Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying when debate was interrupted on Tuesday, ABS data shows that households in the lowest income quintile rely on the government for about 55.1 per cent of their income. At the other end of the scale, households in the highest income quintile receive less than one per cent of their income from government. Looking at the income tax system, in 2011-12, one-sixth of all individuals filing income tax returns paid nearly two-thirds of all income tax. Narrowing that down further, around two per cent of individuals paid about 26 per cent of all income tax. Conversely, 45 per cent of those filing an income tax return paid less than four per cent of total income tax. Is it fair that such a burden be placed on so few? Is it fair that people who have made sacrifices to be in a position to earn more, such as paying to attend university, working long hours away from family or taking financial risks, are penalised for doing so?

Labor have made a lot of noise about the 2014 budget being unfair; but take a close look at the six budgets delivered by Labor from 2008-09 through to 2013-14. From an intergenerational perspective—and we will hear more about that later today from the Treasurer—those were the most unfair budgets in our country's history. Over that period, as I stated on Tuesday, our position went from having $44.8 billion in the bank to owing $202 billion. What is even worse is that they put in place a whole range of new initiatives that were either unfunded or not fully funded beyond the forward estimates, knowing full well that Australia would be liable for further bills once they left office.

I just about choked on my morning coffee when the Leader of the Opposition's latest missive to his Labor supporters landed on my desk. He talks about how his team 'will be focused on the people who are counting on us, like the students facing the prospect of $100,000 degrees, patients being slugged with the Liberals' unfair GP tax, or families under pressure thanks to Tony Abbott's $1 billion of cuts to child care'. This clearly illustrates Labor's deception around the concept of fairness.

The higher education debate has been focused on those students who are fortunate enough to attend university and who are being asked if they can pay a little bit more. What about the fact that our reforms will enable even more young people from regional areas to attend university? Why is it so unreasonable to ask that a student pay a little more for their degree and the taxpayer a little less, given that university graduates typically earn around $1 million more over their working lives than nongraduates?

The GP co-payment has been dropped, but it does not change the fact that we need to strengthen Medicare for the long term. At its current rate of growth, it is totally unsustainable.

On childcare, again Labor allowed the system to completely blow its budget. Childcare fees skyrocketed 50 per cent under Labor, which abandoned its promise to build 260 new centres. We are focused on a more flexible and responsive childcare system which will lift workforce participation.

Labor conveniently forgets that, of the 10.1 million Australian income tax payers, eight million go to work to pay tax so we can fund our $150 billion welfare system. The new McClure review points to the need for a simpler welfare system that focuses on supporting getting people into work and helping those who need our assistance most, while respecting the taxpayers who have to pay for it.

At a family level, most parents hope to build some wealth during their lifetime to help their children and grandchildren have an easier start in life. At the government level, Labor took the opposite approach. The result is that this government has been left holding the can, making the decisions to cut spending and rationalise services that no government really wants to make.

I do not want to dwell entirely on the negative today. Despite the challenges that I have outlined, we have had some major achievements in the past 17 months. The carbon tax is gone, so every household on average is $550 better off. New projects worth over $1 trillion have received environmental approval. The mining tax is gone, making Australia certainly a better place to invest. Free trade agreements covering more than 50 per cent of our exports—with China, Japan and South Korea—have been finalised. The NBN is actually rolling out now, is far more reliable and has improved in relation to affordability. The boats, which peaked under Labor, have now stopped. Jobs growth in 2014 was triple the rate in 2013. The registration of new companies is the highest on record. Economic growth is now 2.7 per cent, up from 1.9 per cent a year ago.

In Leichhardt, we have welcomed a range of investment from government, including $19 million to refurbish the Star of the Sea Elders Village on Thursday Island; 42 beds for a Mossman nursing home, after—goodness me—20 years of campaigning, and now we are looking for capital investment to finalise that project; $1.4 million to establish the Mossman Botanic Garden; and funding for a wide range of initiatives focused on improving the health of the Great Barrier Reef, including $5 million for turtle and dugong protection and $40 million for the Reef Trust. There is $42 million towards the establishment of the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine and, through that, we will have a faculty for tropical sports medicine. From there, we want to build an institute that will be the fourth of its kind, providing tropical conditioning for athletes and sportspeople, and we want it to be centred in Cairns.

There is $1.8 million for a pilot project to address health, water and sanitation issues in Papua New Guinea to deal with the tuberculosis crisis up there; $4.8 million towards the refurbishment of the Tobruk Memorial Pool in Cairns; $350,000 for the establishment of the mental health Clubhouse in Cairns, which is going absolutely brilliantly at the moment; $150 million towards Cape York infrastructure, including sealing sections of the Peninsula Developmental Road. I expect we will see in my lifetime the sealing of the entire Peninsula Developmental Road, something I never imagined, even six or seven years ago. There is $12 million for sea walls in the Torres Strait, with construction just starting now; $400,000 for new CCTV in the Cairns CBD; $9.7m to James Cook University for the Daintree Rainforest Observatory; and more than $100,000 for projects around Leichhardt to commemorate the anniversary of Anzac, which is of course a great initiative from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and this government. Stage 1 of the Bruce Highway southern approach to Cairns will be completed with stages 2 and 3 fully funded for the next ten years.

The crowning jewel is the white paper on Northern Australia, which was due out at the end of February. Unfortunately, with the change of government in Queensland and the natural disaster on the Capricorn Coast we need to wait a little while for the new Premier to sign off on it before we release it. In addition, Green Army projects are getting underway; a medicinal cannabis bill is in the Senate; communications black spots are a priority; insurance measures including the aggregator website are underway; and we have an initiative that has been put up recently and is being considered by the Assistant Treasurer and the Prime Minister's office, which will see a brand new product coming into the market, which I really expect will see a significant downward trend in the current prices for insurance in Northern Australia. This year, the government's priority is about creating more jobs, easing the pressure on families, building roads, strengthening national security and prompting more opportunity for all—with a new families policy and a new small business and jobs policy.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that we need to prepare now for the Australia we want for the future. Prosperity is not predestined; the decisions we make today will shape our future. Therefore, reform is essential. But it is becoming increasingly clear that we will only achieve reform if we convince the Australian population that the reform is fair so they come along with us on this journey.

Let us look to our neighbour, where John Key's re-elected New Zealand National government has demonstrated how to work back to surplus through tax reform, health reform and sensible workplace relations changes that were both efficient and fair. In the UK, David Cameron has been faced with a situation where out of every 100 pounds the government spends they have had to save one. Thanks to sensible spending measures and reforms, such as a major overhaul of their welfare system, they have seen GDP growing and have slashed unemployment. As the member for Wannon wrote recently in the Drum:

Populism and false hope through denial of our problems will only lead to a future where the government will struggle to provide services and maintain our standard of living.

As every household and business knows, living within your means over time is not austerity, it is common sense

Australia's continuing prosperity depends on the success of the reforms we are pursuing now to support productivity growth and participation, boost job creation and expand the opportunities for Australian businesses and workers to thrive well into the future.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great opportunity to be able to rise and speak in response to this legislation, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2014-2015 and cognate bills, because it allows me to place on record the concerns that are felt within my community and my electorate about the impact of the unfair budget which the Abbott government has put in place and is still seeking to pass through the parliament, although every day another element of it seems to be jettisoned.

The last 18 months have been a difficult time for the electorate of Corio and for the people of Geelong. We have seen the two key private sector pillars of our economy, Ford and Alcoa, announce that they will be ending their operations in Geelong. Indeed, in the case of Alcoa that has already happened, as aluminium stopped being smelted in Geelong in August of last year and the rolling products plant was finalised in December last year. Ford will complete its making of cars in Geelong at the end of next year, albeit the design component of Ford will remain in Geelong thereafter. That is obviously a very important commitment by Ford. For a place that was a major manufacturing city in this country, the fact that those activities have or will come to an end obviously has a significant impact upon our economy and our employment. I think everyone in Geelong right now is feeling that.

The reason I raise that is that, against that background, the budget announced last year by the government could not have come at a worse time and could not have delivered more punitive or punishing measures. In essence it said that, for those who will need to rely on it, the social safety net is being critically reduced and that for those who want to make sure that their children have the future opportunities they want to give them those opportunities are contracting. We need only look at the measures that have been put in place in respect of universities to see its impact. We now face the genuine prospect of people being required to pay back $100,000 university degrees.

The deregulation of the university sector as planned by the government presents Deakin University in the electorate of Corio with an appalling choice, which is essentially between maintaining their accessible and, in that sense, low-cost nature as a place of education for people in Geelong on the one hand—and, in the process, jettisoning their research capacity, which is so important in driving employment in Geelong—and doing the reverse: hanging onto their research capacity but seeing an increase in the fees associated with studying at the university as a result. That is the kind of decision which should never be placed in front of a university such as Deakin University, which is a really important driver of the future and economy of Geelong. In the context of all that has occurred in Geelong, to put that decision in front of Deakin right now just leaves people in Geelong with a sense that this is a government which is happy or content to leave Geelong behind. The degree of anger within our community about that idea is utterly palpable.

In the budget, we have seen propositions which involve a wholesale breaking of promises, including increasing the petrol tax and somehow justifying that on the basis, as the Treasurer suggested, that poor people do not drive as much, which is utterly ridiculous and, in fact, completely wrong. Poor people, if we are going to use that term, need to have as easy access to transport as possible to connect them with employment opportunities. Reducing the ease of that transport actually makes their condition much worse. Yet that is what we have been faced with by the budget that has been put forward. Another measure is forcing young job seekers who are under 30 to spend six months without any income whatsoever before they can claim any income support. That is an appalling proposition to put to the people of Corio, Norlane, Newcomb and Whittington, for whom that kind of support is utterly essential in empowering them to pursue their economic opportunities and seek employment. Ultimately, what that does is place a burden on their families and put them in a position of needing to make really extreme decisions, the kinds of decisions that we would not want those people to make.

I can go on and on. Other measures include removing the three months backdating of the disability pension for veterans; raising the retirement age to 70; cutting families from family tax benefit part B when their youngest child turns six; slashing the family tax benefit end-of-year supplements and ceasing indexation; pushing young people under 25 from Newstart onto the lower youth allowance, which amounts to a cut of at least $48 a week, or almost $2½ thousand a year; axing the education entry payment; axing the seniors supplement, which is worth more than $800 a year to around 300,000 of our senior Australians; axing the pensioner education supplement; cutting the deeming rate thresholds for seniors and veterans, which will leave them with lower pensions; cutting the age pension, the disability support pension, the veterans pension and the carer payment by $80 a week within 10 years through the changing of the indexation arrangements; cutting the parenting payment arrangement for single parents; extending the ordinary waiting period for working age payments; freezing the payment rates for family tax benefits—and I could go on. This represents a very significant assault on the social safety net of Australia but particularly of the Geelong community at a time when the Geelong community needs that safety net more than ever.

We are seeing some interesting movements on the other side of the aisle when it comes to what is going on with their commitment to this budget and, indeed, who might ultimately lead the government in the future, but make no mistake: this is a government which, when you look across the entirety of the frontbench, supports the aspirations and the intent of the budget as it was handed down in May last year. One only needs to look at what the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, has said:

No minister has ever said to me that the budget was unfair, that's right.

That says everything. There is absolutely no doubt that, whoever ends up leading the show on the other side and no matter what they jettison, at the end of the day the entirety of that frontbench signed up to the measures which were in the budget, which I have just outlined. Indeed, the finance minister has said in recent weeks that he feels:

The second Budget will build on the progress that we made in our first Budget.

Note the word 'progress'. That is the way in which this government characterises what it has done in respect of the budget that was handed down.

We are seeing changes to the budget, and there seems to be an attempt to throw as many things overboard as possible. We have seen that with the paid parental leave scheme and we have seen it this week with the GP co-payment—but, even after that was tossed overboard, the Minister for Health made clear:

The policy intent was and remains a good one …

This is a statement that was made after the decision to shelve the GP co-payment—'The policy intent was and remains a good one.' So it is important that every Australian understands that, whatever they do on the other side, what they want to do and what the government believes in is to pursue the budget as it was handed down in May last year.

In articulating those points, I want to say something about the discussion which has occurred in respect of Australia Post and how that impacts the local community that I represent here. Australia Post is a treasured institution with a universal service obligation covering every single home and business right across the country. The elderly, the vulnerable and millions of people around Australia rely on our postal services, including small businesses and including charities. Currently, Australia Post has 4,400 post offices; 2½ thousand of those are in regional areas. Stamps are 70c. Australia Post is required to deliver mail in any regional city or town like Geelong for local delivery by the very next day. It is a crucial service, ensuring that Australian businesses and the economy in general run smoothly. For example, Australia Post estimates that it can deliver an average of 12.6 million items of mail every working day. The scale, efficiency and importance of this institution across our country are undeniable. The price of a stamp guarantees delivery regardless of any difficulties encountered on its journey to its destination.

We on this side of the parliament understand the need for reform in the context of the changing nature of our communications environment. In saying that, any measures that are taken need to be done in a way which takes the community with us, need to be done in a way which takes the Australia Post workforce along with those reforms, and need to be in consultation with the relevant unions. It is not a radical proposition—you need to bring people along when there is change.

In recent days, we have seen the communications minister announce that this service that we rely on will be the subject of a significant change. Mr Turnbull, the communications minister, has stood up and tried to sell to the Australian public the idea of paying more money for a letter to arrive two days slower than it does today. This will shift the cost, to a degree, of this efficient and universal service onto the public. At a time when family budgets in Geelong are facing threats from the government, as I have outlined, to their health care and education and when we are seeing jobs being lost and the cost of living rising and growth slowing, that is the moment that we see this Minister for Communications and the Prime Minister decide that the time is right to look at Australia Post and add additional burdens onto the consumer.

My constituency of Corio is an electorate stretching to the north of Geelong and inland to the City of Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula. It includes a lot of regional communities like St Leonards, Portarlington, Lara and Anakie, and mail delivery is a vital service for these communities. It is a service that keeps citizens engaged with one another and drives local economies. A second-rate Australia Post simply is not good enough for them and it is not good enough from this government.

The member for Corangamite, a good friend of mine, represents the other part of Geelong and, in that sense, we share the representation of Geelong in this place. In November 2013 she said:

I appreciate that Australia Post's letters business is under significant financial pressure. However, for people living in regional cities and country towns, mail delivery is a vital service. Country people matter and services to regional Australia matter.

Hear, hear to that! The member for Corangamite was absolutely right in what she said in 2013. The critical question now is whether or not the member for Corangamite is standing up to the Minister for Communications to ensure that, in 2015, the proposals that are being put forward do not contradict what made eminent sense to her back in 2013.

People living across my electorate rely on this service every day—and many other members will have people living in their regional cities and towns that rely on this service every day. These people matter and they should not be punished by this government's reform agenda for Australia Post's universal services. My office has contacted a number of licensed post offices and small businesses across my electorate. My office has contacted a number of the approximately 28 LPOs across the Corio electorate, and they are telling me that they are already facing serious issues. The cost of keeping their local postal services running, the high level of service that is being demanded from them and from their staff, the rise of online shopping and the financial pressures of an ailing retail sector have added to their complexity.

The questions that now need to be encompassed in any reform include whether there will be cuts to employment in the mail services and whether the number of licensed post offices and jobs will remain in Australia or might we see job losses. In short, what we need to hear from this government, and what we need to hear from the member for Corangamite given that she has identified that this is a matter of concern to her, is a ruling out of the shutting of any post office in Geelong—a ruling out of the shutting down of any post office, any LPO, within the electorate of Corio—and a ruling out of the cutting of any staff from Australia Post. If the member for Corangamite and the government are going to be true to their word, the government need to be making that statement now, and it is against that benchmark that the government ought to be held to account.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on these appropriation bills today, representing as they do a very central part of government—the need to appropriate money to run the activities of the government. The word 'appropriation' is quite relevant because it is a strong word. To appropriate means to take, and the reality is that what governments do, through the force of law, is say to their citizens that they are required to pay certain amounts through taxation and then the government seeks to use those funds for the betterment of the community. It is done through the force of law, and members of our community are required to comply with government rules about taxation and so on. As a result, it is incredibly important that, when we do appropriate money from the people and businesses of Australia, we use that money wisely, because it cannot be morally right to take money from the people of Australia unless we are using that money in the most sensible fashion possible.

There is an immense contrast here. Under the previous government, the levels of appropriation rose to record amounts and the inefficiency with which that money was spent also rose to record levels. My electorate of Banks has many characteristics, and one of the characteristics is that people in my electorate do not like to see their money wasted. They absolutely accept the need to pay tax to contribute to the caring of people less fortunate in our society and the many other things that government does. What they object to, and rightly so, is when that money is wasted or used in a bad way, and that is exactly what happened under the previous government.

What I want to do this morning is talk a bit about where we have come from, after the six years of a Labor government, and where we are now with respect to the use of government money and where we might go back to should the ALP ever come back into power. As the shadow Treasurer described it, the 'opening salvo in the battle of ideas' has been launched in the form of tax No. 1 from the ALP in recent weeks. I think it is important to reflect a little on what might happen there, which I will do in a moment.

Let's talk a bit about the evidence of the six years of Labor. One thing that is extraordinarily consistent is that, in every year of ALP budgets, they ended up having to appropriate more money than they forecast they would. So, for every single budget, they said they would need a certain amount of money but they ended up taking more every time. The amounts vary. In 2009-10 they were only out by $1 billion; they thought it would be $338 billion but it was actually $339 billion. What is $1 billion between friends? In 2010-11 they were out by $1.5 billion; they thought it would be $354.6 billion but it was actually $356.1 billion. In 2012-13 they got it wrong by $6.3 billion; they thought it was going to be $376 billion but it was actually $382 billion. The year 2011-12 was not so good; they got that wrong by nearly $12 billion. They said in the budget that they would spend $365.8 billion but they actually spent $377.7 billion. So that was a $12 billion difference, which is quite extraordinary. In 2008-09, which won the award here, they projected that they would spend $292 billion but they actually spent $324 billion. They spent $32 billion more than they had forecast in their own budget. So, every single time, they spent more than they said they would. That is a very consistent theme and it sends a very clear message about the manner in which they manage the budget.

I want to move to a small indicative example of budget management under the previous government. This concerns a relatively small program, a program in an area which is an important area of public policy, and that is dementia. When the Labor Party were in government they said that they would introduce a dementia supplement to assist people suffering from that condition. Clearly, on both sides of the House, we would acknowledge the importance of providing assistance where we can to people in that situation. Jacinta Collins, the senator who had the responsibility for this, described these as historic reforms, saying that these were the most substantial reforms to Australia's aged-care system in a generation and that they followed extensive community consultation. The consultation must have been, at least to some extent, inadequate, because Senator Collins thought this would cost $11.7 million in 2013-14 but it actually cost $135 million. That is about an 11 times difference. That figure is dramatically out. It really speaks to this issue of having the capacity to plan in a sensible way and to understand operations, to understand how things will play out in the real world, as opposed to being able to issue a press release. That is a damning indictment. They thought it would cost $12 million and it cost $135 million. In the scheme of the federal budget, that is a relatively small amount, but there were so many of these examples right across the previous government's unhappy tenure. The good news is that we now have a government in place that is managing the funds of Australia in a much better fashion. The evidence of that is very clear.

Let's have a look at immigration. There was an extraordinary blow-out in immigration costs under the previous government. There are a lot of things in the immigration portfolio, but the key reason for the blow-out was the complete loss of control of Australia's borders: $11 billion, 50,000 people arriving and the tragic humanitarian consequences of that policy. Under this government, the cost of the immigration portfolio is declining; it is coming down substantially. It was $4.4 billion in 2013-14, and in the current year it comes down to $4.2 billion. It is expected to come down to $3.5 billion the year after that, $3 billion the year after that and $2.8 billion in 2017-18. That can happen because of the very effective stewardship of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, both the previous minister and the current minister. That is an extraordinary contrast. Under the previous government it was completely out of control in a humanitarian and a financial sense, but, through the strong management of the current government, it is very firmly under control.

We see the same thing with the NBN. Someone will inevitably have the job of chronicling the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments in some detail. When they do that, someone will have to write a very lengthy chapter about the NBN, because the mismanagement and rank amateurism that we have seen in the planning of the NBN is really in a class of its own. They originally said it was going to cost about $10 billion, and the government was going to put in $4.7 billion. Then they said, 'No, actually, sorry, it is going to cost $43 billion, but private investors are going to put up 49 per cent of that'—which did not happen. That is a big increase, from $10 billion to $43 billion. Then, when we conducted a proper and thorough review of this soon after coming into government, it turned out it was on track to be about $72 billion—that is a lot more than $10 billion. This is a particularly interesting point: the estimate of $72 billion was based on the assumption that it would cost about $2,200 to $2,500 to wire up each premises with the fibre-to-the-premises strategy.

As we found in Senate estimates last week, it turns out that it was actually costing $4,300 per premises, not $2,500. It was $73 billion on the assumption that it would be about $2,500 per home, but it was actually $4,300 per home. That means that even the estimate of $73 billion was low. So a program that was originally supposed to cost the taxpayer $4.7 billion was on track to cost well in excess of $73 billion. That is absolutely scandalous. What we are seeing under the Minister for Communications, so ably assisted by his parliamentary secretary, is a much more sensible rollout, a rollout that makes use of a range of technologies, not just one—because there are a lot of different ways of getting high-speed broadband to the home—and at a much, much lower cost. Importantly, it is actually happening. We are not saying construction has commenced, when there is simply a piece of paper showing someone would have liked construction to have commenced. Construction has commenced if construction has actually commenced. That is a very important contrast.

Infrastructure is another one. Not a lot happened in infrastructure under the previous government. The M5, particularly the M5 East, is a big issue in my electorate of Banks. I do not know if you have ever travelled on the M5 East in Sydney, but if you have it can be a very unpleasant experience, due to the traffic. The previous government said they would provide some funding to the New South Wales government to help build the M5 East, but with a whole range of completely untenable conditions. As a consequence, it did not happen. No money was provided. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, said if you commit to building productivity-enhancing infrastructure we will back you. We will back you 100 per cent. We provided $1.5 billion in cash plus a concessional loan of $2 billion. That has meant that the M5 East duplication—it is actually more than a duplication, because it is going to go from four lanes to 10—is actually happening. We expect that duplication to be in place in 2019, which is a fantastic improvement and a good example of when you appropriate money for the purpose of running a government you must do so cautiously and carefully, but to appropriate money for the purpose of building infrastructure that a) helps business to do business more quickly, and b) helps people to spend more time with their families—that is a very sensible appropriation indeed.

The third thing I wanted to talk about is what happens under the alternative model. There were some very illuminating newspaper articles and various comments made, particularly in January, when the opposition was surprisingly open about its plans. The shadow Treasurer said very clearly, 'Revenue measures are on the table.' Part of the Year of Ideas—I suspect pretty much all of the Year of Ideas—will be so-called revenue measures. Generally, that means tax increase—'revenue measure' sounds a bit better, but basically it means a tax increase. On 27 January the shadow Assistant Treasurer wrote this fascinating op-ed article in The Australian, where he really wept at the grave of the carbon and mining taxes, really lamented their demise. He said:

… the Abbott Government has thrown out significant sources of revenue like the carbon price and the mining tax …

He actually provided some advice to the Assistant Treasurer, saying that Mr Frydenberg should be pressing his colleagues to 'reconsider some of the decisions' related to the carbon tax and the mining tax. I am very confident the Assistant Treasurer will not take that advice, because it is very poor advice indeed. These were job-killing taxes that significantly increased the cost of household living expenses.

The opposition has said clearly that revenue measures are coming. There is going to be a whole range of announcements, we can assume, about revenue measures and tax increases. We had the first one this week. This was a somewhat complex issue that relates to the capitalisation rules for foreign entities. There have been big headlines saying it is going to raise $2 billion. It would raise absolutely nothing of the sort. It was described by the shadow Treasurer as the opening salvo in the battle of ideas—quite a grand pronouncement. But that is a salvo from a very small popgun. Because this proposal, as the Business Council of Australia said, has 'the potential to slow economic growth and further diminish Australia's competitiveness'. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it has the potential to 'make Australia a less attractive place for international investment, thereby pushing new projects offshore and hurting jobs'. That cannot be a sensible thing. We do wait with interest for the Year of Ideas. I am very confident that the vast majority of the ideas will be new taxes leading to further appropriations of money from the Australian people and Australian companies, and that is the wrong path. This government has demonstrated the right way to manage the nation's finances.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Almost one in five Australian women over the age of 18, as we heard yesterday, have experienced violence by a current or previous partner in their lifetime. Only one in five of those reported it to the police. Men who are victims of violence are even less likely to report family violence, with only one in 20 men who have experienced current partner violence reporting that to the police. Three in five victims of violence by a previous partner also reported having children in their care at the time of the relationship, and more than a third said that these children had witnessed the violence.

These are shocking figures. For far too long violence in the home was treated by the police, by the law and by wider society as a private problem. Slowly, we have seen a long overdue change to that attitude. We have seen laws changed. We have seen policing strategies change. We have seen attitudes change. It has come after many years, indeed, many decades, of work, particular by the feminist movement, the women's refuge movement and others. The violence that used to be a shameful secret with so many women and children, and, indeed, some men, living in terror in their own homes is now talked about. It is now understood to be the crime that it is—not an accident, not an outburst, not an incident, but an act of criminal violence every bit as serious as an assault on the street. And worse in some ways, because it occurs where we should feel safest, and at the hands of a person we should be able to trust.

When Rosie Batty became the Australian of the Year I think many Australians were so pleased to welcome that, because of her own dignity and resilience, but also as a sign that our country was continuing to move forward, continuing to make the much needed reforms to support, protect and help the victims of, and those fleeing, domestic violence. But the truth is that despite the great achievements of decades past many challenges still remain. Those challenges are best illustrated by the figures I used earlier. This is why Labor, in government, set up the National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. That council did wonderful work in consulting more than 2,000 Australians: survivors of violence, perpetrators of violence, educators, service providers, people living in rural and remote areas, members of Indigenous communities and culturally and linguistically diverse communities, women with disabilities, older women, members of the judiciary and police.

Out of this consultation process came the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, which set the direction for better, more integrated services and for necessary changes at state and federal level. This was the first time that we had a truly national plan, which state, territory and federal governments agreed to, that set targets and described how we would get there. The plan included an $86 million investment to drive nationwide change in culture, behaviour and attitudes that underpin violence against women and children. It included research initiatives, including the establishment of the Australian National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, ANROWS, and key measures focused on prevention and on innovative and integrated service delivery.

We provided additional funds for legal services and for homelessness programs, because we know that women escaping violence need legal support and need somewhere to go. We made sure that the right for victims to be able to request flexible work arrangements was included in the Fair Work Act, so that those who were experiencing family violence could stay in work, keep their jobs and stay safe at work. Many workplaces have now taken that a step further and have included domestic violence leave provisions as a workplace entitlement. For example, women might need time off to attend court, and being able to speak confidentially to your employer and explain why you are taking leave that day is very important. We invested in programs to improve community safety and to tackle family violence in Indigenous communities. Of course, this work is not done. Our efforts must be unceasing. Our determination must not waver. Our commitment must only increase.

I am sad to say—though I do not doubt the commitment of members of parliament on both sides of this parliament—that some of the resources to pursue those commitments have been lost in recent times. In the past 18 months desperately needed funds have been cut from front-line services. The cuts were compounded in my own state by further cuts from the state Liberal government. Around Australia more than 50 different services, which provide victims of domestic violence with services ranging from applying for intervention orders to obtaining emergency food and medical supplies, are cutting staff, slashing programs or closing entirely. These services must have certainty. The women who need them deserve certainty. Instead they face uncertainty and reduced resourcing.

Labor committed $42 million to community legal initiatives in 2013, much of which would assist victims of family violence. There are 190 community legal centres in Australia that play a vital role in day-to-day family violence casework. The centres help women negotiate the process of getting family violence orders, they advise them of their legal rights and options, and they bring a unique insight into how the legal system impacts victims and perpetrators. The legal assistance sector has faced $43 million in cuts from the Abbott government over the forward estimates. Community legal centres have no funding certainty beyond June 2015. Cuts announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in 2013 included $6.5 million cut from legal aid commissions and $3.6 million cut from family violence prevention legal centres.

The National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services, which specifically work with Indigenous families across 14 organisations, will be forced to close unless new funding is found. The executive director of the Women's Legal Centre (ACT and Region), which covers a large area, not just of the ACT, but also of southern New South Wales, has said that the centre will have to turn away 500 women a year after losing $100,000 in federal funding over the next two financial years. This centre assists about 1,200 women a year. Two-thirds of those women have recent experience of domestic violence, and two-thirds of those women earn less than $35,000 a year. Many of the centre's clients earn much less than that, and some earn nothing at all.

In Victoria alone, another 14 community legal centres will lose front-line family violence specialists. The Murray Mallee Community Legal Service will lose their full-time lawyer specialising in intervention orders and family violence work. Last year, that lawyer single-handedly dealt with 150 intervention orders. Women's Legal Service Tasmania will lose $100,000 a year from 1 July 2015. That is fully one-third of their Commonwealth funding, which means, literally, that many hundreds of women and their children will be missing out on legal support each year during what is probably going to be the toughest time of their lives.

These legal services provides a vital help to thousands of women, many of whom are victims of family violence. Without their specialised and expert assistance in family law and family violence matters, and their emphasis on early intervention, thousands of women will go without help. Many programs and services which provide emergency relief, family relationship counselling, financial counselling, homelessness support and settlement services—services crucially important to women fleeing violent homes—depend on community grants, which of course have also been cut. Yet, this government has cut $271 million from the discretionary grants program since May 2014 which will impact these services in unprecedented ways.

In New South Wales Burwood Community Welfare Services, which operates six direct programs to Sydney's inner west dealing with housing and homelessness, financial counselling and other matters, has had all its Commonwealth funding cut. Another Blue Mountains based service, which lost $125,000, will no longer be able to provide either emergency food or emergency medication for women and children. In New South Wales we have seen the impact of that across the board in refuges, in homelessness services and in services providing emergency relief.

Mr Husic interjecting—

My colleague speaks of the Mount Druitt community centre that has also seen funding cuts. Family violence is the leading cause of homelessness for women and children, but under this government housing and homelessness programs have also been cut. In the first budget, $44 million was cut out of homelessness services and there is no funding certainty beyond 2015 in the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. That $44 million is all of the new building money in the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

The National Rental Affordability Scheme has been abolished—a scheme that has provided homes for thousands of women and children. It would have been set to provide homes for thousands more, and it has been cut. They have abolished the National Housing Supply Council and they have cut funding for the National Affordable Housing Agreement. These cuts put at risk programs like Safe At Home, services located in the Perth metropolitan region which help victims of domestic violence stay in their own homes, with security and other upgrades, which see perpetrators required to leave rather than uprooting victims of violence and their children. There are the Western Australian services that help women who have fled to refuges find more permanent housing in the private rental market and support them for their first year. Neither of these successful programs has any certainty past June.

It is not just Australian women who are suffering from cuts to services that help victims of violence. The cuts to our aid budget—$11.2 billion across the forward estimates; incidentally, there was a cut at every budget and at each of the two updates since the government was elected—undermine the work that Australia has been globally renowned for in supporting victims of violence, particularly in our region. This includes the work that we have supported in the past by the Vanuatu Women's Centre that I visited with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in December 2013. That centre is run by remarkable women. It is run for women and their children. It has 37 island based committees across the country and since 2007 has helped more than 10,000 survivors of family violence with counselling, legal assistance and accommodation. It works hard to improve educational and economic outcomes for women too. That centre provided 4,267 people with counselling and support services across all six provinces in 2012-13. Follow-on surveys suggest that 95 per cent of clients were satisfied with the counselling they received. They have also helped 280 at-risk women to obtain family protection orders. That is just one of the outstanding aid projects that Australian aid funding has supported in the past in addressing violence against women and children. Another example is the domestic violence awareness training for police in Solomon Islands, which I was also privileged to see.

In 2015, our community accepts that violence in the home is not a second-order issue; it is not a private problem; it demands a government response, specialist services, co-ordinated delivery and resources on the ground. I do not doubt for a moment that people on both sides of this parliament are united in their implacable opposition to domestic violence, but it takes more than fine words. It takes resources. The cuts to these resources will be deeply damaging to the very services that help women fleeing domestic violence.

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

I want to express my absolute alarm over an action that the Victorian government is considering taking, and that is annulling the compensation payable if they breach the East West contract and doing that through a legislative instrument. This is an extraordinary proposition. Even the discussion of this proposal to legislate away the compensation payable is causing the business community to be concerned about future investment in Victoria. If the Andrews government goes ahead and puts this legislation through the parliament, it would put Victoria back to the Cain-Kirner era of governance and make every investment in Victoria more risky and, consequently, more expensive for every future investment project. What does this mean? This means ultimately fewer investments in Victoria and fewer jobs for Victoria.

Victoria as a state already has to deal with the most militant unions in the country, causing some global companies to literally boycott doing any construction in the state of Victoria. If Premier Andrews legislates to annul contractual rights, he will be trashing Victoria's reputation and the impacts will reverberate across Australia. How did we get to this position? I would like to give you a bit of context. This is not a new initiative. It has not even been a partisan initiative. For almost nine years, both parties in Victoria have encouraged it, facilitated it or actively supported it, until only a few months ago. When you look at some of the history, for example, you see that it was initially put on the table by the Victorian Labor government when they commissioned the Eddington report in March 2006, almost nine years ago to the day. In 2008, the important Eddington report was tabled and it made 20 recommendations. There were two very significant infrastructure recommendations, one of which was, of course, an 18-kilometre road connection, including tunnels, linking the Eastern Freeway with Footscray, CityLink and the Western Ring Road—that is, the East West Link as we know it today. In that report, Sir Rod Eddington made some very decisive comments. He said:

The evidence is clear: doing nothing is not an option.

The evidence is also clear that failing to take action will undermine Melbourne's future prosperity and reduce the benefits being generated by the city's growth and development.

Premier John Brumby responded to that report in August 2008. He said:

One way or another we've got to address this issue of a second east-west crossing and … one way or another … we've got to build capacity on the public transport system.

The Victorian Labor government at that time commissioned the report themselves, which recommended the East West Link. The Labor Premier at the time, Mr Brumby, had actively supported the proposal. Julia Gillard herself, an emerging leader, said that:

There are a range of possible options but I think everyone is recognising that something needs to be done to deal with traffic congestion from the west of Melbourne into the city.

The AWU at the time, which was led by the now Leader of the Opposition, actually said something in 2008. He would no doubt recall, sitting opposite me now, that it said:

The Australian Workers Union (AWU) believes that the new east–west link is crucial to jobs and economic growth. A new transport link from Melbourne’s booming west to the south east and eastern suburbs has the AWU’s strong support because the Victorian economy relies on the efficient movement of freight and people.

In fact, it actually went further than that in that. It makes comments about people who were opposing this. It said in that submission, back in 2008 when Bill Shorten was the leader of the AWU:

Opponents may prefer a declining population as the best means of dealing with congestion and the challenges of growth as their children leave the state to search for better jobs and migrants choose other destinations. However, such a proposition would never be supported by the AWU. Better solutions are at hand.

That solution that was at hand then, as it is today, was the East West Link project.

We are now in this situation and Daniel Andrews now has a choice. There are three options available to him. Now that the Prime Minister has arrived, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.