Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed expenditure now before the Federation Chamber is for the Treasury portfolio—$4,484,702,000. The question now is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to present and speak to the Treasury portfolio expenditures and appropriations, an important part of the government's economic action strategy.

You have heard it said before, but it is important to make the point again, that we need to implement the economic action strategy to help build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. The budget actually seeks to address some of the what are now uncontested challenges that are part of the financial trajectory that the previous government left for the incoming Abbott government. We have heard the Parliamentary Budget Office make the point about how important the need is for action and timely action. We have even heard the opposition leader acknowledge that there is a task to be dealt with. We have heard other expert commentators describing the need for us to take responsible, modest but thoughtful action now so as to guard against the debt and deficit trajectory that had been left for us by the previous government.

It is important to recognise where we are starting from. There is that joke where they talk about—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

No, no! I would reject any suggestion that Treasury is a joke! They take their the work very seriously, and I am appalled to hear from the shadow Treasurer that he is having a go at the Treasury when they do great work—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is that the minister misled the House. I said the Treasurer, not the Treasury, and he well knows it.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he could just pay the reasonable courtesy of not interjecting otherwise someone might not hear his shrill interjections clearly! I accept the clarification that the shadow Treasurer has provided—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

and I apologise if I have in any way mis-characterised his poor-mannered interjection, but that is a discussion for another day!

It is important to remember what the debt and deficit trajectory is that Labor has left for this country and for the incoming government, and how we have had to deal with those budget settings—those expenditure predictions and the debt forecasts—that see us on track, if no action is taken, to accumulate a gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion.

For those who are listening, let us round that up to $700 billion. That is seven with 11 zeroes! It is an extraordinary amount of debt and the nation has little to show for it. It recognises the profligacy and the desire to spend and spend and spend some more, not having to realise that there is a need to finance that expenditure. And where it is expenditure that is not funded by revenues from today, as reflected in the historically large series of deficits that the previous government oversaw, that then incurs expense for the nation, our country and for the generations to come into the future.

I recognise that Labor may not always have appreciated the harm that it was causing. I do not think it is in anybody's wish or will to disadvantage subsequent generations by being irresponsible in decision making today. I am not suggesting that Labor was consciously aiming to create the problem that it has left for this country. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But the lesson is clear: we have seen this before. We have seen Labor go down this pathway and leave it for an incoming coalition government to fix the mess: to make sure that we all make a contribution today to build our prospects and our opportunities for the future—to deliver the great promise of our country, and that is opportunity, prospects for a better life and a better quality of life for subsequent generations.

It is now recognised that if action is not taken we are diminishing that prospect and those promises for subsequent generations. So I am pleased to be here to communicate once again not only the case for action but the thoughtfulness in the particular measures that are being presented to this parliament and to the Australian public. As I travel around the country, I am constantly reminded of the call from the citizenry for political leaders that take a longer term view, that speak frankly about the circumstances and canvass the options before our nation, that the parliament does think about building our capacity for the future and is making important decisions today that might not be easy but are crucial to our longer term prospects. That is what the nation and its citizens ask of me, and I am sure that they do of you too, sir. This budget does all of those things. It is not without its challenges to communicate the importance of some of these measures, but it is crucial that we get an understanding across to the Australian public that if we want those better prospects for the future this budget, now Economic Action Strategy, is to be implemented.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a series of questions for the minister. I take the minister to Budget Paper No. 2, page 203, and the changes to pension indexation. Could the minister confirm a saving of $449 million over five years by cutting the indexation rate of the pension and other equivalent payments, for example, the single parent payments? Could the minister provide any further information as to the breakdown of those savings? How much is from the age pension and how much is from carers in particular, and is any other information the minister may choose to share with the chamber?

Can the minister indicate to the chamber separately what modelling the government has undertaken on the impact of these changes on individual pensioners? Can the minister confirm a figure that the government estimates the average pensioner will be worse off by if these changes had not been implemented? Particularly, can the minister confirm that if these changes had been implemented, for example, for the past four years, an average age pensioner might be $1,500 a year worse off? Has the government undertaken that analysis and does the minister have the view that that analysis might inform the impact on the average pensioner of these changes going forward?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget paper outlines the broad impact of the adjustment to the indexation measure to see it adjusted to the kind of indexation Labor introduced for the family payments arrangement. In no respect, in no way and with no reasonable characterisation is it a cut to anything. What it reflects is an ongoing commitment for a twice-yearly adjustment to our pension rates to give confidence and certainty for those who are reliant upon that income support that it will increase with the cost of living to maintain its buying power into the future. What is crucial about this budget is that it seeks to recognise the importance of the safety net, of the social security system and of the range of programs aimed to properly support the vulnerable, those who have already made their contribution to the economy and those that have particular needs that we as a generous society should be providing for. So in the budget it characterises what the adjustment in the rate of increase will mean in an aggregate sense.

To carry out the analysis that the shadow Treasurer is speaking about, one would need to include all of the ins and outs. I think that the shadow minister would agree that in terms of the average savings to households for the abolition of the carbon tax—something Labor says that it is in favour of terminating but when it comes to this parliament it chooses not to carry through those statements in public—we know that it is on average a $550 benefit to households. We also know that if Labor continues to obstruct the abolition of the carbon tax, the rate of the carbon tax will actually increase at from 1 July.

So what we have done with this measure is not cut pensions. We have adjusted the rate at which the pension will continue to increase twice annually. We have also left in place the so-called compensation that was available when the carbon tax was implemented. That compensation, important in its terms of an increase to these fortnightly payments, remains. Our ambition is not only to take the carbon tax out and therefore reduce those cost-of-living pressures in households of all types, but also to leave the so-called compensation in place.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister Nash, you cannot just wander around the chamber like that. You should come through the right doors and go to your right seating area. This is not your chamber.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that is our strategy: take those cost-of-living pressures off households, maintain the buying power of the pensions through an ongoing twice-yearly indexation, change the rate at which it increases and therefore ensure that the very benefits that are important to the vulnerable and to those that have already made their contribution to our nation are in fact not vulnerable themselves because of our inability to finance them into the future.

In summary, I think those relying on the payments that are addressed on page 203 of Budget Paper No. 2 can be confident that their interests have been reflected. The net impact of the adjustment in the rate of increase of those pensions is captured in that table. To delve into a household by household analysis beyond what has already been published would involve a lot of analysis of other measures in the budget that are designed to improve the situation of households, take pressure off the costs of living and help build that strong, safe and secure economy and nation that we are working to achieve.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eden-Monaro is a rural electorate and it depends heavily on small business as an employer in the region. In fact, in regional Australia, after you go past schools and government agencies providing services in rural towns, it is the private sector in terms of the small business community that is the principal employer. We have recently come into government. We have unemployment problems across the Eden-Monaro region. For example, in the Eurobodalla Shire we have an unemployment rate that is above seven per cent, which is way above the national average. Indeed, part of that problem is people employed by small businesses have lost their jobs. We are seeing that across regional towns in the Eurobodalla, Bega Valley, Bombala, Cooma-Monaro and Palerang shires in particular.

Minister, I understand that across the nation some 519,000 jobs were lost in small business over the last six years, which is a very distressing fact. The government is putting in place an economic action strategy that I understand will help secure some one million jobs in the next five years and potentially two million jobs in the next 10 years. Part of that will be the abolition of the carbon tax. I was in Cooma last week and visited a florist. When people talk about the carbon tax they do not often think about florists, but they were very significantly hit by the carbon tax because refrigeration is a very important part of the work of a florist. They were urging me to ensure that the carbon tax was abolished in this term of parliament.

I want to understand your comments with respect to the carbon tax abolition and the importance that has for small business right across the Australian nation. The other thing I want you to potentially make some remarks on is the significant review of competition policy that has been announced by the government and is being funded in the current budget. Can you give us an explanation of the progress of that competition review? Indeed, I also note in the Treasury portfolio that funding will be there also for changes to the franchising code of conduct, which is another very important thing for a number of small businesses in my electorate. Minister, I pitch you those questions and I look forward to the answers.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his ongoing interest and commitment to small businesses and family enterprises that are the engine room of our economy. I joined the member at a small business forum in Batemans Bay. It was fabulously well attended. The message was clear: 'We understand the need for the economic action strategy, so get on with it.' 'Get on with it' was the clear message that was coming through, as people were looking for a predictable, stable and dependable economic setting and conduct by the Commonwealth government. They want stability, predictability and certainty in the environment in which they are making decisions to mortgage their house, to take risk, to employ and to grow and develop their business. This is what, I am pleased to say, our economic action strategy in the budget seeks to deliver. We are keen not to have that strategy impeded. That is why getting the carbon tax through is so crucial to ensuring that that improved economic environment is available for our creators of wealth and opportunity, the small business people.

The member talked about the 519,000 jobs in small business—an awfully large number—that were lost under the previous Labor government. They seem not to want to talk about or recognise that. Maybe it is because they might not be union jobs or they are not all in one location. This represents a real hit to the wealth creators, those courageous men and women who mortgage their house and sometimes place their sanity and personal wellbeing at risk as they toil in a difficult economic climate to create a livelihood for themselves, for others and for their community.

We are seeking to arrest that decline in small business employment. It accounted for 53 per cent of the private-sector workforce when the Howard government left office. But after Labor was recently tossed out, and a change was called for Australian small business men and women, it is down to 42 per cent of the private-sector workforce. Those are the circumstances that we have inherited. The clear message from my travels around the country and in my own community is, 'Please, no more of the same.' The last thing they want from an incoming government is more of what they had under Labor.

In the budget there are a range of measures. The member for Eden-Monaro, who is very alert and attuned to these issues, went to the issue of the carbon tax. The carbon tax hurts and punishes small business in a very particular and pernicious way. With all the carve-outs and hush money—the compensation that was made available by the previous government to abate the harm and the hurt of the carbon tax—small business got no direct compensation. In this chamber, they were told to 'suck it up or pass it on'—I think that was the term used. There was not a moment of appreciation from the previous Labor government of just how difficult the economic climate was, of how hard it is to simply pass on costs in a marketplace where we need to be world class, where there are cost-conscious consumers, where we need to build confidence, build spending power, remove cost-of-living pressures and reduce the costs of doing business.

The member for Eden-Monaro also touched on florists, which is a very good example. The carbon tax plays its evil impact through the florists. Those opposite think florists do not need to worry about the carbon tax. But florists have got refrigeration costs. Who can forget R404 gas, which, because of its CO2 equivalence, went up in price by some 400 per cent? Small businesses have shown me fridges that they used to operate that needed to be repaired. Because of the cost impact of the carbon tax, they choose not to repair those fridges. And then there are energy costs—the costs of keeping the lights on. You see this right across the economy—and it compounds. Labor said they did not want a carbon tax. They promised they would not implement it—but they did. And now they want to terminate it—but they will not. This tax just builds and builds all the way through the supply chain. In regional communities such as Eden-Monaro, if Labor had their way, the carbon tax would be extended to heavy road transport.

As a legacy of Labor, the carbon tax is currently legislated to go up again on 1 July. My advice would be to speak with your local small businesses, as I do, and remind them that we are doing our utmost to get rid of the carbon tax, to energise enterprise in this economy and to get rid of those headwinds and burdens that are slowing the growth and potential of small business. Our work is to turn around the harm of six years of Labor. We are keeping at that. We can say to our constituents: 'We know what our plan is and we want to get on with it. Labor are not only the cause of the harm but are now standing in the road of the remedies as well.'

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the minister to his previous non-answer, in which he failed to answer any of the questions I asked. I put it to him again: does the government have modelling on the impact of the change of the indexation on pensioners? The minister referred to the 'evil' carbon tax and other matters, but that is not what the question refers to. My question simply refers to the change in the indexation of the age pension and other pension payments. Budget Paper No. 2, at page 203, indicates savings of $449 million over the next five years by changing the way of indexing the pension. Let me put this to the minister very clearly and in a very straightforward fashion: can the minister confirm that this is $449 million that pensioners will not be receiving, that will be cut from their income?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can happily again run through the numbers that are there on the page—the numbers identifying what the change in the rate of increase in pensions means in budget terms. We have been through that.

The former Treasurer is so proud of his work his ALP website does not even mention he was the former Treasurer. It is quite bizarre. It talks about 'non-this' and 'non-that'. He seems to have been a non-Treasurer, according to his own published material. Putting the Labor Party website—and the non-ness we are seeing from Labor—to one side, the adjustment in the rate of increase, the twice annual rate of increase, to those pension payments are clearly there on page 203 of Budget Paper No. 2. The numbers are there.

The shadow Treasurer then went on to talk about what the household impact was and I quite reasonably pointed to there being other influences on the net household impact that Labor wants to ignore. The Labor way is to look at important issues and the strategy for our nation through a straw. All they want to look at is the little microspot at the end of the straw. They do not want to take into account the other changes, the other measures, the action we are taking to remove cost-of-living pressures by repealing Labor's pernicious carbon tax—which is going up again on 1 July.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They joke about it over here. They have not taken a moment to analyse the impact of the carbon tax on households across Australia—not to mention the impact on the small business community, whom they have loaded up with this burden. It is lead in the saddlebag and an impediment to the prospects of small businesses, preventing them from growing employment and economic opportunities in this country. They are not the slightest bit interested in that. They come in here wanting to talk about a part of the budget that addresses a section of our community that has been frightened by the Labor Party's shrill exaggerations and negativity, by what I think has been a very one-sided critique from Labor. They have not sought to look at the other budget measures aimed at improving and enhancing the security and situation of those the Labor Party is talking about.

If the shadow Treasurer wants to talk about impacts, we should talk about all of the impacts. That is what my answer was about—that is about being honest and frank with people. That is the contrast between this budget and the fiction and fudged numbers we saw with Labor's budgets. They promised these rivers of revenue, not realising that the nominal growth rate was not inextricably linked to a growth in company tax.

I remember, as we travelled around Western Australia, hearing from small businesses about how difficult the economy was under Labor, about how many them were trading in a profitless environment. All they had to do was show an interest in what was going on in the economy and Labor, when in government, would have known their budget was fiction. They would have known simply by listening to people who have a lot of skin in the game—people with mortgaged houses and people who spend every waking moment thinking about their enterprise.

This budget is truthful, it is dependable, the figures are robust, and the growth trajectories and some of the key assumptions have—unlike anything Labor has done—been consistent through two economic statements in a row. This is the difference between this budget and the ones that Labor introduced. The numbers are dependable and reliable. What the shadow Treasurer did not want to talk about was important measures to support those who are on income support, measures to optimise their future opportunities, measures aimed at helping them get back into work and improve their own circumstances. These include incentives such as the Restart program, fabulously important for unemployed people over the age of 50.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

He is heckling again. He thinks politics is a footy game and that it helps if you heckle loudly. But it does not strengthen your arguments. You can keep doing it, but it does not strengthen your arguments.

Coming back to those mature age job seekers who have been out of work for some time, there is a $10,000 incentive through the Restart program. It says to employers, particularly small business employers, 'If you are thinking about recruiting one more person, recognise the experience, the wisdom, the workplace know-how and the capacity of mature age people.' Here is an incentive for those mature age people to get back into the economy, to be able to make an economic contribution if they are in a position to do so. There are a range of very positive measures in this budget. I commend those measures. What I am hearing as I travel around Australia is that people are hungry for the facts. When you give them the facts that are in the budget, they recognise the need for action. They understand that we are all making a contribution and they are encouraging us to continue to think about the future and prepare for it.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the Minister for Small Business for his wonderful advocacy for the small business sector during his term in the portfolio, both in opposition and now in government. It is interesting to reflect that for six years of the previous government, and now our current term in government, we have had the same person in this portfolio. I think the previous government had six ministers. It has provided the small to medium business sector with consistent representation and a consistent voice. This is a very important segment of our economy. As touched on earlier, six years ago it employed some 53 per cent of the workforce and it is now down to 43 per cent. But more importantly, in my electorate of Forde it employs a very large proportion of our workforce. There are small to medium businesses in construction, manufacturing and retail, and we have some 7½ thousand of those small businesses.

The minister was recently at one of our chamber breakfasts, which was greatly appreciated. One telling thing at that breakfast was when those businesses were asked if they would employ another person if red tape, regulation, the carbon tax and other imposts from the previous government were taken away and they almost unanimously said yes. We took 23 terrific policies to the election that we are now rolling out. Minister, this is a great opportunity for you to inform the House about how the initiatives outlined in our election policies and commitments are going to strengthen small businesses, not only in my electorate of Forde but also in the nation more generally.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Forde for not only his insightful contribution but also his chairmanship of our small business policy committee. He has been a champion of small business right throughout his life. Here is a member of the coalition whose entire life, privately in a professional capacity and publicly, has been an agent of support, encouragement, counsel and assistance for the small business men and women of our country. I commend him for his lifetime of service to this important sector.

Now in public office that work continues. It was the contribution of the member for Forde, the member for Eden-Monaro and the three amigos from Tasmania that helped shape the comprehensive small business policy that we took to the last election. In comparison Labor promised more of the same, and we know that was the last thing that the small business community wanted. This budget actually energises and resources the implementation of a vast number of those election commitments. We have said to the Australian public and to those small business men and women who risk so much and who show great courage to create opportunities for themselves and for others and livelihoods in their communities, your interests are too big and too important to ignore. It was a cry that we heard from the chamber movement, an understandable reflection of the revolving door of previous ministers with the name 'small business' often tacked to a long list of other things. We do not take it that way. My primary focus every day is on small business.

I am pleased that the Prime Minister has understood the importance of the small business community. The small business portfolio is not only included in cabinet and not distracted by a shopping list of other responsibilities but now embraced in the economic policy powerhouse of the Commonwealth—that is, the Treasury. So many of the policy settings that are shaped in Treasury create that entrepreneurial ecosystem that we talked about earlier that helps people decide whether they employ, invest, recruit and expand. Many of those measures as shaped within Treasury. I am pleased to join with Joe Hockey as a cabinet minister in that portfolio.

We understand the importance of the abolition of the carbon tax. There are billions of dollars of impost on our small business men and women. For those who are competing for opportunities here against importers, or who are seeking to grow their markets in overseas countries as exporters, this acts as a reverse tariff. It is lead in the saddlebag. I mentioned in the House our Socceroos last night taking on an extraordinary Dutch team—and your divided loyalties must have been troubling last night—but imagine if our team, in their Nike soccer boots, had five or six kilograms of lead in each of their boots and to keep up with some of those svelte and handsome Dutchman, like yourself, Sir, in the World Cup competition. We know that would be unfair. So we know that that is unfair and sport as it is in life. It is in our economy as well. That is why we want to abolish the carbon tax.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly the crowd is enthusiastic! Are they chanting for more?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we will have order in here!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You touched on the red tape reduction initiative—a billion dollars of red tape reduction, not just for the life of the government but each year. What a real discipline and challenge that is. Why? Because Labor thought all small businesses wanted to do each day was wake up in the morning and wonder what the government wanted them to do for it next—what compliance or regulatory impost could they turn their minds to! It seemed to be what Labor thought small businesses had front of mind, when they really wanted to grow their businesses. That is a crucial area of our work.

We have particular measures to fix the ACCC. We heard from the chairperson what a 'diabolical'—they were his words—financial position they were in. The shadow Treasurer who once had responsibility for the ACCC seemed completely disinterested, happy to have them technically insolvent before Christmas last year and on track to run out of cash in March. How on earth does that build confidence for consumers and small business?

We are implementing our commitment for unfair contract terms protections, extending that to small business transactions, whom, like individual consumers—

An opposition member interjecting—

'How's it going?' Why? Because there is no interest. We have not heard a peep from Labor about that. Implementing the franchising reforms; making sure our procurement changes give small business a chance; implementing the drought support package, crucial for small businesses operating in farming communities. Our Paid Parental Leave scheme, what a great measure to give small businesses the same opportunity to recruit that government and the big corporates have. What a great measure. The Emissions Reduction Fund, a chance for small businesses to participate in that. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, a role with tools and teeth. There are so many opportunities. We are implementing our policies. I just wish Labor would get out of the road.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can only be glad that this show is appearing all this week and next. I wanted to ask a number of questions of the minister at the table. First, the budget provides hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to multinationals by delaying the reforms to the Offshore Banking Unit, $180 million; and deferring the start date of the legislative elements to improve tax compliance through third-party reporting and data-matching, $113 million. Minister, why has the government given $1.1 billion back to multinationals while ripping money away from pensioners and low-income Australians?

Secondly, does the minister agree with the Prime Minister's comments that the reintroduction of indexation of the fuel excise will 'act like a carbon tax'? Given the comments of the Prime Minister in the United States that the reintroduction of fuel excise indexation will act like a carbon tax, has Treasury conducted any modelling of the impact of fuel excise indexation on Australia's carbon emissions and, if not, why not?

Since the minister has not only told us that if we abolish the carbon price we will win the World Cup but also that it is evil! I wonder if he might tell us what adjective he would best use to describe the indexation of fuel excise, which, as the Prime Minister has said, acts like a carbon tax. Would it be 'immoral', 'wicked', 'unholy', 'sinful', 'ignoble', 'base', 'dishonourable', 'villainous', 'nefarious', 'sinister', 'vicious', 'malicious', 'demonic', 'devilish', 'diabolical', 'fiendish', or maybe simply 'black hearted'? And, Minister, why do the cuts to research and development tax incentive commence on 1 July 2014 when the reduction in the company tax rate, which it is purported to offset, does not commence until 1 July 2015?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fraser for his question. Wasn't it a surprise—he did not ask about co-payments! He's got form on that, hasn't he? Higher education co-payments—he has form on that as well. There are so many things he is not able to talk about. And that is probably why we got a professorial thesaurus articulation to fill out some of the time! There are so many areas of this budget where the member for Fraser simply cannot go. He has got form. If he was being principled in his articulations at that time, you would have thought he would be one of the strongest advocates for many of the measures that are in this budget. But he chose not to talk about those things for which he has form. He chose to talk about some other changes.

He talked about the fuel indexation changes. In fact, I have just introduced legislation into the House to reintroduce fuel indexation in precisely the form introduced by the Hawke Labor government. But what is different about our approach is that we have implemented that measure to ensure that we can fund the nation's biggest infrastructure program. Going back to my earlier point: in my community and as I travel around the country, I consistently hear the call for a longer term view. They would like to see more of the resources that come to the Commonwealth being put into building our capacity and opportunity for the future, not going into consumption. They are concerned that we are borrowing $1 billion a month to finance what is essentially consumption expenditure. That $1 billion a month would be set to go up to $2.8 billion a month if Labor's policy settings were put in place. Yet they were not seeing the investment in our productive capacity as a nation. So we have introduced this measure to go some way towards funding $26 billion of road infrastructure projects, to build that infrastructure and productive capability for the 21st century economy.

Why is it important? In Melbourne, we want to see the East West Link constructed. Labor have been all over the shop. I was going to say they have been talking out each side of the pie hole, but I thought that might have been taken as a slight against the Leader of the Opposition. They have been all over the place. I am not sure if they are for it or against it. But the communities that I represent know they are for it. That is because infrastructure like the East West Link has the capacity not only to support commuters but also to support commerce. It will support commerce in the direct construction phase and then in the ability of our economy to function through these infrastructure arteries—an important development—and the indexation that goes with it. What I am seeing and hearing is a call for that kind of infrastructure investment. But people also want to know that the funding of it can be sustained. That is why we have moved to reactivate the very indexation measure that Labor introduced. It will be interesting to see where they go with that.

The question then went to the carbon tax. I am not sure whether the member for Fraser is aware of it—he may have been writing a book or something at the time—but, under his team, the carbon tax is set to increase again from 1 July and, under Labor's policy articulation, it was to be extended to heavy road transport. If he followed this and did the analysis that he claims he does on some of his work in a professorial mode, he would know that the indexation of fuel excise has no net effect at all on off-road uses or on heavy transport for vehicles over 4½ tonnes. Why? Because they are offset; it does not amount to a tax that cascades, builds and grows through the economy. So his analysis that this is somehow the same as the carbon tax is patently wrong. In those productive areas of the economy—for off-road uses of the fuels that are covered by the fuel tax and excise regime and for on-road heavy vehicle uses—there is no impact. There is a net improvement because we have simplified the way in which those transactions of excise are calculated—they are rebated and there are road transport charges—so it was not down to the three decimal points that those opposite would love. The member for Fraser might love a third decimal point, but we think one decimal point is perfectly adequate. So those analogies are simply not relevant.

If the member for Fraser is concerned about cost impacts on our economy and on households, then the honourable, thoughtful and analytical thing to do is get behind the abolition of the carbon tax. That is what he promised his citizens: that he was going to terminate the tax. No, Labor is running a protection racket for its carbon tax; it is set to go up from 1 July and, if their policy musings are to be believed, they want to extend it to heavy road transport as well.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I declare an interest first of all. Up until very recently my wife was a small business owner. She has relinquished herself of that nevertheless quite profitable burden and is now seeking an alternative business. I would like to follow up on a question that I asked the minister in question time the other day. It was in respect of the nearly 8,000 small businesses in my electorate of Lyons. I was replaying the question there because it was an excellent answer from the minister. In the question I did compliment the government on the fact that we now have the Minister for Small Business in cabinet. That is a really important initiative. It was a commitment that we went to the election with.

We made a number of commitments in the lead-up to the election. I would like the minister to reflect on those and then answer some of my specific questions. In relation to paid parental leave, can the minister contextualise the productivity benefits that flow to small business being able to compete with the Public Service and big business on a level playing field and how that initiative is a piece of economic policy as opposed to a welfare measure?

My other specific question relates to one of the commitments we gave—and the minister has already commented on this, and I appreciate that—about a root and branch review of the competition policy in this country. That commitment was part of our 10-point plan to support small business that we took to the election in September. We said we would commit to a review of the competition framework to ensure the Australian law and policy settings promote a vibrant, competitive market in the economy and ensure small business is given a fair go. My question relates specifically to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which relates to the misuse of power. I note the comment you made before with respect to funding. Was it an issue of funding under the previous administration that removed the capacity of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act to be used in the way that I think those who designed the act always intended it to be?

Those are my two specific questions. If I have an opportunity later on, I will probably have more.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyons. There are 7,800 small businesses in his electorate. The member for Lyons was reflecting on a question he asked in the House. There are a couple things I would like to add to that. It has been some 200 days since anyone from Labor has asked me a question. Is small business of such little interest to Labor that they do not think it is worthy? I do not know how many questions we would have had over that sitting period, but it must be in the hundreds. It seems quite extraordinary. It is very instructive that, amongst those hundreds of questions since about mid-November, there has not been one question from Labor about anything to do with small business. That is quite extraordinary.

In contrast to that the member for Lyons asked a very good question. If I can draw from my earlier comments, some measures I have already touched upon—and I will not spend too much time on them again: the abolition of the carbon tax is crucial, the red tape reduction measure is very significant and having small business considerations front and centre in the big decisions and all the analytical work of Treasury is crucial as part of that proper recognition and respect that small business people need.

The member for Lyons is absolutely right: the Paid Parental Leave scheme is a very important measure at so many levels. It is about ensuring that those people eligible for the coalition's Paid Parental Leave scheme can have their wage replacement set as the level for those payments. Why? I get feedback all the time from my own community and as I travel that if a family wishes to both pursue their economic objectives, through jobs, careers and engagement in the economy, and have a family it can be very difficult indeed. For many households two incomes are actually needed to meet the mortgage costs and the ongoing expenses of that household. And at a time when a family may have a newborn—a micro-human to care for—those costs just do not dramatically and miraculously overnight default back to some minimum wage level. They do not do that; those cost structures are still there. They need to meet the mortgage costs; they are still there. Those living expenses continue.

Yet, we see far more generous paid parental leave schemes in government, in the public sector, than any small business employer could ever dream of offering. We see this in a major corporates as well, so it seemed to be right and appropriate for some contributors to the economy to have access to that kind of benefit. But Labor wants to obstruct a very positive measure to see that same kind of support available to the people operating in our small businesses and family enterprises. Where is the justice in that? Where is the honour? Where is the principal? Where is the consistency, that some working in big corporates and the public sector can get a benefit that Labor wants to deny to those people who are operating in the small business economy?

It is simply unjust to take that inequitable position, and that is why we have moved to implement a scheme that is perfect for small business: available to their workplaces and to those who are juggling the tasks of economic goals for themselves and their families, and also raising that family. For the first time, small businesses will be able to operate on a level playing field with the public sector and large businesses when it comes to offering those employment benefits to be able attract and recruit the very best people for their businesses.

It is about equity. It is about participation; encouraging people to see that there is a pathway to juggling those crucial dual objectives of economic wellbeing and prospects for a family. It is also being funded in a way that is fair and just. We took to the last election a 1½ per cent reduction in the company tax rate. Now, I know that only one-third of small businesses are actually structured as companies so for that 800,000 that is some promise of an encouragement and an incentive to grow and to be profitable in the future.

But this is not funded by the small companies. This is funded by the most profitable companies, which will not have that 1½ per cent company tax cut reduction within the window we have announced a policy. This is really important; it is a measure that is funded in a sustainable way and it is a measure that is available to small business.

I would love to talk about the root-and-branch review, but there is so much to talk about! The root-and-branch review is something that Labor would not go near. They are happy to snarl and snigger and carry on about the problems but do nothing about it. Why? Because they only talk to big business and a big unions, and this is about giving efficient businesses, big and small, a fair go, and I hope that I get the chance to speak further— Time expired)

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, in answer to a question that the minister asked: we have asked lots and lots of questions on small business, and related to small business. We have just asked people who might be able to give us an answer! That is the only difference.

But there is no doubt that the budget is having an immediate impact on the Australian economy and hence small business in Australia. The latest Westpac index of consumer confidence, in fact, shows the results of surveys taken after the Abbott government's budget; it fell sharply by 6.8 per cent in May. Perhaps the minister would like to explain why that is the case, since they are supposed to be the doyens of all knowledge and assistance for small business. Perhaps he could also explain why almost 60 per cent of the respondents in the Westpac survey said that the budget would make it tougher on family finances in the next 12 months and hence make it tough on small business as well?

The ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey showed that following the Abbott government's budget, consumer confidence had fallen 14 per cent since April. That is the fastest rate since the financial crisis. Now, that is pretty telling. And weekend reports from property analysts show sharp falls are being felt in the economy, with house prices in Australia's capital cities falling for the first time in 12 months. The RP Data index suggests that there is a strong correlation between consumer confidence levels and housing market activity, again, as a result of the very bad and chaotic budget of the Abbott government. So consumer confidence is falling—that is confirmed. And it is not Labor saying that, that is independent analysis.

Meanwhile, the Minister for Small Business makes massive cuts in the budget—directly cuts funding for small business. He cuts funding for skills and training programs which, as the minister would know himself, are one of the big issues for small business. That comes up in every survey and every time you talk to small business. They want funding for skills and training programs. The minister cuts what small business needs the most. He also has cut billions from tax benefits directly for small business and then tries to blame somebody else. If his cuts then have an effect on jobs, he tries to find somebody else to blame. It could not possibly be all the cuts that this minister and the Abbott government have made. When is the government actually going to take some responsibility rather than just look pious?

There are approximately 2.1 million small businesses in Australia employing roughly five million Australians. There are figures we all know, but these are figures that very few understand—perhaps even this minister: knows the data but just does not understand what it means. On Labor's watch, we were quite happy to acknowledge the data and the circumstances. I felt proud that we created the conditions for small business to grow—because in fact, that is exactly what happened—based on estimates of employment by business size and the changes in the number of people employed between 2007 and 2013. I think the minister is slightly aware of this. Maybe he should try to explain this, because I am using the same dataset he likes to use.

Perhaps he could try to explain why large business, they are business too, grew from around 2.6 million to 3.4 million under Labor's watch. Just an explanation: how is that possible? That is 757,000 additional people, 757,000 additional jobs, which is an annual percentage increase of 4.3 per cent. Once he tries to explain that, he might perhaps try to explain further how medium and small businesses grew from around 1.9 million up to 2.7 million. That is an increase of additional people, real people, new jobs, real jobs—822,000.

Then he could probably try to explain this—and this is the figure he likes the most; the one he likes to quote. But he does not quite tell people this: non-employing business saw an annual change over that period, a transfer, albeit small. It is only 1.8 per cent over a six-year period. That is quite small. But it is the figure that the minister likes to quote, the 519,000 jobs. But, funnily enough, it is only in the non-employing small business. Where did those so-called jobs—because if they are not employing anyone you are assuming it is just the person who is the business, non-employing as the data shows—go? They went to medium and small business. Isn't that what it should always be about? Isn't that what we all want? Don't we want non-employing business to employ someone? Don't we want them to get out of that category and move up to the next category and grow? Because that is what Labor did: grow jobs and business.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Oxley for his question. I am happy to help him with his understanding of the figures. I know there is probably not really any authoritative voice amongst his colleagues who could explain these figures to him. But I am happy to do that, because I am always happy to provide good service wherever I am able to.

He talked about the changing employment numbers and sought to extract certain elements of that ABS table that did not suit his argument. It is quite simple. If you carve out bits that are unhelpful, you will probably get a different answer to the ones that reasonably depict the livelihoods that are available within small businesses employing 19 and under people. That is what the ABS data says. That ABS data, including all those that fall within the small business category, will be microbusiness, home based businesses. These are all important businesses, and it includes self-employment and non-employing businesses. There is nothing wrong with that. We think there is nothing wrong with people who choose their own pathway to achieve a livelihood. We know Labor has a different view. That is why you have seen this coordinated attack on independent contractors and self-employed people.

Again, this is borne out by the question today. He does not even want to talk about non-employing businesses. A non-employing business is still a livelihood, and a livelihood matters. A livelihood in a small business matters, even if it is not employing somebody and is a sole operator. We do not need to be reminded by Labor how indifferent they are to those courageous men and women who mortgage their houses, who take risks to create opportunities for themselves. You just brush them away as if they do not count. A non-employing small business matters.

There were a stack more of them before you guys got into office. There are so many fewer of them now. We are still seeing a recovery—which is needed—now that you have gone, because there is now confidence that the government are on the side of small-business men and women, that we an ally, that we are an advocate. We are not an adversary like you guys were. Five hundred and nineteen thousand jobs were lost in small business. That is 519,000 livelihoods. If you want to carve them off and say that because they are not employing somebody they do not count, shame on you. Shame on you! Do not come into this place masquerading as if you care when you have such a disdain for people who are running their own business but happen not to be employing anybody.

We want to see them grow. We want to see them prosper. We want to see them thrive. And that is why we have the comprehensive policy package to deliver that outcome. That is what we have. That is what we are working for. That is what is different about the coalition, the Liberal-National parties. Labor say: 'If you're self-employed or you're a small business and you don't employ anybody, you don't matter. We'll just take you off the data. We'll just not even think about you, and we'll concoct another piece of fiction like the budgets to try and argue a narrow, hollow, self-serving case'—which ignores the very interests of people who deserved a whole lot more respect from Labor when the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government were in office. If they have learnt nothing, we just saw evidence of it today. They have still learnt nothing. Show a bit of respect for those people who mortgage their houses.

The member did not care to talk about the extra 200,000 people who were added to the unemployment lists under Labor. He chose not to talk about those. He chose not to go to the insolvency numbers that are there. He chose not to go to business formation numbers. He chose to cherry-pick some of the consumer surveys that are out there and the confidence surveys—where the message coming back to me time and time again is that people are less troubled by the facts of the budget when the facts are shared with them. What some of those sentiment indexes are reflecting is the shrill, over-the-top, scaremongering of Labor, who, through their actions and their dishonesty, are ripping out of people's livelihoods and their plans for the future the confidence and optimism that we are focused, every day, on building for them so that we have a strong and prosperous economy, so that people can be safe and secure about their future prospects, so that those small businesses not employing—so disdained by Labor—might choose to become an employing small business.

That is why we have made changes in the area of Fair Work, to provide some guidance and support tools for that non-employing small business to encourage them and assist them to make that decision about a new recruitment. There is a direct helpline in to Fair Work. It is not like Labor's, where you used to disclose the facts of your case and they reserved the right to prosecute you.

These are some of the practical measures that are part of our comprehensive plan to restore the jobs lost in the small-business economy under Labor, to rebuild confidence and optimism about the prospects into the future. I say to every small business, every family enterprise, even those that are non-employing and disdained by Labor: you all matter. You are valued and respected by the coalition. You are the engine room of the economy. We know that Labor took a cylinder or two out of the engine. We want to get that performance back because it is crucial to our future prospects.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address some issues to the Minister for Small Business and thank him for recently visiting the electorate of Swan on two occasions to talk to small businesses and a business incubation group down in Kensington. I know that the member for Oxley was also in Swan not long ago representing that Labor were actually interested in businesses. As someone who has been in small business since 1981 and has been through the period of both Labor and Liberal governments, I know that Labor are no friend of small business—never have been, never will be. They just do not get it. They stand up there all time saying, 'We're the friends of small business.' What an absolute joke.

In the 30 years I have been in business, it has been very plain to anyone in small business. No-one I know in the small business association stands up and says: 'Give us a Labor government. We want a Labor government for small business.' Who says that? The Labor Party says it. The unions say it. But it is certainly not said by businesses. Businesses do not say, 'We want a Labor government,' I can tell you. We only need to look at the royal commission. That gives you a perfect example of how unions and the Labor Party treat small businesses. That is all the stuff that is coming out now. They had Western Australia. I know there were times in Western Australia in the construction industry, where my background is, where many small businesses paid thousands and thousands of dollars to unions and to ALP fronts—even training fronts. That is coming out now, isn't it?

I heard the member for Oxley mention training programs. There is one in Welshpool that for years has been taking money from small businesses. If you go there, there are no training programs, but they are still getting the money. They are still being paid by the small business people, who are blackmailed or put into situations where they are supposed to be paying for non-existent training programs. I know that small business has enormous compliance costs as well, so I will ask the minister—since we are running out of time—what real changes are being made by the coalition to assist small business?

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The measures being implemented by the Abbott government are so comprehensive that I will not have time to run through them all. But I am happy to go through many of the elements that are important to the member for Swan. He talked about skills training. Of course, there is the Industry Skills Fund, which is designed to provide particular support to meet the training needs of small businesses. We have the Entrepreneurs Infrastructure Fund, which is another important measure tailored and targeted for smaller enterprises, to help them bring their ideas to market and to collaborate with researchers. There are so many good measures.

We are continuing our advisory service program. There are no cuts to that funding, in an important effort to better target those so that we get the help we need. There is also the issue of engagement with technology. We know how it can be for small businesses to be a part of the technology world to access new markets and opportunities. There is also support for exporters—a better targeting of the Export Market Development Grants facility. We are making sure that EFIC, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, has its systems geared to the needs of small business.

There are so many things building possibilities, capacity and opportunities through the small business community. That is why we need to pass this budget. We need to fix the budget to strengthen the economy and to build a strong and prosperous economy that provides livelihoods and opportunities for a safe and secure future that supports small business and that re-energises enterprise. That is why I am thrilled to commend these budget measures to you.

The other measures that are available include improving small business access to contracts. One thing that Labor did was spend money like there was no tomorrow, but they did not actually give small business a fighting chance to win that work. Other important measures include the unfair contracts provisions and implementing franchising reforms—something that Labor would not touch. It was like kryptonite. They would not go near it until—what?—five minutes from the election, when all of a sudden they got interested. We are actually doing the work that is needed. I commend these budget measures and urge this parliament to get behind the implementation of our economic action strategy.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. The question is that the proposed expenditure for the Treasury portfolio be agreed to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $2,049,341,000

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to join my colleague, the member for Aston—the unnaturally handsome, member for Aston—and to follow the unnaturally talented member for Dunkley in what was a very persuasive and powerful defence of the changes that he has undertaken in his Small Business and Treasury portfolio.

We are here today not to defend a very good budget but to inform you about why the budget that has just been announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is in the best interests of the Australian people. This budget does two things. This budget, first and foremost, pays back Labor's debt—$667 billion of Labor's debt. That was the legacy of those opposite to the Australian people. Through measures in this budget, over the next 10 years we will reduce expenditure by nearly $300 billion.

The member for Rankin should know this, because he was part of a government that led to a record increase in government spending. We want to be part of a government that is much more responsible when it comes to budgetary measures. So we will save the Australian taxpayer up to $16 billion a year in the interest bill alone as a result of these measures—up to $16 billion a year. That is as much as a WestConnex project. That is as much as an East West Link. It is as much as an NDIS. It is as much as Gonski. That is just the interest bill we will save as a result of measures in this budget.

The second thing we will do as a result of this budget measures is lay a foundation for more jobs, higher growth and increased productivity. When it comes to those measures, first and foremost, there has been a record government expenditure on infrastructure: some $50 billion in new funding for infrastructure, which will in turn lead to up to $125 billion in state, private sector and federal government expenditure. This includes putting money on the table to incentivise the states to recycle their infrastructure. This is a record amount of government spending.

The third thing we will do is invest record amounts in education and innovation. The Medical Research Future Fund will be—and is already becoming, in terms of its ambitious proposal—the envy of the world: some $20 billion in funding for medical research, an area of natural expertise in Australia. We want to deregulate our university sector, a critical area, so that we can enable our universities to become the best in the world. We can do that by deregulation. We are giving apprentices, for the first time, significant government support just as if they were going to university. That is what we are doing in this budget in terms of education and innovation.

The fourth thing we are doing to boost growth, jobs and productivity is enhancing workforce participation. We are enhancing workforce participation by saying to people who are over the age of 50 and who have been on welfare for more than six months: we will give your employer up to $10,000 as an incentive to take you on board so that you no longer have to be on welfare. When it comes to women in the workforce, we want to encourage them to stay in the workforce after they have had children; a paid parental leave scheme is an important component of that. Australia is below other countries in the world when it comes to the number of women participating in our workforce. They are coming out of our universities in higher numbers than men but they are not represented in our workforce in the same numbers. Then, of course, there is our earn and learn strategy which is so important—because under the government of those opposite, under the Labor government, youth unemployment went to record levels. We are trying to break that nexus between welfare dependency and unemployment. What we are saying is: if you are a young person you must go out and find a job. We will help you do that. We will also give you training.

This is a vitally important budget. In my areas of deregulation and the G20; cutting red tape and consolidating the number of bodies, we are making great headway. I commend the measures in this budget to the House.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While most of the country were up late last night watching the State of Origin and then the soccer, and while some people were at a charity ball here in this building, the parliamentary secretary was in front of the mirror practising his audition. He was up all night practising his audition for Senator Sinodinos' shadow ministry job. I wish you well with that, Parliamentary Secretary. Hopefully, for him, that competition is not judged on facts because there was a whole bunch of stuff the parliamentary secretary just said which was patently false. I will not go through all of it—it would take me hours to go through all of the factual errors in what he just said; but let me pick up a couple.

If the government was fair dinkum about participation, for example, they would not be attacking the childcare system. If they were fair dinkum about this so-called budget emergency they would not have doubled the deficit when they came into government. If they were serious about budget repair they would not be spending $21 billion on a scheme that gives the wealthiest mothers in the country the most money that they least need. There were all kinds of things in there, but I want to focus on the Federation as part of this portfolio.

I have a couple of questions that I would like the parliamentary secretary to deal with. Firstly: they make a big deal in their budget documents about a functioning Federation and reform; they have a white paper coming and all the rest of it. It is very curious that they would abolish the COAG Reform Council. It is very curious that, when premiers right around the country are calling for a meeting to discuss the cuts to payments to states, there has been no meeting scheduled. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what is the plan for engaging with the premiers and state treasurers who are so critical of the budget. That is the first set of things I would like him to elaborate on. And then there are the cuts to the COAG Reform Council.

I also very specifically would like him to refer to page 7 of their own budget overview document—and I am happy to provide a copy if the parliamentary secretary would like it. I would like him to confirm that my eyes are not deceiving me and that it says:

In this Budget the Government is adopting sensible indexation arrangements for schools from 2018, and hospitals from 2017-18, and removing funding guarantees for public hospitals. These measures will achieve cumulative savings of over $80 billion by 2024-25.

Every day in question time the Prime Minister denies this bit I have helpfully highlighted it in green for the benefit of the House. It says that there is $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals. I would like the parliamentary secretary very specifically to confirm that that is indeed the government's budget document and that that number is indeed true.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to respond to the member for Rankin. Firstly, it is not only us who are telling the Australian people that we have to reduce spending; it is groups like the IMF, who said of 17 leading economies in the world Australia has the fastest rate of spending, the independent Parliamentary Budget Office and the independent Commission of Audit, who said that we are on a trajectory of spending that we cannot continue. That is why we have had to take measures in this budget.

I am very happy to tell the member for Rankin that when it comes to the COAG Reform Council we are saving $8.3 million over the forward estimates. It might be news to the member for Rankin that the state that he comes from—Queensland—is also going to benefit, because the states are going to save just over $10 million—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order. I do apologise for interrupting. I would like to table the government's own budget document that says that there has been $80 billion in cuts.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Rankin might like to learn that his own state of Queensland is going to be one of the states that are going to save—and this is a cumulative amount—over $10 million from getting rid of the COAG Reform Council. You need to know that the sunny state of Queensland is also going to be a beneficiary of the COAG Reform Council not continuing and the Commonwealth is going to save over $8 million.

The member for Rankin does raise an important point about this government's commitment to funding hospitals and schools. Yes, it is true that some of the state premiers and the chief ministers were not that happy after the budget, but would you believe that, if you look at Treasury's papers, over the coming decade increased expenditure from the Commonwealth to the states is going to be tens of billions of dollars—nearly $60 billion of increased money over the decade. That is money from the Commonwealth to the states for things like hospitals and schools. In fact, hospital funding and school funding are going up between 37 and 40 per cent.

An honourable member: It is not going up.

It is. Spending is going up over the next four years and the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that in the chamber. If you look at the government's funding commitments for hospitals and schools, it is going up year upon year upon year—40 per cent and 37 per cent for schools and hospitals. The member for Rankin is very brave because he has raised the issue of school funding. What has been the most topical issue when it comes to school funding? It has been Gonski. How much more have we put in?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$1.2 billion.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

$1.2 billion, thank you, Member for Aston. An extra $1.2 billion that they ripped from the children of Queensland and Western Australia. We, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, have found that money from the taxpayers of Australia to go where they never were spending that money.

I am very proud of the fact that in this budget we are not only putting down the foundation for increased growth and jobs and productivity, we are not only paying back Labor's debt by finding spending cuts, but we are also increasing support for hospitals and for schools by the significant numbers of 37 and 40 per cent respectively.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a printing error!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the member for Bendigo, those members opposite do not take the fiscal responsibilities of the Commonwealth seriously. These members on this side of the House take our responsibilities very seriously when it comes to the budget. We are very proud of this document and we are very proud of the increased funding for schools and for hospitals.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How interesting to hear the member for Rankin talk about schools funding. In my state of Tasmania, government funding for state schools over the next five years goes up by 46 per cent. I do not know how we can translate that increase in funding as being a cut, as the member for Rankin tries to do. I know he is very fond of figures. I think he used to influence the abacus in the member for Swan's office over the last six years.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Proudly!

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says, 'Proudly'! I do not how you can be proud of $191 billion of achieved deficits. How can you be proud of $123 billion of forecast deficits, which would have resulted in 16 years of deficits in this country? How can he be proud of $667 billion of gross debt, and right now borrowing $1 billion every month just to pay the interest on the debt? If, like the member for Franklin, his abacus continued to borrow into the future, in 10 years time that would be $3 billion of borrowings every month to pay the interest on our debt.

Be that as it may, and the revisionist history that the member for Rankin tries to engage in—my serious question to the parliamentary secretary—

Honourable members interjecting—

Thank you. My question to the parliamentary secretary goes to the proliferation of bureaucratic structures and regulation under the former Labor government over the last six years. Despite promising to limit regulatory impacts—and I think Mr Rudd had a promise of 'one on, one off' when it came to regulation. In their cabinet submissions, every department was going to have a regulatory impact statement. Somehow, we managed to end up with 21,000 new pieces of legislation and regulation. That is 21,000—so much for another promise to the Australian people that was not met by those opposite over the last six years. The people in my electorate have conveyed that as being a little bit like a 1,200 kilometre screwdriver from Canberra.

Honourable members interjecting—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Bass resume his seat. While robust debate is encouraged, it is at that the point that I can barely hear the member for Bass. I am going to ask every member present to please allow the members to speak uninterrupted.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people in my electorate described it as something like a 1,200 kilometre screwdriver from Canberra tinkering and adjusting but, in essence, interfering with their daily lives. Businesses and community groups felt that pressure, that pressure of 21,000 pieces of regulation, every day. Where the proponents for projects were confronted with an environmental issue, they felt the full wrath of all three levels of government, including the government in Canberra when it came to OH&S and environmental problems and a whole range of other issues. Unions and green groups, not surprisingly, had all this disproportionate influence in Canberra. Regrettably, in Tasmania we had the double whammy of Labor-Greens government in Hobart as well.

I know people often talk about business power, and I know the member for Rankin and those opposite engage in the politics of envy and division. But the greatest power of business is the power to invest or disinvest. What stops them from investing are those obstacles and those roadblocks. What we are doing as a government is eliminating some of those obstacles and roadblocks. I am the Tasmanian representative on the parliamentary secretary's deregulation committee, which has done some extraordinarily good work, and I was a proud member of the first repeal day. I hope there are many more to roll back some of the injudicious regulation that came out of those opposite. We sent a powerful message about our government's commitment when it comes to easing that burden of legislation and regulation. Those were the obstacles to investment I was referring to earlier. In that context, I ask the parliamentary secretary: what more does this budget foreshadow when it comes to deregulation and getting rid of the proliferation of the many hundreds of government bodies and rent seekers out there that grew during the last six years? Are there even more savings to be made in this regard in the future?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass for that very entertaining and realistic assessment of the legacy that those opposite left us when it came to regulation. He is right. They left us 21,000 additional regulations. He referred to regulatory impact statements. Those opposite promised that there would be regulatory impact statements for major legislative initiatives. Would the members opposite believe that, when it came to the carbon tax, the mining tax, changes to the Fair Work Act, the NBN and the Future of Financial Advice, each of those legislative initiatives was exempt from a regulatory impact statement process? Those opposite have no idea as to the true impact and cost on stakeholders of those thousands of new regulations that they introduced by way of the heavy hand of government.

We want to be very different from that. We have already had our first repeal day, where we were successful in getting rid of more than 10,000 additional regulations and redundant pieces of legislation. The savings to the Australian taxpayer and to industry is more than $700 million. We are not finished. I thank the members for Bass Hindmarsh, Deakin, Wright, Aston and Herbert for their incredibly hard work in putting ideas on the table for cutting red and green tape across the economy. One of the real areas in which we have been successful has been environmental approvals. The Minister for the Environment has given approval for more than $500 billion worth of projects in the just less than nine months that we have been in office, and we have moved to one-stop shop environmental approvals.

The member for Bass asked an important question about the consolidation of agencies in this budget. I am very pleased to report that, as a result of measures in this budget, hundreds of millions of dollars will be saved to the taxpayer by unwinding the layer upon layer of bureaucracy that currently exists. In fact, the Commission of Audit found that the Commonwealth government had about 1,000 statutory and non-statutory bodies within its remit. What we have said is we are going to get rid of some of these bodies. Let me tell you the names of some of these bodies we are going get rid of. We are going to get rid of the Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula. We are going to get rid of the Social Inclusion Board and the High Speed Rail Advisory Group. The process is well underway for merging AusAID with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Of course, when we are providing support for good governance, health, education and infrastructure in our region, it needs to be linked with our diplomats. It is just a common-sense idea where we will save a huge amount of money. We are merging the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service into the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The functions of Health Workforce Australia, General Practice Education and Training Ltd and the Australian National Preventive Health Agency will go into the Department of Health. The back office functions for the National Archives, the National Gallery, the National Museum, the National Library and the National Portrait Gallery are all going to be merged because that brings savings to the taxpayer.

I can go on. We are merging five civilian merit review tribunals into a single organisation—so the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Classification Review Board, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal will come together—not to mention the very busy privatisation agenda that we have currently underway with Medibank Private, and we have announced scoping studies into the sale of Defence Housing Australia, the Royal Australian Mint, Australian Hearing and the registry function of ASIC. It is very important to understand what the government should be doing and what the private sector should be doing and having a proper delineation of responsibilities so in the end we can provide better service to the taxpayer at less cost.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for giving me the call, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need to ask which you prefer to be called: Deputy Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker?

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy with either, but thank you.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good. I just want everyone to note that it is worth asking a woman what she wants occasionally, because I want to talk today about the Office for Women and the adverse impacts this budget has on women. I am glad to be here and I am glad to hear that list of advisory bodies and experts that those opposite think they do not need to listen to anymore. One of the things I want to talk about is the notion that, if you cannot slash an advisory body or get rid of an expert, then you can always just ignore it, like we are ignoring the Office for Women.

Tony Abbott's budget of broken promises makes savage cuts to pensions. We have been there. We know the list of cuts is long: hospitals, family payments, superannuation, education and services. All of these cuts will have a deep impact on women. For example, a single parent on the parenting payment, the majority of whom are women, will have their budgets hit by more than $3,400 a year. Industry Super Australia has stated:

The repeal of the LISC—

the low income super contribution—

will be particularly damaging to the retirement savings of women who constitute an estimated two-thirds of those eligible. Staggeringly, the abolition of the LISC will negatively impact on the retirement savings of almost one in two women.

In the aftermath of the budget, we have seen an unprecedented and dishonest attack on Australia's carers, the majority of whom are women. There are no changes to carers as a result of the budget, the Prime Minister said in question time on 16 June. This is wrong. The budget cuts the carers payment, with indexation to be reduced to CPI. This will impact on carers, the majority of whom are women. And, with women accounting for 60 per cent of GP visits, the GP tax will have a deep impact on their access to health care. As the costs mount for families, tough decisions will be made on seeking help for those families.

I went to the website of the Office for Women and I found there that the Office for Women exists:

… to ensure a whole-of-government approach is given to providing better economic and social outcomes for women.

That is what the website says. Then I went to the 'Economic Empowerment and Opportunity' part of the site, and it said:

The Australian Government is working to improve women's economic empowerment.

  …   …   …

Women's economic empowerment is central to a strong economy and region. For example, closing the workforce participation gap between women and men could boost gross domestic product by up to 13%.

During Senate estimates, on 27 May, it was confirmed that the Office for Women, in your department of PM&C, provided advice on all relevant measures leading up to the budget. Ms McDevitt said:

For all the budget measures, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provides advice, and, since the Office for Women is located within the department, the Office for Women has provided advice on relevant measures leading up to the budget, which could include consulting with other agencies and providing internal advice that would feed into the whole-of-department advice on budget measures.

My question in this area is: why was advice from the Prime Minister's own department ignored in the formulation of the budget? It has been the practice, for over 30 years, for federal governments to produce a women's budget statement as one element of the official budget papers. We heard a few minutes ago lots of statements, pointing the finger across the chamber about previous budgets—not the budget of 2014, which is the budget we are all here to talk about. That has been in place for 30 years in the official budget papers, but in 2014 it is not included.

My question is, given the PM is the Minister for Women and the Office for Women is in PM&C, who made the decision to cut this statement? Was the Office for Women consulted on this specific decision? Given the impact on women of this budget, why was this decision made? And I will go further, with another question. To me, as a woman, it is really concerning that this government has a mirror looking backwards. I am looking forward to doing my ironing again. I wonder if you can answer that.(Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She has started bullying us.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Aston is right. That was a very poorly phrased question, full of inaccuracies and mistakes. I am very proud that, in this budget, the Prime Minister has ensured that funding for women's programs has continued strongly.

The hypocrisy of those opposite in talking about support for women's programs or about helping women in the workforce is exposed by the fact that they have unleashed a partisan attack on our Paid Parental Leave scheme. The Paid Parental Leave scheme is fundamental to ensuring that more women stay in the workforce after having children so that we continue to—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Off the record or on the record, I am an extremely strong supporter of the Paid Parental Leave scheme because I believe it boosts workforce participation. The member for Rankin is showing great ignorance because he probably does not know that the Grattan Institute put out a report on the numbers of women who are in the Australian workforce compared to the number of men. Those numbers are 67 per cent of women, compared with 78 per cent of men. Of those 67 per cent of women in the workforce, how many do you think are working full time? Only 55 per cent. But when you look at the number of men who are working full time, it is 85 per cent. One of the key things we need to do in this budget to support working women is institute a paid parental leave scheme and I am a big supporter of the Prime Minister's scheme.

You ask me, in addition to the Paid Parental Leave scheme—in addition to providing more affordable and accessible child care and funding for women's safety—what else are we doing in this budget for women? I am very happy to tell those opposite. Firstly, the National Women's Alliances program has received funding of almost $4.8 million for six alliances over the three years to 2016, up from just $3.6 million over the previous three years. Funding for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children remains unchanged in this budget and that funding is $104 million over the forward estimates. This includes money for Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, the Foundation to Prevent Violence Against Women and their Children, 1800 RESPECT, DvaleRT—domestic violence response training delivered nationally by Lifeline—and the personal safety survey and—

Opposition members interjecting—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Those on my left have asked their question. They will listen to the answer from the parliamentary secretary.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Other women's leadership and development strategy funding that we have continued to support over 2013-14 includes funding for the National Women's Alliances, the sport leadership grants, the Every Girl program and the like.

There are many examples in this budget of how this government has shown its continued strong support—indeed, its increased support—for women's programs, particularly for women at risk. I am very proud that in this budget we have continued funding these important areas and we will continue to speak out in favour of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It will be, in addition to childcare improvements—we have a Productivity Commission review into child care—a way of improving the lot of Australia's working women.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to put this in halves, but I am happy for Parliamentary Secretary Frydenberg to take this on notice. I do have a question for Parliamentary Secretary Tudge as well. In relation to the red tape reduction, is there a possibility that we will make this a COAG process? The work we have done on red tape and green tape reduction has been fantastic. It is a great start. The commitment to keep going is important. I see the member for Wright is here. His previous occupation was a truck driver. Most of his red tape costs would have been state government costs. My big concern here is the possibility of cost shifting or responsibility shifting to the states. If we save $1 billion then the states put on $500 million of red tape, we would still be $500 million better off but the states would have jumped in. I would like to see if you are going to follow that through.

My second question for Parliamentary Secretary Frydenberg is on the tender process. I will give an example. The Flinders Shire Council had a nine-kilometre stretch of road that they costed at $9 million. Because it was over the threshold it had to go to national tender. It was picked up by a national supplier and the cost was $27 million. They flew in their team, equipment and camp and did the work and nothing went through the local community. Is it possible that we can look at something in relation to the tender process to ensure that the money that is expended by the Commonwealth in regional and regional communities does stay there and we give more flexibility to local councils in that area?

I represent the seat of Herbert, which includes Palm Island. We have a number of Indigenous organisations. I have a real issue when it comes to the running of some of these Indigenous organisations. Lack of accountability and poor governance have meant massive losses of funds. People have been shifted out of these organisations. Information on what we believe were fraud matters has been provided to the police. It is very hard for the police to prove fraud. Is there an instrument in ORIC—and will the parliamentary secretary take it upon himself to have a look at the rules of ORIC—that is similar to ASIC's rule that someone is no longer fit and proper to run an organisation, so we can make sure that the governance to the community is better off?

Additionally, would the parliamentary secretary be able to advise me about the opportunities to work and get a decent job. I know he is very passionate in this regard. Palm Island is 2½ hours on the ferry, so the 90-minute rule no longer applies. If someone is moving to Palm Island, there is no onus on them to look for a job. The difference between being on benefits and working can quite often be a disincentive to them getting a job. Can the parliamentary secretary give me some information in relation to what he is thinking about this and what the government is thinking in this space?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Herbert for those important questions. I will leave the questions in the Indigenous space to my colleague the member for Aston. The member for Herbert is absolutely right: this is not just a whole-of-government approach to deregulation at the federal level but also very much involving the states. The Prime Minister has said that deregulation will become a standing item on the agenda at COAG, which will be used as the primary body for driving reform at the federal and state levels.

At the last COAG meeting in the first week of May they all discussed deregulation in relation to a number of areas. Those areas included housing and commercial building construction; road freight; food and dairy manufacturing and fish processing; tourism business licensing—which will be very important in your electorate of Herbert, particularly around Townsville; rules as they relate to cafes and restaurants; and gas and resources exploration. They have divided up these areas among the various states for them to take responsibility for doing a deep dive in the particular area and bringing forward ideas where there is federal-state overlap in regulation.

We are very determined that, to be successful on the deregulation front, we not only get changes done at the federal level but drive changes at the state level so that, as the member for Herbert mentioned, the states do not just introduce new regulations to make up for the federal government's reduction in regulations. You need to understand that we are extremely focused on this. A number of states like Victoria have a red tape commissioner and they are driving changes. I have met with Deb Frecklington, the assistant minister for finance with responsibility for deregulation in Queensland, your home state. We are driving this agenda forward together. As the member for Herbert rightly mentioned, in the area of environmental approvals we were able to get MOUs signed with every state and territory. Those opposite would like to know that the Labor state of South Australia and the ACT also signed on to these MOUs and Greg Hunt has been moving forward to get full agreements, particularly with Queensland and New South Wales, in a speedy fashion. So we are moving at a state and a federal level on the deregulation agenda.

The member for Herbert also raised the very important issue of trying to create jobs at a local level through the tendering process. The member for Herbert may be interested to know that one area we have been looking at relates to the federal safety commission because the federal safety commissioner requires, under the legislation, that builders be particularly accredited. What can happen is if Defence Housing is building in remote areas, as it often does, it would want to source builders from the local area, but those local builders may not have the accreditation needed to get that job because going through that accreditation process requires extra costs on their part. That is another example of where those opposite have no understanding of the true impact on job creation at the local level of extra layers of bureaucracy and red tape. So I have met the head of Defence Housing and we are looking at this issue of the federal safety commissioner. Hopefully I will be able to report to the member for Herbert that there has been some progress on this issue. Like him, all my colleagues on this side of the House understand that we need to create jobs in the regions, we need to free up the councils, we need to free up the local builders and we need to ensure that they can get a personal dividend out of our red tape reduction efforts.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have seen a fair bit of rhetoric this morning, as we always do in sessions of this kind, and a bit of cut and thrust. That is all well and good, but I seek the indulgence of the parliamentary secretary to ask a question of earnest importance, and that is a question dealing with the incidence of men's violence against women in our community. I ask him to take this question from me as one man asking another man about an important issue that all men should be speaking out about in our community. Questions that go to the prioritisation of funding are inherently political, but I emphasise I am not asking partisan questions as I do not doubt the intent of those opposite to curb the growth of men's violence against women in our community and, in fact, to drive the rate of violence down.

My questions relate to two areas of funding and the Office for Women. I am seeking guidance from the parliamentary secretary about whether the Office for Women provided advice to the government on how this year's budget would impact on services provided to women in danger of family violence, in particular in the area of community legal centres. We have seen $1.6 million cut in the budget from the women's leadership and development strategy, which includes the Australian Women Against Violence Alliance, but also $15 million from legal aid and millions from community legal centres.

In Melbourne's west, in my electorate, more than 50 per cent of the work of community legal centres is advising women in danger of family of violence. For the benefit of people who have not engaged with these groups, this kind of advice includes their rights in the legal system, protection and their rights to intervention orders to ensure their safety. It is also advice about what to expect if they make the decision to leave their home, in terms of their financial security, the obligation of the government to them and the obligation of their partners to support them. Also, there has been a 35 per cent increase in demand for community legal centre advice in this space in my electorate.

MYEFO contained cuts of $3.6 million from the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, $9.6 million from community legal centres and $6.5 million from legal aid. Did the Office for Women provide advice to the government about the impact of those cuts on women in these situations? Also, did they take into account that the rising rates of domestic violence increase demand for these services in the community? If they did provide advice, I would ask what the recommendations of that advice were and whether it was acted on by the government?

The second area I would like to ask about is the impact of cuts to Medicare Locals funding contained in this year's budget, and the impact this has on family violence services. Family violence was a priority area for the Medicare Local in my community. As I said, family violence is an extraordinarily serious and growing problem in my community. These cuts will have substantial impact on the ability of Medicare Local-funded programs to continue in our community.

I should emphasise that these are not cuts to the Medicare Local institutions, these are cuts to the funding of programs being implemented by Medicare Locals. Again, I ask whether the Office for Women provided advice on these decisions and about the impact of these decisions on women in these situations? I ask whether the cumulative impact of these cuts to programs that assist GPs in providing advice to women and identifying women in these situations, combined with cuts to community legal centres, who are providing advice to women in these situations, were taken into account in the budget process?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member opposite for those questions about a very important topic. Like him, I hail from the state of Victoria, which has been rocked by tragedy in recent times, particularly as it relates to violence against women. The Jill Meagher case is the most prominent example of what is clearly unacceptable behaviour.

As I said earlier, this budget continues to strongly support funding programs to prevent violence against women. On the issue of the Office for Women and the advice that they are able to provide: that is done within the context of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. They are able to provide advice on all relevant measures in this budget. We take our advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

On the particular measures that we are committed to in this budget: as I said earlier, the funding for the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children remains unchanged. The funding for this plan is $104 million over the forward estimates and the budget continues funding for the Australian National Research Organisation For Women's Safety and the Foundation to Prevent Violence Against Women and their Children, as well as a number of other measures including 1800Respect, the nationally funded counselling support line for women experiencing sexual assault and/or domestic violence; DV-aleRT, Domestic Violence Response Training delivered nationally by Lifeline; the Personal Safety Survey; and the National Community Attitudes Survey to Violence Against Women. The second action plan, which will include our commitment and that of the states and the territories to ongoing action, will be released mid this year.

The member opposite asked me about community legal centres and funding for those. We continue to believe that funding going forward needs to be structured in a way which does take into account the most vulnerable in our community including women at risk. We have extended the base funding under the national partnership agreement on legal assistance services by one year until 30 June 2015. Ongoing future legal assistance will be the subject of consideration, and the findings of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into access to justice arrangements and the recent review of the national partnerships agreement will also inform future decisions going forward.

In relation to Medicare Locals, the member opposite will be aware that we have increased funding for health in this budget right across the board. In fact, funding for hospitals has increased by nearly 40 per cent over the coming years. There are a lot of fallacies contained in the arguments put by those opposite. We have put more money into education than they ever did—including $1.2 billion for the Gonski proposals—and we have continued to promote funding for hospitals and front-line patient services.

I am very proud of this budget because it pays back debt, it boosts jobs growth and productivity, and it continues to provide financial support, assistance and services for those most in need.

Indigenous Affairs Portfolio

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I firstly make the observation that this is the very first time in Australian political history that we are discussing the Indigenous Affairs budget as part of the consideration of the Prime Minister and Cabinet budget. That is because Prime Minister Abbott is now the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs. It is the first time in Australian political history that that has been done, and he has done so because he saw the importance of this area and wanted to oversee the entire portfolio area himself. The questions that will come up now will also come up when we are discussing the Prime Minister and Cabinet budget. I think that is worth reflecting upon.

I will not in my opening remarks go through the specific measures which are outlined in the budget. They are tabled for the members here to see. What I would like to do, though, is inform members as to the overall approach that we are taking in the Indigenous Affairs portfolio, the rationale for that approach, and, through that, how the budget is actually delivering on that approach. We have a great many challenges in this nation—and the member for Kooyong outlined some of the budgetary challenges which we are facing—but the greatest challenge in Australia remains the plight of Indigenous people. We ask all members to ensure that this is high on our political agenda at all times—and with the Prime Minister taking on the portfolio it hopefully will remain high on the political agenda at all times.

Our overall approach can be summarised by saying that we have three core priorities in the Indigenous area, and they sit on a bed of governance reforms. Those priorities are to get kids to school, to get the adults into work and to ensure that there are safe communities. And then there are a series of governance reforms which underpin that, and on the side we have the constitutional recognition process underway. I will touch on each of those three priorities briefly, as well as the governance changes. First of all, why those priorities—why education, employment and community? In part, it is because of the upstream factors. If kids are at school, if the adults are in work and you have reasonable order in a community, then the other things tend to take care of themselves. People's mental health is better and people's physical health is better. If people are in work and kids are in school, then child protection tends to be better. If there is a safe community, then you do not need as many activities overall in terms of policing and other such activities. So it is a firm focus on the things which we think absolutely matter for the overall functioning of any society, frankly, not just the Indigenous community.

But when you look at those three areas, there are significant problems at present. Take school attendance, for example. The school attendance rate across Australia for Indigenous is about 10 percentage points lower than for the non-Indigenous. But that hides what is occurring in the remote areas where there is sometimes what I would consider a catastrophic Indigenous attendance rate. In remote Northern Territory, for example, only about 25 per cent of students attend 80 per cent of the time. If you are attending less than 80 per cent of the time, you are effectively not learning. There are only about 25 per cent of students, therefore, that I would consider learning by virtue of attending school for a sufficient amount of time.

When you look at employment, the employment gap is about 30 percentage points. The overall employment rate for non-Indigenous people is about 75 per cent and about 25 per cent for Indigenous per cent, and gap has in fact got wider over the last five years rather than smaller. When you look at community safety, the stats across the board are poorer in Indigenous communities than in non-Indigenous communities. So we do need to have a dedicated focus on those three areas, and this budget consolidates programs to ensure that we can have that focus.

It also has important governance reforms, primarily, by amalgamating 150 programs into five broad ones and ensuring that we can have much more localised and nuanced decisions made at a local level where Indigenous people can be more empowered.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume the parliamentary secretary is aware of a functions role and responsibility for the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, having worked closely with the council. Mr Warren Mundine is the appointed and remunerated head of the Indigenous Advisory Council which provides advice to and works with the government to implement Indigenous policy. When it comes to the council, I would like the parliamentary secretary to outline the budgeted remuneration levels of each member of the council. How much is Mr Mundine being paid? What are the levels of remuneration and the details of that remuneration, and those for his deputy chair and, of course, each member of the council? Could the parliamentary secretary outline the total cost to the budget of the operation of the Indigenous Advisory Council for the 2014-15 financial year as well as across the forward estimates?

The Indigenous Advisory Council is responsible for the provision of Indigenous policy to the government. Did the council support the $534.4 million cut to Indigenous programs in the budget? Can the parliamentary secretary advise how and when the council was consulted about the budget measures in the 2014-15 budget round? How many times did the council meet before the budget and with which members of the government? Was the council consulted and did the council provide advice on all the budget measures? If not, can the parliamentary secretary explain why not?

Can the parliamentary secretary advise the chamber how often the Indigenous Advisory Council meets? Is every member present at every meeting? What are the quorum requirements for the council? Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that Mr Mundine has met with the members of the government on behalf of the Indigenous Advisory Council? When was the last time the council met and when will they meet next?

As the appointed remunerated head of the Indigenous Advisory Council, Mr Mundine is reported in the media as having announced a second round of cuts in Indigenous affairs program in the order of $600 million. Mr Mundine announced as the head of the Indigenous Advisory Council that he is meeting with the Treasurer Joe Hockey and finance minister Mathias Cormann to cut an additional $600 million from the Indigenous affairs budget. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether the $600 million in cuts mentioned by Mr Mundine is in the forward estimates? Did Mr Mundine meet with the Treasurer and finance minister before or after the budget was handed down? Who within the government authorised the new funding cuts? Does the government agree with and stand by the appointed and remunerated head of the Indigenous Advisory Council about the second wave of cuts? Are you working on or have you got more cuts in the forward estimates? Given the current level of $534 million is not able to be achieved through administrative efficiencies, is it being called from programs and where is the next round of cuts coming from? Why are further cuts being discussed within the government when the full impact of the current round of cuts is not yet known?

I want to quote from Mr Mundine on the ABC World Today program on 5 June 2014:

We did some modelling on repair and maintenance of housing and there's no doubt from the modelling that we got back that you can save 24 per cent … on the repair and maintenance of housing, and you can save from 5, 10 per cent in other areas.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk about the modelling. What is the modelling Mr Mundine has referred to, why was it undertaken and what else did it reveal? Will he reveal the modelling? What was the scope of the modelling and has the modelling been authorised? If so, by what authority has the work been undertaken? Or is Mr Mundine effectively operating as the unelected minister for Indigenous affairs?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe there were probably about 60 questions in his four minutes there, and in my allotted time I would have to allocate only five seconds per question to answer every single one. Can I say at the outset that—

An opposition member: Take them on notice.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The more interjections, the fewer answers you will get. Move on.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I outlined in my opening remarks some of the significant issues which confront Indigenous Australia. I talked about the appalling attendance rates, where only a quarter of remote Indigenous students in the Northern Territory are attending at a rate which would even make it possible for them to advance and to learn at a reasonable level. I referred to the fact that the Indigenous employment rate is 30 per cent below the non-Indigenous employment rate, and the gap is actually widening. I could have gone on to mention all sorts of other statistics in relation to how Indigenous people are tracking against non-Indigenous people.

I frankly find it surprising that, despite all of those issues, the first 60 questions from the shadow spokesperson for Indigenous affairs are almost entirely centred on Warren Mundine and what he is getting paid, what he is doing, which meetings he is having. I know Warren Mundine was a former president of the Australian Labor Party, and the fact that he is now chairing the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council should not cloud the types of decisions, questions and advocacy which the shadow spokesperson for Indigenous affairs engages in in this chamber and indeed in his role. I would encourage him to focus on the big picture, to focus on the issues which are facing Aboriginal people today and the issues which are faced in this budget, rather than being entirely focused on the activities of Warren Mundine.

I will say, though, about the chair of our Indigenous advisory council and indeed the Indigenous advisory council more broadly that it is an outstanding advisory council. Members would be aware of who the chair is—Mr Mundine—and his activities over decades now, advocating on behalf of Aboriginal people. They would be aware of the other members of the Indigenous advisory council: Ngiare Brown; Mr Peever, the former CEO of Rio Tinto; and Gail Kelly. We have other very substantial Indigenous leaders who are providing advice to the Prime Minister and to the government as a whole.

Their role is an advisory role. Their terms of reference and their role is outlined on the website. Mr Neumann can look at that website and understand that. He can understand when they are meeting. The Indigenous advisory council puts out a communique after each meeting, and so he can understand what their function and what their role is, but it is an advisory role. At the end of the day, decisions are made by the government and we accept responsibility for those decisions, but of course we consult with the Indigenous advisory council before making those decisions.

In relation to the overall cost of running the Indigenous advisory council, I understand that those questions were asked in the Senate estimates process. I have been informed that that information will be provided through the Senate estimates process in due course. Of course, it will be a very small amount compared to the overall $4.8 billion which this government is investing in Indigenous specific programs over the next four years—$4.8 billion. I would suspect that the costs of the operation of the Indigenous advisory council will be a very, very small fraction of that $4.8 billion. That information, in detail, will be provided to the Senate and will therefore be publicly accessible to Mr Neumann, who has been asking these 60 questions in his four minutes.

In relation to the overall budget, I outlined some of those measures in my opening statement. Yes, we have made some savings but we are still investing $4.8 billion over the forward estimates. And we have consolidated 150 programs into five. When you do that you can eliminate red tape and duplications and you can make administrative savings. That is exactly the intent of our budget. Our intention is to provide greater focus on the core areas of employment, school attendance and community safety and, of course, it is to provide efficiencies where we can do so.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us hope I can now lower the tone in the chamber.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Maybe I will improve it; maybe I will lower it, but let's hope I can get some attention. My question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and it relates to how the Abbott government is working to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance rates. But first I would like to provide some context to this, particularly with respect to my electorate of Durack.

As the parliamentary secretary and I know, to get ahead in life children and young adults need to build a strong foundation through our education system. To achieve this, however, we must first get children and young adults to school. The Durack electorate has the third highest proportion of Indigenous students. So, ensuring the education gap is significantly reduced in the short term, and rates of attendance are equal in the long term, is a key priority of mine.

Unfortunately, in Durack Indigenous students attending school is not the norm; it is the rarity. Often this is due to dysfunction in students' home lives. Lack of structure and discipline leads to a high prevalence of truancy. In Fitzroy, Derby and Wiluna, in particular, a significantly higher level of truancy has already been identified by this government and the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, which highlights non-attendance cycles in schools. This authority identified that the average annual attendance rates of students attending Fitzroy Valley District High School between 2008 and 2013 was only 62 per cent. This rate was marginally better at the Derby District High School, with 69 per cent, and there was 65 per cent attendance at the Wiluna Remote Community School.

What these schools have in common is that they are all remote and have large Indigenous populations, which are often transient. However, this non-attendance cycle was also identified at the Carnarvon Community College—a school which is located in a much higher regional hub—which had an attendance rate of 68 per cent in 2012. I am also saddened that the Roebourne District High School in the Pilbara region had one of the worst attendance rates in the country, of 53 per cent in the same year. This government and the wider Australian community have an expectation that every child has access to, and attends, school every day. But we need to work collaboratively to achieve this.

Now, I do have some good news. Despite these concerning statistics, I am pleased to say that in Broome, which is a key regional centre in Durack, with a high number of Indigenous students, there are many success stories in the education sphere. I have previously acknowledged the success of the Broome Senior High School and its principal Saeed Amin and his staff, whose hard work and dedication, saw this school become the WA School of the Year in the year 2012. In the same year, the school had a 100 per cent success rate for university offers for those students who were studying university courses.

Another success story is the local TAFE in the Kimberley, which is called the Kimberley Training Institute or KTI. KTI is the leading vocational education and training provider in the Kimberley region, which runs courses out of Broome and Kununurra. It aims to provide the skills and knowledge students need to enhance their employment opportunities. The fantastic work of KTI was recognised last year, when it received two major accolades at the WA training awards. Visual arts lecturer Jacky Cheng was awarded Best Trainer in Western Australia, while the KTI was awarded Best Large Training Provider. I commend all staff and students for this significant achievement.

It is therefore clear that all students in Durack, no matter their age, race or social status, have the ability to access high-quality education through our schools and service providers. We just need to get these kids to school. This leads me to my question: Can the parliamentary secretary please outline the government's approach for improving Indigenous attendance rates at schools across Australia and, in particular, in regional and remote areas?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Durack for this question on what is a critical area. I commend her for her commitments to her constituency and her electorate, but more broadly to Aboriginal people across Australia. I know she has a very passionate commitment in wanting to see the advancement of Aboriginal people and wanting to see the gap closed in this country. I commend her for that.

The question she raises is a critically important one. It concerns school attendance and education attainment. As I said at the outset, this is our top priority in the Indigenous affairs portfolio and, therefore, one of the top priorities for the government is to lift the school attendance rate. If children are not at school then, by definition, they are not going to be learning. If they are not learning at school, it is so much harder to get employment afterwards and it is likely to lead to a life of welfare. It starts with school attendance. At the moment the school attendance rates, particularly in remote areas, as the member for Durack outlined, are sometimes at catastrophic levels. In some schools, the attendance rate is as low as 37 per cent. If you actually looked at what I think is the most important measure in this area, that of how many kids are attending at least 80 per cent of the time, that figure is even smaller. It is a very significant problem. We do not underestimate the challenge which we have to support schools, to support the Indigenous leaders and to support children to be able to go to school and to learn.

To date, the most important measure that we have introduced to tackle school attendance, particularly in remote areas, is the Remote School Attendance Strategy. In simple terms, that means providing employment opportunities for local, quality people to act as attendance officers. In the mornings they go around, knock on the doors, encourage the families to get their young son or daughter onto the minibus to take them to school, ensure that they are at school during the day and encourage those children to get home safely at the end of the day. This has been rolled out now in 73 schools, 12 of which are in Western Australia. Most of these are in the member for Durack's electorate.

Forty of those schools have had these school student attendance officers introduced in term 1. A further 33 were introduced in term 2. I can report that so far it has had some substantial results and substantial improvements. For example, in some places in the Northern Territory, the number of children in these schools where we have the attendance officers in place is now up 17 per cent on last year. A quarter of all schools in the stage 1 phase have had student attendance rate increases of between 15 and 25 percentage points. It is extraordinary that any school can have that type of increase at all, but it actually shows that in a quarter of the schools we are having tremendous results from these student attendance officers working with the local communities and working with families to get their children to school. Three quarters of the schools have had improvements in their student attendance rates.

This is not easy. A quarter of the schools still have not seen much improvement and there are a number of reasons for that. We constantly get advice from the student attendance officers as to what is going on in those schools and what can be done next to try to improve the student attendance rates. The member for Durack identified some of the issues which they have to tackle—whether it is parties going on at night or alcohol or substance abuse, including by the students themselves and that makes it so much more difficult. There are mobility issues, in that the students are more mobile than non-Indigenous students and may be in a different community at a particular time. All these create challenges, but we are determined to continue the roll-out of the Remote Students Attendance Strategy to monitor it closely, to work with the local leaders in those communities—because, at the end of the day, it has to be done with those local leaders—and to ensure that student attendance rates lift. If we cannot get student attendance rates higher, students will not be learning and if they are not learning then their prospects for employment are so much more difficult.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sum of $534.4 million has been ripped away from Indigenous programs in the government's budget. To make the situation is made worse, the government has provided no details or information. There is a single table on page 185 of Budget Paper No. 2. There is no detail, no explanation, no idea. Weeks later and the government has still been unable to explain the cuts, and service providers, their staff and clients will have to wait six to 12 months in limbo. I trust the parliamentary secretary takes note and that he is more enlightened than the Minister for Indigenous Affairs who claimed in Senate estimates on 30 May 2014 that $½ billion in cuts was merely an efficiency dividend. It was exposed as a feeble and false claim, when the minister's own department was forced to admit during estimates that the money was, in fact, direct cuts to programs. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm one was or the other that these are not efficiency dividends; these are programmatic cuts? If it is, however, an efficiency dividend, can the parliamentary secretary explain why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are subject to an efficiency dividend of 4.5 per cent, which is much higher than the 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend that this government has applied across departments, agencies and portfolios? What evidence is the parliamentary secretary able to produce to justify the minister's claim that the money is not being taken away from frontline services, as he claimed to David Speers in the Sky News Agenda program on 28 May.

This week the Prisoner Throughcare Program, funded through the NATSIL in New South Wales and the ACT, had its program funding cut by $½ million a year. Workers were told two weeks out that they would lose their jobs. Can the parliamentary secretary explain how this is not a frontline service? Can the parliamentary secretary explain why the government has cut funding for successful programs which help combat recidivism, when Indigenous incarceration rates are much worse than ever before? And the trend is going up. A total of $160 million has been cut from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health programs. Could the minister explain in detail which services are being cut? Could the minister detail what the assumed impact of the Medicare co-payment measure will be on budgets of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled health services? What services will need to be cut if these health services are expected to absorb the costs of the co-payment? Who does the minister or the parliamentary secretary believe could absorb the co-payment for other services directed by the medical practitioner for the patient? Does the parliamentary secretary accept that if the co-payment—described as 'a demand reduction measure' by the Prime Minister—is not absorbed by the health services that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will choose not to get treatment? What are the estimates of the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who will take this option? Does the parliamentary secretary accept that this is an impairment to Closing the Gap and to addressing chronic disease?

Does the parliamentary secretary consider the COAG Reform Council, which was abolished in the budget, as unnecessary red tape? The council reports independently on progress on Closing the Gap and the National Partnership Agreements. The budget papers suggest that it may become the responsibility of PM&C to report on themselves now that the COAG Reform Council has been axed. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm what or who will be the independent mechanism for monitoring and reporting on inter-governmental action to close the gap? Will these reports be publicly available? Or will this be simply a continuation of the alarming trend in the diminution of transparency and accountability of the government?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Blair, who has got it down to 40 questions per session, rather than 60, which means that I probably have about 7½ seconds per question rather than the five seconds I had in the previous session. Overall, the questions that he had concerned a few points, so let me touch on those few points. The most substantial points which the member for Blair asked about were the savings decisions made in the budget.

There is $4.8 billion worth of Indigenous-specific programs for which appropriations are made in this budget over four years. There was a 4.5 per cent savings being made there. That is on the public record and the member for Blair has outlined that. How has that come about and why is this occurring? In part, every portfolio has had to make savings. My friend the member for Kooyong outlined the rationale for that. The public finances were a mess. We are spending $1 billion a month just on the interest payments on the Labor government debt and that is forecast to grow to $3 billion per month, so decisions had to be made across the board to make savings.

In the Indigenous portfolio, what had been occurring over the years was a proliferation of programs, increasing and increasing.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about the health funds.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the federal perspective—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about the health funds.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I warn the member!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 150 federal programs which were funded. If you went to any particular location you would likely find a similar number at the state level. What that has meant is a proliferation of individual activities and programs at a localised level, sometimes creating a whirlwind of activity of programs but very little progress being made. The Auditor-General looked this at the end of last year and did a case study on the community of Wilcannia. It is a typical community, predominantly Indigenous. He found that in this community of 474 Indigenous people there were 102 funded activities from 18 different agencies and a further 17 activities proposed. So in that place alone there was more than one program per five individuals.

If you listen to the member for Blair and, indeed, the opposition leader you would think that that is not enough, that we now need one program for one individual, possibly even more. We do not believe that is the case. In fact, what we have suggested through this budget process is that we need to sharpen the focus around a few core areas—school attendance, employment, community safety—and we have to streamline the activity so that as much as possible, from the Commonwealth's perspective, there is a single interface into a community rather than 15 or 30 or 50 interfaces into a community. So this budget does that. The first decision we made in order to facilitate that was to bring the programs from eight different departments into one department, the most important department: the Prime Minister's department. The second decision was to amalgamate 150 separate federal programs into five broad flexible programs. The third decision was that we will be devolving power to the local level so that a local empowered SES officer can negotiate with Indigenous community leaders over what is required in those communities against some of the national priorities which we have.

The effect of this will be to stop having that proliferation of activities of 100 programs in a community of 500 and instead have focused programs with empowered local leaders who can negotiate with a single Commonwealth officer over what is required in those communities. Of course in the process of doing that efficiencies can be made—of course they can because there is an overlap in activities. For example, the Smith Family has 10 individual contracts across Australia. Why do we need 10 contracts there instead of only one or two which could cover all activities? There are things which, frankly, are not working, and those things can be brought to a halt. As we go through these programs over the forward estimates, we will be stopping, evaluating initiatives, funding the ones which are working and halting the ones which are not.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask a question of the parliament secretary related to funding, but I will give some background first. It was interesting to listen to the member for Blair asking questions of the parliamentary secretary. His focus was all about money. We know how well they handle money. They are not worried about the outcomes. They are not worried about the health outcomes for Indigenous people. They are not worried about that at all. It is all about money for them. They were never any good at it.

You focused on education, and you talked about safer communities and effects on the ground. I was up at Alice Springs recently for the Indigenous round of the AFL. Sport and Indigenous people go together hand in hand. One of the outcomes that have been achieved up there—it has not been done by money; it has been work done on the ground—was the introduction of police outside liquor stores during the day. That has resulted in a 50 per cent reduction in violence and a 50 per cent reduction in hospital visits. That is an actual positive outcome. They are the sorts of things that they want on the ground. All you guys worry about is throwing money at it—just wasting it. You do not worry about where it is going.

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the member for Lingiari to withdraw that comment.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one?

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know the one.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of them !

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For you, absolutely.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said before, the importance of sport in Indigenous affairs is well known around Australia. In particular, I would like to discuss the Clontarf football academies. Clontarf is in my electorate of Swan. The Clontarf Foundation was born there, with Gerard Neesham. We all know what he did with the Sydney Swans, Swan Districts and East Fremantle. Now, with the success of his academies, he has this most effective program to encourage Indigenous students to participate in school and sport at the same time.

I know from my time playing AFL, and being involved with quite a few Indigenous players at East Perth over the years, the importance of it to them and how holistic it is with their total outcomes in life, particularly with some of the junior development programs that are run at the Perth Football Club, where I have been the director for junior development and am currently the patron. Those programs are run hand in hand with the Clontarf academies, encouraging Indigenous participation, particularly from the lower SES areas in my electorate, like Belmont, Lynward, Langford and those types of areas. They are currently looking at a proposal with the West Coast Eagles to have a program which involves developing people socially, holistically, and getting them back not only into sport but into school.

The Clontarf Foundation is responsible for those academies. It was established in 2000, for 25 boys in Waterford, in my electorate. That used to be a place for people from broken homes or orphanages. A gentleman I brought here many years ago said he escaped from there in the 1930s, along with 25 other boys, but they were eventually caught and sent off to other institutions. It was a good story. But Clontarf now have over 55 academies around Australia, with 2,900 students. The aim is to improve the education, discipline, self-esteem, leadership and employment prospects of young Aboriginal students.

You have already highlighted how much of a focus you are putting on that area. The Clontarf program works by using the existing passion that Indigenous boys have for football to attract the boys to school and keep them there. In order for them to remain in the academy, the students must consistently endeavour to attend school regularly, apply themselves to the study of appropriate courses and embrace the academy's requirements for behaviour and self-discipline. Additionally, full-time locally based Clontarf staff mentor and counsel students on a range of behavioural, lifestyle issues to complement the education provided by schools and the AFL aspect provided by the academies.

In the short time you have left, could you outline what funding has been allocated to programs that encourage Indigenous participation in education in the budget, particularly with regard to programs in my electorate of Swan?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Swan for his question, for his ongoing advocacy for Aboriginal people in his electorate and across Australia, and for his particular commitment to the Clontarf Foundation and the 55 academies which they run across Australia. The member for Swan emphasised that, if money were the answer to Indigenous disadvantage, we would have solved it by now; there would not be disadvantage. We have had an 80 per cent increase, in real terms, in funding to Indigenous-specific programs over the last 10 years, but many of the indicators have not closed. The Productivity Commission found that we are spending about $44,000 per Indigenous individual on specific programs, and in remote communities it would probably be double that amount. It is clearly not just about money; it is about how the money is invested, how that money is allocated on the ground and what the focus is. And our focus is squarely on those three areas which I identified.

I am pleased to inform the member for Swan that the budget allocated a further $13.4 million to the Clontarf Foundation over the next four years. That will mean that an additional 3,000 boys will get an opportunity to participate in academies across Australia, and that will see almost a doubling of the operation of the Clontarf academies. We are doing this because Clontarf works. Earlier the member for Blair asked, 'What's going on with the budget?' Well, we are backing things which work. The Clontarf Academy is exactly one of those things which we want to back—with an additional $13.4 million.

Last Friday I visited the Bairnsdale Clontarf academy with the member for Gippsland. It was interesting speaking to a few of the graduates from the Bairnsdale academy. I recall one young fellow in particular. When he was 13 or 14 years old, he was effectively dropping out of school. He was attending school on maybe one day per week. He was reflecting that that was going to be his pathway. He was about to exit the school system entirely when he was 13 years old. But, because of the Clontarf academy which had just begun in Bairnsdale, he rejoined school and started attending regularly—in fact, 90 per cent of the time. He then went on and completed several more years of schooling and was assisted by the Clontarf academy into a job at the local Target store in Bairnsdale; he actually had a management role in the back office at Target. He is an outstanding young individual who otherwise would have been off the rails and probably would have been causing a bit of havoc in the community of Bairnsdale. But now he has an important job in the community. It would not surprise me if one day he is running that entire Target store—if he has not got a bigger role within the Wesfarmers Group—because he is a very impressive young man.

We met a number of other young men with very similar stories whose lives were literally transformed because of the work of the Clontarf academy. As the member for Swan knows, the Clontarf Foundation was started in Western Australia at the Clontarf school in the year 2000 by Gerard Neesham, who was the inaugural Dockers coach. I commend his commitment of over 14 years to this process. He and his staff have made a tremendous difference to thousands of boys, and, with this funding, we will hopefully support the work of the Clontarf Foundation to make a tremendous difference to another 3,000 boys over the four years ahead. There will be opportunities for schools to work with the Clontarf Foundation to make bids to provide academies in their electorate.

Question agreed to.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:34 to 12:43