite.
Almost everyone agrees that the 0.5 per cent increase that funds the NDIS is a fair way to ensure that the scheme—of which every member in this place and every Australian should rightly be proud—is a reality for the Australians who need it the most. We collect the money only when the bills come in, because we owe it to the Australians who need it to link this levy from 1 July 2019 to the NDIS savings fund. When this idea was first introduced and the 'Every Australian Counts' campaign was asking federal MPs to pledge their support, I was the first from New South Wales to sign up, and I was delighted to do so—delighted. For me, as for the coalition at the time, this was not a question of politics or pettiness; it was sensible, it was fair and it had our full support. It also had the support of Kurrajong Waratah in the Wagga Wagga community and the wider Riverina. So, now we are asking every Australian who has a reasonable capacity to contribute to do so through a levy that fairly represents their ability. As the Minister for Social Services has said, our plans are to ask those who can to contribute, and that is only fair. He said:
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.
That is a fair way to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Deep within the heart of those opposite is the party of the possible, of that which I outlined at the start of this MPI, but it is not in the heart of the member for McMahon or the opposition leader. We have read reports of how the opposition leader chose politics over people. We have read about those opposite who wanted to fill the funding gap those opposite left but were thwarted by the opposition leader's political games. Even Dr Craig Emerson, a former Labor minister and certainly a luminary for those on the other side, has called out the opposition leader's hypocrisy. He said:
Labor should support the full Medicare levy rise. In doing so, it would lock in the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a signature Labor reform for which Bill Shorten can take much credit from his time as the Rudd government's parliamentary secretary for disabilities and children's services.
But gone are the days of the opposition leader taking credit. Now it is just about him and it is just about politics. Dr Emerson knows the story of rank hypocrisy from those opposite. He knows that it does not stop at the NDIS. His op-ed—and really, I would urge members opposite to read it—continues:
Labor can again demonstrate its credentials as a party of social reform and economic credibility. It should support the full increase in the Medicare levy, unconditionally back the bank levy and pass the school-funding legislation.
That is what Dr Emerson—former minister, former Labor luminary—said.
Our school-funding model implements what David Gonski was calling for. We know education is the great enabler. Through delivering a needs based model of funding for schools, with investment increasing year on year over the next decade, we are skilling our kids with the tools they need for the future, from today, for tomorrow. It is $18.6 billion over the next decade to make sure schools funding is needs based, equitable and targeted. Unfortunately, once again all those opposite are doing is playing politics. There are 128 schools in the Riverina and central west electorate that I represent—a large rural electorate—and each and every one of them is going to see a very real increase in funding.
Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of those opposite is the speed with which they have sold out small business. There was a time when the Leader of the Opposition was part of a party which wanted to create jobs. Just over three years ago he stood at the dispatch box there and said:
I invite you to work with me on a fair and fiscally responsible plan to reduce the tax rate for Australian small business from 30 to 25 per cent—not a 1½ per cent cut; a five per cent cut.
And further:
Small business represents aspiration. It represents people who want to break away from a salaried job.
Yet today he sells small business down the river. His Labor Party voted against our tax cuts and made clear that those opposite do not understand small business and they will raise its taxes in government. That is what they will do if they ever get back here. If ever they get back on this side, they will raise taxes. The member for Rankin is smiling. He has that smile about him, thinking:, 'That's who we'll hit: small business. That's who we'll work on. We will jack up their taxes and take away the instant asset write-off. That is what he will do if ever he gets a position of power in which he can do that.
Given multiple opportunities at the National Press Club last week, the shadow Treasurer could have confirmed whether Labor would keep the coalition's tax cuts for small business. He could have. But instead the shadow Treasurer dodged, ducked and weaved and failed to answer the questions. Why? The answer is simple: we back small business. Our budget backs small business. It funds the NDIS. It funds needs based school funding. It is fair. It delivers a budget for all Australians and for equity. While we are the ones who will deliver the fairness, the opportunity and security Australia needs, those opposite will just backflip again. I cannot understand why Labor does not want to back the 27½ per cent tax rate. It is the lowest it has been for many, many decades. All those opposite want to do is ramp taxes back up. They do not see that the definition of a small business should be a $10 million turnover. They confuse turnover with profit. They do not understand the difference. They do not understand that many, many thousands more small businesses will now have access to the instant asset write-off so that they can buy the capital equipment that they need in their small business to create more efficiency, more productivity and more jobs.
If this government was a junior cricket team, the Treasurer's nickname would be butterfingers. In every junior sporting team, whether it is cricket, netball or rugby league—whatever sport you want to nominate—there is always, unfortunately for that kid, a kid called butterfingers. In this parliament the kid called butter-fingers is the Treasurer. Every time he gets an opportunity to take a catch, he fumbles it. Think about the bank tax in particular. He was just standing there at short leg, the bank tax was a little dolly that just popped up in front of him and all he had to do was grab it. He had the support of both sides of parliament and a big chunk of the crossbench. It was a dolly and butterfingers still managed to drop the ball. We were, and are, all up for it, properly implemented. The member for McMahon was up for it. I was up for it. The member for Scullin, the member for Franklin and the member for Griffith—all of us, ready to support a bank levy to help fix the mess that those opposite have made of the budget. But in came butterfingers with the usual incompetence that he has displayed in this place every day that he has been the Treasurer. He just could not make it stick. That just goes to the startling incompetence of the Treasurer—a Treasurer who just cannot get it right. His answers in this place on the bank levy, the bank tax, this week have given us no confidence, firstly, that he even understands the $2 billion black hole in his bank tax and, secondly, that, even if he understood it, he has the competence to fix the mess that he has made of it.
The only conclusion we can reasonably reach is that the Treasurer's policy on banks amounts to a $2 billion hole in the bank levy, according to independent analysis from JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, and a protection racket against the royal commission. On top of that—and they do not like to talk about this, but we are on to it—the big four banks, according to the Australia Institute, will pocket something like $10 billion of the $65 billion company tax cut. This is the fraud that they are trying to make people around the country believe in. They stand up there and they want to pretend that they are cracking down on the banks, but they are standing in the way of a royal commission and they are letting the big four banks trouser $10 billion of the $65 billion company tax cut—that is the sum total of their approach to the banks. And they should fess up to the Australian people that this is all an act, a charade, while they continue to give big banks the tax cut that they have in their budget.
Under this government, debacles like the bank levy have become the norm not the exception. In unpredictable times there is one certainty, and that is: if the Treasurer is involved, a debacle is not far away. Whether it was the GST or income taxes for the states or the back and forth on negative gearing and capital gains, we have seen one debacle after another, going from fanfare to farce in the usual trajectory.
As to this $2 billion hole, a $2 billion hole is a pretty remarkable thing. I remember, soon after the election, there was a hole in his budget of about $100 million, and we thought that that was bad, but boy were we wrong! This $2 billion hole in the budget is a remarkable thing, but it is also at the same time not entirely surprising because the Treasurer is involved. Everything he touches turns to custard.
No wonder we have deficit blow-outs. We have a deficit for the coming year 10 times bigger than even Joe Hockey handed down in 2014. We have got record net debt for three more years. We have got record gross debt for as far as the eye can see. We have got the AAA rating on negative watch. Despite $21 billion in new taxes, the AAA is still at risk. We have got downgrades to growth and jobs. We have got 95,000 fewer jobs forecast in this budget than the one before. We have got record underemployment. We have got workers going backwards because their wages are not even growing as fast as inflation. And whenever the Treasurer gets up here—and we all see it in question time—they all pretend to read or to do something else. There is an awkward silence that descends whenever the Treasurer is on his feet. And even the conservative commentators, the ones that they can usually rely on, have turned on him.
This is the worst combination, of an out-of-touch Prime Minister, a hapless and hopeless Treasurer and a divided and dysfunctional government—a government defining and destroying itself with its own incompetence. And the bank tax is just one example of that. In this budget, both sides are talking about fairness, but it is only our side that means it.
I think the Australian people would forgive the Labor Party when they are unconsciously incompetent but the Australian people would not forgive the Labor Party when they are consciously incompetent. For those who are unsure of the difference, let me give you an example of how the Labor Party can be unconsciously incompetent.
Let us take the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, for example, who once had, as his view of the world, as his policy, that China should float the yen! China, whose currency is in fact the yuan or the renminbi, is in fact a different country from Japan, whose currency is the yen. So here we have the man who wants to manage the Australian economy suggesting that China should float the Japanese yen. In one simple comment, here we have the shadow Treasurer not just offending but showing complete disregard for our No. 1 trading partner, in China, and our No. 3 trading partner, in Japan. That makes me wonder what currency our second largest trading partner, the United States, might have according to the shadow Treasurer? Multiple choice—and he is in the House, so he can answer if he likes: is it the United States baht, is it the US peso, or is it the US dollar?
I wonder.
Even though the man who wants to manage the Australian economy does not know the difference between Japan and China, I think the Australian people will forgive the Labor Party for being unconsciously incompetent, because that is what they are historically. But what they will not forgive is being consciously incompetent. What the Australian people will not forgive is when the Labor Party know that they are putting flawed positions for no reason other than political gain. They say, on one hand, that they support jobs. But, on the other hand, they want to deny small business a tax cut. They say that they believe in needs-based school funding. But then, all of a sudden, they do not give a Gonski. Work that one out, Mr Deputy Speaker! They say that they believe in the NDIS. But then they refuse to fully fund it. This is where you have conscious incompetence. They know very well what they are doing but they just want to take advantage politically.
Is it any surprise that the Labor Party are interested in maintaining 27 secret deals? I do not think so. The Australian people know the Labor Party now. They do not want to work in a world of transparency; they want to work in a world of secret deals. That is the way the Labor Party runs. That is the way the union movement runs. So once there is a sniff of transparency and of accountability, it should come as no surprise that those opposite, those who are consciously incompetent, will rise up and try to take the fight.
For the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer who put forward this MPI today, I welcome him to come to my patch on the Sunshine Coast and tell people that he refuses to support $530 million for the Bruce Highway, that he refuses to support 70 schools receiving more funding, that he refuses to support nearly 3,000 veterans having greater access to mental health and that he refuses to support over 37,000 small businesses in my neck of the woods receiving a tax cut. Not only has he proven to be unconsciously incompetent; he is consciously incompetent.
The 2017 budget was delivered in this House barely 17 days ago amid self-congratulatory backslapping and repetition of the word 'fair'. Since then the grim reality of what 'fair' actually means to this government has become clear.
The problem with this budget is not just that it is unfair and that it rips $22 billion from schools, keeps the freeze on Medicare rebates until 2020 and, apparently, aims to be fair introducing a levy on the big four banks. The Treasurer tells us that:
Unlike the previous bank deposit tax, this is specifically not a levy on pensioners' and others' ordinary deposit accounts, nor is it on home loans.
That just demonstrates utter naivety on the part of the member for Cook and the government. Does the Treasurer really expect that the banks are not going to pass this on to their customers? We are talking here about for-profit organisations which have an obligation to their shareholders to improve their financial position. So where else is the money coming from? More disturbingly, as the market and as investment banks like Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank have pointed out, this levy will not raise the money that the Treasurer claims, creating a $2 billion budget black hole—not that there is any way to check, of course, as we are still waiting for the legislation to be released.
This government has been selling this budget on the basis that it is fair. But simply saying it is fair is cold comfort for the people living and working in my electorate in south western Sydney who are seeing no real wages growth but will pay $300 more in taxes. Saying this budget is fair is cold comfort for them when they hear that people earning over a million dollars will receive a tax cut of $16,400. And that pay cut does not include the amount they will lose when penalty rates are cut from 1 July. Police, nurses, baristas and any other shift workers in my electorate are set to lose $77 in their take home pay. That means that there will be less money to spend in businesses across the region and elsewhere.
One of the main issues that was constantly raised with me last year and during the election campaign and since has been Medicare and supporting it. Paul Keating once said that the health of any one of us should be important to all of us. This budget does not meet that test for my constituents or any other Australians, with the freeze on Medicare remaining until 2020. It is hard enough for my constituents to fund their out-of-pocked medical expenses as it is, with many of them already having been hit hard by other measures in this supposedly fair budget.
This budget also does little to address the substantive issues that are creating the housing affordability crisis across Sydney and instead tinkers around the edges. Housing affordability is particularly acute in my electorate, where many young families come looking to buy their first home. Ten years ago, workers on the average wage could save for a house deposit in six years; now it will take them over 10. For young people, the situation is made even worse when you consider that a recent university graduate, earning around $50,000 would be looking at paying $1,250 more in Medicare levies and HELP repayments. You are living in a different reality if you think for a moment that they have the means to enter the housing market. First home buyers cannot compete with the tax benefits that are afforded to investors and other parties who are already in the property market. The fact is that we cannot afford the capital gains tax discount or negative gearing in their current form. We need to seriously consider the impact that those measures are having on housing affordability. These measures simply make the dreams of first home buyers harder to achieve and they do nothing for renters either.
The repeated use of the word 'fair' is an attempt to hide from the people I represent and other Australians what this budget truly is and the fact that this budget does little for most people and nothing for the less well-off in my electorate. The fact is they deserve better. They deserve proper funding for Medicare and a pension that does not force them into poverty and working until they are over 70. They deserve a chance to buy a house where the repayments will not cripple them and, most importantly, they deserve a properly resourced education system, no matter where they live or who they are.
Isn't it amazing that we are talking in this MPI about the words 'incompetent' and 'budget' and it is proposed by the Labor Party. It is quite puzzling to think that the Labor Party would have the gall to come into this House and use those words in this matter of public importance.
I would like to start off by talking about the NDIS. It is really important that the Turnbull government fully fund the NDIS, because we need to put the arguments of the past about funding behind us. We need to provide certainty for NDIS participants, their families and their carers and make sure that their needs are met. We need to talk about the implementation of this scheme. That is what people in my electorate talk to me about. An additional 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy is a fair way to fill the funding shortfall. I do not understand why members opposite do not realise that, when you have a percentage levy, the less you earn the less you pay and the more you earn, the more you pay. It is extremely simple. The Labor Party are very good at announcing things and they are very, very good at creating hope. But they are not very good at funding things. But this government has very proudly put a path forward to fully fund the NDIS.
The Labor Party claim that they clearly identified long-term savings to pay for the NDIS. Let's look at that claim a little bit more. How can they make that claim when Labor's actual budget papers did not link any savings to the NDIS? A proposition that it did so, appeared only in the 2013-14 budget glossy. What is a budget glossy? We in this place know that it is a pamphlet; it is a flyer. The Labor Party did not make a commitment to fund the NDIS in the formal budget papers, but in a brochure, a flyer, they talked about 'other long-term savings' being made to fund the NDIS. But when you actually go to more detail, and ask Treasury officials in Senate estimates whether the measures could be listed in detail, the response was, 'The short answer is no.' We need to put the concerns of those people who will be participants in the NDIS and their families ahead of a funding argument in this place.
Let's look at the education debate. The Australian government is delivering a record and growing funding for schools. A record $242.3 billion will be invested in total school recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81.1 billion over 2018 to 2021. Funding to schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion to $30.6 billion in 2017. Funding will grow faster than economic growth. Total Commonwealth funding is growing by proximately 75 per cent over the next 10 years, and we are removing those secret, special deals. Only a few days ago I was in here debating the corrupting benefits legislation. Again, the Labor Party were defending secret deals. We are on the side of transparency. We are on the side of transparency when it comes to the allocation of public taxpayers' funds towards the education of our kids. We are on the side of transparency when it comes to dealing with corrupting benefits in unions.
The Labor Party has abandoned the principles of the Gonski review. I find it absolutely fascinating to walk around in this House. For those members of the public that have not been behind the scenes, each of our offices has a window, and many people put a poster of some sort in that front window. It is quite interesting that many of the Labor Party members in this place had posters that made very clear that they 'gave a Gonski'. I find it absolutely entertaining that when you walk past some of those offices—I have OCD; I like things to be nice and clean and tidy; but when you walk past some Labor members' offices, they did not even take the posters down nicely. The corners of those posters still remain where they once were. They ripped them down in a frenzy. They have abandoned the Gonski principles so quickly, leaving the remnants there on those windows.
But let us hear what Gonski has to say. Gonski says:
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 …
No wonder those posters were ripped down in such a frenzied madness by those opposite, because David Gonski has told us exactly what we need to know. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to be speaking on this matter of public importance about the government's incompetent handling of its unfair budget. Unlike those opposite, I am going to speak to it and about it—not just incoherent ramblings like we just heard.
Since this unfair budget was announced, we have really seen this incompetent government move from disaster to disaster, day after day. Whether it is the bank levy or education funding or Medicare, they are mostly two things: incompetent and unfair. That is certainly the feedback that I hear in my electorate all the time. The Australian public know it. They are certainly onto them and they are highlighting it and telling us that all the time.
The fact is also that this budget completely fails the economic credibility test in so many different ways. That is another thing that most Australians are certainly aware of. The big joke this week has been the Treasurer and his $2 billion bank levy black hole. That certainly has been highlighted this week, and it really does highlight the incompetence of this Treasurer and this government. It is certainly clear that we see that again today. It is not every day that a Treasurer loses $2 billion, but that is what he has done. It is not just us on the Labor side saying this. Investment banks are saying that there is likely to be a $2 billion black hole. They said that just weeks after the budget was released.
Remember that this is a government that promised to fix the budget. That is what they said. There was lots of talk about jobs and growth. We heard it everywhere. Everyone said 'jobs and growth' all over the place. Well, none of those things have happened. In fact, the budget fails the economic credibility test. We know that gross debt will now pass half a trillion dollars in the coming months. We know that growth is down, employment is down, wages growth is down, unemployment is up and the deficit has gone up. So they are not fixing anything—in fact, it is all getting worse. All those things they promised to do, none of that has happened. That is why they are so incompetent.
We have talked a lot, of course, about their bank tax. We have made it very clear—we have heard this particularly from our shadow Treasurer and others—that we will not stop their new tax on the banks. We are very worried about the fact that they failed to put in place any safeguards at all that will stop those fees being passed on to Australians—another example of their incompetence. Certainly, that is something we are very worried about
The heart of this budget is really absolute unfairness. It is an unfair budget that delivers tax handouts for multinationals and millionaires while hurting everyday families—families like those in my electorate of Richmond. The only people who will see any better days in this budget are the very wealthy and big business—that is it! No-one else. And if you particularly compare that to electorates like mine, and if you look at rural and regional Australia, how unfair is it for them? How has this government walked away from them? How has the National Party, particularly, walked away from them?
Who would have thought we would see the National Party in this place standing up for the multimillionaires and for big business, forgetting all those farmers and country folk they are supposed to represent? Well, they have walked away from all of them. I would certainly like to highlight that we have seen that very starkly in my electorate over the past couple of weeks when, of course, we have had the devastating impact of the flooding following Cyclone Debbie, which has devastated many areas of the North Coast of New South Wales.
This government and this National Party, at a state and federal level, have failed to provide sufficient resources, funding and a commitment to fix communities that are desperate. It really is very incompetent. There was a lot of concern that there was nothing in the budget to adequately help these communities that are indeed struggling. Again, it highlights the incompetence of this government.
When we turn to the budget and we look at it, the government made some choices. They chose to continue with these tax handouts for big business while increasing taxes for workers. They did nothing meaningful to tackle big issues, like the housing affordability crisis. Compare that to our initiatives around negative gearing and capital gains tax. But there was nothing from them at all.
And we also see their cuts. There is $22 billion cut from Australian schools and cuts to universities. How unfair can you get, when you are cutting $22 billion from our schools? That will be devastating for kids in areas like mine, when every school will have a major cut. It is over $40 million for the public schools in my electorate.
So we get this government running around all the time and saying that they are all about fairness and all about providing more for people. It is completely untrue—totally untrue! What they are actually doing is making it harder, particularly for those families in regional and rural areas. I think that something like the schools funding and the cuts to universities really highlights that as well—how difficult it will be for those families in regional and rural areas.
But do you know what? In those regional and rural areas, they know that the only party standing up for them is the Labor Party. We have their backs, we are looking after them and we will keep fighting this government and this government's incompetence.
It is a great pleasure to speak. We deserve everything we get as members of this House, individually and when we go to our electorates and speak with our constituents. I suggest that they genuinely like us, otherwise we would not get elected in our own right!
Opposition members interjecting—
They do, they like us! I am assuming that your constituents like you on that side—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
But when the Australian public speaks about politicians collectively, they no longer adopt the position of liking us personally. They see us collectively as untrustworthy—noses in the trough. It is a reality, and for us to change the perception of the Australian public goes to the heart of how we debate in this chamber. No doubt, the Labor Party come into this chamber, hands on their hearts, and deliver the lines they are given wholeheartedly—as we do. It is moments like this though, through the MPIs, where you can stand and actually debate a topic that you feel passionately about. Today, the topic put up by Labor is 'the government's incompetent handling of its unfair budget'.
We heard one of our speakers today talk about two stages of incompetence. There are four stages of incompetence: there is unconscious competence, conscious competence, conscious incompetence and unconscious incompetence. I do not suggest that those on the other side may have heard of those, but, nevertheless, there is a hierarchal structure of competence and incompetence. I want to remind the House that up in the gallery today we are joined by some principals.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce is warned.
I sat quietly through the earlier speakers and I do not expect that the same respect would be shown to me, but I understand that there are different levels of respect in this place. I did sit quietly through the speeches. I want to acknowledge the principals in the gallery who have come here today, because they come to hear a logical debate. They come to hear a factual debate, and I think what they heard when we referred to the budget was that there were going to be cuts to their schools. As principals, that should scare them. If the choreographed line of the Labor Party is to scare and intimidate principals around Australia, then continue on. We have those principals who are in this chamber today; those principals in my electorate, where I have 71 schools; I think the member for McMahon has 39 or 49 schools; and the member for Rankin, who spoke earlier, has about 39. Whilst I was listening to their contributions—their heartfelt contributions—I went through and had a look on the online calculator. The reality is that not one of their schools, when you refer to the education department's online calculator, actually takes a cut. Yet, when you listen to—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon has 49 schools. I am not going to bore you with statistics, you can have a look at it—
Opposition members interjecting—
Oh, righto—you want a go? Let's go. Here comes the chuckle. We currently fund your Emmaus Catholic College with $11½ million dollars, which will increase to $12 million, an increase of around $400,000. Pick a school, a school per member, and I will tell you what the increase in your area is going to be. Old Guildford Public School—apparently we fund it to the tune of $1.176 million, and there is going to be an increase of $59,600. Pick another school—anyone. Merrylands High School—an increase of $119,000. The reality is, when you refer to the online calculator there is not one school which is going to take a cut. But listen to those on the other side of the House come to this chamber and bleat that there are going to be cuts and use intimidatory and bullying tactics, wanting to scare those principals who come here in good faith. I know those principals are good people. I know they come here wanting to influence outcomes for their children and their students and their schools. They come into this chamber and hear mendacious claims that their school budgets are going to be cut—the contempt that they have been shown needs to be dealt with.
I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance. Tasmanians, and, in particular, those within my electorate of Bass, need to hear about this government's abdication of its responsibilities to the state of Tasmania and its failure to understand what matters. There is nothing in this budget which demonstrates that the government understands the challenges facing Tasmania or, indeed, the economic challenges facing this nation. This government is incompetent; it prefers the interest of those who are from the so-called big end of town to those of ordinary Australians. Nevertheless, when it seeks to tax the big banks with a levy, something Labor will support, it cannot even get that right. There is a black hole. The Treasurer's calculator needs to be fixed again.
The government appropriates the language of fairness whilst not understanding the concept at all. It does not understand that those in low-paid or insecure work need protection. It has failed to stand up for those in receipt of penalty rates who, on 1 July, may stand to lose significant amounts of money—money that would be spent in regional communities sustaining the jobs of other workers and businesses within regional Australia. The government warns about low wages growth but does nothing about it. It does not regard the interests of low-paid workers in securing better pay and conditions as important at all. It does not understand the fact that underemployment within regional Australia means that small businesses are at risk of losing the livelihood of their existence—the disposable incomes in the pockets of average Australians, which are spent each week on sustaining daily life.
There are real consequences, not just in the wider economic sense, in ignoring the interests of lower paid and middle-income earners in our communities. I know that the experience in Tasmania following the loss of jobs in the forestry industry was that there were significant rounds of secondary job losses in supermarkets and small businesses as a consequence of the loss of jobs in regional communities. It is perfectly appropriate for leading economists, including those from the big banks, to warn about the risk of low wage growth to the economy generally. This will mean lower tax receipts. But, in small communities like those in my electorate of Bass, the loss of penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers may mean a loss of up to $12 million in income—money that would be more likely spent on consuming goods and services locally, week in and week out. Small business in my electorate understands that loss of wages or loss of entitlements has a direct consequence in reduced economic activity.
This government proposes a tax increase on low-paid workers in the form of an increased Medicare levy whilst bizarrely giving those who are on higher incomes a tax cut in the abolition of the deficit reduction levy. A person on a $60,000 per annum income will pay $300 more as a consequence of this budget. The government also prefers to give the largest corporations in Australia an expensive, unfunded tax cut. This government is so incompetent that it sought to avoid disclosure of the yearly cost of this unfunded tax cut and, when pressed, finally disclosed the cost per year would ultimately exceed $16.5 billion in one year and $65.5 billion over 10 years. This government has the cheek to lecture Labor about funding for the NDIA but is prepared to give an unfunded tax cut in the hope that trickle-down economics will generate a wider economic benefit. We know that if choices are to be made—and they must be made—a better choice to drive growth is to invest in education rather than rip $22 billion from funding schools whilst claiming additional or increased investment.
In the Tasmanian context we know that the Tasmanian economy underperforms average gross state product per capita of the other states by something approaching 27 per cent. Saul Eslake has pinpointed the fact that a leading cause of underperformance in the Tasmanian economy is a lack of educational attainment. Slugging students more to attend university and making them repay their HELP debt earlier does not address that. The Liberals are so proud of their investment in fairness, their investment in education and their investment in Tasmania that not one—no single minister or assistant minister—has bothered to travel to Tasmania to talk about the benefits of the budget for Tasmanians.
Have any Labor people been?
Yes. I know that the Liberals have long ago abandoned Tasmania. They fail to listen to the electors of Tasmania and fail to recognise the importance of jobs, health and education to our disadvantaged communities. They have no idea. Labelling a budget as fair does not make it so.
On Monday this week the Liberal Party celebrated Robert Menzies's 'Forgotten People' broadcast. We can take many lessons from it, particularly the timely reminder that family life is at the heart of our nation. But it also reminds us that some things never change. So, while the Labor Party primary vote continues to shrink to match their diminished imagination and vision, it reminds us that they are still the cold-hearted class warriors of yesteryear—people who play a zero-sum game, who cannot acknowledge good policy, even when it drives us all towards a stronger, secure future for this country. As Menzies himself said, the class war is always a false war. And the topic of this debate is exactly that. The class warriors are seeking to ignite a class war.
We are living in a very dangerous world. The tragic events of this week confirm that. The West—and by that I mean Western liberal democracies—faces threats from both within and without. And the evil terrorist act which took the lives of 22 people in Manchester this week reminds us that Australians are also not immune from this threat, the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. So the core task of government is to secure the Australian people so that they can live peaceful lives and pursue their own ambitions and happiness. To be free, we need to first be secure.
The coalition government is therefore delivering national and economic security to the Australian people and we are doing so in a competent, just and fair manner. Our budget priorities reflect this fact. I am going to demonstrate in three points how we are delivering national and economic security to the Australian people: (1) we are securing our borders and we are securing the Australian people by raising the standard for Australian citizenship, (2) we are equipping our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the resources to disrupt the defeat terrorist threats and (3), unlike those opposite during their six years, we are building our defence force and growing an organic defence industry.
Firstly, on the border security and securing the Australian people: this government, since taking office in 2013 and commencing Operation Sovereign Borders, has stopped the boats. We have secured our borders. Need I not remind those opposite of their record: 50,000 illegal arrivals on 800 boats and 12,000 deaths at the sea to the cost of $13.7 billion, with an ongoing cost of $1.9 billion. Since OSB started, this government has turned 30 boats around, we have closed 17 detention centres and we have got 8,000 children out of detention—and we are building on this. We have seen the disaster facing Europe, particularly France and Germany, and we have committed $95.4 million in this budget to support new technologies for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
We are modernising our biometric storage to enhance the processing of people who cross our borders. Over 700,000 people move across our borders every week, and that is going to increase by 20 per cent in the coming year, so we are spending money in this year's budget to make sure that we can process people more effectively. We are also committing $12 million over the next four years to introduce tougher standards for Australian citizenship, making sure that people have competence when it comes to English, have allegiance to Australia, commit to our values and laws and demonstrate a willingness to integrate into our society.
This budget equips our law enforcement and security agencies to disrupt and defeat terrorist threats. Since coming to office in 2013, we have improved CT funding for those charged with protecting Australian people. We have introduced eight tranches of legislation which strengthens the ability of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate, track, arrest and prosecute homegrown terrorists. In this year's budget, we have committed $321 million to increase the Australian Federal Police's ability to counter threats and to do their work of policing those who cause harm to the Australian people.
Finally, on Defence: we are maintaining our commitment to increase Defence spending to two per cent by 2021. Under Labor, we went to the lowest spending for Defence since 1938. That was on your watch; you treated Defence like a giant ATM and we are still recovering from it. This government cares about securing the Australian people, and this budget demonstrates our commitment to those priorities.
The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
On behalf of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports: Examination of the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2014-15 and Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2014-15.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Firstly, I will start with the Australian Crime Commission's report. We note that in 2014-15, the Australian Crime Commission has disrupted 54 serious and organised criminal groups and networks; it has seized more than $34 million in cash, $1.96 billion in estimated street value of illicit drugs and more than $175 million of precursor chemicals; it has restrained more than $238 million in assets; it has assisted in issuing 95.3 million tax assessments and the arrests of 194 people on 548 charges; and it has seized 18 firearms and referred 88 entities to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, with an estimated value of over $80 million.
The committee commends the Australian Crime Commission for its vital contribution to Australia's fight against serious and organised crime, both domestically and internationally. The committee is supportive of the ACC expanding its capabilities and intelligence gathering to offshore locations, especially into regions that are known to be the source of illicit materials such as crystal methamphetamines.
In the report following examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police, we note that for 2014-15 the commissioner said that the year was characterised by challenge and change, and they diverted significant resources to meet the emerging terrorism threat. Despite that, the AFP was successful during 2014-15, with the seizure of nine tonnes of illicit drugs; the restraint of $246 million in criminal assets; the conduct of eight terrorism related disruption activities resulting in 25 people being charged; the arrest of 672 persons for Commonwealth crimes with a 94 per cent conviction rate, the establishment of a Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre together with nine other Commonwealth agencies; enhanced cyber safety for over 190,000 Australian children following the ThinkUKnow program; the deployment of 99 staff in 29 countries; and the training of 4,896 law and justice officials from 16 nations.
The committee also notes that it remains concerned about its inability to examine the AFP's counter-terrorism activities. As the committee has previously stated, these activities often overlap with its important law enforcement functions, and preventing the committee from overseeing this element of the AFP's work may lead to unintended gaps in parliamentary oversight and hamper the committee 's ability to effectively oversee the AFP.
The committee recommends that the government introduce legislation to re-establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's oversight function with respect to the monitoring, reviewing or reporting of the performance of the Australian Federal Police and of its functions under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code.
When I was speaking earlier I had just finished discussing the cuts at a national level that are embodied in the Australian Education Amendment Bill, and I now want to turn to the very significant impact this bill will have on public schools. I am a proud product of a public school education, and I will always be a proud advocate of public schools. Given the background of the Prime Minister and most of his government, they clearly do not understand the fundamental importance of public schools in our society and our future. There are a few over there who went to public schools; unfortunately, clearly, their experience is not reflected in this legislation, otherwise it would not be ripping away billions of dollars from public schools. Under Labor's funding model we were providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools, and the reason for this is simple: public schools cater for seven out of 10 children with a disability, seven out of 10 children with 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.
Yesterday I met Phoebe McIlwraith from Halekulani, who is representing my region as part of the Indigenous Youth Parliament. She is an incredibly impressive and articulate young woman who will succeed in whatever she puts her mind to. She is passionate about education. She reminds me of the fact that 83.9 per cent of Indigenous students attend state schools, and she said, 'If you want Indigenous Australians to succeed, you must fund state schools.' That is Phoebe's quote, and I thank her for it: if you want Indigenous Australians to succeed, you must fund state schools. That is what Labor was doing, and unfortunately the plan of the Liberal-National government proposes the exact opposite. The leader of this House has stated that the coalition has an emotional commitment to supporting private schools, and he went on to say that the coalition's view was that 'we have a particular responsibility for non-government schooling that we do not have for government schooling'—and that is reflected in this legislation. I am proud to be a representative of a party in which it is an article of faith to support all school systems, and especially our great public schools. The coalition simply do not believe in the concept of needs based school funding, and that is clearly evident in this legislation.
Finally, on this point, we know that public schools will be significantly worse off under the government's proposals, because the Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education—in a Liberal government—has written to every principal warning them not to trust the government's new school model. His advice to principals is:
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 teacher salaries or any other cost growth over the next decade.
That is straight from the New South Wales Liberal government, saying the federal Liberal government's figures cannot be believed.
This government has abandoned public schools with these proposals, and it is another damning indictment of their priorities.
I also want to highlight the impact of this bill on the Catholic school system, particularly for local parish schools in Shortland. Under Labor's proposal, Catholic and independent schools that educate children with special needs would have received extra funding. Labor has significant concerns that the government's new proposal will penalise some local parish schools and that these schools will suffer very substantial funding losses and will have to increase fees or cut teachers at their schools. This is very important to me. St Pius X Primary School in Windale in my electorate is the lowest SES school, government or non-government, in all of New South Wales. Let me repeat that: I have the school drawing students from the poorest background in the entire state of New South Wales. It is a small school of only 50 students, and around 50 per cent of these students are Indigenous. Because of Labor's reforms, this school has been able to employ an extra two teachers. This is incredibly significant. Two extra full-time teachers in a school with only 50 students is making an enormous difference to this school. When I have talked to teachers and parents at the school, they have been evangelical about the impact that this has already had in their lives. That is the most basic point about this legislation: the government's cuts will mean that disadvantaged children in both the government and the non-government sectors will suffer because of the lack of extra funding and support.
All of us in this place are always privileged to be able to visit the local schools we represent. It has been a great pleasure getting to know the school communities in Shortland after I was elected last year. In every school I visit I am always told by the principals, teachers and parents how supportive they are of Labor's needs based funding model and what a difference it is making to their schools and communities.
Schools in my electorate will be significantly worse off because of this legislation. Indeed, every public school in New South Wales will face cuts. Because of the government's cuts, public schools in Shortland will be over $17 million worse off in the next two years alone. Lake Munmorah High School, which has benefited so much from Labor's needs based funding model, will be over $800,000 worse off. Wiripaang Public School at Gateshead, another low-SES school, will be $650,000 worse off, and the primary school closest to me, Biddabah Public School at Warners Bay, will be $300,000 worse off. This will have a massive, massive impact. Teachers and principals have told me about the benefits of the needs based funding model that is already happening. I heard from the principal of Lake Munmorah Public School how they are using the extra funding to invest in teacher quality to lift the quality of their teachers, which is making a concrete impact on the learning outcomes of their students. I have heard from the principal of Warners Bay High School, the largest high school in my electorate, that it has devoted the additional funding to extra literacy and numeracy tutors to target the lowest 25 per cent of students so that they do not fall behind and can stay up with their classmates throughout the entire six years of their high school education. I have heard from the leadership at St Mary's High School at Gateshead how they are using the money to invest in vocational education and training, given the very high level of trade training needs in my electorate.
In the time left to me I also want to draw the attention of the House to the cuts in electorates close to mine. The member for Robertson will be voting for over $13 million in cuts for her local schools. The member for Lyne will be voting for almost $20 million in cuts to his schools. What a pathetic sham they are! They purport to represent regional New South Wales, but they are doing so much damage to local school communities by voting for this legislation. These are very significant cuts for schools and will have a real impact on students, teachers and their local communities.
Before concluding, I want to place on record my own support and that of the Labor Party for gradually reducing funding for the 24 most overfunded schools around Australia. Elite independent schools should not be receiving significantly extra resources when schools with very basic needs, like so many in the electorate I represent, are having their own funding significantly reduced.
In conclusion, the Liberals and Nationals do not understand the fundamental importance of needs based funding, especially for public schools. They are trying to con the Australian public. It is akin to robbing us of $30 and giving us back $8 and thinking that somehow we should be grateful that they have only taken $22 off us. The government's own documents demonstrate and brag about the fact that they are cutting education funding over the decade by $22 billion. These are not figures from the Labor opposition; they are not figures from a teachers' union or a state government; these are the government's own figures, as distributed to journalists on the day of their announcement, and they brag about a $22 billion cut, and that is a cut that will impact on students around the country and, in particular, in my electorate.
I would invite the Prime Minister to visit St Mary's high school or St Pius primary school or Warners Bay high to see the real difference that Labor's needs based funding is making and to hear firsthand what the results of these cuts will be. My Labor colleagues and I understand the fundamental importance of needs based funding for our schools, and that is why we are committed to the model, and that is why we will continue to fight for the wonderful and transformative impact it is having in our local communities. (Time expired)
I want to speak on the education legislation that is currently before the House, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, and I notice in the galleries upstairs we have a number of school students visiting Parliament House. For their benefit, I think we should say that the investment in education is the best investment that we can make because every dollar we spend on these students is an investment not only in them so that they can fulfil their potential and to give them a world of opportunity in the future, but also because they will provide an opportunity for us—the future of our country. Therefore, we should acknowledge those visiting today but also acknowledge the fact that they have a very significant role to play in the future of this country and that is why this parliament should be fixated on what we have got to do about investing in education and it should not just be going through this spurious argument that is taking place at the moment where, when they say they are putting money into education, in fact they are not fulfilling what is required for needs based funding.
I have heard member after member on the other side talking about the contributions that have been made to local schools. I would like to read what the secretary of the New South Wales Department of Education, Mr Mark Scott, said in relation to that. He said: 'The Commonwealth budget contains an increase of $820 million to NSW schools, but there remains a shortfall of $1.8 billion.' The Liberal Minister for Education in New South Wales has certainly made his comments very succinctly. 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.
… we come in good faith, we have a deal with the commonwealth government and we expect that deal to be honoured.
The New South Wales government did enter, in good faith, an opportunity for investing in education into the future.
Now we see the government making war on the systemic Catholic schools, the parish schools. We have had His Grace Archbishop Fisher saying that schools will be forced to dramatically increase their fees and some may be forced to close. For systemic Catholic schools, it is funding a system: they do take money from richer, more prosperous areas and invest it in areas of low socioeconomic status where parents may be on low incomes and so might find it harder to pay school fees. They offer faith-based education, but they certainly want to make sure it is affordable education. Mrs Christine Scanlon, the principal of the All Saints Catholic Primary School in my electorate, said: 'The problem with this government is they don't understand how Catholic systemic education works.'
Debate interrupted.
Mr Speaker, thank you for earlier this year visiting Banksia Park International High School in the electorate in Makin and spending an hour with the students there in a very interesting Q&A session. I think it was very much appreciated, and it was a great day.
In his budget speech on 9 May the Treasurer claimed the federal budget will return to surplus in 2021-22. The forecast is made on an assumption that the Australian economy will grow by 2¾ per cent in 2017-18 and by three per cent thereafter. As in Australia, the dependency on growth to balance budgets is common practice throughout most economies, yet the practice is rarely questioned by economists or political commentators. Dependency on growth raises two questions. Firstly, are we living beyond our means and relying on future generations to pay for our lifestyle? Secondly, how much longer can growth continue?
The reality is that growth comes at a cost. More energy and resources are needed, whilst pollution rises and resources are depleted. One hundred years ago, global population was 1.9 billion. Today, it is almost four times that, at 7.5 billion. By 2050 it is estimated the global population will reach 10 billion—almost a third more people in the world than there are today. Most of the growth will be in developing countries where per capita consumption is also likely to rise and living standards improve. That means consumption and, therefore, demand on global resources will very likely rise even faster.
Through technological and scientific advancements we can become more efficient in how we live and grow food, but that is of little use if those gains do not offset growing consumption. That requires drastic changes in how we live. There are no signs of that, with global growth for the next three years alone projected to rise from 3.25 per cent in 2017 to 3.75 per cent in 2019. The strongest proponents and greatest beneficiaries of global growth are the big international corporates. For them, more consumption means more profits. Interestingly, as global GDP grows so too does the gap between the super-rich and others.
Increased global consumption is directly linked to the depletion of resources; pollution of waters, air and land; and the destruction of ecosystems. There are credible reports that our oceans are already dying because of human activity. Contaminated land water runoff, acidification and temperature changes, nuclear disasters such as that of Fukushima, plastics and other waste material, ocean vessels, oils spills and over fishing are all contributing, but very little is said about the extent of ocean degradation. For most people, ocean degradation is out of sight and out of mind. Our land and atmosphere are under similar threats. Rainforests, which covered 14 per cent of land mass in the past, now barely cover six per cent. According to author Julian Cribb, humans emit more than 250 billion tonnes of chemical substances each year. He points out:
The European Chemicals agency estimates there are more than 144,000 man-made chemicals in existence. The US Department of Health estimates 2000 new chemicals are being released every year. The UN Environment Program warns most of these have never been screened for human health safety.
There are countless other statistics I could refer to that confirm the challenges we face, but my time today is limited. In summary, the earth is warming up, finite resources are being depleted, pollution in parts of the world is at crisis point and ecologies are being destroyed at a faster rate than ever before. The planet cannot continue on this trajectory without catastrophic consequences for humanity.
The human fight for survival is already underway. Many of today's world conflicts originate from disputes over land, water or resources needed to sustain growing populations. Those conflicts spill over into every other nation throughout the world through burgeoning refugee, migration and international aid demand. Future generations are being left with a depleted and polluted earth under stress from multiple factors. Unsustainable growth is the elephant in the room as world governments struggle to deal with climate change, water and food shortages, resource depletion, environmental disasters, disease, famine and civil unrest. As with climate change, the effects are already with us. As with climate change, are we simply going to pass the problem on to future generations?
Today I have the sad task of confirming that the Yerriyong motor sports proposal, which could have been such a catalyst for our region by helping to reduce unemployment and increase business opportunity, has been withdrawn and that all possible avenues have been exhausted. It is a disappointing, stupid, NIMBY-sighted result that a not-so-rare orchid became the major stumbling block; and it is of particular concern that the agitation of a very few individuals ultimately caused this outcome. Our region, our youth and our local economy are the losers.
This has been a seven-year journey for Motorcycling New South Wales. Every time they thought they had jumped a hurdle, another one was put in their way—from fake Indigenous artefacts taking six months to determine, to studies being presented after the closing date for submissions, to orchid study grant money seemingly coming from nowhere, to the possibility of finding foam contamination, which has been negated—it has all become too much for the team at Motorcycling New South Wales.
And who could blame them. The whole process is flawed. If we are to progress anytime soon in our region, then the environmental determinants need to be consolidated and defined so that developers, businesses and employers have a set of rules to follow and will not be left to the whim of interpretation of legislation by those living in city environments, who really have little concept of how important projects like motorcycling complexes are for regions where there is inexplicably high unemployment.
Motorcycling New South Wales has invested well over $1 million in this. They had $11 million put aside for the build, and the federal government allocated a grant of $9.5 million—a total investment of $20 million. It is my understanding that the joint regional planning panel has asked that the project be withdrawn. I will of course seek every opportunity to have the federal government grant of $9.5 million reallocated to another project, or projects, in Gilmore.
I would like to thank Dave Cooke, from Motorcycling New South Wales, the original long-term warriors of the project; Daniel Gatt and Christine Tickner; the local government reps and agencies who worked on the project; and the many individuals for their unrelenting support. In particular, I would like to thank business owners Norm Mogg for his almost daily request for updates and calls of support; Peter and Sonya Flannagan; Troy Creighton; Casey and Dean Lockeridge; Terese Macey-Mericham, Warren Mericham; Richard and Robyn Mahoney, from Better Tyres; and Peter Dryer. These people all knew how extensive the benefits would have been for our region and especially for our young people.
The Yerriyong motorsports complex would have introduced a huge new income stream for our area. It would have created jobs and economic investment, including new hotels, tourism and other business opportunities. I am deeply saddened by the outcome. It makes absolutely no sense. I have heard that there are a few people in our community who have popped the champagne corks in celebration that this project has now been lost from our region. I wonder if they aware that they have stopped a great project—one that would have provided jobs, youth employment opportunities and economic growth. The flip side is that, when they email me or come to me about the lack of opportunity for our young people, and businesses closing, and say, 'What are you doing?' I will have no choice but to say, 'You started this lack of opportunity for our region. You did not see the vision of new apprenticeship opportunities, new engineering businesses coming to our region or the extensive accommodation and tourism boosts.' Shame on all of those who did not try to maximise the potential of this project for our region! There is no excuse for their lack of support. While a few individuals may walk that land in the right season and see this very unrare orchid, that is absolutely not going to equal the economic opportunity that has been lost.
Dave Cooke has said that he would also like to thank the tireless efforts of our supporters in the area, those who worked closely with us on the project, as well as the locals who believe this project would be a win for the district and supported it—people like Dylan Jorgenson. Dylan wrote: 'I'm a local in Nowra. All I can say is please don't give up on this project. This is on everybody's lips in town. We want this. We need this. I own an electrical contracting company and employ 24 people, including seven apprentices. This area will thrive on the fruits of this facility, and even companies like mine who are not directly related to motorsport will reap rewards. Good luck. We're behind you 100%. Don't be beaten by a flower.'
There can be nothing more demoralising than to face the decision to shut the door on a project you believe in, knowing that a region of high unemployment would have had the chance to remake its regional image, bring high quality and qualify jobs to expand the work and economic potential to include hospitality and tourism sectors and all the jobs that would bring. This is a very, very sad day indeed. It is regrettable that individuals and small action groups can get in the way of the majority of the people and it saddens me that this happens over and over again. It is time for the majority not to be so silent and to make a difference.
As we adjourn today at the end of this sitting week, I am going to be flying home to see my family. I cannot wait to see them. This week, I think all of our thoughts have been very much with the people of Manchester in the UK and all those impacted by the horrific attack there earlier this week. It was also great to see this chamber so united. Obviously we have differences of opinion when it comes to policy. I think it is fair to say we have different values and different priorities, but we have talked about them a lot this week. What we have in common, what unites us, we saw in this chamber this week—that is, a love of freedom and a want to make sure that our country is safe and secure. We reach out a hand of friendship to those around the world, like the families of the police officers in Indonesia who tonight do not have dad at home. I want to place on the record my condolences with those families. I noticed on Twitter there was the hashtag 'Kami Tidak Takut'. It means, 'We are not afraid.' I think that is a powerful message to see going around Indonesia and the world.
Of course, Australia is not immune from these heinous crimes, as we have been reminded this week. We were reminded of the important work carried out by our security and intelligence agencies, our military, our police and our emergency services to secure our country and our communities. We were also reminded of the danger of that work and of the effect that work can sometimes have on the brave men and women of our security and military forces. I was very happy to support a couple of initiatives in recent weeks. One was Walk off the War Within, where Defence and emergency services staff come together in Darwin. I want to congratulate Mark Spain and the others who got the fire brigade and the military walking 20 kilometres with 20 kilograms in their packs to raise money for Soldier On. I am pleased to say that Soldier On will be sponsoring a veterans and emergency services family fun day coming up in Darwin soon.
I also want to quickly acknowledge an ex-army engineer called Kirby Stocks. In the next couple of hours, Kirby is going to start walking from Mindil Beach in Darwin over three hundred kilometres to Katherine. He said he wants to do it nonstop. I have asked him to have a breather when he gets tired—we want him to make sure he gets to Katherine safely. But he is really determined to raise some funds to help out other people who have gone through and are still battling PTSD like he did. My thoughts are with him. He is an inspiring individual and, if you get on everydayhero, search for Kirby Stocks and think of him over the next three or so days as he walks down the Stuart Highway.
This week I had the immense pleasure to meet some other inspiring Territorians who are part of the National Indigenous Youth Parliament program. They are another great reminder for us of what we are about in this House—of our responsibilities, representing our electorates and fighting for the best future we can achieve. During this week of attacks and much sorrow, these young leaders reminded us of the good that we need to keep recommitting ourselves to for the good of our electorates that we represent and for the good of our nation. They are talented young people. It was great to see them here in the House this week. I wish everyone a safe return home.
I am very pleased to rise in the chamber today to share some of the positive reaction and reception that the 2017 budget has received in my electorate of Forde. Before I get to that, I would like to associate myself with the comments just made by the member for Solomon. I think they are a great reflection on what has occurred this week.
In the week gone, when we had the pleasure of being home for the while, I took the opportunity to hit the pavement in our local community and speak to families and businesses about what the government is delivering for them in the electorate of Forde and more generally through the 2017 budget. In the last week, we were treated to a visit by the Treasurer, Scott Morrison. His first stop was Shailer Park State High School. At Shailer Park State High School, year 12 legal studies students took the opportunity to grill the Treasurer. Many of them were keen to learn more about the changes to university funding arrangements and how that would impact their futures. These students and their teachers appreciated the chance to have these new and necessary measures explained to them in great detail and to engage with the Treasurer in a lively discussion about how they would help move their careers, their opportunities and this nation forward into the future.
We then followed up with a lunch with some of our key community leaders, who also had the opportunity to speak to the Treasurer, particularly about small business changes. The leaders of our chambers of commerce were particularly interested in discussing the small-business depreciation measures—where we have extended the instant asset write-off—and, also, the tax changes for small businesses. They highlighted how important these measures were for the local economy. This meeting followed on from a meeting we had earlier in the week with the Beenleigh Yatala Chamber of Commerce breakfast, which hosted as a guest speaker the small-business minister, Michael McCormack. The minister provided a great insight into how this government's support will create more jobs in our area as well as grow our economy.
We are committed to delivering tax relief for our small-business owners. I can say that, from the forum we had with our small-business owners, they were very glad to hear it. It certainly gives them a shot of confidence. The extension of the already popular instant asset write-off will benefit some 14,600 small businesses in the electorate of Forde, while our tax cuts will help our small and medium businesses to invest and employ more Australians. On that note, our community leaders were also thrilled to hear about our record investment in Australian apprenticeships through the creation of our new key trades and skills training fund. This extra investment will provide pathways to employment for our approximately 2,200 15- to 24-year-olds looking for work.
But we were not stopping there. This budget ensures that our young people will be supported right from the start with our fair and needs-based school funding model. On that note, we had the education minister, Simon Birmingham, in the electorate of Forde on Monday. He joined me at Upper Coomera State College for some hands-on learning with the students in their coffee shop. We then visited Leapfrog Childcare Centre at Ormeau before hosting a principals' and teachers' forum with local educators. The minister highlighted how our schools in every sector will receive significant funding boosts, with a total increase in federal funding for schools in the electorate of Forde over the next 10 years to the tune of some $417 million. Importantly, our increased funding will be tied to reforms proven to make a real difference to improving student outcomes. This is great news for some 41 primary and secondary schools and some 32½ thousand students in my electorate.
The budget was well received at our various mobile offices across the electorate and it was good to see the community come out and engage in those discussions. A range of very intelligent, detailed questions were asked, and we had great discussions on a wide range of topics. It was good to see our community take an active interest in what we are seeking to do for the country through this budget and our other endeavours. It was a pleasure to get out into the community over the past week. (Time expired)
I would like to add my support to the proposal for a standalone headspace centre in Braddon. While headspace currently services Devonport through an outreach centre, the demand is so significant that the service is limited to just one part of my electorate of Braddon. Since opening in 2013, the service has seen an increased demand for its services in the critical area of youth mental health. Under the current model, outer lying areas such as Circular Head and the West Coast are missing out on this vital service. I therefore offer my support to Primary Health Tasmania's proposal to establish a standalone centre on the North West coast.
In its proposal, Primary Health Tasmania has wisely indicated that it needs to work with stakeholders on the best place to establish a centre to ensure it effectively services the region. The demand for such a facility is certainly evident, especially considering that there were 801 occasions of service by the Devonport headspace outreach centre staff in 2015-16 in the Devonport catchment area alone.
Headspace is all about early intervention and works in four key areas affecting young people—mental health, physical health, work and study support, and alcohol and other drug services. It also provides information and support through its website. According to headspace, one in four young people have experienced a mental health issue in the past 12 months, which is significantly more than in all other age groups. And while it is still difficult for us to talk about it, suicide remains the largest cause of death among young people, accounting for one-third of all deaths.
Since its inception, headspace has provided services to more than 255,000 young people through its centres, including online and phone counselling, across the country. Headspace centres are different from other clinical services in that they are designed and built with input from young people and provide access to a range of health providers, including GPs, psychologists, social workers, alcohol and drug workers, counsellors, vocational workers and youth workers. They are also very effective. Headspace reports that more than 60 per cent of its clients demonstrate significant improvement from using its programs. The remaining 40 per cent are still working with headspace or alternative services.
And to ensure they are where young people are, headspace has also branched into the online space with eheadspace, which provides access to services and sessions to be delivered online. As of March 2016, 55,390 young people accessed eheadspace, resulting in 185,459 sessions serviced by eheadspace mental health professionals. There are more than 12,600 young people in Braddon between the ages of 15 and 24 who could benefit from having access to such a service, should a centre be in this area.
I note the health sector has been pushing for a dedicated headspace facility in this area for some time, and it would certainly complement a number of other services. Of course, the federal government has a role to play in the proposal. Both existing headspace centres in Tasmania are already stretched, and while they do their best for their clients, an expansion such as this will ensure that young people in Braddon have access to this vital service. While current funding limits the extension of the current service, additional funding would allow the integration of this standalone service on the North West coast, with other services. This would see headspace working in tandem with other programs, including Primary Health Network's responsibilities for chronic and complex youth mental health services. I trust the federal health minister looks favourably towards this proposal and considers funding for a headspace centre in my electorate of Braddon. This would be well supported by the community and families in my region.
Today I would like to shine a spotlight on Australian Innovative Systems, an outstanding company in my Bonner electorate that continues to impress, year on year.
Last week, the Prime Minister and I had the pleasure of touring their Tingalpa factory. It was great to hear from CEO, Elena Gosse, about how the government's measures to help small-and medium-sized businesses will benefit AIS and its customers. AIS has been a leading designer, manufacturer and supplier of water disinfection technology and chlorine generators for over 20 years. It now employs over 60 staff and exports products to over 55 countries.
AIS has been recognised for its innovative work with an incredible number of awards. This includes being named Australian Small Business Champion in the manufacturing category and winner for best innovation culture in BRW's 50 Most Innovative Companies award.
The Prime Minister also commended AIS last week for its ongoing commitment to innovation. We were very impressed when seeing its range of chlorine generators for commercial and residential swimming pools. As the Prime Minister put it:
This is what innovation enterprise is all about.
He also said that small- and medium-sized businesses like AIS are at the heart of our economic future.
That is why this government is continuing to support small businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million by lowering their tax rate to 27.5 per cent, the lowest level in 50 years. This follows global trends and will allow Australian businesses to compete globally. We are also extending the $20,000 instant asset write-off scheme and introducing the new Skilling Australians Fund.
CEO, Elena Gosse, told us how these measures will benefit AIS. Our company tax cuts will help their bottom line, which will allow them to invest more in research and development, expand their production and create more local jobs. The extension of the $20,000 instant asset write-off scheme will also assist its customers. Eligible swim schools and aquatic facilities will be able to purchase pumps and filtration systems from AIS and claim an immediate deduction for depreciation of up to $20,000 each financial year. This is a great incentive for businesses to upgrade their equipment and to support a homegrown company like AIS.
Companies like AIS will also benefit from the Skilling Australians Fund. The government is providing a record $1.5 billion through the fund to help train Australian apprentices and trainees in key trades, helping them to gain the skills that they need for jobs in demand. It will give people more opportunities to be an apprentice or trainee. It will also give employers more opportunities to support apprentices and trainees.
I thank Elena and the AIS staff for hosting the Prime Minister and me, and for providing and supporting so many local jobs in my electorate. Their success is very much deserved, and I look forward to seeing them grow and achieve greater things over the coming years.
The House stands adjourned until 10 am next Monday.
House adjourned at 16 : 58
Recently I hosted a forum in my electorate to hear from local seniors, to hear the issues that they were concerned about. While I was listening to those local seniors, one phrase in particular stood out to me. 'They keep moving the goalposts,' one man said to me. It stood out because that is exactly what I have been hearing people say time and time again: 'They just keep moving the goalposts. It's never for better; it's always for the worse.' The man who said that was referring to issues related to health and health insurance, but I have heard this right across all manner of government portfolios. I heard from a local man whose wife has lived here for years, and they have just begun the application for citizenship. Now her future is uncertain, and they are worried about the impact that it will have on his family. Students across Australia have been reeling at raised university fees and lower HECS repayment thresholds, and up to 700,000 workers from all across Australia are set to face vicious cuts to their take-home pay from the reduction in penalty rates.
This government is like Lucy from Charlie Brown. Every time it has lined someone up for a kick, it pulls the ball away. It is cruel and it is unfair, and it is becoming far too commonplace under this Turnbull government. One person who has had that ball pulled out from under them is a young worker from my electorate. Her name is Cat, and I have spoken about her before. Come 1 July, in just five weeks, she will receive a pay cut. She works for a large Australian retailer. She may not be your typical worker, though, because she has really planned out her finances. She has calculated and she has budgeted out into the future to finance her home and her family, and—if the coalition does not move the retirement goalposts—she has tried to time her retirement. But cutting the take-home pay of workers will mean that all of her budgeting will fall significantly short.
People like to tout the idea that our young people need to spend more time looking into the future and spend more time tracking their finances. But the thing is that, with the way this government is continually making things worse for them, they really cannot, because any reasonable forecasting will eventually fall short because of this government's unreasonable measures.
I am growing tired of saying it, but I will say it again, and I will say it again, and I will say it again until this government finally listens: do not proceed with these vicious cuts. On 2 July, which will be the first anniversary of Prime Minister Turnbull's election win, I am sure there will be some gaudy celebrations in the LNP HQ, but 2 July will also be Sunday, and thousands of Australians will also go without their hard-earned penalty rates. Prime Minister Turnbull, that really is no cause for celebration.
Today I rise to speak of the passing of a great Sunshine Coast servant, Gordon Simpson. Gordon was what we call a man's man. He was strong in his faith, strong in his convictions and strong in his love for his wife of 64 years, Norma; their children, Bruce, Helen, Jock and Fiona; and their eight grandchildren. Gordon was old school, a pragmatist, but one who never, ever lost sight of his principles. Unfortunately, those two virtues are often considered to be mutually exclusive these days. Gordon embodied the old adage: 'If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.'
He was the state member for Cooroora for 15 years, between 1974 and 1989, and served as a minister of the Crown in the great state of Queensland. He was a minister of the Crown and the member for Cooroora in a time when Queensland was great, when, as a state, there was minimal waste, minimal fuss and minimal bureaucratic nonsense. It was a time when Queensland was an economic powerhouse rather than the economic basket case it has become. It was a time when Queenslanders were proud of their state because we led the nation in competitive federalism and in many pursuits, not just on the football field. While Gordon was a committed National Party man, he saw the value in the amalgamation of the Liberal and National parties and he supported that merger, just as he continued to support his daughter Fiona throughout her political career, which would ultimately see her rise to the heights of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The Sunshine Coast commemorated Gordon's life on Monday with a public memorial service. Unfortunately, because parliament was sitting, I was unable to be there. Gordon moved to the Sunshine Coast with his young family from country Victoria in 1969. He was a legendary pioneer of the Sunshine Coast. As one example of that, in his first maiden speech he talked about how good it would be to have our own Sunshine Coast university—a university that has now graduated almost 20,000 students. It has been life-changing for them and their families. I am very proud to be a part of the LNP, a party that Gordon helped shape the future of in this state. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about Australia's pre-eminent institute for maritime education, training and research: the Australian Maritime College in Launceston. The AMC is one of seven founding members of the International Association of Maritime Universities, which has representatives from five continents. AMC is recognised globally as a centre for excellence. Its multimillion dollar suite of specialist teaching, learning and research facilities is internationally acclaimed and is utilised by government bodies and maritime-related businesses worldwide.
On a recent tour with the shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy, Pat Conroy, I experienced firsthand this world-leading work at every level, including their cutting-edge research, in partnership with global industries, into maritime-based renewable energy production. Whether it is captaining a vessel, safeguarding marine environments, designing advanced ocean engineering structures, farming seafood or keeping the world's goods moving, AMC offers a comprehensive range of maritime courses, from vocational certificates all the way to doctorates.
This is completely at odds with Minister Pyne's apparent misconception that the AMC has no role in vocational and subdegree courses. With an international reputation for administering maritime training, how is it that this government is allowing one of its ministers to relegate the AMC to a minor role in the training associated with the largest shipbuilding programs Australia has ever undertaken? It is inappropriate to belittle Australia's leading maritime training and research institution and to relegate it to being one of many training organisations which might be delivering training in conjunction with the MTC in the minister's home state of South Australia. This minister's absurd agenda to downplay the AMC's pre-eminent role in maritime training is exposed by a graphic within the naval shipbuilding plan, in which it is just one of 114 education and training providers within Australia that are relevant to naval shipbuilding—just one in that number, but we know it is the pre-eminent maritime training and research facility.
The naval shipbuilding plan released last week only confirms my view that Minister Pyne has no intention of utilising the AMC as the lead institution in defining the future training requirements for Australia into the future. It will be, as the document makes abundantly clear, one of the many training organisations to contribute to training, which simply does not recognise its international standing. What also concerns me about the plan is the admission that foreign workers will be required as there will not be the time to train suitable Australian workforces within the timeframe for the preparation for the build. Yet there is time to waste on making a decision on who will administer the maritime training college.
Last Tuesday I had the pleasure of visiting the Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum located in the city's portside precinct on the Mary River. It is a great museum that each year attracts military enthusiasts from around the country and teaches schoolkids in my electorate about the sacrifice of their forebears. The 120-year-old building is as old as Maryborough's military history itself. Brave people from Wide Bay have fought and died for this country since the Boer War. I encourage everyone from Wide Bay and beyond to visit the museum. The displays are excellently preserved, ranging from items from the HMAS Maryborough to vehicles, uniforms, scale models and artwork. There is something for everyone. It was a treat to hear the music played by locals on the piano as I walked around the historic building which once served as a spirits warehouse.
As we commemorate the centenary of World War I, learning more about the personal stories of the Anzacs who fought for our country was of particular meaning to me. Almost 60,000 Queenslanders enlisted in World War I, with many of them never returning home. One of them was Duncan Chapman. Born in Maryborough, he served in the Wide Bay Regiment before heading to Gallipoli by ship. He was the first man ashore when the diggers arrived at Anzac Cove on that fateful day. He survived but was killed a year later in Pozieres. The museum honours his service with an amazing timber bust sculpted by a local artist.
I learned much about the service of Australian troops in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, as well as today in Afghanistan and Iraq. The museum is filled with medals—a testament to the courage and valour shown by all the Australian armed forces. We must always remember the men and women of this country who keep us safe. Their sacrifice is the reason we enjoy living in such a free country today. We in this House spar and disagree, and we are able to do so only because people stood up to defend these liberties. Many of them paid the ultimate price for their patriotism. Lest we forget.
I acknowledge the museum's curator, John Meyers, and his team of dedicated volunteers, who have created a special place to reflect, commemorate and learn. John and his wife, Else, run the museum not for profit as a service for all who visit. John was awarded an Order of Australia in 2013 for his philanthropy. He is a community hero whose work should inspire us all. It is a reminder for us all in regional Australia of the need to get involved in our local communities and preserve the rich history of our towns and their people.
It may be early in Canberra—just before 10 am—but, when it comes to whisky, it is always the right time! This Sunday marks 25 years to the day that Bill and Lyn Lark were awarded a licence to distil whisky in Tasmania—the first after the industry was outlawed in my state in 1838. The Larks are the pioneers of a distilling industry that has grown like barley, has matured beautifully and is now world renowned. Bill, whose peat bogs are in my electorate, was in Canberra yesterday to help host a whisky-tasting event here at Parliament House. It was a preview to Whisky Live—an international gathering to be held in Canberra this weekend. I am sorry to say there will not be many Tasmanian whiskies featured for the simple reason that there is not enough stock. It is flying off the shelves, and our distillers simply cannot keep up with burgeoning international and local demand.
I caught up with Bill this morning. He is always brilliant company. He told me that after the tasting in the parliament he had gone out for dinner, and who should he see leaving the restaurant but Barry Jones, who 25 years ago was the same man who was the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business in the Keating government. It was Barry Jones, who had been lobbied hard by the then Labor member for Denison, Duncan Kerr—a great Tasmanian—who changed the law to allow the establishment of distilling in Tasmania. It is fair to say that, without the persistence, effort and vision of those three men—Bill Lark, Barry Jones and Duncan Kerr—Tasmania's superb whisky industry would not exist today. If I was allowed to bring a glass into this chamber, I would gladly raise it in their honour and cry, 'Slainte!'
Tasmanian whisky is or should be on everyone's tongue all the time. There are now more than 20 distilleries across my state—a good number of them in Lyons. There is Wilmot Hills Distillery, Adams Distillery, Belgrove Distillery, which is the only biofuel-powered distillery in the world, Redlands Distillery, Shene Estate & Distillery, Nonesuch Distillery, where the company of Rex and Annette is as smooth as the spirits, Spring Bay Distillery, McHenry Distillery, Nant Distilling Company and more. Between them, they employ around 100 people and they support many more in associated tourism. August 4 to 13 is Tasmanian Whisky Week, and I urge you to come down and enjoy all we have to offer. It is going to be a fantastic week. It is recommended that you book early, and the details will be on my Facebook page.
For the Australian spirits industry to reach its full potential—and I include in this our beautiful botanical gin—we need to take a serious look at the reform of excise laws. Tax on Australian spirits is around $25 a bottle, and they compete internationally with American spirits that have just $2.50 tax on their bottles, so there is a big disparity. The potential for growth in regional distilleries—both in Tasmania and around the country—with the skilled jobs they require and associated tourism is enormous. I remain hopeful that this parliament can learn from the vision of Barry Jones, Duncan Kerr and Bill Lark. (Time expired)
Firstly, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment for coming to Rockhampton last week to announce the expansion of ParentsNext. Secondly, I want to add my congratulations to a great local service provider, Roseberry, for their success so far in delivering ParentsNext and changing the lives of so many vulnerable parents and young families. We know that for mums and dads who take time out from work to raise small children it can be difficult to find their way back into the workforce when their children start school. Women are particularly vulnerable, as are Indigenous parents, who are five times more likely to be receiving parenting payments than non-Indigenous parents.
Rockhampton has an unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent, well above the national average of 5.9 per cent. Around 17 per cent of families in Rockhampton with children under 15 are jobless. We know that children who grow up in jobless families are at a higher risk of growing up to be jobless themselves. But we are resilient and pragmatic people. We know a fair go and a good opportunity when we see one, which is why, since the ParentsNext program was launched in Rockhampton about 12 months ago, more than 800 parents have participated, benefiting not just those individuals but their families as well. We know this program works. Across Rockhampton 378 parents are in accredited training, 72 parents are making use of non-vocational services such as counselling, 119 parents are in non-accredited training and 29 parents are in government programs.
I have seen the impact of this program at the local level, and I know it is working to help lift families off welfare and improve their health and wellbeing. Our commitment of $263 million to expand ParentsNext is just one of the ways in which my government is helping more Australians move off welfare and into a job. ParentsNext gives parents with young children personalised assistance, including support and training to develop their skills, build up their confidence and prepare for employment in a way which first and foremost recognises their role as a parent. We are now going to take this successful program and make it available right across the country to the parents of young children who most need assistance.
I want to take this opportunity direct to recognise a mega Chifley champion, Jason Hooper, and his outstanding efforts. He won an impressive—get this—three gold medals and one silver in swimming events at the World Masters Games in New Zealand last month. The World Masters Games, a global multisport event for athletes of masters age, is held every four years. This year Jason brought home gold in the 50-metre breaststroke, 200-metre freestyle and 400-metre freestyle and silver in the 50 metre-freestyle. But this has not been his first victory. He has been competing as a champion disabled swimmer for over 26 years, and during that time he has won a remarkable 163 gold medals, 46 silver medals and four bronze medals.
It has also been more than just competitions and medals for Jason. In 2015, for example, he swum for seven hours straight at Mount Druitt pool for Wesley Mission. Jason, who was born with Apert syndrome, which affects his limbs, was not going to let anything get in the way of helping out the homeless. I recently caught up with this fine Mount Druitt local to celebrate his incredible results, and I was just blown away by his commitment and determination. He sets a great example to so many in the community, and we are very proud of his remarkable achievements. He is aged 50 and has finally decided to hang up the goggles, and what an incredible, amazing career he has left behind him. However, I know this is not it for Jason. He has a heart of gold and a humorous personality that is larger than life. I am absolutely certain we will be seeing more of him in the community, and I wish him all the very best in his future endeavours.
I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the generous work of the Bangladeshi community, which is making a big difference through their annual Good Morning Bangladesh event. Partnering with Australia's Biggest Morning Tea, Good Morning Bangladesh helps increase awareness of cancer programs and support services whilst raising much-needed funds for vital cancer research. This was their 16th morning tea, and it was certainly a big one, with apparently 500 people in attendance.
It was started in 2001 by my dear friend the late Dr Abdul Haq. It has raised more than $150,000 for the Cancer Council. Although we sadly lost Dr Haq last year, I want to commend his family, including his wife Laila, daughter Ruby and son-in-law Tanveer Shahid, for continuing his important legacy. They led the Blacktown morning tea this year. Along with Mr Hannan in Lakemba and Mr Azad in Mascot, they collectively raised a further $35,500.
The community also raised funds in collaboration with Rotary Australia World Community Service for 500 beds at the Cancer and General Hospital in Dhaka in Bangladesh. The hospital was built by the Dhaka Ahsania Mission, a philanthropic organisation in Bangladesh. I pay a very big thank you to everyone who chipped in, including Dr Ayaz Chowdhury and all the Bangladeshi community, for their time, commitment and contributions. It is truly inspiring.
I rise today to speak on the Geraldton Universities Centre model and the funding commitment in the budget to expand this model. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may not be aware, but this model has been funded with a $15 million commitment from the federal government to establish six new centres around the country. I have spoken a lot over the years about this model, and it is a real pleasure to be here today to talk about our recent commitment.
The Geraldton Universities Centre, or the GUC, model allows country students to study at university level face-to-face in their own communities. This is something that, quite frankly, those who live in the cities often take for granted. The extra cost and travel that country families have to absorb to send their children to one of the major metro areas to study are significant and in many cases that means that country students simply do not have the means to study their chosen field or study at all, and that is very sad.
This model allows for country students to instead go to a general-purpose learning area at home and study a variety of courses with a full cohort of students. The model rejects the idea that all learning should be remote and external for country children and instead reinforces the idea that many students need that face-to-face interaction. I know personally that I would never have got a tertiary education if I had had to have studied externally. This is in order to keep them engaged and active in their area of study.
There are several other towns in my massive electorate that would benefit from a model like this, including Karratha, a town in the Pilbara that I visited last week. I have spoken to several community leaders around the region and around town regarding the possibilities that this model could bring. The Pilbara, being the centre of the country's mining industry, could potentially become an engineering and skills hub—why not?—for universities looking to upskill their students and give them the best start at a job in the mining industry.
More than mining, a Pilbara universities centre could provide and train for the building blocks of a community. It could train local teachers and nurses and encourage them to work locally when they finish. We know that doctors, for example, are four times more likely to work regionally if they are country kids themselves, so the more country kids we can get into higher education by providing it in their communities, the more trained and skilled young people we can encourage to live and work regionally.
As a proud regional Liberal member I know that this potentially allows us to curb the brain drain from regional areas and breathe some life into those communities in regional areas that are desperately in need of some new skilled young people. This is the value of the GUC model.
I speak today about Beverley Park Special School in Campbelltown in my electorate of Macarthur. The school arose out of the need for schooling for the children residing in the Beverley Park Home for Crippled Children and hospital, run by the New South Wales Society for Crippled Children—now Northcott Disability Services. The home started in 1938, and the school was set up in 1956, the year of the Melbourne Olympics. Initially, the school catered for children with the more severe forms of muscular dystrophy, particularly the Duchenne type, spina bifida and cerebral palsy.
I first visited Beverley Park in the late 1970s with Professor Tom Taylor, a paediatric orthopaedic surgeon. The school now caters for children with severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Some children are wheelchair-bound, many are nonverbal, some have seizures and some have severe autism. There are approximately 60 children at the school at any one time. The school has cared for many of my patients over the last 35 years, and without exception parents have praised the staff and the school to the highest degree.
At the present time, the school is led by Jacqueline Lockyer, a wonderful headmistress, dedicated and hard working. She is supported by staff that work so hard and care for every kid in the school. The children make progress, but perhaps not in the ways that we expect, in that simple things, such as taking a first step or learning to be toilet trained when you are eight or nine years of age—or even making eye contact and being able to use a spoon—are very important, life-changing progress for these kids. The school playground, unfortunately, has deteriorated significantly over many years, and the school and community are trying to raise at least $120,000 to provide a playground suitable for these children and a sensory area for the children with autism. The proceeds of the annual mayoral ball at Campbelltown this year will be going to the school.
Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, I commend the school to you and I hope the government will provide some support for a project that will make an enormous difference to some very special kids. The school itself is set in really beautiful grounds, and the kids are always happy when I go there. I recently visited the school with the state member for Campbelltown, Greg Warren, and met with the teachers and the staff. I was very impressed with the progress the school has made, but the playground really is not suitable for children with such severe disabilities, and we need to improve it to make their lives better.
Last week I was very pleased to host the Minister for Defence Industry, Christopher Pyne, to the Sunshine Coast, where we held a defence industry forum. The federal government is allocating $200 billion to defence industry expenditure, and I joked at the forum, although it was not exactly tongue-in-cheek, that I did not want to see all of that $200 billion going to South Australia. I want to ensure as best I can that at least part of that $200 billion is spent on the Sunshine Coast. I am very passionate about ensuring that we give Sunshine Coast businesses every opportunity to flourish and succeed. The Sunshine Coast is full of people with ingenuity. They are very smart, adaptable people, and many of these businesses—
An honourable member interjecting—
And they have me as a representative. Nonetheless, I want to ensure as best I can that I am able to assist them to take advantage of this $200 billion that is to be spent. Over 170 people came to this defence industry forum. There were 170 small businesses thirsting for information about how they can make a quid, how they can prosecute their own business agendas, how they can grow their businesses and provide for their families and their employees.
We were very proud to announce three defence industry contacts. They are relatively small in the broader scheme of things. There is a defence industry contract in the sum of $1.8 million for the University of the Sunshine Coast, which is doing research into pavements for the development of new types of runways for Defence. That is fantastic for the university, and I believe it will be a hub for defence industry research in the years to come. The second business was HeliMods, a business run by Caloundra icon Will Shrapnel. He started with nothing, and now he has been outfitting emergency helicopters. He just won a $154,000 contract to outfit 12 of the Navy Seahawk Romeo helicopters—once again, a small contract but a fantastic future, a great toe in the door. The third contract was for Praesidium Global, which are making unmanned ground vehicles that will go and retrieve and provide fire support to soldiers on the ground—a $1.3 million contract. The Sunshine Coast is coming of age, and I believe that it will become a hub for defence industry expenditure. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I am a very, very busy member for Fisher this morning! I rise today to speak in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills. Before I start on my 15-minute journey on this bill: this morning, my Facebook feed came up telling me that it was Mr Leeser's birthday. We tried to send him a message, but it would not allow us to send him a message. For some reason, he has got it blocked. More embarrassment for you, Mr Leeser: happy birthday from everybody here at Parliament House. You are doing a sterling job as the new member for Berowra. I am pleased to say that and to count you as one of my friends—but back to the job at hand.
This is a great budget for the Sunshine Coast because it delivers for all Australians. It is based on fairness, opportunity and security, and it provides and sets out the right choices for Australia's future. I want to highlight some of the best features of the budget not just for my electorate but for the nation as a whole. I will start off with my own patch. One of the best things that the budget has set out is expenditure for the expansion and the upgrades of the Bruce Highway. Everybody on the Sunshine Coast and almost everybody who lives in Brisbane—even my colleague across the chamber there—would know that the Bruce Highway has been a car park for many years. It is a drag. It is an anchor on our productivity on the Sunshine Coast. I am very pleased to see that the federal government has committed in the federal budget $530 million for the additional lanes between Caboolture and Caloundra and another $120 million for the upgrade of the Deception Bay interchange. Just in the budget alone, that is $650 million for Bruce Highway upgrades south of Caloundra to Caboolture. That is an absolutely outstanding boost for the Sunshine Coast economy.
Now we wait to see the results of the planning study that is currently being done by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. I had an opportunity to speak with Minister Bailey, the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports, last Thursday. He assures me that they are fast-tracking the planning study and that that planning study will be completed by the end of this year. I have been calling upon the minister to fast-track that planning study. I am very pleased to say that he has informed me that it will be done by the end of this year. That is a great news story. Now we will be able to get cracking on that road.
That $650 million investment into the Bruce Highway is on top of the $743 million that this federal government has already invested on the upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. When you put the state's contribution in, their 20 per cent contribution—as we all know, the Bruce Highway is funded with 80 per cent federal and 20 per cent state contributions—it is a $929 million project just on that eight-kilometre stretch of road.
When you add to that other improvements to the Nambour interchange, this federal government is spending $1.6 billion on upgrading the Bruce Highway between Nambour and Caboolture. That is a fantastic outcome for the Sunshine Coast. Many of my Sunshine Coast local constituents would say it is not before time, and I would have to agree with them. It is very exciting. It will mean quite a lot of disruption for perhaps four years whilst all of that road is being done, but you cannot make an omelette without cracking an egg. I would just call upon local people of the Sunshine Coast to be patient. Please slow down during roadworks. They started last Thursday. Yes, it will take a long time, but, at the end of the day, keep your eye on the prize and we will have a great outcome for the Sunshine Coast.
That brings me to our next infrastructure project. We cannot resolve our travel woes on the Sunshine Coast without addressing our rail situation. The North Coast rail has been a single track north of Beerburrum to Nambour for over 100 years. It is the same piece of track that was laid in the 1890s. I am very proud to announce that, as the chamber well knows, in the budget released two weeks ago the Treasurer created $10 million for the national rail project. That will provide a great sum of money and areas such as, for example, the Sunshine Coast will be able to bid for the upgrade of the North Coast rail line between Beerburrum to Nambour. They will be able to bid for that project. I wrote to the Deputy Premier of Queensland yesterday, Jackie Trad, who is also the Queensland Minister for Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning. I have called upon her to meet with me and also to meet with the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, to work out a way we can get this rail project done.
The Sunshine Coast is being loved to death. We are expecting another 200,000 people to call the Sunshine Coast home over the next 20 years, so we have to improve our public transport. What better way to do that for our commuters and people travelling to the coast than by upgrading and duplicating our rail line. Just as I poured all of my energy into ensuring we got that upgrade to the Bruce Highway, I will now turn my attention to the duplication of the railway line because it is so important to us.
The next issue I want to talk about is mental health. Mental health is an issue that is very important to me and to my constituents. It costs our economy $60 billion a year. Today, five men and two women will commit suicide—today and every day. We have a significant problem with suicide in this country and in particular on the Sunshine Coast.
The budget contains $5 million in funding for the Thompson Institute. I was very fortunate to have had lengthy discussions with the Minister for Health and Treasurer about funding the Thompson Institute, which is attached to the University of the Sunshine Coast. The Thompson Institute will be a groundbreaking research and clinical treatment facility for people suffering from mental illness. On Tuesday of last week the Treasurer announced $5 million to go into three packages. The first package is in relation to dementia research and treatment. The second package is in relation to youth mental health. The third package is in relation to suicide prevention.
I would like to see in the short term—perhaps over the next 12 to 18 months—further money contributed by private sector groups such as the RSL and perhaps from state governments and the federal government to add to those projects, specifically in relation to research and treatment of PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder impacts many, many Australians, particularly ex-Defence service personnel. Unfortunately, in this country we seem to forget that many of our emergency services workers—our police, our fireys, our ambos—who attend accidents see things that are beyond your and my comprehension. Every day, multiple times day, they see horrors that are not worth repeating here in this place. We must remember that the men and women who give to our communities as emergency services workers should be treated with the same care that is afforded our veterans. So I am striving to establish within the Thompson Institute funding for research and clinical treatment of Defence personnel and emergency services workers to assist them with post-traumatic stress disorder.
I should also give a big shout-out to the Thompson Institute. Roy and Nola Thompson are salt of the earth people from the Sunshine Coast. They have contributed over $10 million out of their own pockets to the Thompson Institute to assist people on the Sunshine Coast suffering from mental health disorders. They have put their money where their mouth is, and I am very proud that the federal government has done likewise. I want also to give a huge shout-out to the Minister for Health. He saw the benefit of the Thompson Institute and what it can do in its groundbreaking research, not just for people on the Sunshine Coast but for people around this great country.
I would also like to talk about the NDIS. I have a disabled daughter, and I was the president of the Sunshine Coast Children's Therapy Centre for a number of years before I entered this place. The issue of people living with disability is one that is close to my heart, and I am very proud that this federal government has moved to increase the Medicare levy by 0.5 per cent from July 2019 to fully fund the NDIS. I know that members opposite in this chamber and in the House almost to a person support the increase in the Medicare levy to properly fund the NDIS.
Australians are all about mateship. We are different from many other countries. We see countries, like America, squabble over providing appropriate healthcare cover for their citizens, but in this country we look after our own. We have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and I have not met an Australian who begrudges two per cent of their income being levied. I have not met an Australian, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that we should not pay an additional 0.5 per cent to properly fund those who are most disadvantaged in our community. From my perspective, the world in which I live, we are talking about kids who will never go on to lead lives like our other children. Parents live with the fear of what is going to happen to their child after they pass off this mortal coil.
In Australia, we look after our own. We believe in the bond of mateship. And we on this side of the chamber are adamant and strident in our support for the NDIS and for properly funding it. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition, and I call upon those fair-minded people opposite to speak to their leader and encourage him in the strongest possible terms, to stump up and support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018. A $55 billion black hole was left for this government in the NDIS funding—$55 billion. We are determined to ensure that the NDIS is properly funded.
Very quickly: another great initiative out of the budget is $80 million being spent on community mental health services for those suffering from a permanent psychosocial disability that otherwise would not be dealt with or assisted by the NDIS. (Time expired)
Inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. Wages growth is at record lows. Indeed, wages now are stagnant or, for some workers, going backwards. This is the worst, lowest rate of growth for wages since records were first kept. The people of Australia and the people of Newcastle, who I represent, might be forgiven for thinking that this budget might want to tackle some of those deep issues of inequality in Australia. Certainly, the Prime Minister likes to talk the talk around fairness and built certain expectations around this budget that it might well be a budget to look at this issue of inequality. But, sadly, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer's 2017 budget shows that they have no idea—absolutely no idea—how to tackle inequality in Australia.
Budgets are all about priorities. They are clear indicators of the values that guide us, the direction that the nation is going to take, so they are important documents. They are much more than just a series of numbers, although I am certainly not disputing the importance of numbers. People need to be able to read budget papers beyond the toing and froing of dollar figures. That is where we learn what the real priorities of a government are.
Sadly, when you scratch beneath the surface of this budget, what is very clear is that this government's priorities remain very squarely with the top end of town. That is where they have been for some time now, and there is no relief here for many of the people that we on this side of the House would want to see getting a fairer distribution of the common wealth. I expect that multinationals and multimillionaires will be very happy with this budget and the government's efforts, but, in the community that I represent, there are many, many people who will be hurt.
To start with, when we look at the taxation breakdowns, obviously the government is trying to get revenue, although this government for a long time tried to pretend it had no revenue problem. This is a budget that, when it carves up the taxation pie, chooses to give its priorities again to the top end of town. People earning more than $180,000 a year are going to enjoy a tax cut out of this budget, while everybody else earning $21,000 or more in Australia gets a tax hike. Big business gets a tax cut which is going to cost this budget not $50 billion as was first anticipated; it has now blown out to $65 billion of Australian taxpayers' dollars which is going to big business and multinationals so they get a little tax holiday.
That includes $7.5 billion that is going to the major banks in Australia. We know that most of those dollars will indeed probably be going offshore. These are the same banks of course that in the last financial year have recorded record profits, obscene profits, at the same time as they sacked more than 2,500 full-time jobs in that sector. These are the same banks that this government continues to let off the hook by refusing to hold a royal commission into their unethical practices and predatory behaviour that certainly constituents in my electorate have been hurt by and had their lives devastated by. These are the people that the government continues to choose to back in at the expense of everybody else. It is not good enough. The Prime Minister, as I said, is paying for these exorbitant corporate tax breaks by savagely cutting into the services that the rest of my community rely on. There are savage cuts to schools—and I will come to the detail of this in a minute—our universities, TAFE, families, pensioners, health and vital public services.
Let's look firstly at the school funding cuts. This government is out on the hustings at the moment, purporting to be injecting money into schools and to having solved this issue around schools funding. This is the cruellest con job of all, and the Australian people are alive to it. I can assure this government that this is not an argument that they are going to be able to prosecute with any success. Australian schools stand to lose $22 billion out of this over the next 10 years. In my electorate of Newcastle, we are set to lose $14.5 million over the next two years alone. When this government tries to direct people to some dodgy calculator to find out what money their school is allegedly receiving in additional benefits, do not be conned—because the baseline being used by this government is Tony Abbott's dodgy $30 billion cuts from the 2014 budget. The government are calculating from the lowest base of all, where schools were being entirely gutted, and saying, 'We're going to return a little bit,' and somehow expect the nation to be grateful and that parents and communities will say: 'Great work, guys. You're not ripping us off by $30 billion. It's only going to be $22 billion that you rip from our local schools.'
I am telling you, the people of Newcastle have good detectors for when people are telling untruths. They know when they are being conned. I can tell the government that, if they think this is going to fly for them, they need to take a serious look around. It is not just my electorate. That the National Party is not out there with a massive campaign standing up for their public schools in particular in all of their areas is astonishing. They should hang their heads in shame. They are the biggest beneficiaries of the school funding under the proper, Labor formulated needs based funding. They represent some of the poorest communities in this nation, and not one of them has got the guts to stand up in this parliament and take the government to task, and they call themselves a coalition partner. It is astonishing.
Universities are also in for a tough time, with $3.8 billion being cut from Australian universities. This will increase the cost of a degree for an undergrad student by $3,600. University graduates are also being asked to repay their HECS-HELP debts sooner, when they start earning $42,000, which is really very entry-level pay. The government has caused an issue that is deeply disturbing for me as a representative of Newcastle with the changes to the enabling programs that are flagged in this budget. The government wants to put enabling programs out to tender, into the private sector, and it wants to charge students going into those programs $3,200 to enrol. Let me give some insight into the devastating impact of that. I will have a lot more to say about this in a debate in the House when we get to the higher education bill later on.
The University of Newcastle is the oldest and largest provider of enabling programs in Australia. We have programs that started in 1974. We have assisted more then 42,000 students who would not otherwise have had access to tertiary education or assistance to complete their degree. We in Newcastle are extraordinarily proud of our university's capacity to give students alternative pathways to higher education: 42,000 graduates is something to be celebrated, and I pay tribute to the University of Newcastle, and its enabling programs in particular, for that work. Over the years, I have met so many of those students who are our biggest success stories, making enormous contributions not just to Newcastle but to the Australian community at large. The idea that this government is so short-sighted as to put a financial obstacle in the way of students who already face multiple obstacles to gaining entrance to tertiary education is astonishing. It is truly appalling. It is short-sighted, and this government absolutely has to re-think its position on that. These extra fees are going to preclude hundreds of disadvantaged students, not just from the University of Newcastle but all around Australia. It will very disproportionately impact women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, students from low-SES backgrounds and, indeed, all those students who are the first in their family ever to go to university. That is what we do best in Newcastle. We deliver education that is excellent but has equity at its core. That is what this government fails to understand, each and every time.
Let us look at TAFE, another important education sector. The government is ripping $600 million more out of TAFE in this budget. That is on top of the $3 billion in existing cuts that the government has made to TAFE. We have lost more than 130,000 apprentices since this government came to power in 2013. It is a truly appalling track record. I am so proud that Labor has a core commitment to investment and training in TAFE and, indeed, to apprentices. We have laid out positive plans for TAFE and vocational training in Australia. I applaud Bill Shorten's work in that area. It has been a terrific job.
One of the things I mentioned in the House earlier this week around TAFE at the moment is my concern about this government's propensity to outsource everything to the private sector. Hunter TAFE, in my area, is going to lose the Adult Migrant English Program. It is being outsourced to a private provider that does not have teachers or onsite childcare facilities. There is nothing in place at the moment. There are lots of questions to be asked about its capacity to deliver all of the complementary services that are required in the migrant English program.
On all fronts of education this is a profoundly disappointing budget. I have not even touched on the other great con in the budget, that of the Medicare freeze. The government purports to have fixed the problem. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. If you are waiting for assistance, for the GP freeze to come off your consultations, you are going to be waiting another 12 months. If you want specialist consultations, you will be waiting another 12 months for that too, and allied health services, including psychologists, will certainly have a freeze in place until July 2019. Do not be conned about this. This government purports to have learnt a lesson about Medicare from the last election, but I have to tell you that there is not much when you scratch beneath the surface in this budget that suggests they have really learnt any lessons from that. Labor, the party that created Medicare and has always supported Medicare, will certainly be defending Medicare with every breath.
There is no news in this budget about jobs in my region either. For rail manufacturers like Lovell Springs and Moly-Cop, the last manufacturers of springs and train wheels in Australia, there is nothing in this budget to bring them any joy. There is no thought of jobs in the region. There is no money being spent on housing and homelessness issues—a massive issue for my area. Pensioners are getting dudded. The one big regional infrastructure project, Glendale interchange, fails to get any kind of commitment from this government. Likewise, there is no commitment to high-speed rail into the future. This is a shocking budget; it is shocking for everyone but the top end of town. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak alongside my colleagues on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills. I am proud to stand as part of the Liberal-National Party coalition government, which is delivering a fair deal for Australians. I am proud to stand with the coalition that builds the infrastructure needed to strengthen our economy. I am proud to stand with a government that understands the needs of working families and commits to making life easier for all Australians. I am proud to stand with a coalition that delivers on the needs of regional Australia and gives them fairer opportunities to grow. I am proud to stand with a coalition that does not pander to the Greens at the expense of jobs and reduced living costs.
The Turnbull government's new plan for schools is based on better-targeted funding and evidence-based programs proven to boost results. It will see every student at every school in Capricornia receive a funding increase of between $112 and $653 per student starting in 2018. Our reforms will set Capricornia schools up for the future and deliver fair, needs-based funding for all Australian students. We are delivering the real Gonski needs-based funding model that Labor did not. We are increasing the funding by between $1,332 and $12,771 per student over the next 10 years in Capricornia. We will end Labor's 27 special deals with states and territories, unions and nongovernment school leaders. While we know that a strong level of funding for schools is vital, what is more important is how that funding is used.
Families and small businesses are doing it tough in the Queensland city of Rockhampton. Rookwood Weir, near Rockhampton, is a key economic driver. Agriculture is a key pillar of the Australian economy, and water and agriculture are intrinsically linked. Under the Australian Constitution, primary responsibility for water management lies with state and territory governments, but we recognise that this is an area that requires national leadership. The coalition understands that without a push this will not be progressed, especially in Queensland. The coalition government is reaffirming its commitment to supporting greater water security for the health and wealth of all Australians. This includes the coalition's $132 million commitment to the Rookwood Weir on the lower Fitzroy River.
We can create thousands of jobs around Rockhampton within two years, but the Labor Party, once again, is holding back this opportunity. The Queensland state Labor government and Labor MPs like Bill Byrne are sitting on their hands delaying the project and, along with it, stalling up to 2,100 new jobs. This is in contrast to the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government, which has put $130 million on the table to pay for 50 per cent of Rookwood Weir. Further to this, we gave Queensland an extra $2 million to get on with the job of completing the state's business case required for Rookwood Weir. After a year, they are finally getting this started.
Rookwood Weir would boost agricultural production in the Fitzroy Basin by up to $1 billion a year. An additional 2,000 workers in agriculture would provide a flow-on effect for the entire community, and an additional 2,000 workers would mean more demand for real estate, retail and services. That demand puts money into the pockets of small-business owners across the region. It is also vital for our own water security. Rockhampton's urban water supply will run out once in every 24 years. By committing to Rookwood Weir, we are committed to providing a diverse economy that will support growth and water security for generations to come.
I also relish this opportunity to address the chamber on the subject of the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway is an important freight and transport corridor up the entire Queensland coast. It is effectively a lifeline between Brisbane and the rest of the state, especially for places like Rockhampton, Marlborough, Yeppoon, Sarina and Mackay. With huge freight trucks, livestock carriers and general motor traffic, the issue of road safety on the Bruce is an important one. The federal government has budgeted, and not just promised, a $6.7 billion long-term plan to spruce the Bruce. This equates to the biggest project agenda in Australia's history.
My electorate of Capricornia is our nation's official gateway to northern Australia. Already, $700 million of work linked to the Bruce has been completed, is underway or will soon start in my region alone. In Capricornia, on the southern side of Rockhampton, the Australian government has invested more than $210 million at the entrance to Australia's beef capital. The aim of this was to improve traffic flow, improve road safety and ensure that the city remains open to freight and traffic movement during floods. I am proud that the Liberal-National coalition funded the lion's share of stage 2 of this project—the biggest part of this reconstruction program, known as Yeppen South stage 2. The coalition contributed $136 million towards stage 2, which was one of my 2013 election promises. The Yeppen South stage 2 roadworks have resulted in the longest bridge on the Bruce Highway in Queensland and significantly improved access into the city. It also saved Rockhampton and the economy in the recent flood.
There has also been significant spending on other parts of the Bruce Highway in Capricornia in recent times, including: $8.5 million to engineer two new overtaking lanes to make the Bruce Highway safer between Koumala and Sarina; $9.2 million to realign truck access and improve the flow of traffic on the Bruce Highway into the city of Rockhampton, specifically at the George Street and Albert Street intersection; $7.9 million for new northbound and southbound overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway south of Marlborough; $15 million to fix up the Hay Point Road turn-off near Sarina under our roads Black Spot Program; and $1.2 million that has been provided to the Mackay Regional Council to fix the Horse and Jockey Road and Lansdowne Road intersection at Racecourse.
During the federal election, we also announced $60 million for a four-lane highway between Gracemere and Rockhampton. This section connects the Capricorn Highway to the Bruce Highway at a notoriously busy intersection on the outskirts of Rockhampton where up to 20,000 commuters, on top of freight and livestock trucks, attempt to enter the city at peak times each day. Further north in Capricornia, the Bruce Highway is undergoing major reconstruction to make way for the Mackay Ring Road—$360 million has been provided by the federal government.
But we are just warming up. The Turnbull-Joyce government is spending a further $96.8 million to create a four-lane section of the Bruce Highway on the northern outskirts of Rockhampton. Construction was originally due to commence mid-2018 and scheduled for completion by late 2019, weather permitting. However, the first $13.8 million of the Turnbull-Joyce federal government funding has been brought forward to fast-track stage 1. Work is already underway to generate economic activity in the city. This is strong evidence that our coalition government is delivering real improvements to the Bruce Highway.
I would like to commend the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, my esteemed colleague Darren Chester, for his efforts to get the Queensland state government to finally budge on the Walkerston Bypass. We have delivered a bumper deal for a critical road project in Capricornia, with up to $120 million now on the table to build the Walkerston Bypass. Last year, we committed $75 million to the project, and we have now secured more as part of a wider road-funding package for Queensland, to be announced. This was not an empty election promise. We are delivering beyond our election commitments because we know how important this infrastructure is for the safety and wellbeing of the people of Walkerston. We have listened to residents who, for years, have raised concerns about heavy vehicles passing through the town, especially through the intersection so close to the school—promise delivered.
I have met with Minister Chester a number of times to push for this critical infrastructure, and I am so grateful that he has succeeded in reaching an agreement with the state government. We have delivered well above our election promise, knowing that the additional commitment would lock in funding to prevent further delays from the Queensland state Labor government. Construction for the bypass will start following completion of stage 1 of the Mackay Ring Road project, extending the pipeline of infrastructure construction work in the Mackay region.
The coalition government does not just talk about jobs; it delivers opportunities for creating them. On 31 May, grants will open for the Bowen Basin jobs package. Following the publication of the committee's local investment plan, the coalition government is now delivering opportunities for local infrastructure, business innovation and skills training under three streams. I would like to thank the Bowen Basin Local Planning Committee for their hard work. Their plan is based on local knowledge of the Bowen Basin region and reinforces our commitment to enable regions to localise growth programs. This is one of the only funding packages available for private enterprise, with businesses able to apply through the business innovation stream. It is a real commitment to job growth. This is a great opportunity for the communities of Capricornia to submit applications for key projects that will boost the local economy and create jobs. It will harness the broad range of skills in Capricornia to create more jobs, and I look forward to seeing what applications are put forward. It will provide the Bowen Basin region with a much-needed $30 million shot in the arm, and we are one of only 10 regions to benefit from this pilot program.
Finally, I think it is important to stress that, unlike Labor, we actually pay for our projects. Labor needs to understand that it is called a budget, not a spending spree. Thank you.
I want to talk about the 2017-18 budget and its effects on South Australia. We all know South Australia has had a very rough time under this government in all its incarnations. In its first incarnation, the Abbott-Hockey incarnation, we know what happened there. First of all, it drove the car industry out of Australia. It drove out a billion dollars of investment in the Holden Elizabeth plant—it said no to that and was not at all interested in a billion dollars worth of investment which underpinned 10,000 auto jobs in South Australia. That is the first thing.
The second thing the government did is that they basically failed to build the supply ships that the Navy needs and is now purchasing from Spain, in South Australia. They thought that it would be better for our shipbuilding plan if, rather than get the supply ships and build them in South Australia, we were to have a valley of death, a very narrow one, and very quickly dissipate the workforce at ASC—and I know many of those people at ASC—only to build it up again when we came to build the OPVs and the frigates and the submarines.
We know that that schism in shipbuilding did not need to occur. The reason why it occurred was that the vandalism of Prime Minister Abbott's leadership continued over into Prime Minister Turnbull's leadership. We know that the same ideas, the same sort of 'Let's just wipe our industrial capacity off the map' occurred. The only reason we now have a national shipbuilding plan, and the only reason why we now see some action on continuous shipbuilding, is that Prime Minister Turnbull has been bullied, or dragooned, by Mr Pyne into doing it. That is the only reason why we now have a shipbuilding plan, because we know that that was not their intention. If it had been their intention to have continuous shipbuilding in South Australia—indeed, across the nation—they would have done the supply ships in Australia rather than sending them to Spain. It was an incredibly foolish decision. We know that former Prime Minister Abbott wanted to build the submarines in Japan. He wanted to purchase Japanese submarines and he wanted to have them made in Japan. This is the context in which we arrive at this budget.
The South Australian economy has had economic shock therapy. Rather than having the defibrillator out, they have attached the jumper leads to the South Australian economy and given us as many volts as they can—economic shock therapy to our industrial base. It is completely unnecessary in the automotive industry, which would have been exporting cars, with the dollar where it is, and it is completely unnecessary with shipbuilding and submarine building. All of that uncertainty, all of that economic mayhem, and South Australia is paying a disproportionate price for the actions of this government. Something worth thinking about is that if the investment decision for Holden had happened a year earlier or a year later we would still have a car industry in this country. It was simply a period of 18 months in which a government took leave of its senses—complete leave of its senses—and in the process caused economic mayhem in my state.
We roll round to federal budget 2017. On 8 May, I opened TheAdvertiser and there it was on the front page, the splash: 'Federal budget 2017: help on electricity prices, housing and $100 million for after Holden closes in SA'. This was obviously leaked to the papers, and I do not begrudge the government their splash. They are entitled to do that with their budget. It is standard operating procedure. We had a picture of Mr Morrison at his desk. A 'vote of confidence' was what the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Arthur Sinodinos, said about the post-Holden funding. It was all hopeful stuff. Then, of course, we had Mr Nick Xenophon who, in a rare moment of positivity, said:
It's great the government came on board to support this proposal for the fund. This $100 million will help turbocharge manufacturing in SA and Victoria in areas where it’s needed most.
So we had this splash to TheAdvertiserto Tory Shepherd, who is a very good journalist—and obviously the government and Senator Xenophon were a bit of a tag team on some mutually beneficial backslapping in the prelude to the budget.
If you were working at Holden, or you had worked at Holden, or you worked in components, or your kids worked in components, or if you were just a man or woman in the street, you could be forgiven, when you looked at that headline, for thinking: 'A hundred million dollars sounds like a lot of money. It sounds like they are finally reacting to the chaos that they have caused.' But, of course, this was a cruel hoax, because it is not $100 million; it is actually two lots of $50 million spread over five years. Then, by the time you aggregate the Victorian bit out from the South Australian bit it is actually $10 million a year. So, regarding this great headline, you would not have gotten the splash if it were $10 million, would you? $10 million for my state, which faces losing 7,000 to 9,000 jobs—it depends on where we are at the moment as the redundancies fall at Holden and as the redundancies fall in the components sector, and as the flow-on effects of that occur. That is what it is going to cost the South Australian economy. We are already starting to see it reflected in the northern suburbs in real estate prices and in economic activity in the area. It is very difficult. So, for the government to come along and say, '$100 million. Aren't we great. Pat us on the back. What a great budget. Here's a picture of me at my desk in Canberra,' and to have Senator Xenophon, who is supposedly the great champion of South Australia and is supposedly out there horse-trading and negotiating deals on our behalf.
Hear, hear.
We hear 'hear, hear' from the member for Mackellar, in Sydney. He thinks this is a great deal. He loves dealing with Senator Xenophon. I wonder why? I wonder why we hear 'hear, hear' from Sydney. I have a bit of time for Senator Xenophon, because he is not a bad sort of fellow to have coffee with, but maybe his national vision has become a bit to national and he is not doing what South Australians expect of him. South Australians are voting for him as a regional party and a regional block, and, if he is going to horse-trade, they expect him to get good horses. This must be the first time that we have swapped the cow for the magic beans for the magic beans for the cow, or maybe we just walked away with nothing—$10 million! Maybe we could sell Senator Xenophon a harbour bridge in Sydney or something like that—I don't know!
An honourable member: A monorail.
That is right. A monorail—that famous episode of The Simpsons. The reality is as my friend Tom Koutsantonis, the Treasurer of South Australia, said: 'Of the $70 billion dollars allocated for infrastructure, South Australia received no new funding. No new projects, no new roads, no new spending.' The reason it is so important to have infrastructure spending in South Australia in the period between now, literally, and 2020-21 is that that is when we are leading into the shipbuilding. So, if everything goes to plan, OPVs and the build-up to the frigates should be occurring at that time. It is this middle period in which people are going to be looking for work. We need to keep a trained workforce in the field, working, earning money and keeping their skills up. We had that cruel hoax on The Advertiser front page. On 10 May, we had the headline 'Budget 2017: South Australia dudded, Weatherill, Xenophon say'.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
I hear the laughter from the member for Mackellar—somewhere in Sydney—the nice bit of Sydney. I had a bit of time for his predecessor. She was a gracious stalwart of the Liberal Party. On occasion she took issue with my behaviour in the house, but we won't talk about that now!
But we then had Senator Xenophon bagging the budget a few days later. Listen to what the Civil Contractors Federation SA said—and nothing gets Senator Xenophon moving like a bit of a contrary view. He will shift is position right the other way around. He is highly responsive and agile. He went from backing the budget to running a mile from it, and he ran a mile from it because it is terrible for South Australia. The Civil Contractors Federation SA said there had been a 'dire lack of funding' in the budget for key infrastructure projects in the state and it 'threatens to impact the chances of the SA Liberal Opposition winning next year's state election'. Not that it should be about elections, I might add. That should be the last thing. They obviously are trying to put a bit of pressure on. But it should actually be about people's jobs. It should not be about politicians' jobs; it should be about people's jobs. It is sad that we have to remind ourselves of this.
There are a lot of infrastructure projects to choose from in South Australia—the Adelaide-to-Tarcoola rail upgrade; the Eyre iron road infrastructure project for the new mine on the Eyre Peninsula; the Adelaide north-south corridor; AdeLINK, which is the tram network; the Strzelecki Track; the South Australian regional mineral port upgrade; the Sturt Highway high-productivity vehicle capacity enhancement, including the Truro bypass—I used to go to Truro in my youth; it is a great place, but a lot of trucks go through there—the Melbourne-Adelaide-Perth upgrade; and, most importantly, as this project has capacity to lead to jobs quickly, the Northern Adelaide Plains water infrastructure development. I know that project is favoured by the government. The government are interested in this project. They funded a study into it. Federal Labor said that we would commit to it because there are thousands of jobs in agriculture on the Adelaide Plains waiting to be created and probably hundreds of jobs in putting that water infrastructure in place.
There are great economic outcomes and great environmental outcomes, because it takes sewer water from the Bolivar sewerage works and turns it into water fit for agricultural purposes. This has already been done in Virginia and it can be done in Two Wells, which is the area north of it. I know something about it because I have been involved in water projects in my electorate in the mid-north of my state since I have been elected. We have had quite some luck and these projects have survived even the transition in government. I happily acknowledge Senator Birmingham's role in that. He is from the same part of the world as me and he understands the importance of water to agriculture, agricultural productivity, and the jobs and the like that are created. There is a fair bit in it for urban dwellers as well because it creates supply chains, economies of scale, and economic growth and wealth in my state.
We have to finish on a keynote. In Senate budget estimates on Monday Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development Secretary Mike Mrdak said that there are no additional new projects in South Australia over and above those that were previously committed. What a sad indictment on the government and what a cruel hoax that they have perpetrated on our state. They go out in the media and pump up expectations about jobs, growth and infrastructure, but what do we find? The reality is they give South Australia a big fat zero. We are getting terribly used to it, but this means that a clear message must be sent to the federal government over and over again that they will not prosper and get a vote in South Australia if they continue on this path.
I thank the member for Wakefield for that interesting speech on the appropriation bills. I shall pass on his best wishes to my predecessor and in particular the tone in which his gracious remarks were delivered. I also suggest to the member for Wakefield that, if South Australia wishes to get more infrastructure, he speak to his good friend the Treasurer of the South Australian government and advocate that he finally take delivery of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, instead of holding off on it.
It is almost open.
I think that should be Labor's slogan: 'It is almost open'. Budgets are incredibly important to the running of any country and to any government. As a Liberal I believe in equality of opportunity rather than mandated equality of outcomes. Budgets are the keystone to how any government provides both the stability and the platform on which you can grow your economy and allow people to take advantage of all the opportunities that this great nation of ours provides for them. This budget is about growth, providing for essential services, putting downward pressure on the cost of living, and government living within its means.
Every government has a choice. It has a choice between growing the cake so that everyone gets more and fighting over who gets what portion of the cake. This budget is unashamedly about growing the cake. It is about saying to all Australians, wherever they may live, wherever they may come from, whatever the circumstances in which they were born, that they have an opportunity to become anything they want, because the opportunities in this country are completely and absolutely endless.
The problem with running budget deficits ad nauseam, or for any length of time, is that it makes your community poorer. You cannot continue with a government unable to live within its means. An Austrian economist showed many years ago that what happens is that the private sector, private individuals, realise that government cannot keep going on spending, cannot keep going on taxing, without there being a point of adjustment. So the private sector pulls back on its spending and private individuals hoard cash because they know the time is coming. We have seen this in reality. We have seen this in real life. It is not just a theory; it has happened.
When Margaret Thatcher in 1979 brought in her budget that reduced the deficit of the United Kingdom, there were 182 academic economists who wrote an open letter to the Financial Times telling her she was wrong, but what we found was that, in the 1980s, that unleashed a wave of investment that created prosperity in the United Kingdom. For four or five decades, the United Kingdom had been suffering a decline in prosperity. That was reversed when Margaret Thatcher brought the budget under the control.
We saw it with Ronald Reagan in 1981. We saw it with Bill Clinton in 1992 and then again in 1994. Everyone thought that the United States government was out of control, that it would never be able to pay back its debts, that its unfunded liabilities would eat the country alive. Bill Clinton, by cutting the budget, by moderately increasing taxes and then by cutting even further in 1994 with social welfare reform, had the result of reducing the net government borrowing and unleashing a wave of investment into the American economy that led to a decade of prosperity and peace throughout the world.
This is the difference between Labor and the Liberal Party. We believe that people are best placed to make their own decisions—their own decisions—about how they spend their money and the manner and form in which they spend their money, because that is the best way to grow the economy. Labor left us with a lot of unexploded landmines. One example is the NDIS. This is a scheme that helps fellow Australians who, through no fault of their own, find themselves after a catastrophic accident not able to look after themselves. This scheme has gone unfunded for too long. When Julia Gillard introduced this scheme with the Liberal Party's backing, she said that the best way to fund it was with a half a per cent increase in the Medicare levy on all Australians, for all Australians, and we have done that too. We have found that it did not fund the entire scheme, so we have increased that levy from half a per cent to one per cent.
I am yet to meet one person in my electorate or in the community at large who begrudges the idea that they would pay an extra half a per cent on their income tax to fund a scheme that helps the most vulnerable Australians who are vulnerable through no fault of their own and who have no other choice. In my own community I have two such people. One is Scott Lennon. Scott was sailing one day, turned his back at the wrong time and got hit by the boom swinging over because the boat jibed when it was not meant to. He could have died. He got into port. He has had almost 2½ years of intensive rehabilitation funded by the New South Wales government and funded by his insurance at work. He used to be a partner at PwC and now does volunteer work for me. He is going through an extraordinary period in his life.
People like Scott deserve to be supported by government, by the community. If government is nothing more, it is an outreach of the community. There are people like Adam Johnston, who was born with a chronic disease. Adam has been one of the standard-bearers of funding for stem cell research both here and around the world. NDIS will provide Adam with the opportunity to carry out the important work that he has so nobly begun. Why won't the Labor Party support this? Why is it that when they introduced the scheme a 0.5 per cent levy was okay, but when we ask Australians to make a small contribution, to ensure people like Scott and Adam get the funding and support they require, they are opposed? Why do they continue to argue about how the cake is sliced rather than standing with us to grow the cake?
In my community, everywhere I go, people say to me, 'Look, we understand that we have to play our part to get the budget back into surplus and to pay off the debt that the Labor Party left us with, but why are we the only people accepting that burden?' Whether they be superannuants or pensioners, that is a common theme that I get. The fact of the matter is that the government is taking steps on its own. We have reduced spending growth to the lowest level since the Whitlam government was elected. No other government has achieved what we have achieved in reducing spending. There are a lot of people in the Public Service, a lot of people in Canberra, who have made sacrifices to ensure that this is the case, but we are delivering more with less.
This budget is not about tax increases. The real story about this budget is the spending restraint that this government is showing. It is for all Australians to show that we are committed to paying our way. The thing is, you cannot have a budget deficit that does not stop. As Irving Kristol once said, it takes a lot longer for things to stop than you think and then they stop a lot faster than you want. It is important that this House, this parliament, show that we are serious—that we are part of the solution, not part of the problem. After all, we created the problem of these debts and deficits and therefore we have to more than play our part.
Look at the infrastructure deficit. Members of my community pay a lot of tax. They do not get a lot of government services and frankly they do not ask for a lot either, but of the 10 most congested roads three either are on the northern beaches of Sydney or service the northern beaches of Sydney. We have the option of only one form of transport on the northern beaches, and that is road. That is why what Minister Chester has done in creating the national rail passenger fund is so critical for our area. I spoke to Minister Chester last night. I have strongly put the case for a metro to the new hospital being built at Frenchs Forest, between Chatswood and Frenchs Forest. This rail line, this metro, would open up so many opportunities for people to use other forms of transport, rather than their car and buses. It would create a seamless link for people to get to the hospital and get to wherever their jobs and work might be. It is a critical part of unclogging the roads of the northern beaches and improving the lives of so many who give so much and ask for so little.
When I spoke to Minister Chester last night I said to him that the time for us to dillydally on this has ended. We need to get the money for this train, which has been planned since Bradfield put the plans in place in 1932. By getting this extra funding, hopefully, the state government can accelerate its rollout of these trains and this line. I will be speaking to the state minister for transport and strongly arguing that he make an application to this fund as part of that process.
Then there are our roads. Not a day goes by when a member of my local community does not say, 'Not only are our roads congested; look at the state of them!' I have been able to wrangle out of Minister Chester another $2 million to improve the roads in our area and make sure that they live up to the standards that any person living on the northern beaches should expect and that most other people in Australia enjoy. Look at major truck accidents. There have been five in the last five years. We have had four large vehicles roll over. Fortunately, none of them crushed anyone, but they all caused major incidents and it was only by the grace of God that no-one got killed. In Mona Vale, we had a tanker that blew up. It blew up next to residential housing and major businesses that employ nearly 2,000 people. This is not good enough in Australia in the 21st century. I will be advocating for the state government to make application for the heavy truck safety fund to improve these roads and to improve the situation, and for that solution to be indelible—not makeshift solutions, but actual solutions that allow people to go about their work without fear of a truck rolling over.
While we have one of the most beautiful areas in the world, we also have some of the most expensive housing in the world. The average price of a house on the northern beaches is now about $1.6 million. I met with Paul Maddock, David Muir and other residents of Avalon, who made the point that what they worry about is the fact that their children will not be able to enjoy the same standard of living that they enjoyed and will not be able to enjoy the same opportunities that they enjoyed. We all know that the answer to housing affordability is more supply and better transport. This budget goes some way to delivering that. The other thing that this budget does is give first home buyers a faster pathway to owning their first home. The superannuation savings account, which will have the same tax concessions as a superannuation fund, will allow first home buyers to save money 30 per cent faster than they would otherwise, the release of Defence lands and the release of the billion-dollar fund to assist state governments to rollout the supply of housing through improved infrastructure are all things that will put downward pressure on the cost of housing on the northern beaches. This is critical for our children and for our children's children.
Pensioners in my area have suffered the brunt and the burden of what we are trying to do to restore integrity to our budget, so I was pleased that Minister Porter listened to so many on our side of this House when he restored the concession card for pensioners. People like Ralph and Lillian Schubert, who have not asked for anything in life, who have worked hard, who have paid taxes, who have made a massive contribution to Australia through World War II and onwards and who continue to make a massive contribution to our community, will now enjoy the same benefits that they have always enjoyed, whether it is reduced rates at RMS, reduced rates for CTP insurance or reduced rates generally. This budget allows them to live their lives to the full extent that they should.
The 2017-18 federal budget was a budget from a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the Australian people and is fighting for his political survival. The Prime Minister delivered a budget with one objective in mind: to save his own job. It is a budget that purports that the Prime Minister is listening to the Australian people when in fact the Prime Minister is simply listening to the polls that are published in the newspapers every week or so. This is a budget, when carefully analysed, that has no clear direction for anyone: there is no underlying strategy, no long-term plan or vision and no core values to it. It is a budget that is—to use a common term—'all over the shop'. It provides no certainty or confidence for any sector in the community.
The Prime Minister has indeed abandoned the unfair cuts that were on the agenda since 2014. He abandoned them because he knew that they were unfair, he knew that there were harsh and he knew that they had been rejected by the Australian people. These were cuts like those proposed for paid parental leave or the five-week wait for Newstart, cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24, scrapping family tax benefit part A and part B, scrapping the pensioner education supplement and entry payment, and cutting the pension to migrant pensioners. These were all propositions that for the last three years have been constantly rejected by the Australian people and in turn opposed by Labor. Because of that constant opposition the government finally got the message that they would never get through this parliament. That is the only reason that they were cut only earlier this month. It is not because this government has changed its views on those issues or that it has softened its heart on them; it simply walked away from them because it knew it could not get through the parliament.
Budgets are not only about priorities but also about management of the nation's finances. It is a responsibility that this government has failed badly on. Let us not forget the government has now been in office for four years. This constant rhetoric about fixing up Labor's mess, in my view, has run its course. After four years, if the government is unable to balance its budget and get its finances in order, it has no-one to blame but itself. Indeed, with respect to the government failing badly, only yesterday again we heard that as recently as this budget, it appears that there is another $2 billion shortfall as a result of their so-called bank tax that was going to bring in some $6 billion plus. It now appears that those figures themselves are questionable. In the space of a couple of weeks we have found a $2 billion problem with the proposal, and again that is because the Treasurer and the Prime Minister simply do not know what they are doing. They put up proposals on the run that have not been carefully worked through, which, unsurprisingly, when you analyse them, simply do not stack up.
Let us have a look at this budget. It is a budget that brings in revenue for the coming year of $433.5 billion. The expenditure is $459.7 billion, which leaves a deficit of $29.4 billion this year. The government claims that the budget will return to surplus in four years time in 2021. I make two observations about that claim. Firstly, it is dependent on three per cent growth. That in itself is an optimistic assumption if you look at the figures in recent years. Secondly, I doubt very much both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will be here in 2021 to be held to account for those claims. It is easy to make claims and projections when you will not necessarily be there to be held to account. It is also a budget that has a gross national debt that will peak at some $725 billion in 10 years time. That is a staggering figure. I can recall when gross national debt was $200 billion or $300 billion, and everyone was standing up in this place saying how terrible that was, yet this is a budget that will preside over a gross national debt that is going to reach three quarters of a trillion dollars.
We have the tax revenue to GDP ratio currently at 23.8 per cent, and that will rise to 25.4 per cent. Again, that is the highest tax revenue to GDP ratio in a decade, and this is a budget that again raises taxes as well. If you look at all those statistics, you can see for yourself—and it paints a very clear picture—that this government has in fact lost control over this budget. It is a budget where we see $22.3 billion of education funding being cut and we see increases in university fees that force graduates to pay more and to repay their HECS debts even sooner, as well as the cuts to TAFE funding. On all the education levels we see huge cuts, but we do not see the same applied to big business, which we are going to provide with a $65 billion handout. It is a budget that also does not lift the very hurtful Medicare freeze for another two to three years, and I want to talk about that in more detail in just a moment.
All of these harsh measures are being included in this budget, while simultaneously the government talks about a $65 billion cut to company taxes. We know that $24 billion of that has already gone through, but there is some $40-odd billion still to come. The reality is that most of that cut will go to big corporates and to investors that probably reside overseas, so there is likely to be very little benefit to the Australian economy as a result of it. Indeed, my understanding is that, at best, it might be a benefit of one per cent over the next 20 years, if you can believe government figures, and personally I do not. Even if you did, that is at best what it is likely to produce, when simultaneously we make billions of dollars off cuts to education, which would have otherwise added to the GDP of this country by a much higher amount than that.
I want to turn to the health portfolio for just a moment, because the government seems to be making a big deal about the fact that it is going to lift the Medicare freeze. So it should, given that the freeze has now been around for several years. But the freeze is only going to be lifted for children under 16 and concession card holders from July 2017—that is, from this year. The freeze is going to be lifted for very few people. In fact, I believe it has been costed at around $9 million. That is the total sum of the so-called freeze for this year. For GPs and specialists, it will be a year later when the freeze is lifted. For specialist procedures and allied health professionals, the freeze will be lifted in 2019—in two years time. For diagnostic imaging, perhaps it will be lifted in 2020.
The freeze is already hurting people throughout the country. I have no doubt about that at all, because doctors cannot continue to maintain their fees on the basis of what they were several years ago. I want to quote from a letter from a podiatry provider in my region, who has several outlets. I am not going to name the podiatrist, but I quote directly from a letter that has been provided to the patients of that service: 'Due to the federal government's decision to continue with the Medicare freeze on medical and allied health Medicare rebates, we can no longer continue to bulk-bill Medicare patients. Given this change, the full service fee of $63 will need to be paid on the day of the appointment. This was not a decision taken lightly; however, due to the short-sightedness of the federal government and their decision to freeze the rebate for an unreasonable eight-year period, we had no choice.'
That letter says it all. They have put up with it for several years, but they cannot continue for eight years at one level of rebate from Medicare. So they have had to increase their fees, which now means that when patients go to that service, unless they can pay the full $63 up-front, they cannot get the service. Patients that cannot afford the $63 clearly will not be able to get the service at all, because they will not go there. Yes, with the $63 there will be a Medicare rebate, but the issue is that it has to be paid up-front.
In a similar vein, I turn to the aged-care sector. I frequently speak to aged-care providers and people who have family members getting aged-care services. The message I get back very clearly and very loudly is that the ACAT assessment process is in total disarray. The allocation of packages has become a nightmare. In fact, it is more spin than reality. Level 3 and level 4 packages for the most needy either are simply not available or are available in a year and a half or two years time when, regrettably, the person in need may not still be with us.
I want also to turn to another matter that affects the aged, and that is the Meals on Wheels service throughout this country. They asked for $5 million in additional funding in this budget plus another $300,000 over two years to support their structure. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would know, members from all sides of this House come into this place and talk about the value of the Meals on Wheels service for their communities across Australia. It is a value that nobody would deny. But it is one thing to talk about how important the service is and how good it is, and it is another to come into the House and stand up for it. The government is clearly not standing up for it with this budget, because it is my understanding that the $5 million in funding has not been provided to Meals on Wheels.
This is an organisation that in my own electorate has 145 volunteers delivering meals to about 210 people. Fifty to 80 per cent of the cost of the meal is actually paid for by the person themselves, and these are quite often people who are confined to their own homes because of limited mobility. They are elderly people who need a bit of support, and you have volunteers providing it. It comes at a cost saving to the government, when you carefully analyse what they do, and yet it cannot find $5 million to ensure that they get the service without having to put their hand in their own pocket again. I think it is damning of this government that it could not find that money.
With respect to local issues, I will talk about the Northern Community Legal Centre, in my region of Adelaide. Again, because of the cuts in past budgets of this government there is uncertainty about what that service can do beyond this financial year. Its services are in limbo. This comes at a time when the service is going to be confronted with its greatest need, because GM-H is going to be closing later this year, and the centre is in the midst of the region that will be hit the hardest by that closure. It is a service that, undoubtedly, will be needed more than ever before, yet it is uncertain about its future because of funding cuts made by this government in previous budgets. Yes, I am aware that there has been some money reinstated, or that cuts that were proposed will not go through as a result of a reversal made by this government, but the original cuts do stand, and that is hurting this service.
In the moments I have left I will talk about the issue of this budget and South Australia. Once again, South Australia has been dudded by a budget of this government. I heard the member for Wakefield earlier make similar remarks, and he is absolutely right. If you look at the budget, you will see that there is not one new infrastructure project funded in this budget. I have heard South Australian Liberal members come into the chamber and try to defend the budget position by talking about some minuscule projects that have been provided in previous years or in the lead up to the budget. The value of those projects is a drop in the bucket. More importantly, they claimed that the reason there are no infrastructure dollars for South Australia in this budget is that the South Australian government did not put any bids in. That is absolute nonsense. There were bids in already from previous years. But even if you want to accept that as being the fact, where were the South Australian Liberal members when they should have been standing up for their state and putting in their own bids? I remind them that it was only two or three years ago that the former member for Boothby put in a bid for the extension of South Road—down the Flinders hospital end of South Road—worth, I think, $1.7 billion. He came into the chamber and claimed credit for having done that, although that project was not a priority project for South Australia. The point I make is simply that if members want to blame the South Australian government they need to look at themselves first, because, unlike previous members of their party who stood up for South Australia and came into this chamber with projects, the current ones did not. So do not blame the South Australian government—that in itself is dishonest—but look at yourselves.
Finally, yes, there have been a few dollars returned to South Australia in the form of the reinstatement of the SA local road funding supplement. I say again: do not crow about that, because that is money that was always there, that was taken away for two years and has now been reinstated. How generous is it when you reinstate something that you had already taken away? As I said at the outset, this is a budget that is designed simply to save the future of the Prime Minister.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the appropriation bills, because this is a budget that provides fairness, security and opportunity. It is a budget that means a great deal to many people in my electorate. It is a budget that is going to build on the strong economic management this government is delivering. This budget tackles the big issues, the problems and challenges that many of my constituents face. So many of those problems and challenges are met in this budget. We are guaranteeing Medicare. We are providing funding for the NDIS to make it sustainable rather than a scheme that has a $55 billion black hole, as was the case under the Labor proposal. We have measures in this budget through a modest increase in the Medicare levy to make the NDIS sustainable. No-one will argue with that, except, perhaps, the Leader of the Opposition. I know that good members on the other side of the chamber believed that the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy is an appropriate move to ensure that those who depend on the services of the NDIS can sleep peacefully, knowing that the scheme is funded and that they will have access to the services that they rightly deserve and that they need so much.
We are investing $1 billion more to add new medicines to the PBS. We are delivering an additional $18.6 billion for schools over the next 10 years. This is in stark contrast to Labor, who had nothing but an education policy morass, an unfunded thought bubble that was never ever going to be provided. In fact, Labor had not provided the money; it was never in any budget. There was no funding for their alleged education policy in the budget. This budget provides $18.6 billion to ensure that our schools are properly funded going forward over the next 10 years.
We are keeping the instant asset write-off, which is so popular with businesses, to allow small businesses to prosper and grow and to allow them write off 100 per cent of the cost of assets up to $20,000. It is a great measure, which was warmly received by the business community when it was first announced, and I know that small businesses in Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Macksville and South West Rocks appreciate the fact that the instant asset write-off will continue for a further 12 months.
This budget guarantees 15 hours a week of preschool. We are expanding the ParentsNext program. It is a great program which is encouraging young people with small children to participate in the workforce. It is helping to remove the barriers that are preventing many young people with caring responsibilities for children from getting back into the workforce. It can be difficult enough to find a job, but if you are facing the additional challenge of caring for very young children at a time when you do not have a great deal of work experience, you may not have many employment opportunities. ParentsNext is a great program. I know that helping people into work is a great passion for you, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, and I think that you would certainly applaud the expansion of ParentsNext and the work that it does of giving young people a chance to work towards the goal of having young children see their parents going to work and see all of the benefits that come with work.
There are some 12,000 businesses in my electorate. Unlike those in large capital cities, we in regional Australia are absolutely dependent on small business as the major driver of employment growth and employment opportunity. To a great extent, we do not have the large corporates in regional Australia. Therefore, so much of the heavy lifting is done by small business. This budget supports small business through the extension of the instant asset write-off and through the reduction of the tax rate to 27½ per cent for companies with a turnover of up to $10 million. That is a very welcome measure providing for better taxation treatment for small business, allowing them to grow and allowing them to employee more Australians. It is a very important measure indeed.
This budget also provides funding to ensure that the election commitments that I made in the run-up to the last election can be completed. These include the ongoing work on the Pacific Highway, the upgrade of Port Macquarie Airport, the upgrade of the amenities block at Oxley Oval in Port Macquarie, the allied health facility at Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour and the upgrade of the jetty foreshores in Coffs Harbour. The $2 million for Kempsey Cinema was provided some time back. This budget will provide that those funds will be available when construction is ready to start. There is funding for the promised CCTV for Kempsey, South West Rocks and Crescent Head and for the closed-circuit TV and security upgrades for the jetty area around Coffs Harbour. These are important measures that were previously announced, but the money is provided under this budget.
In the electorate of Cowper, some 55 per cent of locals are over the age of 55. This budget has a number of measures that I believe will be very important for those older Australians. There is the one-off energy assistance payment. Also, some 93,000 pensioners will have their concession card restored. These are very important measures which will be welcomed by the people that I represent.
With regard to the NDIS, in the electorate of Cowper there are some 5,000 people who live with a significant disability and depend on the NDIS. Under this budget, under this government, the services that they require will be fully funded. That will, I think, add a great deal of security for those Australians. As usual, we are fixing up Labor's mess. Labor promised an NDIS, but they did not fund it. It is great to hear the reports that the majority of the shadow cabinet in the ALP supported the proposed increase in the Medicare levy. We welcome that support. I know many members opposite agree with the fact that a half per cent levy is an appropriate contribution. If you are on a low income, you make a very modest contribution; if you are on a high income, you make a much higher contribution. That is fair and reasonable. But I think that, as a matter of principle, all Australians should make some contribution to assist those who are living with a disability. I think it is part of being Australian to help someone who needs a bit of a hand, and this increase in the Medicare levy will do that.
With regard to child care: every child in Cowper will be guaranteed 15 hours of preschool each week in the year before they start school, to help the children and their families be better prepared for when they start formal schooling—a very important measure. There are some 8,000 families in Cowper who are using government-supported childcare places—an important measure.
Turning to school funding, I think the $18.6 billion investment over 10 years and the proposals that have been put forward by the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, are a very complete package. There is transparent funding. The formula takes into account those schools with a low socio-economic status and those schools that may have children with a disability or particular challenges. It is a comprehensive formula that aims to ensure that our schools have the resources that they need to provide high-quality education over the next 10 years. That is in stark contrast to Labor, who had an education package that, again, was unfunded.
If I look at some of the schools around my area, there is an increase of $12 million for Port Macquarie High School; an increase of $9 million for 'Jetty High', in Coffs Harbour; an increase of $19 million for Macleay Vocational College, a great local school that does a great job in providing kids who have significant challenges in the school system with a great education and gives them hope and a future; $6 million for Macksville High School; and around $6 million for Bellingen High School. It is a great increase in education funding.
On the subject of jobs, this government is absolutely focused on ensuring that it creates as many opportunities as it can. That is why it is continuing the $5.6 billion commitment to the highway. I know that people in my home town of Coffs Harbour, in the electorate of Cowper, are very interested in the progress on the Coffs Harbour bypass. Work is progressing. I can say that there have been significant property acquisitions on the proposed route. We have a designated route. Work is progressing apace to formalise the final design so that we can make some significant decisions with regard to the design of that project—whether the hills around Coffs Harbour are traversed by a cut or they are traversed by tunnelling or a combination of both.
There is a lot of detailed work being done with regard to the geotechnical work. A lot of resources are being expended and a lot of traffic planning is occurring. The New South Wales government is developing its business case, and, at a federal level, we are waiting to receive that business case from the New South Wales government. We certainly welcome the work that has occurred to date. A lot of interesting information has come out of the traffic studies that have occurred with regard to the likely impact of the bypass on the traffic flows around Coffs Harbour itself. A lot of interesting work has come out of the test drilling with regard to the implications for the final design and the decision as to whether it is a cut or a tunnel to get around Coffs Harbour.
I also welcome the fact that this is a responsible budget that is returning our finances to surplus. We will have the budget back in the black by 2021, a surplus of some $7.4 billion. This is in stark contrast to the good old member for Lilley—who could forget the member for Lilley!
I was sitting in the chamber when he announced those four surpluses: 'The four surpluses I announce tonight.' As with their funding for their education reforms and as with their funding for the NDIS, the surpluses were only a mirage—nothing but a mirage.
This government is about putting in place responsible economic measures that will ensure that we get the budget back into surplus. We will be making multinationals pay their fair share of tax. We will be introducing a levy on the big banks so that they make a contribution to the task of budget repair. The major banks receive very significant support from the government through the guarantees that the government provided. I think it is only appropriate that the banks do their fair share of the heavy lifting with regard to the budget repair process.
I would love to speak for a moment on Landcare. There was $1.1. billion announced in this budget to continue the great work that is being done by Landcare. There are some 5,400 groups around the country and some 100,000 volunteers doing a great job in improving their local environment locally, but collectively all of those groups are creating real environmental differences at a national level. It is a really great program. There is lots of good work happening with local community groups on the ground and lots of work happening on farms. People are not widely aware of the fact that there is very significant work being done with regard to Landcare on farms—a partnership between farmers and the government in improving the quality of farmland and, in some cases, restoring degraded land. It is producing great outcomes. It is increasing our productivity, which is increasing our national wealth, and, at the same time, improving our environment. Landcare is a great program. I am delighted to see that additional funding in the budget is being realised. It is very important work that is being done.
We believe that we should support those in need. I spoke on the NDIS and with regard to those who receive unemployment benefits, for example. This budget makes provision for some significant additional obligations with regard to those receiving benefits, and, I think, that is only fair.
This is a budget that sets us up for the future. It is a very responsible budget. It is a budget that will create jobs and opportunities in regional Australia. It is a budget that is right for the time. Very importantly, it is a budget that will return us to surplus. It is a budget in which the measures are funded. This is in stark contrast to so many of the policies by the members opposite, which are spectacular in their lack of funding. I certainly commend these budget bills to the House.
Members may not be aware of this, but Tourism NT, an agency in the Northern Territory Department of Tourism and Culture, has commenced a new advertising blitz. Known as It's About Time … Do the NT, the campaign involves digital partnerships, including with the travel site Wotif. There are ads on buses and locations around the southern cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The campaign squarely targets older Australians, those of 50 years plus, with a slogan 'Stop Guessing, Start Doing.' It is a catchy phrase and fits well as a response to how this government approaches funding and development of the Northern Territory—stop guessing; start doing—but I digress slightly. Our NT tourism campaign is particularly enticing this time of the year as our southern brothers and sisters begin to shiver a bit. In the Top End we are experiencing our glorious dry season with sunny, warm days and low humidity. It is perfect every day.
I am incredibly pleased to see the NT tourism campaign has hit a mark very close to home here in the nation's capital. I am speaking about the Treasurer, the honourable member for Cook, who has announced he will finally be making a trip to the Northern Territory. We are all pretty excited about this, and we are very optimistic that this visit will help the Treasurer to stop guessing about the level of need in the NT, stop guessing about the incredible potential and talent in the territory and be moved to start doing. There are a range of much needed supports. He could maybe start with announcing a city deal for Darwin or maybe that one dollar of the NAIF will be spent developing the north. After months of lobbying, we are very happy that the member for Cook is visiting the cities of Darwin and Palmerston in my electorate. His interest has been piqued, and I like to think that the Tourism NT campaign and my several invitations to him have had a role. It is his first trip to the territory since becoming Treasurer, and I am glad that he will be able to experience firsthand what the Territory has to offer. From Darwin, he can do a day trip to the beautiful heritage listed Litchfield National Park, where he can relax under our wonderful waterfalls. He can visit the amazing Kakadu National Park. He can go down to the Darwin waterfront to learn about the Royal Flying Doctor Service or experience the bombing of Darwin with a 3D-goggle experience, which is incredible. Or he can go for a swim in the cage of death with a crocodile.
The Top End is much more fun when you are with a local, and I am sure that the Treasurer will rely on the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, senator for the Northern Territory Nigel Scullion, to show him around the traps. However, if Senator Scullion is not available, I would be more than happy to show the member for Cook around our amazing capital of the north. I would like to take him off the beaten path a bit and give him a ground-level view of how the government's budget priorities and policies are impacting on people in my electorate. I could take him to the holding cells of the Darwin local court and out to the Holtze prison facility so that he can see the disproportionate number of Indigenous detainees that are there. We can go along the foreshore and he can meet the people that live in the long grass. These are itinerant people, mostly from remote communities. Their numbers have increased hugely over the past few years as services and policies to close the gap and the CDP continue to fail. Maybe I would take him out on the water to show off our magnificent Darwin Harbour, five times bigger than Sydney Harbour. I can show him the site of the future ship lift facility, a great incentive by the Northern Territory government which has, at this stage, attracted not one dollar of Commonwealth funding despite the great economic benefits that it will bring to the Territory and to the nation.
Speaking of not one cent, I will lean over and ask the Treasurer, as we have our rods out over the water and maybe a beer in hand—I am quite happy to take the Treasurer for a fish—exactly what is going on with the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. I will ask about that $5 billion fund that has been sitting there for a couple of years now, providing no benefit and no development whatsoever to northern Australia. I will take him around to meet some of our local businesses and industries. I do this when shadow ministers visit, such as the shadow minister for defence and the shadow assistant minister for defence, who have been visiting in the last months, meeting with local businesses to find out how we can make sure that local businesses and local people get a bit of a look-in with this increased Defence spending on infrastructure. The Treasurer can hear firsthand the problems of assessing the NAIF and the frustration of missing out on Defence contracts that seem unfairly weighted to large southern businesses rather than the local experts with capacity right there in the Top End to do the work. There will be plenty of people who will want to talk to him about the devastating, nearly $2 billion in GST cuts that are ripping the heart out of the Territory. What we need is for the Treasurer to put his money and the government's priorities where their mouths are when it comes to developing the north. That will help us to offset the damage done by that cut in GST revenue.
On our day out, the member for Cook will see firsthand the effect that this government's utter lack of interest in pursuing developing the north and closing the gap is having in the Northern Territory. The claims of wanting to reduce disadvantage, increase opportunity and unleash the huge potential of the north seem very empty. We have to stop guessing; we have to start doing. The 2017 budget delivered not one cent of new money for these agendas. I can take him past the unoccupied shopfronts on Smith Street. Because of no commitment by the federal government to sustainable population development in the north those shops are not being filled.
Today marks national public school day. I will make sure that, if I can act as a tour guide for the Treasurer, I take him to Anula Primary School. Twenty-two per cent of the students at Anula Primary School are Indigenous and around half of the students have a language background other than English. As noted in the House yesterday by the shadow minister for education, by 2027 Anula Primary School will get about $4,232 per child from the Commonwealth government. That is an increase of just $554 over 10 years for a government primary school in my electorate.
As we meander along Yanyula Drive, at 40 kilometres an hour because of the school, I will ask the Treasurer whether we can compare that to Trinity Grammar School in Sydney. With fees of up to $24,000 a year for primary school children being paid by those parents, Trinity will receive almost $8,000 per student, which is an increase of $2,734 per student over the same time period of 10 years. How does it get an increase in funding from the Commonwealth government that is five times larger than a local public school in suburban Darwin? I will ask him that as I show him around Darwin. How does an elite primary school in Sydney get five times more funding than our primary schools in suburban Darwin? I do not understand that, so I will ask him to explain it. In what way is that needs based funding? It does not seem like it is needs based to me.
The Northern Territory has the nation's most disadvantaged school system and yet we get the smallest increases in funding out of this apparently needs based system. That increase over 10 years for Anula Primary School is not even enough to cover inflation. We need to lift the horizons of our kids. The fact that Northern Territory schools do the worst out of this education policy is a national disgrace. We need to be lifting the horizons of our young Territorian kids, not just showing them that you do not really matter to us, that you do not really matter to the nation.
Before heading to the airport I will drive past the Australian Electoral Commission office. In the Northern Territory only 82 per cent of eligible voters are enrolled to vote, so 28,000 people in our small population are not registered and on the roll. That is a shocking statistic. It is the worst in the country. So what does this government do in this budget? It downsizes the Darwin office of the Australian Electoral Commission, including the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program. It is the only office in our country to be cut. I just do not understand that.
We have had lots of speeches this week in the House about the 1967 referendum about the importance of the first nations people of this country being part of our nation and equal opportunity. You take an AEC office of 15 people and cut the jobs, reducing it to three people, and then pretend you are going to somehow increase enrolment in the worst jurisdiction in the country for enrolment and participation in the democracy of our country. That does not make sense. I think that is a pretty fair comment to make: it just does not make sense. It is difficult not to think that there is a deliberate effort here to decrease enrolment of first nations people in the Northern Territory. I hope I am proved wrong and I hope that decision is reversed.
There is of course form from the other side of politics. It was in fact in 1996, when John Howard abolished the AEC's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Electoral Information Service. I just wonder what Sister Anne Gardiner, Senior Australian of the Year, who has dedicated her life to improving the opportunities for first nations people on the Tiwi Islands off the coast of Darwin, would think of this decimation of the AEC office in the NT. It just does not make sense.
Anyway, I will continue to head to the airport and make sure the Treasurer gets away safely. Our Darwin International Airport is shared by the RAAF base. When we are talking about defence, I will remind him that many veterans who live in our electorate live with the effects of their service to our country. Whilst there have been some commendable increases in services for veterans, we still have not been told whether we have a deputy commissioner for veterans' affairs. We are the only jurisdiction not to have a deputy commissioner for veterans' affairs. There was a commitment by the government to reinstate that position, but we are still waiting. I will continue to lobby for better services for our veterans.
We will also on the way to the airport call in to Larrakia Nation, who are looking after some of the most disadvantaged people in our country. We will pop in and have a cup of tea with people from the Tiwi Islands, who camp in the bush just near the airport and who drink water from Rapid Creek. We will see if there is an opportunity to get an update on the PFAS contamination issue. We hope that testing is rolled out very quickly. It is great that the RAAF base commander in Darwin has recently met with Larrakia Nation. We want that process to happen as quickly as possible so that Territorians can be made aware of where the dangers may be.
As a proud Territorian, I want to finish by urging all members to come and visit and experience our glorious dry season. Often people say that the politicians come up only in the dry season. Well, I say: come one, come all. It is a beautiful time of year up there, and everyone is extremely welcome to come up. But when you come up, I just want the opportunity to take you around to see the support that we need in my electorate and the capital of the north, to see the huge talent and to stop guessing and start doing.
I say to the member for Solomon, the former speaker, that it was great to be in Darwin just last week. Today I rise to thank the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, and his cabinet colleagues for their careful consideration of the needs and aspirations of the Groom electorate in the recent federal budget. This is a budget that delivers, in terms of the service needs of our community, infrastructure requirements that will underpin our economic wherewithal, and the investments and policies so important to securing our future in an uncertain world. In Groom, as elsewhere throughout regional Australia, we know full well that, despite growth in recent years and the exciting opportunities we have before us, there are still those doing it tough. This budget recognises that reality and reflects the fact that, given strong growth in important global economies, there are better days ahead. It is a budget that is practical. Our government has put up a raft of savings proposals that, whilst responsible, have unfortunately not received support from the Senate. Whilst we have been pleased to get many savings measures through, in the interests of the Australian people we must now meet our future funding challenges in other ways as well.
The government's $75 billion infrastructure commitment over the next 10 years represents unprecedented support for regional Australia, the powerhouse of our nation. This is the largest infrastructure budget in our history, with funding for critical airport, road and rail infrastructure projects across the nation. I am tremendously excited by the $200 million Building Better Regions Fund and the over $200 million committed to regional infrastructure. These programs will provide significant opportunities for our region to seek funding support for various initiatives.
The story of enabling infrastructure in Groom is one to be celebrated. Construction of the $1.6 billion Toowoomba Second Range Crossing continues, with an allocation of $247.6 million in 2017-18. It has been fascinating to witness the installation of girders on the viaduct from the top of the range near Mount Kynoch, eastwards along the Blue Mountain Heights escarpment. This will be a magnificent feature for our city in the years to come, an engineering marvel in its own right. I am in awe of those involved in this construction which is underway along the entire 41-kilometre route from near Helidon in the east to near Southbrook in the west, connecting the Warrego, New England and Gore highways and bringing about, more importantly than anything else, enhanced safety for our local and visiting road users.
One of the biggest investments we have seen in regional Australia is our government's allocation of $8.4 billion for the Melbourne and Brisbane Inland Rail, a dedicated fast track by 2024 for freight trains to get products from farms and factories to shipping ports in Melbourne and Brisbane. This is a nation-building project. It will pass through Groom, providing significant business opportunities for local businesses and many, many jobs. This investment will continue to unlock opportunities on the Darling Downs by allowing faster, safer and more efficient movement of freight. It also will create those jobs rights throughout the route which are essential for our continued growth as a nation. That is particularly the case in regional Australia. Preliminary work is well underway, and the announcement in this budget shows that this government is fair dinkum about getting on with the job of building the inland rail, something Labor simply talked about doing for years. I am looking forward to commencement of activity in our region once the corridor across the Darling Downs is finalised by Minister Darren Chester.
Road funding for the Groom electorate is in excess of $366 million in the 2017-18 budget, including $6.5 million for Toowoomba Regional Council projects. The government continues to support councils such as Toowoomba's through a variety of funding programs, including the Black Spot Program and Roads to Recovery. The Black Spot Program delivers improvements to sections of dangerous roads that have a crash history. In Groom, $300,000 has been allocated for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Wallace Street and Clairmont Street in Newtown. This project is jointly funded with the Toowoomba Regional Council, which will supply $100,000.
The Roads to Recovery program is committed to the construction, repair and upgrade of local roads. In Groom, projects to be completed in upcoming months include: $987,000 to install traffic lights at the intersection of Hogg Street and Tor Street; $600,000 to widen Jondaryan Mount Tyson Road; $525,000 to improve the intersection of Kingsthorpe Haden Road and Yalangur Kelvinhaugh Road; $920,000 to widen the Linthorpe Road at Pittsworth; $1.9 million to seal Pierces Creek Road at Emu Creek; $875,000 to construct Pierces Creek Road stage 2; $765,000 to realign the intersection of West Street and Drayton Road in Toowoomba; and $1.89 million to construct and seal a section of Wyreema Cambooya Road. Ongoing works supported in this budget include work on the Warrego Highway Toowoomba to Oakey duplication stage 2 project, which will continue with an allocation of $87.4 million in this budget, and the Warrego Highway Oakey to Dalby overtaking lanes project, which will continue with an allocation of $17.5 million in 2017-18, connecting the electorate of Maranoa to Groom. The government has also resumed the indexation of financial assistance grants to councils, which will result in an extra $836.5 million being provided over the forward estimates. I know that this will be welcome in Groom.
In the health budget, we in Groom welcome the fact that medical services for our community will be enhanced by significant bulk-billing incentives for our GPs. Last year almost 750,000 GP services in Groom were bulk-billed. That level will continue to grow, providing and ensuring affordability and convenience to those in our community who need it most. The 147 pharmacists in Groom will benefit from the government's agreement with the Pharmacy Guild to deliver medicines reform. In relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government is providing $1.2 billion to ensure cheaper access to vital medicines.
Together with this government's investment in rural doctor, nurse and allied health training, these features will be of great assistance to regional areas such as Groom and the Darling Downs. The fact that the government, unlike those opposite, is, once and for all, ensuring the NDIS will be fully funded will provide the confidence and peace of mind for the many individuals and families in Groom who need and deserve our support. I am pleased to note also the increased assistance to our veterans, given the importance of the Swartz Barracks at Oakey and the Borneo Barracks at Cabarlah to Groom.
My electorate is blessed with 73 primary and secondary schools, including state, Catholic and independent schools and a number of boarding institutions. Each one of those schools, large and small alike, will see an increase over the next 10 years. Our schools will see an estimated $1.9 billion in Commonwealth funding over the period 2018 to 2027. Each of our schools will receive its fair share of funding, based on need, with more transparency and with ties to reform to boost our education outcomes. That is particularly important, given the needs of our community, our industry and our young people. I am as proud of this investment as I am of the childcare initiatives that this government announced earlier in the year and the ongoing assistance from our government to the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba to provide opportunities for students from remote and underrepresented cohorts in tertiary education.
The good folk of Groom know that we must have a social security system that is there for those who really need support. The best form of social security is, of course, a job, and in this budget there remains a clear focus on job creation and training opportunities. There will be an increased focus on mutual obligation, where those on unemployment support are encouraged to participate genuinely in programs aimed at assisting them back into the workforce. I am very pleased also to see pension discount arrangements back in place for those who may have lost them with the advent of pension asset testing.
It is a known fact that small business is the employer of the majority of people in our community. That is the case nowhere more than Groom. This budget's continuing support for small business, through responsible and fair tax relief, so that it can invest more, grow more and employ more is indeed welcome in Groom, as is the extension of the small-business asset write-off provisions.
The government's recent announcement about the cessation of the 457 visa program is all about ensuring that Australian jobs are prioritised for Australians first. New foreign worker visa arrangements will still allow access to uniquely skilled workers as required, but the scene is clearly set for more Australians to be focused on Australian jobs.
Another welcome feature of this budget for Groom, given our population growth, employment and lifestyle opportunities, is that of housing affordability. The low-tax savings scheme, allowing intending first home buyers to accumulate savings through the superannuation environment, will see them saving quicker and owning their own home sooner. This, together with incentives for older people to downsize from larger homes and invest part of the proceeds in superannuation, is another key feature of our housing strategy.
As one who attended the launch of the Salvation Army appeal in Toowoomba last week, I must also mention that the increased investment in homelessness assistance, to be coordinated with the states, will be very welcome in Groom.
As part of the government's integrated response to the Oakey PFAS water contamination issue, I welcome the funding to assist the Toowoomba Regional Council in providing town water supplies to affected properties. Make no mistake, the challenge of addressing the impact of declining property values is something I continue to lobby our ministers about, including lobbying the Prime Minister and Senator James McGrath, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, just this very week, as we work towards a result.
The responsible nature of this budget is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that our government is not touching the Future Fund, put in place by a former coalition government in order that we might meet our future obligations. Australians are rightly fearful that a government formed by our political opponents might raid that fund to support reckless and unfunded expenditure in the future.
In summary, I am so proud that we have a budget that in Groom is focused on stronger growth for more and better paid jobs. As I have outlined, our many initiatives are aimed at securing the services that Groom residents want and continuing to tackle the cost of living, all the while ensuring that our government lives within its means, which is in the interests of all Australians and future generations.
Before I speak on the appropriation bills, I would like to reflect briefly on the recent tragic events in Manchester, in the United Kingdom. Earlier this morning, I was privileged to attend a memorial service to the victims of the bombing attack in Manchester, at the British High Commission, hosted by Her Excellency Menna Rawlings, the British High Commissioner to Australia. I and many parliamentary colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as members of the defence forces of Australia and the United Kingdom and members of the diplomatic corps, together offered our silent condolences to the families and friends of those brutally murdered in Manchester on Monday night. Together, we offered our support to the government and the people of Britain, who yet again face the horror of a terror attack in the heart of a vibrant city, an attack which strikes at the heart and soul of every society around the world—children, teenagers, young people and families. In Manchester, a city of music, a city with a great musical tradition, the attack earlier this week sought to ruin so brutally that which we as humans so enjoy, music and song. We may differ vastly in our tastes, but nonetheless music and song are part of our humanity. They lift our souls and they tell our stories. Music and song will continue as ever in Manchester, as they will everywhere.
Her Excellency Menna Rawlings reflected this morning on the relentless resilience of the people of Great Britain, a people who lived with war and then with the deadly terrorism of the IRA over many decades. It was just over a year ago that I had to relinquish and renounce my British citizenship in order to stand for election to this parliament. It was a sad day for me, as it felt like breaking a link with the memory of the life of my father, but of course it did not break anything. There will always be our connection to the people of Britain and my personal fondness for Britain and its people and their remarkable and relentless resilience. Today I pay tribute to that resilience and offer my sincere condolences to all those affected by this terrible bombing in Manchester. I stand, along with all of us in this place, in solidarity with the people of Britain at this very sad time.
An honourable member: Hear, hear. Well said.
Thank you. I will turn to reflect on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and related bills now. I, like many others in this place, am concerned about the impact that this year's budget will have on everyday people who are doing their best to get by. Hardworking people, students, parents with kids at school or TAFE or university, older Australians and people living with disability—this year's budget impacts them all. Like every budget, budget 2017 is a representation of the government's social priorities. They are the social priorities that reflect the direction the country will follow in the coming years. This direction will affect every person in this country, one way or another. People will be affected both by what is included in a budget that is supposedly reflective of social priorities and by what is, sadly, quite clearly lacking in that same budget: the social priorities which a just, fair and equitable society expect and deserve. Through this budget, we on this side see—as do the mums and dads, the pensioners, the students and the workers—how Prime Minister Turnbull and his government have prioritised their needs. We see how higher education funding, infrastructure funding and penalty rates have been prioritised—and by 'prioritised' I, of course, mean 'cut and ignored'.
The government has seen fit to cut funding to schools, to TAFE, to vocational education and to apprenticeships yet again. One of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's 2017 social priorities is to cut more than $600 million from TAFE and vocational education over the next four years, compared with current arrangements. This comes on top of an almost $3 billion in existing cuts to TAFE skills and training and a loss of more than 130,000 apprenticeships since 2013. The budget confirms that Prime Minister Turnbull will cut $22 billion from schools in an attack on education. This means that every Australian school will lose an average of $2.4 million over 10 years. It is the equivalent of 22,000 teachers losing their jobs.
However, it is with an ironic disbelief that I say that the Prime Minister has shown he is leading an equitable government when it comes to education—equitable in relation to attacks on education, that is. The government is not content with slashing funding to schools and vocational education; universities too have gone under the knife of this budget. Funding to universities will be cut by $3.8 billion, student fees will be hiked by eight per cent and graduates will have to pay back their HECS debt much earlier than before. We have heard the government try to defend their attack on universities and students, but have the government heard or listened to the reasons these measures are so damaging?
I can tell you that providing young people with the means to access a university education is a necessary foundation of any clever country. Higher education is a pathway to a world of opportunity. We should be aspiring to ensure that Australia is a country that does not limit that pathway and world of opportunity to only those who can afford it or whose families can afford it. Australia should be a better country than this. We should be a fairer country than this. There is nothing clever and nothing good about limiting access to higher education for students who are struggling financially. By increasing fees and financial pressures on university students and by lowering the threshold at which graduates have to repay their loans, this government is putting in place barriers to higher education for poorer students, their families and their communities.
Let me be clear: this government is not talking about denying access to university based on a student's academic ability and merit; it is putting a system in place that places barriers to higher education based on nothing more than an ability to pay or a future ability to pay. Due to increasing costs in this sector, students are having to seriously consider if higher education is something they can or should do. This is what people say to me every day in my electorate of Brand. They need to consider if it something they can afford or if higher education is now out of reach. These cuts to funding, the lowering of the repayment thresholds and the increases fees are a double whammy for students, because they are coming at the same time penalty rates are being slashed, damaging the wages students earn at work. In Brand, the challenges facing young people going to university are real. Through talking to families and young people in the electorate, I know high fees are a real barrier. An increase in fees is further enforcing the barriers, making it even harder for students and their families to consider university as an option.
Again, I want to be clear: increases to fees will not go to universities. They will not go to improving the student experience. Increased fees paid by students will not go to facilities that might improve students' learning outcomes. Increased student fees will not go to employing any more lecturers or professors, nor will it go to building facilities that might improve everything. This extra cost to students goes straight to consolidated revenue. It goes to the budget bottom line of these economic vandals who have tripled the deficit. This extra cost, borne by students and the young people of Australia, will go straight to a $65 billion tax cut for big business. It is a disgrace and it sells out young Australians. As a result of the lowering of the threshold for repaying student loans, young people will have to seriously consider whether or not the financial hit is something they can take on. At a time when they are looking to establish their adult lives, be that starting a family, buying a home or even just affording to rent a home, these young people will also have to find the money to pay off their HECS liabilities, at a lower income level than before—and with lower wages growth we know their wages will not be able to help much. There are no winners, only losers, when a government sees university education as the preserve of those who can most afford it. Society is the loser when universities become bastions of learning for the well-off.
We can see also how the Prime Minister's unfair 2017 budget will prioritise big business and the banks, delivering tax handouts to multinationals and millionaires while at the same hurting everyday families, workers and pensioners. Make no mistake, this budget does not care much about everyday people; it does not deliver on prioritising their needs, not by a long shot. It is a budget that rewards big business and the banks with a $65 billion tax cut, while it cuts funding for schools, universities and TAFE. It is a budget that increases taxes for those who can least afford it, while reducing the taxes paid by higher income earners, who can afford it. People earning $65,000 a year will pay $325 more tax in two years' time while someone on a million dollars a year will pay $16,400 less tax this year, with the withdrawal of the deficit levy.
Holding to ransom funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme against the increased taxes of working families says a lot about the social priorities of this government. It says a lot about this government's attitude towards the everyday working people of this country. This is a government that is handing a $65 billion tax break to the big end of town instead of funding the NDIS for the benefit of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I really am mystified, and I know I am not the only one, about how this government can see no problem in hitting the everyday worker with an increased tax burden to fund the NDIS while there is a $65 billion tax break being handed out to big businesses and the big banks. These are the same people, the taxpayers living in our electorates, living in the cities of Rockingham and Kwinana, who are already struggling with cost of living pressures. These are the workers who are having to cope with massive stresses on their household budgets, thanks to underemployment, unemployment, increased cost of living pressures and cuts to penalty rates. This government continues to show its contempt for workers by supporting these cuts to penalty rates instead of showing the political will to stand up and protect the wages and living standards of those among us surviving on the lowest wages. It shows how really out of touch the Prime Minister and his Liberals team are.
This budget fails the jobs test, with the forecast for unemployment higher, while forecasts for employment growth, wages growth and GDP growth are all lower. Nothing in this budget delivers good jobs now at a time when the unemployment rate is the same as at the peak of global financial crisis, yet the government expects people to keep working on until they are 70 years old! It is an out of touch government that thinks labourers, brickies, childcare workers, and care assistants will be able to continue working well into their old age—until the age of 70, and beyond. There are not enough jobs as it is for those seeking work, without forcing people in their late 60s and 70s to remain in the jobseeker pool. It is a disgrace that Australia will soon top the list of having the oldest pension age in the developed world. This is a dubious accolade that the Prime Minister is seeking for our country, yet it is one that reflects the direction that this government wants the country to take.
The direction set out by this budget is harsh. It is one where people who have less, people who are struggling, will continue to do so. It is one that does not prioritise the needs of those who need assistance most. Prime Minister Turnbull's budget will axe the Energy Supplement to new pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients, slashing $365 from a single pensioner or $550 from a couple's annual budget. New cuts to family tax benefits will leave thousands of families worse off. It is distressing that the Prime Minister's social priorities do not call for an immediate cancelling of the freeze on Medicare rebates. The government has delayed reversing its unfair cuts to Medicare for three years, meaning patients continue to pay more for health care. The costs incurred by doctors in providing medical services continue to rise and, with this freeze, it is patients who are having to pay more when they visit the doctor. Failing to drop the freeze on Medicare rebates immediately impacts on many vulnerable patients, including those needing critical oncology treatment, obstetric services, and paediatric treatment.
I might turn for a moment to investment in infrastructure, in jobs and in the future? What of this government's responsibility to build for the future needs of the country—to provide the roads, the ports, and the infrastructure required for economic growth, for future jobs and for progress?
This budget has in fact cut infrastructure investment by $1.6 billion in this year alone to $7.6 billion, and infrastructure investment will continue to fall to just $4.2 billion by the year 2021. It is no wonder the peak body Infrastructure Partnerships Australia has slammed the government's budget, saying that it 'sees infrastructure funding at its lowest level in more than 10 years'.
The trouble is that we cannot even trust the government to deliver on the little that they do promise. I would like to be able to hold the Liberal government to account for the election promises they made to the people of Brand, but you rarely see a senior Liberal deign to visit Rockingham or Kwinana, and they certainly do not care enough to make any election commitments to this community.
In 2016-17, WA was promised by the Turnbull government an investment of $842 million in infrastructure funding. This has not happened. We are $200 million short, according to the 2017-18 budget papers. The lauding of the previously allocated Perth Freight Link funding to WA as new infrastructure funding is a joke. It is not new funding; it is redirected old funding. It is funding redirected from a dud road to nowhere, a Liberal government project, to a forward-thinking, public-transport-congestion-easing Labor government Metronet project. We need to invest in infrastructure such as Metronet, a public transport plan that will improve the lives of many people across the metropolitan areas of Perth. It connects people by connecting them with jobs and services while reducing congestion on our roads.
I call on the government to consider other infrastructure projects that will work for the betterment of people not only in my area of Kwinana and Rockingham but also across the metropolitan area of Perth—infrastructure projects like the Kwinana Outer Harbour. It is a forward-thinking project which would be the catalyst for investment needed to generate jobs for generations to come. It will enable WA and the country to compete internationally, with a facility that will be on par with the best in the world. But, unfortunately, this much-needed infrastructure project is not a priority for this government, and neither are the many other social priorities that I spoke about earlier. It is a disgrace, and it is a sad day for Australia.
I rise to speak on the appropriation bills before the House, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 and the related bills, which will actively ensure fairness, opportunity and security for all Australians. I would like to formally congratulate the Treasurer on his commitment to delivering such a budget—a budget which includes some tough choices that are indeed the right choices to secure days ahead. Few people know the work that goes into delivering a budget, so I would like to commend and congratulate the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance and the respective officers for all their efforts.
I noted in the chamber last week, during the last sitting, that this budget was the 10th budget I have been privileged to see delivered here in the Parliament of Australia during my time as the federal member for Swan. It is a bit of deja vu because the first appropriation bills speech I did was in this very chamber. The member for Melbourne Ports was in the chamber at the same time, with the former member for Oxley. They toasted me after my speech and said it was the worst speech they had ever heard from a new member. But I am still here, Member for Melbourne Ports, and that brings back fond memories of being in this place and doing appropriation bills speeches over the years.
Before the member for Brand leaves—and I know she will be a good member because the former member for Brand told me that she would be a very good member for Western Australia and for Brand—I would remind her that in 2007 there was an election commitment from Labor, by Kevin Rudd, that promised to fix the GST. He also promised a $100 million infrastructure fund for Western Australia which never came. It never appeared. You have a very short memories. I just remind you. You mentioned it in your speech, so I am mentioning it in my speech.
Bearing in mind that six out of those 10 years were during the Rudd-Gillard years, when the budget was in the hands of the member for Lilley—and I am sure all Australians remember just how well that worked out—it is with great enthusiasm that I stand and get a chance to speak on another coalition government budget which is determined to deliver for all Australians. This week—Monday, in fact—marked the 75th anniversary of the great Sir Robert Menzies's famous Forgotten People speech. As our longest serving Prime Minister and a key figure in shaping our Australian postwar society, Menzies's insight still rings true. I would like to share part of that speech with the chamber. He said:
But I do not believe that we shall come out into the overlordship of an all-powerful State on whose benevolence we shall live, spineless and effortless - a State which will dole out bread and ideas with neatly regulated accuracy; where we shall all have our dividend without subscribing our capital; where the Government, that almost deity, will nurse us and rear us and maintain us and pension us and bury us; where we shall all be civil servants, and all presumably, since we are equal, heads of departments.
I find that it not only eloquently articulates our Aussie values but also encapsulates the decisions made in this budget—decisions which favour hardworking Australians and decisions which enable us to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on.
This rings true for the people of Swan and across the great state of Western Australia. For years, our state benefitted from the mining boom, with the investment phase bringing much growth to our state. Now we have transitioned into much broader-based growth in our economy. As we do this, our nation's economy is still continuing to grow faster than every G7 economy, and our growth remains above the OECD average, which is a positive reflection on our transition.
But, in WA, times have been tough. Not everyone has been able to share in our nation's growth, and some have faced mounting financial pressures. As a result, and rightly so, the GST is always a bone of contention for us Western Australians. With the mining boom over, it's difficult to watch most of the GST earned in Australia head to the eastern states. I have noted before in the chamber that the current rate, about 34 cents in the dollar, is a hard pill to swallow. Over recent times, we have seen Labor and the local rags in my electorate and Western Australia come out to attack my fellow WA Liberals, members and senators, for not being active enough in fixing the state's share of the GST.
What about you?
Once again, it is short memories—I have been banging on about the GST since 2009. I was banging on to your Prime Minister about it, and I still did not get a reaction from him. Thank you, the member for Melbourne Ports, for reminding me about what I have been doing.
Mr Danby interjecting—
I do not recall Labor fixing anything, to be honest. The Opposition Leader said:
I understand why West Australians are so outraged. This is a matter which is partly dealt with the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission.
But, again, no offer of any sort of resolution and no guarantee that he will fix the problem if he ever becomes Prime Minister. Instead, we WA Liberals have consistently advocated for a better share of GST in WA—in fact, our federal Treasurer is so sick of me banging on about those three particular letters that he runs away every time I go near him! But, being the great politician that he is, he has listened to the issues at hand. He has got on with the job and announced that the Productivity Commission is to conduct a review into how the GST distribution among states and territories impacts national productivity and growth. The commission is due to report back to the government in January next year. I am sure that there is no member in this place who would have ever envisaged that the distribution of GST in Australia was designed so that any state would get as low as 30 cents in the dollar on the return of the GST. This is a massive step in the right direction in rectifying WA's share of GST.
In the interim, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House about how the coalition government has continued to deliver for WA through GST top-up payments. In the 2015-16 budget, WA was given $499 million in GST top-up payments. Of that, $45 million was allocated to the Roe Highway and Berkshire Road grade separation, within my electorate of Swan, which has now been completed. The following year, 2016-17, a GST top-up payment of $490 million was allocated to build the Forrestfield Airport Link, all of which falls within the Swan electorate. I remember hearing the member for Grayndler say—and I am sure the member for Perth, who has just walked into the chamber, will agree with me—that there is no new funding for rail by any coalition government in Australia, but in the 2016-17 budget we allocated $490 million to a railway line and a railway airport link, all of which falls within the Swan electorate.
The rail link will connect residents to the airport and the Perth CBD, with three new stations—Forrestfield, Airport Central and Belmont—all within the electorate of Swan. I know that the member for Perth actually congratulated me recently for being so successful in getting so much funding for the electorate of Swan. He reminded all of the constituents in Western Australia. I'm pleased to update the House on this project, as it is now well underway. Subsequently, $676 million was invested in the Gateway project, which has also since been completed. I am proud to be part of a coalition government that continues to deliver for all Australians, and, of course, to Western Australia. I would like to remind those opposite of these top-up payments when they are waffling on about inaction. I have always enjoyed the saying, 'When you point your finger, three fingers are pointing back.'
The infrastructure this government has delivered and continues to deliver has been an integral part of this government's national economic plan. I welcome the Treasurer's announcement that the 2017-18 budget will fund the $86 million grade separation of the Roe Highway and Kalamunda Road intersection to crown a once-in-a-generation upgrade of High Wycombe road and rail. The agreement will see our coalition government fund $68.8 million to enable the Roe Highway grade separation to proceed, and the investment adds to the other major transport works funded in High Wycombe, including those I mentioned earlier. This is an important investment within the electorate, with Roe-Kalamunda currently being ranked No. 1 for crashes by Main Roads over the five-year reporting period, some of which have been very serious incidents.
In addition to this, a Commonwealth state funding agreement will see construction of a southbound on-ramp at Manning Road and Kwinana Freeway go ahead at last. This is a project that has universal support of the community in Manning and will have a positive impact on road safety and congestion along the Manning Road corridor and across the Canning Bridge. As I am sure those in the chamber are well aware, the Manning Road on-ramp is something I have been advocating for for more than nine years. In fact, it is a project that has been discussed since the 1980s. When I first became the federal member for Swan in 2007, constituents began to voice their frustration at the lack of an on-ramp at Manning Road to take the traffic south on Kwinana Freeway. In 2009, I put out a survey and received more than 1,000 responses, with almost unanimous support.
The project has become even more pressing over the years, as Perth has continued to grow. It is a key road to Curtin University within my electorate, which boasts more than 40,000 students at the Bentley campus. It is also an essential project to ensure ease of access to the new Fiona Stanley Hospital, with an increased demand from patients and even ambulances needing to head south to attend the hospital or emergency department. By way of background, Manning Road connects Albany Highway to the Kwinana Freeway in the southern part of my electorate. It is frequented not only by my constituents but by the broader population of Perth as well. It is currently a very difficult stretch of road. Drivers need to navigate a complex stretch and do a circle around the freeway, which involves heading north, and then drivers are required to merge and change lanes back across the Canning Bridge. Subsequently, you have to merge with the traffic coming off the freeway, only to get back on. It is not only frustrating but very dangerous, which is why I have been consistent in my advocacy for such a project. I even managed to take the Prime Minister en route around that particular drive, and he said: 'This is ridiculous. There is no reason why we shouldn't be funding something to fix this.'
Despite this, it has been knocked by Labor again and again. In fact, when the former member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan ,was the WA minister for planning and infrastructure, she outright rejected the need for an on-ramp. Similarly, in the Senate, Senator Sue Lines has continued to criticise my campaign for the on-ramp. In fact, it was only last year that she suggested that I should have 'a good look at my electorate and start to focus on the issues that really matter'. Again, the 'three fingers pointing back at you' saying comes to mind. But we have done it, despite ongoing obstacles put in the way by Labor. The government has committed $28 million of the $35 million project, with the state government funding the residual $7 million.
As the member for Swan, the on-ramp was a priority which I have continued to raise with the federal Treasurer, which saw him include the project in negotiations with the new state government on the $2.3 billion infrastructure package for WA that was announced on budget night. I would like to thank the residents of Swan for completing my surveys and providing ongoing support, which has allowed me to put this issue forward in our parliament and deliver the funding. I would also like to acknowledge and thank John McGrath MLA, the member for South Perth, who put this matter on the state government's agenda and secured a funding commitment from the previous Barnett government at the last election. I assure you, my focus is now on ensuring that construction gets underway as soon as possible.
But it is not only the large investments that contribute to our electorates. On this side of the House, we know it is at the grassroots level that great things grow. That is why it is fantastic that, in this year's budget, the government has committed $22.5 million for a third round of the Stronger Communities Program for the 150 electorates across Australia. Within my electorate of Swan, a range of sporting clubs, not-for-profits and community groups have received more funding, between $5,000 and $20,000, to contribute towards capital purchases and activities, towards an improvement in local community participation and cohesion and to the vibrancy of our communities. Each electorate is allocated $150,000 each round, so I am very proud to have almost reached the full allocation over the last two funding rounds, with $298,087 provided to more than 20 community groups in Swan. I would like to thank my staff for the efforts they put in to making sure that all of the community groups were given notice that this funding was available.
This funding has included $20,000 for the Curtin University Boat Club, which was used to purchase a scull trolley and a trailer to hold even more boats for their new members. This also saw Manna Incorporated receive more than $16,000, which went towards the purchase of a transport van so they can continue to provide meals to disadvantaged individuals, families and children. It was great to see the local member for Victoria Park turn up to help me present the cheque to Manna Inc. in Victoria Park. There was another $16,914 allowed for Connect Victoria Park to complete their homestead project. These are only three of more than 20 projects which have helped build stronger communities within Swan alone. It is great to know that every single electorate across Australia is able to provide funding for community groups, which provide for clubs and not-for-profits to further participation and cohesion.
Similarly, the Volunteer Grants program is supporting the efforts of Australian volunteers working hand in hand with stronger communities to deliver for organisations giving back to their communities. The Volunteer Grants program provides small amounts of money to organisations, clubs and community groups, which can be used to help their volunteers. The program offers grants of between $1,000 and $5,000, which can contribute towards the purchase of much-needed equipment, volunteers' fuel costs or even training. In 2015, there were 20 successful applicants, who received a total of $77,382. That is $77,382 that went directly to supporting the very important work of our volunteers in Swan. In the last round, which was the Volunteer Grants 2016 program, there were a further 13 successful applicants, who received more than $45,000. In fact, the Minister for Social Services joined me in my electorate office last week for an afternoon tea to present successful recipients with their grants. It was a fantastic opportunity for the organisations to network and share their experiences as volunteers over a wide range of sectors.
I am proud to be part of a government that is supporting grassroots clubs within our community and supporting hardworking Australians, not only in Swan but across the country, and of a government that is investing in infrastructure, is driving jobs and is committed to our national economic plan, which delivers for all Australians. The bills before the House are honest; they do not skirt around the issues ahead of us. The government sure does not pretend to do things with money we do not have, nor does it make grand promises for cheap political points. These bills are clear.
I wish I had more time; I am running out of time. There is so much exciting news in the budget for the constituents of Swan. I support the budget and I support the appropriation bills.
What an honour it is to be following the esteemed member for Swan in this debate on the appropriation bills. I wish I could speak for the full time that is allocated to me on the way in which this budget delivered measures they will have a positive impact on my local community. Unfortunately, I cannot. The reason I cannot is that this budget does anything but deliver any form of meaningful, positive impact on my local community in Perth, regardless of the waxing lyrical that my friend the member for Swan might make you believe is the case for his electorate, just south of the river.
I will touch on five points in relation to the way in which this budget fails to deliver a meaningful outcome for my local community: firstly, the flawed assumptions upon which this so-called march to surplus is due to land; secondly, the way in which this budget fails local communities on education; thirdly, the ways in which this budget fails to deliver to communities, in relation to some flawed analysis as to revenue that it is thought will be raised from the banks; fourthly, address this place in relation to the ways in which this budget falls down insofar as my portfolio responsibilities are concerned; and, fifthly and perhaps most sadly, focus on the way in which Western Australia misses out under this budget.
The situation we find ourselves in is incredibly stark. Growth is down, wages growth is down and unemployment is up. The real concern we have is that the figures that are projected by the Treasurer to be relied upon in relation to this budget's supposed march to surplus are based entirely upon a false premise. The false premise in relation to growth relies upon wages growth being in the range of three per cent to four per cent. The problem we have is that growth at the moment is going backwards: we are barely at two per cent. What would be required would be for us to get to a position of wages growth that would see us at or about levels we have not seen since the construction phase of the mining boom. We all know the truth in relation to that: those days are gone, and we are unlikely to see them again in any shape or form that otherwise resembles the massive influx of demand for employment, mainly as a result of the enormous hive of activity happening off the northwest of Western Australia—Gorgon, Wheatstone, Browse, North West Shelf, and the like.
We are going to see gross debt pass the half a trillion dollars mark in the coming months; a total of $20,000 for each Australian man, woman and child. It is going to continue to rise and we will see the deficit for this year triple since the Liberals' first budget increase from $10.6 billion to $37.6 billion. We have also seen net debt blow out by over $100 billion since the Liberals first came to government, and it will be at record levels for the next three years. It is in that setting that we see the decisions that have been made by this government really show it up for what it is. By choosing to focus on such significant tax relief for major corporations, we see a flawed set of assumptions that will not land us a surplus. To the extent that there is any relief in this budget for any aspect of the community, that relief is going to major corporations.
But I hear you ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, how can this be the case when all we read about in the mainstream media is a purported $6 billion levy that is supposed to be deducted from the banks in order to fund the measures in the budget? Well, like most things about this budget, all is not what it appears to be. The supposed $6 billion saving to be gained by the bank levy is falling apart at the seams in relation to the design and the implementation of the levy. Let us have a look firstly at the dollar number that is likely to be gained as a result of this levy. It is looking more and more like a black hole every day. The most recent figures see that black hole being as much as $2 billion, or, putting it another way, $2 billion out from the supposed $6.2 billion saving over four years.
We see now that Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and NAB have released estimates that suggest only $965 million will be raised after tax in the first year of the operation, and things do not get much better from there. This was reinforced by the Commonwealth Bank only yesterday, when Ian Narev, the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, told a luncheon in my hometown of Perth that the onus is now on the banks to refute the claim that they can absorb the levy because they are very profitable. When we look at the question as to who are 'they', Mr Narev actually does put it relatively well; that is, at the end of the day, the 'they' we are talking about is every one of us—mums, dads and shareholders. Using a breakdown of CBA's $13.1 billion income in December as an example, Mr Narev argued that the tax would inevitably affect individual Australians and the national economy, on the basis that the breakdown included $3.1 billion for salaries for 50,000 staff, $1.9 billion for tax, $2.6 billion in expenses—including to about 5,000 small to medium enterprises—and $3.4 billion in dividends to about 800,000 families.
Mr Narev's commentary proves the point that the opposition has been making right from the get-go: the design of this levy is more likely than not simply going to affect the community in the form of affecting mums and dads who are paying higher fees and charges, or retirees or those who are trying to get ahead by investing modest sums in blue-chip shares via reduced dividend payments. There is no confidence whatsoever from anything being said by the government that this so-called $6 billion bank levy is at all likely to deliver any form of net benefit to the community.
As if that were not bad enough, as if the design of this levy were not poor enough, we then look at the overall package in relation to the treatment of the banks. What also gets missed by the mainstream media when looking at the low-hanging fruit of a supposed $6 billion levy is the overall treatment of the banking industry insofar as tax cuts for companies go. It has been made abundantly clear that, over the course of 10 years, there will be $65 billion in tax cuts as a result of reducing the company tax threshold for companies with turnovers, on a sliding scale, of up to $1 billion.
What will that deliver the big four banks? While on the one hand they purportedly have been slapped with a $6 billion levy, on the other hand they will create $7 billion in savings as a result of the benefits gained from the tax cut. So, even if the government had got their act together and were not rushing something through to try desperately to salvage a couple of Newspoll points that might stave off the inevitable, which is the slow-moving car crash that you could otherwise describe as the Prime Minister's clumsy and desperate grasp on his leadership—even if this were not designed to try to stave that off—what we see here is a $1 billion net benefit to the banks either way. This defines in such sharp detail that we can muck around with all these notions of how to shave a bit here or prop up a bit there in the banking sector, but the best way through all of this, to give some clarity and confidence to the community, is a royal commission into the banking sector. Again, that has been a very consistent narrative from the opposition, both prior to the election and after the election, and it reflects the needs and desires of the community.
We have already heard in very stark fashion of the diabolical cuts to the education system in public schools and Catholic schools, which will have a profound impact upon our kids and the ability of our families to have confidence in our school system being able to deliver the education that our children deserve. There will be over $22 billion in cuts, if the Labor model is compared to the paltry offering we have seen from the government in this budget.
I said that I would move on to issues that are pertinent to my portfolio insofar as the way in which these budget bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-18 and related bills, are letting the community down. Firstly, after all the criticism that we levelled—in my view, fairly—at the government, it was good to see on page 33 of Budget Paper No. 2, under 'Strengthening penalties under the Australian consumer law':
The Government will increase the maximum financial penalties under the Australian Consumer Law 2011 by aligning the penalties with the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 from 1 July 2018.
In layman's terms what does that mean? It actually is a good thing. It is something that Labor advocated for prior to the election and continued to advocate for after the election, because it means that corporations that breach the Australian Consumer Law and engage in conduct that is likely to, or does, mislead and deceive will not be hit with the maximum penalty available at this stage, which is about $1.1 million per breach, but up to $10 million per breach. That is a good thing for corporations to have to realise. A $1.1 million maximum penalty, regardless of how profitable your corporation might be, can be absorbed into the cost of doing business, as opposed to a $10 million penalty, which is more likely to have a meaningful impact in making companies think twice before they engage in conduct that will mislead or deceive or that is likely to mislead or deceive. The government should be applauded for taking up that initiative in relation to changes to the Australian Consumer Law.
What would be lovely to see, though, is action on the tranche of recommendations that sit behind that change to the Australian Consumer Law. The recommendations were recently reviewed and made public by the consumer affairs departments of Australia and New Zealand in their formal review of the Australian Consumer Law, and they were endorsed by the Productivity Commission in their review, which was also released around March this year. There are a whole suite of recommendations that, if implemented, could strengthen the Australian Consumer Law, giving consumers more of a level playing field when it comes to seeking redress against manufacturers and others who sell faulty goods. I will not be holding my breath, but it would be wonderful to see a bit more action and a little less conversation in relation to those reforms.
In the remaining time I would like to address another matter very dear to my heart. My other area of portfolio responsibility is resources. I must say again—bouquet before the brickbat—it was heartening to see that there will be money spent over a number of years on feasibility assessments for how we might be able to solve the current gas crisis. We see about $20 million over four years for the Gas Market Reform Group to accelerate reforms and $7.6 million in 2017-18 for some prefeasibility studies about pipelines. This is good stuff, but I have to say that I do quiver with fear about the government's Western Australian representatives and wonder how much confidence we can have in them making sure that Western Australia gets its fair share.
Our foreign minister, a Western Australian herself, quite frankly, should have known a bit better. She gave an outwardly confident answer in question time the other day about a wonderful $45 billion LNG project led by INPEX in the Browse Basin. 'This will be a great story not only for WA but also Australia,' the foreign minister said. She also took ownership of it on the basis that she said:
This project came about because of positive engagement by the then Liberal Western Australian government and the coalition federal government, underpinned by long-term supply contracts.
One might have thought as a result of the foreign minister's answer that this would be delivering great results for Western Australia. There is just a slight problem—the pipeline does not go anywhere near Western Australia. The project the foreign minister was talking about goes completely around and bypasses Western Australia. Whilst it might start in the Browse Basin in north-west WA, it goes all the way to Darwin and not a single cent goes to Western Australia. So here we have a senior government figure spending so much time overseas that she does not get her basic geography right in relation to her home state. On that basis, my real concern is: what hope do we have for Western Australia?
It is great to be here today. Infrastructure, schools, jobs, support for the vulnerable and relief from the rising costs of living are all key priorities that received a boost in the 2017 federal budget. Just days after handing down the budget the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, was in the electorate of Petrie to hear feedback on how it would benefit local people. The Treasurer outlined major road improvements. There is $650 million that will assist those living in Petrie, Longman, Lilley, Dickson, Fairfax and Fisher in particular—all in Queensland—allowing people to move more freely around the region. The investment will boost business efficiency, making businesses more productive, as they will not be stuck in traffic and they will not be paying wages while people are sitting at red lights. It will also make it a more logical base and usher residents around more safely.
We are boosting the Bruce. I go back to 2014, when the former member for Longman and I started a campaign to boost the Bruce Highway. We wanted to see improvements on the Bruce Highway. In some ways, in relation to infrastructure in this budget, the member for Longman is probably the biggest winner nationwide. It is a Labor seat now, but there is now a plan for six lanes to go all the way to Caloundra. At the moment the six lanes stop at Caboolture. They will go all the way to Caloundra, which will make a big difference to Petrie, Longman and the Sunshine Coast seats of Fisher and Fairfax. People in my electorate who are travelling north for holidays or going to the Sunshine Coast will benefit from a six-lane highway all the way to Caloundra, and people travelling from the Sunshine Coast down to Brisbane will also benefit.
Longman and Petrie will also benefit from the $120 million in funding that was allocated in the 2017 budget to upgrade the Deception Bay overpass. The Deception Bay overpass is a small two-lane bridge that will become a six-lane overpass with turning lanes. This will be great for the people of Deception Bay, who have been neglected by Labor state and federal governments for years. I am glad that the coalition has been able to secure this for Deception Bay, but I have asked the state member for Murrumba to make sure the state government can contribute 20 per cent to these vital projects in the Queensland budget when it is handed down in a few weeks time.
All schools in my electorate will also benefit from this budget. I spoke on the education bill the other day. I was not able to get through the advantages for all schools. But every school—whether they are Catholic, independent or state—will see an increase in education funding, which is great. As federal members, we spend a lot of time in schools. I know I certainly do. Whether it is talking to students about different issues, presenting flags, talking about leadership or encouraging students to do their very best, we all spend a lot of time in schools.
The other day I was mentioning in the House of Representatives how the bill will benefit each school. I got up to Redcliffe State High School, a great high school on the peninsula in my electorate of Petrie. They will receive next year alone an additional $189,500 from the Commonwealth. There will also be additional state funding that will go to Redcliffe State High. There will be an extra $189,500 next year, and that is why I will be voting, along with my coalition colleagues, for the education bill—to benefit my electorate. Scarborough State School, a primary school—P to 6—in my electorate, will receive an additional $91,800 next year alone, taking their federal government contribution alone to $1,883,600 next year. And there is 80 per cent extra funding coming on top of that from the state government. So that is good news for Scarborough and good news for Redcliffe high.
Southern Cross Catholic College will receive an additional $538,000 next year alone. They have three or four campuses. They have a lot of students. They will receive an additional $538,000 next year alone, taking the federal government contribution to over $15 million for Southern Cross Catholic College. So this is a big win for them. That is why I will be voting for this bill, if only those opposite would also vote for it. If they do not and it does not get up, I will have a lot of stuff to campaign on. That is not a problem in relation to that.
St Paul's School, an independent school in the southern end of my electorate, next year alone will receive $314,400 extra. This is not a 10-year target I am talking about. This is just next year. The Lakes College at North Lakes, an independent school with just a small number of students—just 677 students from P to 12—will receive another $197,700. That is a great local school. I have had lot to do with them and been out there a lot. I have been to their fun run. They do a great fun run through North Lakes.
Woody Point Special School is a great little school at Woody Point. I lived just around the corner from them for five years. They have only 79 students. Obviously the children there are those with a disability. The staff there do a great job—the teachers as well as the admin staff. They will have a $33,700 increase next year from the federal government alone, which will take the federal contribution to $691,600 next year. Over the 10-year period, Woody Point Special School will receive over $2 million in additional funding on what they were forecast to receive. Somehow those opposite say that is a cut. I cannot get my head around it. But I will be voting for the education bill, and I am very pleased that it is in the budget. Schools have had a big win.
We also had a big win in the Moreton Bay region. With funding for increased preschool places combined with an investment in the Moreton region university, our young people will have access to education that basically allows them a cradle-to-career pathway close to home. Not only are we increasing funding for preschool and, from 1 July 2018, seeing big increases in child care, P to 12 in schools right around the nation and the 40 schools in my area; we have managed to secure $100 million plus low-interest loans for the University of the Sunshine Coast as well to build the first decent university in the seat of Dickson that will benefit Dickson, Petrie and Longman and all the students who live in the Moreton Bay region. At the moment, for many students it is 'out of sight, out of mind'. They will be able to live close to home and be able to see that university, which will offer all sorts of different subjects, and that is great news. We have been able to secure that, so that is really good news.
In the budget, in relation to university, I say this to the people of my electorate: at the moment the federal government pays 60 per cent of all costs upfront in relation to university. Every student that goes to university pays 40 per cent. They can pay that 40 per cent upfront or they can HECS it, as we know. That means that, whether they are disadvantaged or come from a poor family—and plenty do in my electorate—there is no reason why a student cannot go to university. The taxpayer pays 60 per cent up front and 40 per cent is from the student. They will not have to repay it, under our reforms, until they earn over $42,000 a year. At the moment it is $54,000 a year. We are reducing it to $42,000 to try and get a small contribution back and to start to repay that government loan. It is $6 a week or something, so it is very small.
We hear often from those opposite that higher education funding is going up and somehow it is terrible, and people will not be able to go to uni. But let me say this: if the federal government is paying 60 per cent, or whether it is 55 per cent contribution, in total why would we want to increase the cost of university—when we are using taxpayers' dollars for over half of the contribution for every course?
There is also great news in this budget for young people and for seniors in particular. For seniors there is $5.5 billion over the next two years for the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which is helping Australians to continue living in their own homes longer. We are guaranteeing Medicare. Let us remember the 2016 election. I know the member for Leichhardt and the Speaker will remember this: remember Labor said we were going to privatise Medicare? That was 341 days ago that they said that we were going to privatise Medicare.
That was a lie.
It was. I thank the member for Leichhardt for that interjection. It was a lie. We are guaranteeing Medicare. There is a Medicare guarantee fund that starts from 1 July this year, which those opposite did not support, where we get funding for Medicare, outside the NDIS funding, and say, 'Let's put that aside and let's guarantee Medicare.' The PBS is going through the roof. We have record numbers of drugs on the PBS. We are funding public hospitals, we are funding medical research and we are investing in mental heath. All of this benefits seniors in my electorate of Petrie, which is great news.
We are also making it easier for seniors who might want to downsize their home. If they are over 65 they might have a home that is worth $799,000. The kids have moved out of home and they want to go to something smaller, like a unit. They will be able to do that. They might have a super fund. Let us say they buy a unit for $400,000. From 1 July next year they will be able to get that $399,000. They sell their house for $799,000. I guess, after commission and all that they might end up with an additional $350,000 on top of the unit. They will be able to get that $350,000 and put it into their super fund as a non-concessional payment above what you can normally put into super, so that is a good thing.
We are also helping young people in relation to getting into their first home. Homes in my electorate are relatively cheap, I guess, compared to Sydney and Melbourne. A young person who wants to save $30,000 over two years for a contribution for a deposit on their home effectively would need to earn $45,000 gross at the moment. If you are getting taxed at 32 per cent and you earn $45,000 gross, after tax that will leave you $30,000. What the government is doing is saying, 'You only have to pay about 15 per cent,' because we are going to enable them to put it into their super fund for two years and then pull it out—once only—if they have not already bought their first home. This effectively means that they would only have to save about $35,000 gross and then they will be able to pull out around $29,700, or something, when they are ready to buy their home. That is a good step for young people, which, I think, is really good. We have not heard a lot about it so far. I think we are going to have to get cracking on promoting that to young people in my electorate a bit more.
We are also assisting veterans. We thank both veterans and current members of the Australian Defence Force, men—particularly my age and younger—and women, who do extremely well in relation to mental health and have a much lower suicide rate than the Australian population, but whose risk doubles when they come out of the ADF and go back into normal jobs in society. I want to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, and the Treasurer. We are ensuring that veterans are looked after. We are improving access to mental health support, reducing claim and wait times and putting veterans first. I say—and I know that members opposite such as the member for Dobell would say the same thing—we appreciate the Australian Defence Force and our veterans for the work that they have done.
We are also are having a fair go for families. Preschool nationally will see a $3.2 billion boost, as I was saying before, with funding to the electorate's 40 primary and secondary schools up by $369 million, ensuring the next generation gets the best possible start. We are protecting Australia. The member for Leichhardt has a lot of the ADF current members up there. We are putting Australia and Australians first, guarding jobs and adopting a sensible approach to immigration consistent with the values that make Australia great. We are reforming citizenship to protect Australian values. Citizenship in Australia is not a right for everyone around the world; it is a great opportunity, and we want people to be able to come here but want them to be able to adopt the Australian values and the Australian way of life. I think extending the waiting period for permanent residents from 12 months to four years is quite okay, and we want them to be able to read some English and speak some English. We just want to ensure that they adopt Australian values really well.
We are also increasing funding to the AFP and our security agencies, which is really important, given the recent attack in Manchester. We do not live in fear in this country. We go about our lives and we continue to live in the best country in the world. I believe the Australian government has the core responsibility to ensure that we are safe at home and are protected. We are all over that. We are doing a great job, and I want to thank the Minister for Justice as well as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. We are driving jobs and growth. We know that government does not create jobs, so we are supporting those businesses that do, and that is important not because we want to give businesses a tax but because we know that they will reinvest it in jobs, and there will be more jobs and more security for local people in my electorate.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13 : 28