Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is wonderful to know that two of these participants have now secured employment. This is a common result that I have seen from our local Work for the Dole projects since Minister Hartsuyker visited Dobell back in May 2014 to launch the government's reinvigorated Work for the Dole scheme. Commonly when I ask participants the question, 'Where would you be if not participating in Work for the Dole?' I receive the answer, 'At home on the couch.' You will find no stronger advocate for the Work for the Dole program than the participants themselves.

I would like to give particular thanks and credit to Mr Andrew Smith, who oversaw the initial rollout of the Work for the Dole program on the Central Coast over the past 12 months. I look forward to seeing the Work for the Dole program continue to grow in Dobell and provide greater opportunities for local job seekers. During the minister's visit we met with Mr Tony Mylan, the CEO of ET Australia. Tony said:

Our recent meeting with Assistant Minister Hartsuyker in Wyong, where the Budget measures were discussed, has provided ET Australia the hope that we can deliver a range of activities for Central Coast young people so they can more successfully transition to work.

This demonstrates that the government's measures will make a positive impact on the Central Coast. In addition to the successful Work for the Dole program, the government is helping Australian small businesses to create more work experience opportunities for Australia's unemployed, particularly young people and maturer workers. Minister Hartsuyker and I visited Donna, who owns and operates Lakes Office Choice at Tuggerah. Donna's small business employs 10 people. She openly shared her previous experiences with engaging young work experience workers and the difficulty it had placed on her as a small business operator.

The government recognises the red tape impost associated with work experience positions and will provide $18 million over four years for approximately 6,000 job seekers to undertake valuable work experience for up to four weeks while they continue to receive income support. As a result of both Work for the Dole and work experience programs, it is our hope that job seekers will gain the confidence and experience to transition into work.

Programs such as these are expanding upon the investment that we have made in the field of apprenticeships. Speaking with the team at Central Coast Group Training, who operate a youth skills and employment centre, we were informed that in the week following the federal budget they had placed the highest number of apprentices in six years. This demonstrates the confidence of local businesses who acknowledge that the government is on the right path, creating prosperity and the opportunity for business operators to host an apprentice or trainee.

Not only is the Central Coast a beautiful place to live, raise a family and work it is also a beautiful place for retirement. This budget is not only supporting Dobell's families and job seekers but also it is delivering certainty for our senior Australians in their retirement. I am pleased to say that as a result of this government's budget measures approximately 90 per cent of Dobell's aged pensioners will see their pensions remain the same or increase to an average of $30 per week. Importantly, this is the support our aged pensioners deserve. And it is fair.

All of this good work is fundamental to building a safe and secure Australia. Keeping Australians safe and secure is the highest responsibility of the government. I recently had the honour of joining Australian Defence personnel in the Middle East as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. My participation in the program reinforced my belief that Australia is the best country in the world. But we should never lose sight of the freedoms and liberties—and the sacrifices made by Australians over our century of war to provide us with the freedoms and values—we enjoy today.

The security threat confronting Australia is real, and it is serious. This is why our national terrorism public-alert level was raised to high last year. All Australians witnessed the horror of the Martin Place siege, the attack on police officers in Melbourne and the foiled terrorist plots in the months since. We have all uttered the words, 'This doesn't happen in Australia.' Unfortunately, times have changed. This government has a strong record in maintaining Australia's national security. This government's success in stopping the boats and securing our borders should not merely be consigned to the history books. The challenge is ongoing. We must remain resolute in our determination to break the trade of people smugglers, to ensure that lives are not lost at sea.

I support the government's commitment to Defence, national security and law enforcement. This is an important element of the budget. There is a substantial commitment of $35 billion in 2015-16 and we have committed $1.2 billion of new funding to address the threat of Daesh, foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, and the dangers of home-grown terrorism. I support these measures wholeheartedly.

We must continue to strive for a better future, complete with more opportunity and greater reward. I am confident we are on the right path. I hear it every day in my community. There is growing optimism amongst small businesses. I see first-hand our families feeling more secure about their work-life balance. Our pensioners are telling me that their interests and concerns are being addressed, and our community has faith that their government will protect them and their way of life. This is a great budget for a great nation. I look forward to continuing to deliver to the people of Dobell and the Central Coast. I commend the budget to House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After last year's truly terrible budget that had impacted on so many people across the community and had demonstrated a failure by this government to honour the commitments it had taken to the election and people had voted upon—in the expectation that they would be delivered, but they were not—there was great expectation that this budget would, in fact, be better than the last. This has turned out to be nothing but a cruel hoax. It is a cruel hoax to the people I represent, in Western Sydney, and a cruel hoax to a lot of other people across the country.

On so many levels, when you look at the life cycle from young people through to people who work through to people who retire, all continue to be affected by this budget. You should not judge the Prime Minister by his words, you should judge him by his actions. Do not judge him on the types of promises that were made leading into this budget, judge him by the outcomes that will be visited upon the people—particularly those I represent in this place—at every single level, starting with young people, particularly children. In my area, there are about 19,000 families that are dependent on family tax benefit part A and 17,000 on family tax benefit part B. On family tax benefit B in particular, what can be expected? When children reach the age of six, the expectation that parents had for some time that there would be some support to help them meet the cost of living in raising children is gone. Those cuts would take place. When people ask where Prime Minister Tony Abbott was when people needed help and support, he was nowhere.

What happens when young children who have been affected by that type of thing go to school and want the opportunity to unleash their potential? Again, the Prime Minister said that this government was about unleashing the potential of Australians. Young Australians expected their potential to be unleashed and supported through, for the first time, a chance to change the way we fund education in this country and target need. In my part of Western Sydney—where we would have expected, rightly, support through the Gonski reforms for schools where there are young people in need—that funding has been cut. Billions have been cut from funding to schools. That was basically enacted last year in the budget, and this year it is continuing to have an impact in this second budget. There is no reversal or change whatsoever to that schools funding. Then you need to ask: where was the Prime Minister when young people and their parents wanted better support for schooling? The Prime Minister was nowhere in reversing billions of dollars in cuts to school education.

The Prime Minister tells us he wants people to take the jobs that are there. No-one—simply no-one—walks up to a job, presents themselves and expects a job to land in their lap. They need to be able to have the level of skills required to undertake the job. Then you look, for example, at what this government has done to make people job ready, in terms of vocational education, and you see millions cut. So you need to ask the question: where was the Prime Minister when people wanted extra support and training to get the jobs that he claims are out there? He was nowhere to be seen.

If you want younger people to go on to tertiary education and get the skills that we need to ensure that our economy keeps growing and that those people can go on to better lives—again, the Prime Minister said he was about unlocking potential—where was he on that? This budget continues to nurture at its heart the desire for $100,000 university degrees that would put university education out of reach for the young people of Western Sydney and families who are genuinely anxious about whether or not their young will be able to go on to university and whether their talent, not their parents' bank balance, will be the measure of whether or not they get into university. There is no chance under this budget, which again, as I said, maintains what was delivered in last year's budget, which is a type of higher education reform that puts higher education out of reach for young people in our area. Where was the Prime Minister when people needed support so that they could get into higher education? Nowhere to be seen.

Where was the support for young disadvantaged people who had fallen out of school or fallen out of traditional avenues of support and who need targeted assistance, some help to be able to build their own life skills and then get into training and get job ready for, again, the jobs that the Prime Minister claims are out there? Youth Connections was cut in the last budget. Programs that would have supported, for example, Marist Youth Care in my area—who lost millions in funding to support young people in our area with the type of assistance that was required to get them back on track—are gone. Where is Prime Minister Tony Abbott when people in our area who want to get a job or get trained need that extra support to get them job ready? He is simply not there.

Look at the jobs themselves. The Prime Minister claims that he wants to get people to take the jobs that are out there. The coalition promised they would create one million jobs, which was not based on any economic fact. This was, as has been discovered and revealed in the last 12 months, simply a number manufactured by the coalition going into the election, not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But we are told that one million jobs will be created. We later asked, 'Where are those jobs?' We are in a situation where the jobless figure is higher now than it was during the global financial crisis. Unemployment has been revised upwards and will stay above six per cent. Those jobs that the Prime Minister expects people to take up are simply not there. Where was the Prime Minister when people wanted jobs and wanted to be able to go into meaningful employment? Where is the Prime Minister and where is the evidence of jobs being there for people? They are nowhere to be seen.

The Prime Minister believes, as we all do, that employment provides a much better avenue to economic prosperity than welfare. Yet where are we at with wages? Wages are growing at their slowest rate since records began, particularly in the case of the Reserve Bank. They are growing slowly—more slowly than has ever been experienced. It means that the types of pay increases that people would have been able to rely upon to fund the things that families need to pay for—getting the bills paid, making sure the kids go to school and taking the family holiday and the time away—are not there. Wages continue to grow at the slowest rate that has ever been experienced. What is the coalition's response to this? The coalition has elements that argue, for instance, that penalty rates should be cut. This is the answer to slow wages growth: to take money away from people. A government that refuses to support any application to boost low-income earners' wage increases through the Fair Work Commission will always oppose a wage rise for people when they want to be in employment. People want that employment to be meaningful and fund the type of lifestyle they have a right to expect. Where is the Prime Minister when people want to have fulfilling jobs that pay them well? He is nowhere to be seen.

The people who are losing their jobs in this economy want to be able to turn to employment services to get them back into paid employment. But this government has completely shaken up the way that employment agencies are funded. We have seen a cut to the number of agencies being able to provide that type of support to people who turn to them for help when they need it most to get back to the workforce. The Prime Minister says he wants to put people into jobs. The people that can help those people get into jobs have been denied the ability to do so. Again I ask: where was the Prime Minister when people who wanted employment and wanted support needed that help? He was simply not present.

What about people who are experiencing short-term or long-term healthcare problems and want to be able to get a quality level of health care—for example, in my part of Western Sydney? What did this government do leading into the budget? It cut the funds that were assigned to provide things like MRI machines in Mount Druitt hospital. That funding was cut in the first MYEFO of this government. It then continued to cut support to state governments that had already, for example, shut the cardiac ward at Mount Druitt hospital that was providing assistance to a part of Western Sydney that has some of the highest rates of heart disease in metropolitan Sydney. We have had our cardiac ward shut. In the last budget, the Abbott government cut funding to states for health care, and those cuts were not reversed in this budget. What has been the outcome? In the last week alone, Mount Druitt hospital advised that it will be cutting nursing staff who are providing health care for the people in our area. State budgets are now under pressure because they have been suddenly gazumped by a federal Abbott government that did not warn anyone and, in fact, promised there would be no cuts to health. Where was Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, when people in my area relied upon an adequate level of funding support for health care? He was nowhere to be seen.

What will happen when low-income people who are in the workforce want to be able to save and put extra money aside in superannuation? There was a scheme in place to ensure that the government would make a modest $500 contribution to superannuation accounts so people would have their own savings to live off instead of the pension when they retired, or not draw on the pension as much. This co-investment by government, the low income superannuation contribution, was cut by this government. On the one hand it takes away support, a tax concession for low-income people, but on the other it refuses to make any changes to the taxation concessions provided to those people with superannuation accounts of $1.5 million.

Those concessions, in total, will start to weigh down on government revenue to the extent that it will be higher than the pension bill faced by this country. This government refuses to tackle those concessions—its answer is to cut pensions, to cut concessions to pensioners and to change indexation for people in their retirement years who would rely upon the pension. Again, where is the Prime Minister when the people who are in the workforce want to save for their retirements and rely upon some support to ensure that they are not drawing on the pension, to the same extent, when they retire? The Prime Minister is simply nowhere to be seen.

For those leaving the workforce who do not have adequate super—who made plans to get a pension—what happened? The Abbott government changed the pension-indexation arrangements and told everyone for the best part of a year that the pension would continue to rise, knowing full well they would cut the amount of income that pensioners would have. They cut the support to states and territories to extend pensioner concessions—costing pensioners $1,500 a year—and have continued that cut, not reversing that position. In retirement, when pensioners rely upon a pension and level of income support—that would not be there for superannuation, because they have been in the workforce too long—where is the Prime Minister for pensioners, in my part of the world or pensioners in other parts of the country? He is simply not there.

Across all areas of Australian society, as I have indicated—for children, for young people, for people in the workplace, for families and for retirees—people are simply being affected, again, by this budget because it either fails to correct the terrible decisions made at the last budget or adds to the burdens already in place. It fails to meet the government's own test as to what it would achieve. It promised it would cut debt and the deficit. Both are up—debt is up and the deficit is up. And joblessness is up. We are seeing the impacts on the broader community as a result of this.

There is no plan for the future and no plan for the jobs that we need to prepare for into the future. However—I would make this point—the PM is there for someone, when the need is clear, and he will act and change direction. He will do all sorts of things. He will switch from denying funds to showering funds. There is nothing he will not do for this person in a time of need and he will shape an entire federal budget around them, regardless of whether it conflicts or undermines their ability to meet their own commitments. That person is the Prime Minister himself. He is not there for children, he is not there for families, he is not there for workers and he is not there for pensioners. He is there for himself. This budget is a survival document for the Prime Minister, which robs from various people in our community to save his position. It demonstrates at its core how fundamentally shabby this budget is and how it denies people, particularly in Western Sydney, the fair go that they ultimately deserve. It is all about saving the Prime Minister and not saving the broader Australian community.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These appropriation bills make provision for moneys required to be appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund, as part of the 2015-16 federal budget, to fund the day-to-day operations of the Commonwealth. The budget forms part of the government's plan to build a strong and prosperous economy while funding the traditional functions of governments, such as health, education, social services and national security. As the Treasurer stated on budget night, this government inherited $123 billion in cumulative deficits. However, as a result of responsible budget measures, the projected cumulative deficit is expected to be reduced to $82 billion over the next four years. On a daily basis Treasury borrows $96 million just to pay the bills, down from the $133 million a day that this government inherited.

This budget is not framed in isolation but rather in the context of an increasingly competitive economic environment impacted by international factors. In my home state of Western Australia the mining industry is experiencing volatility in commodity prices. Iron ore is Australia's biggest export, accounting for some 22 per cent of total exports. Western Australia is the major producer of iron ore, so the dual effects of a 40 per cent slump in the iron ore price and a marked drop in mining construction activity have slowed that state's economy. On current prices, the iron ore price slump is forecast to lead to a projected $2 billion shortfall in state government revenue from mineral royalties, prompting cost-cutting measures in the state budget. At a federal level, since the 2013-14 budget, the fall in iron ore prices has resulted in a $90 billion write-down in the forecast value of iron ore exports, contributing to a $52 billion reduction in forecast taxation receipts from the budget bottom line. It is in this context that the budget was framed.

The national economic recovery must start locally. In each and every electorate across the nation there are local economic development projects which, when combined, will have a significant national impact. Opportunities for downstream processing and value-adding to our products must be explored. The construction of processing plants, refineries and smelters in our economy is preferable to exporting low-value raw commodities.

To safeguard our economy against future cyclical shocks, there must be a renewed focus on diversification into other industries within the economy in order that we become less reliant on the mining industry. In the next five years, Australia is on track to become the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. If we could lift the value of our service exports—such as higher education, tourism, health care and financial services—to just half the level of our commodity exports, it would add $50 billion to our gross domestic product each year.

Trade and investment with emerging economies in our region is the key to promoting economic development. Over the past year, there has been a 23 per cent increase in approved foreign investment applications in Australia. In order to maximise economic benefit, investment into research and development must by necessity be closely matched with commercialisation of Australian innovation, invention and technology. Greater competitiveness and productivity are required in order to succeed in the global marketplace.

Commonwealth regulation is estimated to cost the Australian economy approximately $65 billion annually, equivalent to 4.2 per cent of GDP. Whilst a degree of regulation is necessary to ensure the orderly functioning of society, there are many cases in which overregulation is stifling the economy with bureaucracy and red tape. The business community has been making the case for years that the streamlining of our regulatory system is essential for greater productivity and to make the Australian economy more competitive internationally. The total deregulatory saving in reduced compliance costs since the election of the Abbott government in September 2013 is estimated at $2.45 billion.

The budget contains $5.5 billion worth of initiatives designed to promote small business investment, growth and employment. More than 95 per cent of Australian businesses are eligible for the accelerated depreciation scheme on productive assets of up to $20,000 in value. This will encourage businesses to invest in plant and equipment and to raise output. The 1.5 per cent reduction in the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent brings the tax rate down to its lowest level in almost 50 years. Some 90 per cent of incorporated businesses, 780,000 small companies, will be eligible for this tax cut. In addition, a five per cent tax discount will apply for small unincorporated businesses, providing a tax cut of up to $1,000 for sole traders. The reasoning behind supporting small business is to take advantage of export market opportunities opened up by free trade agreements. There were 280,000 small business start-ups in 2013-14.

Other measures to assist small business include an exemption from the fringe benefits tax for work related portable electronic devices. From 1 July 2015, expanded tax concessions for employee share schemes will enable employees to share in and benefit from the future growth and success of their business. In addition, removing obstacles to crowdsourced equity funding will help promote small business access to finance by increasing the availability of innovative sources of funding and lower compliance costs.

To support our agricultural sector, the budget provides $300 million in drought assistance for struggling farmers. In addition to the small business tax cuts, accelerated depreciation is provided for investment in water facilities, fodder storage assets and new fencing. The budget provides for a $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which will seek to establish partnerships with the private sector and state governments of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland in providing concessional loans for the construction of ports, pipelines and electricity and water infrastructure. This latest initiative complements the $50 billion in infrastructure investment announced in last year's budget and is designed to open up northern Australia for business.

In 2015-16, the government will spend $154 billion on welfare, which is around 35 per cent of total government expenditure. The current welfare payment system manages 40 different payments and 38 supplements. The Department of Human Services is responsible for delivering welfare payments through Centrelink to 7.3 million people annually. We have a generous welfare system to support those in our community who genuinely need support. However, we must encourage workforce participation and individual independence, in the spirit of enterprise and endeavour. As a nation, we can do much better than having one-third of the population dependent on welfare.

The budget allocates $331 million to increase employment participation and provide the skilled workforce needed to build the economy, including $212 million earmarked for the youth transition to work program. To assist job seekers in the transition into the workplace, 6,000 places have been provided in the national work experience program, as has $106 million to provide intensive support trials for job seekers of all ages from disadvantaged backgrounds. Furthermore, $1.2 billion has been included in the national wage subsidy pool to counteract long-term unemployment. A family support package of $4.4 billion has been provided in the budget. It is estimated that up to 165,000 Australian parents have a willingness to return to work but find the cost of child care prohibitive. By providing families with childcare assistance, parents can return to the workforce, bringing skills, expertise and productivity back to the economy.

The budget provides $44 billion for the age pension, which accounts for 10 per cent of all government spending. The age pension will continue to increase twice a year using the highest available indexation rate. Seniors who currently have a pensioner concession card will continue to be eligible for a concession card that provides the same benefits such as subsidised utilities, transport, bulk-billing and cheaper PBS prescription medicines. For self-funded retirees, there will be no new taxes on superannuation under the Abbott government. In addition, $17 billion has been allocated for the disability support pension.

The inclusion of new medicines and treatments on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is at a cost of $1.6 billion to the budget. In addition, to develop new cures and treatments, the budget allocates $400 million per year to the Medical Research Future Fund over the next four years to fund medical research into the latest medical treatments for the future.

Border protection and national security are top priorities for the government. The budget allocates an extra $1.2 billion for national security and $450 million to boost intelligence capabilities. In addition, the budget includes funding of $35 billion in the combined areas of defence, national security and law enforcement. The $31 billion allocated in the budget for defence spending puts it on a growth path to two per cent of GDP by 2023-24, which is consistent with our election commitment.

A key tenet in the budget is the introduction of multinational anti-avoidance legislation, aimed at preventing multinational corporations using complex schemes to avoid paying tax. In particular, the 30 largest multinational companies are being targeted and compliance with the goods and services tax is being tightened to ensure it is paid on goods and services entering Australia from overseas suppliers.

In my electorate of Moore there is a sense of optimism and opportunity about the budget. We have leading tertiary and vocational education and training facilities, including but not limited to the Edith Cowan University; the West Coast Institute; the Motor Trade Association training centre; Trades North; and the National Electrical and Communications Association training centre. Young and mature age residents alike can access the training necessary to equip them for employment. We have the developing Joondalup CBD, a business park, three marinas, several district commercial centres and a 1,000-hectare industrial area. There is capacity for local economic development to occur over the next few decades, with billions of dollars of investment and thousands of local jobs to be created. What is needed to succeed is a positive mindset, a willingness to acquire skills and participate in the workforce, and an enterprising attitude of making a go of opportunities.

In summary, the budget should be viewed in the context of the prevailing economic and fiscal conditions facing our nation. It is a budget designed for those who are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them and to make a go of things. A number of reforms are contained in the budget, which will boost the national economy and restore business confidence, particularly in the small business sector. It is a fair budget that meets our social responsibility obligations, by providing assistance and support to those in our community who genuinely need it most, whilst encouraging those who are able to contribute to society into greater workforce participation.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. When you are handing down a budget, you make choices. You make choices about what kinds of services you think the Australian people are legitimately entitled to expect. You make assumptions about what kind of quality of life it is that we here in a rich country all deserve. Then you ask: how can we raise the money to pay for those services, in a way that most people would think was fair?

A budget is a statement of your beliefs and values. It says what matters to you and it is an identification of who in Australia is deemed to be important and worth looking after. One thing that is crystal clear from this budget, as it was from the last budget, is that this is a government that is prepared to support the big businesses and fossil fuel lobbies that put them there and to turn their backs on everyone else. This budget locks in $80 billion of cuts to schools and hospitals that the states are meant to provide. This budget says: 'We would rather allow the likes of Gina Rinehart to keep getting tax breaks than to give state governments the money they need to ensure that every child has a good education and that everyone can go to a hospital whenever they get sick.'

Let us make no mistake: not only is that something that the coalition ideologically believe in but they are doing it because they are trying to push the states into a position where the states themselves will ask to increase the GST. So gutless are the government that they will not even come out and state publicly their real position, which is that they want to see the GST increased. They are instead blackmailing the states by cutting their funding and forcing them to do their dirty work for them. It is a coward's budget, and it continues the cowardice from the last budget.

It also locks in the massive cuts to higher education and universities that have been so roundly rejected by this parliament and the Australian people. The coalition, when they got elected, promised no cuts to education, and then they came out and said, 'We're going to cut funds to universities by 20 per cent, and we're going to force people to graduate with debts the size of a small mortgage if they want to go to university.' People rejected it and, instead of learning the lesson, the government are coming back and locking it in with this budget.

So this budget continues all of the mistakes of the last budget that the government did not tell the Australian people about and that the Australian people are rightly angry about. But, worse than that, it takes the axe to the sectors of the economy in Australia that need support to grow. At some point, the rest of the world is going to tell us to stop digging, and, unless we have thought in this country about what life after the mining boom looks like, we will wake up in 15 or 20 years time to find that we are a hollowed-out, uneducated quarry. We need now to be getting behind the industries that will sustain us when the rest of the world stops digging, but all this budget can do is continue the 'dig it up, chop it down, ship it off' mentality that is going to sell this country short in the 21st century.

What are we going to be able to do in our region and in the world to sustain ourselves in the 21st century? We cannot compete with China and India on wages, and nor should we try to. They are very different countries with, in many respects and in many places, a much lower standard of living, much lower support being given to people and much lower protection for people when they go to work to ensure that they come home safe. So we are not going to be able to compete with them on wages. At some point, digging things up and selling them is going to deliver less money than it does at the moment or has in the past. So what are we going to do? We are going to stand tall in the 21st century if we invest in our population, and that means investing in education, innovation, science and research. At the moment, under this government—under the Abbott government—we are spending less on science, research and development this year than at any time since they started keeping records in the late seventies. Spending on science, research and development is now at its lowest—at 30-year lows. Exactly the sectors that we should be boosting are now being cut.

Then the cuts are continued in this budget. When we should be increasing spending on science and education, the government cuts $300 million from the Sustainable Research Excellence fund. That is the money that goes to support the people who are doing the research. It keeps the lights on and the buildings open and provides some of the equipment for the people who are doing the research. Cut this money and you are going to find scientists and researchers having to do more of their own paperwork and having less access to their offices and their equipment, and that means less research being done. If you want scientists cleaning test tubes, pass this government's budget. But if instead you want to support the people who support the researchers—the people who work in the offices in universities and research institutes—you increase the funding to them. But instead this government has cut it.

It will also come as no surprise that the Treasurer did not mention climate change once in his speech. Apparently it does not exist. Other countries understand that it is one of the most fundamental economic challenges facing them. We are put on notice that, unless we get global warming under control, we can expect at the end of the century a 92 per cent decline in productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin and more money having to be spent dealing with the heatwaves and bushfires that we know will come. Unless you want to do that, you have to get global warming under control, but this government does not even mention it. It cut funding for climate measures from $1.35 billion in 2014-15 to $700 million in 2015-16 and then down to $500 million in 2016-17. That is this government's head-in-the sand approach to climate change.

In the Energy White Paper they said that maybe we can keep burning fossil fuels and there are other applications for it, like carbonated beverages. Are you serious? The Energy White Paper's solution to climate change is to burn more coal and drink more lemonade. That is this government's approach to setting Australia up for the 21st century, where we should be growing a cleaner economy. Instead, they are going the other way.

There are selling out not only our future but also our people, especially people who most need support. Key amongst those are parents—mostly mums. After spending time in the workforce, they take time out to have a baby. They need a decent amount of time to bond with their young child and then maintain an ongoing connection with the workforce. What does this government do? It comes along and says that the scheme in place, that was always intended to be a floor not a ceiling—a minimum standard of 18 weeks at the minimum wage, that you could bargain above with your employer—will be cut.

The government says that we are not going to ask Gina Rinehart to pay a bit more. We are not going to ask the Big Four banks—that are making world-leading profits—to contribute a little more to the 'budget task', as they like to call it. We are going to ask mums and newborns. We are going to ask them to have less money in their pockets and less time at home, out of the workplace, so we do not have to go and stand up to the big end of town. When you look at the fact that eight out of 10 of the hardest-hit electorates by this PPL change are in non-government electorates, you understand what is going on. The true colours of this government are shining through. The Prime Minister feigned feminism in order to get elected. Now that is out of the way the brutal chauvinism of this government is shining through, and the attack on working women continues in this budget.

The attack on young people continues in this budget as well. The government says that if you do not have a job—never mind the fact that there is almost 14 per cent youth unemployment; never mind the fact that in some regional areas youth unemployment is above 25 per cent and the jobs are just not there—if you cannot find a job that is not there and you are young they are going to make you go a month without any money at all.

What does the Prime Minister expect someone to do when they are young, looking for their first job, and they cannot find it because youth unemployment is growing to a point where it has not come back to where it was before the GFC? When the jobs are just not there, why are you punishing people by saying you now have no income at all? More importantly, what do you expect a person to do? If they cannot find a job and they do not have any money, what do you expect them to do to survive? I am yet to hear an answer from the government about this.

We know what will happen. Those of us who pay attention and work with those people on the front line in our community services, in our homelessness services and in our youth services, know. People will be homeless. People will find themselves doing things that they never thought they would have to do, just to get enough money to buy food. This government says in this budget that it is all about a statement of principles: 'We don't care.' They say it is a 'have a go' budget. It is a budget that has a go at young people. It is a budget that has a go at working women. It is a budget that has a go at the arts, with hundreds of million of dollars being cut. Also, the Attorney-General, George Brandis, decided that he is going to aggregate everything into his own personal fiefdom and decide what kind of arts is acceptable in this country and what is not.

It has a go at aid as well. Australian aid is crucial for lifting people out of poverty around the world. If you think it is a good idea to lift people out of poverty you have to be prepared to put your money where your mouth is. If we look at other countries that are not the kinds of democracies—yet—that we would hope for, if we believe it is important to improve people's standards of living, as a wealthy country you would spend a bit of money to assist them to increase their standards of living and lift them out of poverty. That is what Australian aid is for.

This budget continues its swingeing cuts to Australian aid. What is worse, it has targeted them. If you are an African country expect, on average, a 70 per cent cut to your aid budget. The cynical might say that Australia increased its funding to aid while the African countries' votes for the UN Security Council were up in question. Now that Australia has its place, we have just turned around to Africa and said: 'I'm all right, Jack. I don't care. We have our position. Thanks for your votes—and now we're going to cut your aid by 70 per cent.' It is just appalling.

But, critically, from the perspective of the government's credibility, this is a budget that is built on a lie. Because day after day the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and all the coalition MPs come into this place and say, 'We are about small government. We are about lower taxes. You will always get lower taxes under us. We are about removing taxes.' And yet when you look at the Treasurer's boast that there is now a credible path to surplus, and you look up the back of Budget Paper No. 1, what do you find? What you find is that tax at the moment as a proportion of our GDP is 21.9 per cent. Which way is it going under this government? Next year, it is going to go to 22.3 per cent. The year after that it will be 22.7 per cent then 23 and then 23.4. So a 1½ per cent tax increase as a percentage of GDP is the so-called credible path to surplus.

Now, as a member of the Greens, I am glad we are having a debate about raising the share of revenue in this country because it is a much better solution than taking the axe to health and education or asking people to pay more to go and see the doctor. But I will not take the sanctimony from the government whose own budget papers say we are on track to increase tax to GDP so that tax is 23.4 per cent when under Whitlam it was 20.3 per cent. This government is increasing the share of the tax take in this country to three per cent higher than it was under Gough Whitlam. So I will not take the sanctimony from this government about the need for cuts to health and cuts to education. There is enough money there.

We could have more money if we had the courage to raise tax to the same level as under that arch Marxist, former Prime Minister John Howard. If we had the revenue at the same level as under John Howard, there would be an extra $30 billion a year to ensure that everyone could go to school, everyone could get a free education and there would be hospitals available for everyone. If we just did what John Howard did and raise tax to that amount, which this budget is probably on track to do; if we had the courage to stop subsidising Gina Rinehart and her like so they can buy cheap fuel; if we asked the big banks, which are making world-leading record profit, just to chip in a little more; if we reformed our super system so it could not be used as a tax haven and a tax dodge but instead used it to support people in retirement; and if we shut down the detention centres and instead processed people in the community, which would be much cheaper, then there would be enough money to make sure everyone in this country had a roof over their head, everyone could go to the school or university that they want to, which would be publicly funded and give them a good education, and no-one would ever be in trouble when they got sick and we would not have to take the axe to the people who can least defend themselves.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed a pleasure to be able to stand and deliver yet another appropriation speech. This is potentially our best budget that we have ever delivered from a government's perspective. It is always an honour to follow the member for Melbourne, who gave a stirring speech, but omitted to mention—it was probably just a slight oversight in his delivery—the jobs package and a few of the instant write-off benefits that small businesses in my area will benefit from.

For the benefit of the previous member, I would like to indulge in sharing with the chamber some of the benefits that this budget delivers for all Australians. But before I do, the previous speaker spoke about this budget. He mentioned that this budget leaves people angry. I have had the opportunity in the last week to spend an enormous amount of time with people in the small business sector in my electorate. They are far from angry. They are a group of people who have not been heard in the last 10 years. We respect the small business sector. Most of us on this side of the House come from some form of small business whether we were engaged in one or owned a small business or employed people in small business. We inherently understand that small business is the engine room of this economy and that small business is the vehicle for us to drive future growth, and future growth means more jobs.

The previous speaker spoke about jobs and said that there were no jobs. If you go back through the Hansard, the jobs that the Greens propose into the future are full. There are 12 million green jobs that they allude to, 12 million green jobs that will be there in the future. I can assure you that the green jobs are not there at the moment in the magnitude that the previous speaker would like to have the room believe.

He also spoke about science and technology and said that there had been cuts to future research, yet we put forward a future fund of $20 billion. It was opposed. Do not come to this place and complain about research being cut and then, when we put up funds specifically designed around research, oppose them, because it attacks your credibility.

He spoke about jobs and asked what we are doing for our youth. What we are doing for our youth is something that will transform, hopefully, our unemployment data for our youth. The work for the dole program was an initiative that was first introduced by the Howard government. We have taken it one step further with our Work for the Dole program, encouraging businesses now to participate in reaching out to those long-term unemployed to bring them into the business, to give them real, live work experience in a working business, not some training camp, not out working for a council picking up rubbish, just to tick a box to say that they are now a holder of some class I certificate, but actually working in a real, live, operational business. It is those real-life experiences which will allow the small business sector to try before they buy with someone who has been long-term unemployed, and that creates the real linkages.

That creates the opportunity for someone looking for a job to understand the importance of engaging with the public, getting out of bed early and being part of a team environment, knowing at the end of the day that they have put a decent day in, and going home feeling a valued part of their community. I know that both sides of the House would agree that they are the values for us to be a rich and prosperous nation—that those are the values we need to instil in our unemployed people so that they become valued members of our community. The best thing we can do for someone who is struggling to shift themselves from the current socioeconomic group of an unemployed sector into the workplace is to give them hope, and the way we do that is to try to stimulate our small business sector.

In trying to stimulate our small business sector, we have to stimulate the economy. The $20,000 instant write-off was one of the ways that we proposed in this budget to do exactly that. The budget measure speaks to the fact that, despite the economic headwinds, we are fixing Labor's mess. We will help by making Australia strong and giving Australians more choice for their future, stabilising the nation's finances and reducing debt. This is a key to building a stronger economy and a better future for all Australians.

Those on the other side of the House would think that it is some type of fiscal nirvana where you can continue to spend, with spending habits like we saw with the pink batts installation. We saw spending measures in the school halls. All of that was done on borrowed money.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did listen to you in silence. I do not understand that you would pay me the same respect, but I did listen to you in silence, in all fairness.

We are about trying to service that debt. There will be those in this place who do not take any responsibility at all for the debt level that we inherited. If you do not believe us, take the word of Ken Rogoff. Ken was an IMF economist. Ken Rogoff is an economist at Harvard University. He forecast and he has put some data together which says that Australia's percentage of increase to debt was the highest of any OECD nations post the GFC, if you look at some of the other nations such as New Zealand, our closer trading partners, which did not have that level of stimulus, as to where their economy is now compared to where we are with reference to debt, stimulus and the way that their economy is recovering.

There are some things in this budget that affect my local community, and I want to go particularly to the government's ongoing commitment to the Roads to Recovery program. The Roads to Recovery program is an appropriation that the federal government are able to send directly to local councils. Within my electorate of Wright, I have four council provinces: the Lockyer Valley, the Scenic Rim, parts of the Gold Coast and parts of Logan. There is a $350 million allocation, and it all turns to roads. Every cent of that goes to roads; there is no clipping of the ticket by a state government on the way through. It is a valued part of our local governments' funding regime.

Also, we will continue to invest $60 million in the Black Spot Programme, and we are almost tripling the black spot funding for the next two years, with an extra $100 million being allocated in 2015-16 and then on to 2016-17. In that black spots funding, there are currently around 382 projects across the states. The other one I want to mention is the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme, with another $200 million. My local councils are taking advantage of that and doing roads that would fall out of the auspices of some of the other funding projects. That is delivering in spades for my communities.

Also, I want to acknowledge the Bridges Renewal Programme, which is a $300 million investment over four years. That is fifty-fifty funding, where the feds pick up 50 per cent. They can cofund with local government on their existing maintenance schedules. In the Scenic Rim area alone, there are no fewer than 132 bridges in one shire in need of repair. If this funding is not tailor-made for my electorate, it is tailor received. It is truly a great program. I also want to acknowledge the Stronger Communities program, which is providing $45 million over the next two years to fund capital projects in local communities. With funding of $150,000 over the next two years, commencing in 2015-16, we will be able to support projects that deliver stronger social and economic benefits in Australian local communities.

Funding under the National Stronger Regions Fund will begin from 2015-16 to support priority economic and infrastructure projects across Australia to ensure that we create more jobs and opportunities for our regions. One billion dollars is available for community projects over five years, with major focuses on strengthening our regions by improving the productivity, employment and workforce skills of Australians. Two hundred million dollars will be allocated in 2015-16.

But, most importantly in this budget, the jewel in the crown for my electorate is an investment of no less than $1.285 billion in the Toowoomba Range crossing. The Toowoomba Range crossing sits at the western end of my electorate. From all accounts, it has gone through its due diligence process. We should be going to the tender stage directly after this financial year. Regretfully I inform the House that I think there have been 126 lives lost on the current range crossing. A capital investment like this will not only provide safer roads but also increase the economic benefit to the region, as that Toowoomba Range bypass provides a corridor for transport out of Brisbane going to Darwin and also down to Sydney. The current transport route through Toowoomba, from memory, has to go through 26 sets of stoplights through town. So it will also create an economic boost to the electorate of my neighbouring member, the member for Groom, who I know has worked tirelessly in that space.

I say in wrapping up that this is a good budget, because it fulfils our commitment to have abolished the mining tax. It also fulfils our commitment to have abolished the carbon tax. So it is difficult to stand here and listen to those who would say that we are a higher taxing government. We want people to engage in the workforce. We want them to prosper. We want them to earn more money. We want them to shift from earning $50,000 to earning $60,000 to earning $70,000 and potentially to earning $100,000 or $120,000 per head. With that, they will make a greater contribution to our nation. When we as a government have serviced this enormous debt, as we will endeavour to do into the future, we will want those people to be part of our community and make that contribution, but it will be done under the auspices of our belief in smaller government, letting business get on with what it does best and encouraging people to go out and have a go. This budget does that: it encourages Australians to have a go. In this speech, I commend that to the House.

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

How are you, Deputy Speaker Irons? I hope you did not take too much notice of that rubbish you heard just a moment ago, with great respect to my colleague the member for Wright. I will come back to him shortly.

I will use the first part of this speech on the appropriation bills to talk about a very sad event. Last Friday I attended a funeral at Mutitjulu, the township alongside Uluru. That funeral was for Kunmanara Randall, a man who was born on 10 September 1934 at Angus Downs station, not far from Uluru, in Central Australia. He died on 12 May this year. In 1970 he wrote what became, really, an anthem for the stolen generation: Brown Skin Baby (They Take Him Away). He was later part of several documentaries highlighting the issue of the stolen generation, the forced removal of Aboriginal kids.

Kunmanara Randall himself, at the age of seven, was taken away from his mother and family under the then policy of forced removals, so he was himself a member of the stolen generation. He was initially taken to The Bungalow in Alice Springs, the old telegraph station used as an orphanage for Aboriginal kids, and later was sent to Croker Island off the coast of Arnhem Land. Mr Randall was kept in government institutions until he was 20, when, with his new wife and baby, he was banished for questioning the authorities, for raising issues around the welfare of those members of the stolen generation who were in the custody, effectively, of the state but in the care of the church on Croker Island. He subsequently moved to Darwin and later to Adelaide—working, studying and looking for his family and his country of belonging.

After many years of seeking but not finding, he did finally accomplish his task. He found his roots and returned to his mother country at Mutitjulu, where he then lived. Mr Randall worked as an educator and leader in equal rights, land rights, environmental responsibility, Indigenous cultural awareness and preservation, and community development. During the period he lived in Darwin, he established several organisations, including a pony club, a boxing club and a folk club. He worked as a counsellor through the Methodist Uniting Church and led a country music band that worked in regional Aboriginal communities. Mr Randall helped establish Adelaide's Aboriginal Community College, served as a director of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Service and worked to establish Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander centres at the Australian National University, the University of Canberra and the University of Wollongong.

In the late 1970s, Mr Randall earned widespread recognition for his anthem, his song—and I hope you have heard it, Mr Deputy Speaker; if not, I commend it to you—My Brown Skin Baby (They TakeHim Away). It is a marvellous, very emotive piece of music. It is a dreadful story but well told in this beautiful song. It focused national and international attention on the issue of the stolen generation. The song exposed the government's policy of stealing Aboriginal kids and opened the door for Indigenous storytellers and songwriters across the country. It led to the filming of a documentary by the same name which won the Bronze Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Subsequently the Australian government stopped taking children away from their families.

His lifelong efforts to retain Aboriginal culture and restore equal rights for all were recognised in 1999 when he was named NAIDOC's Person of the Year. In 2004, he was inducted into the Indigenous Music Awards Hall of Fame, recognising the historical significance of that classic song—and another: Red Sun, Black Moon. Mr Randall authored four books, including his autobiography, Songman, and three books for children: Tracker Tjuginji, Stories From Country and Nyuntu Ninti. He contributed his personal story of being stolen to the anthology Stories of Belonging: Finding Where Your True Self Lives, edited by Kelly Wendorf and published in 2009.

In 2006, Mr Randall co-produced and narrated the award-winning documentary Kanyini. Kanyini was voted Best Documentary at the London Australian Film Festival 2007, winner of the Inside Film Independent Spirit Award and winner of the Discovery Channel Best Documentary Award in 2006. Mr Randall continued to write and teach throughout the world, presenting teachings based on the Anangu 'Kanyini' principles of caring for the environment and each other with unconditional love and responsibility. His tireless dedication called Indigenous people to reclaim their Aboriginal identities and regain lives of purpose so that the relevance of ancient wisdom to modern living is properly understood. Kunmanara Randall died earlier this month and, as I say, was buried last week at a very moving ceremony at Mutitjulu. My condolences go to his family.

Sadly, though, it was during this last week that we learnt that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has terminated the contract for the delivery of link-up services by the Central Australian Stolen Generations and Families Aboriginal Corporation. Link-up services are funded by the federal government to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people separated from their families under past laws, practices and policies of successive governments to undertake tracing of and reunion with families. It is extremely disappointing that here, on National Sorry Day, and subsequent to the funeral of this wonderful man, there is still no indication of whether this money is going to be made available or to whom it is going to be given to provide these very, very important services.

That brings me to the budget, which is clearly grossly unfair. We only have to look at the NATSEM modelling to demonstrates its unfairness. Nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose under the Abbott government's second budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families benefit. I quote here from an article in The Australian from earlier this week:

The NATSEM modelling showed the disposable income of couples with children, with household incomes of around $50,000 (those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution) would see a 7.1 per cent reduction in their annual disposable income by 2018.

Those in the top fifth, with incomes of more than $120,000 a year, would see a 0.2 per cent increase.

How could anyone not see this as being grossly unfair? The range of losses for single parents is similar. According to the article:

The losses of income in the analysis overwhelmingly reflect policy decisions taken in last year's budget that are still budgeted to happen (even if they haven't been legislated yet).

No-one, not even those with the rosiest glasses on the government benches, can see this as anything but an unfair budget.

I noted the contribution of the member for Wright and his arduous defence—or ardent defence; it was arduous to listen to—of the government's budget. I am not sure what sorts of books people on the government benches read, but it appears that they do not read books about reality or the reality of the years that Labor was in government, the issues to do with the global financial crisis, the way it was dealt with and how those measures held Australia at a position so that we have such a strong economy. While there are cheap points often being scored by the government side about debt and deficit, this government has increased the debt, doubled the deficit and increased unemployment. That is the benefit of the Abbott government's first budget, which was a horror budget—and you know it was a horror budget, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons; not that I would say you were responsible for it. Let me say that it is very clear that all government members know what a horror budget it was, and they are now trying to say to the world that, somehow or another, this latest budget is something different. Well, it ain't because it still contains all of those measures from last year which are going to hurt Australian families. Just while I am on it, the member for Wright made much of the instant asset write-off. He knows, I know, you know – everyone in this parliament knows – that it was introduced by the Labor government and knocked off by the Abbott government. We have had a conversion in the road to Damascus, as it were, and a commitment to small business which sees the government reintroduce something that was introduced by Labor.

Let me go quickly to the issue health, and Aboriginal health in particular. I notice that there are no dollars committed in this budget for the implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which the government says it is committed to. There is no money made available to it, so I am not sure how that commitment could be evidenced in the way in which this budget has been framed.

We know that somehow or another, magically, dropping off this year's budget was a figure of $4.5 million—I think it was $4.5 million—in last year's budget for the out years 2017-18 for the continuation of the trachoma eradication campaign. It does not appear in this year's budget. It is not in the forward estimates anymore. It has mysteriously dropped off. What does that say about this government's commitment to the elimination of trachoma  – Australia, the only First World country with trachoma? We are committed to getting rid of it by 2020 and this government says to us now that it is going to cease funding in 2016-17 and has taken away the commitment that was in the previous budget for 2017-18. Last year, of course – and I have spoken about last year's budget and its impact – we saw them rip out half a billion dollars from Aboriginal and Torres Islander funding and $160 million of that from Aboriginal health. That money has not been replaced. You have to ask yourself the question: what the hell is going on?

We have seen the government talk bountifully about a $5 billion infrastructure loan facility in Northern Australia. No-one has explained to us how this will actually work, what the relationship is between this loan and the unreleased white paper on developing Northern Australia, the Abbott government's Northern Australia Strategic Partnership—which includes the Prime Minister, the premiers of Queensland and Western Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—or the Prime Minister's Northern Australia Alliance comprising Advance Cairns, Broome Future and the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce. There are no details at all about how this $5 billion loan facility will operate. Infrastructure Australia released an audit of Northern Australia infrastructure just prior to the budget. Its key message is that what is required in Northern Australia is a priority to maximise the efficiency of existing infrastructure, including maintenance backlogs.

I am going to be running out of time shortly, but I want to talk about regional Australia in terms of funding. We heard today in question time that about 51 projects received, under the Commonwealth National Stronger Regions Fund, total funding applications worth $212 million. Only one from the Northern Territory was funded. Oddly, it was $4.8 million for a swimming pool in Parap, a wealthy middle-class suburb of Darwin.

Regions have the potential to be the economic powerhouse for the Northern Territory with their cattle, mining and tourism assets, but they cannot do it without significant Commonwealth support. Of eight territory projects applied for under this funding proposal, one of them was the unsuccessful Roper Gulf Regional Council, which had already received a commitment of $1 million from the Northern Territory government for an innovative regional transport hub proposal for Ngukurr, Numbulwar and Borroloola. They have not been funded, but a swimming pool in Parap has been funded. But, of course, the criteria for regional development funding, including the policy intent, is that 'all projects must deliver an economic benefit to disadvantaged regions'.

I just ask you to think about this: relative advantage-disadvantage – Parap, a middle-class suburb of Darwin, with already an existing swimming pool and swimming infrastructure, or remote communities in the north end of the Barkly and the southern part of Arnhem Land and the Borroloola region who are extremely disadvantaged. You do not have to be Einstein to work out what is going on here—a political fix done, despite the protestations of the government and its commitment to saying that it was going to be doing the right thing by the regions.

I also wanted to talk about the petrol tax. Of course, we know—you know and I know—that the people most disadvantaged by the increase in fuel excise will be people who live in my electorate of Lingiari. They will be doubly taxed, not only as a result of the fuel excise but as a result of the GST that goes on the final price of fuel. This is an absolute misery of a budget for people who live in the bush. You know it, I know it and everyone on the government benches know it. (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, I must say that I appreciate being able to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and other appropriation bills, but it is a bit nauseating to hear speech after speech from the opposition whingeing about cuts. I think they must live in some parallel universe. Any responsibility for any cut clearly lies on their shoulders. They fail to realise, after six years of their reckless and wasteful spending, that we as a government now need to find, and we as a nation need to finance, $13 billion every year just to pay the interest on the debt that they created.

If you listen to members of the opposition, they say that it was their spending on the pink batts, their overspending on school halls and their blow-outs on border protection that saved us from the GFC. What a wonderful effort! If this was so good, let us roll out more of these great programs. But just imagine if we had that $13 billion of expenditure and we had not had that reckless, wasteful and politically motivated spending.

Ms Butler interjecting—

Imagine the money that we would have to spend on the new drugs, on aged care, on kids with disabilities, on the roads and on all those things we desperately need in our society.

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

( ): I will remind the member for Griffith that the previous speaker was heard in silence.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rather enjoy the member for Griffith's interjections, because it shows how completely out of touch those members of the Labor Party are. I welcome any interjection from the member for Griffith—get it recorded, get it down, because I want history to record how out of touch and completely delusional the member for Griffith is.

The best thing about this budget is that we get back to basics. The basics of this government are about creating wealth for the nation and increasing the size of the pie so that we can afford to do all those social programs that we need. Unlike the member for Griffith, this side of politics understands that there is no magic pudding. We have to raise every single cent we spend. We need to raise that money. The way to do it is quite simple. We need investment and productive assets, and we need to encourage entrepreneurship, risk taking and experimentation, because that is what drives the innovation and the productivity increases and creates wealth in this nation.

I thought a quote from Steve Kates, Associate Professor of Economics at RMIT, was interesting. I thought that it was very worthwhile repeating. He said:

Growth and employment are the result of VALUE ADDING production. That is, the result of production where the value of what is produced will, within a reasonably short period of time, create an income flow even greater in value than the value of the resources used up. That is the meaning of value adding.

…   …   …

Growth comes from business. If you confuse personal spending with business spending you will never get these things clear in your head. There is personal consumption, which is the point of economic activity. And there is business activity which is continually trying to add value to the resources they use up.

He advises:

… stop looking for consumer demand to lead the recovery. It cannot be done.

I concur with those remarks of the professor. That is why this budget does exactly that. With a small business package, it is about creating investment in the productive assets of this nation and encouraging entrepreneurship. Small business need every help they can get. It is worthwhile noting that, for the six years that the Labor Party were running this country, the small business sector in this country lost over 500,000 jobs. Half a million jobs were lost in the small-business sector. We see the contempt the opposition have for small business. We saw the complete contempt of the Leader of the Opposition in his infamous pie shop incident in Melbourne. We saw the complete contempt of the previous Labor government with the crushing of 500,000 jobs in the small-business sector.

That is why this budget is so important. It gives small business the incentive to go out and invest. It gives them the incentive to invest in productive assets and take risks. The cost of those small-business tax cuts in the budget papers is about $350 million every year over the next four years. But I would like to make a prediction. My prediction is that those tax cuts for small business—reducing the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent down to 28.5 per cent—will not cost the budget one single cent when the final count is done. I will tell you why. It is because it is exactly what has happened every time in our nation's history when we have lowered the corporate tax rate. What happened under the earlier Hawke Labor government when the tax rate was lowered? Tax revenue did not fall; it actually increased. But more importantly it actually increased as a percentage of GDP. The lower the tax rate we have, it is highly likely that more tax revenue will flow to government. I will make that prediction. I believe that in several years time when we sit down and analyse the effect of these tax cuts for small business, they will have had a positive effect on the bottom-line of the government. The government of the day will actually be receiving more money in taxation revenue at a rate of 28.5 per cent for small businesses than they would at the rate of 30 per cent.

When it comes to investments in productive assets I think it is worthwhile looking at some of the terrible mistakes we have made over the past couple of years. Some of those terrible mistakes were actually put out in the Grattan Institute report on our solar rooftop schemes. The Grattan Institute equated this to a $10 billion net loss to the economy—$10 billion written off. They say that $18.7 billion will be invested up to 2030 in installing and repairing solar rooftops, and that will produce $7 billion worth of electricity. So if you invest and spend $18 billion but you only get $7 billion in return, I do not think that is a very good investment. That is a way to destroy capital and make the country poorer.

We have seen it through Labor states building desalination plants. Billions and billions of dollars wasted. In fact I think at the desalination plant in Sydney—one of the few desalination plants in the world—they had to bring in bilge pumps to pump the fresh water out so that they could lay the foundations. Then, unfortunately, we see the waste that has been forced upon this nation with the renewable energy target. We are going to see about $20 billion wasted on building around 2,000 additional wind turbines, at a time where we do not need a single wind turbine built, where a single wind turbine would not be built without this subsidy. This is waste. It is the effect it has on the poorest people of this nation when we have this absolute waste of money.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

I hear the member interjecting over there. How many wind turbines are you volunteering to have set up in your electorate?

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Maybe there are some nice places in Perth you could volunteer. Very nice.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Yes, you will vote for them, yes, you like them, but you will put them in other people's electorates so that they can bear the burden.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

If the member for Perth really believes these turbines are excellent—

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

I remind members that the previous speaker was heard in silence.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaking of waste on these issues brings me to the carbon tax. We know that the shadow Treasurer has said that if Labor are successful at the next election they will bring back the carbon tax in one form or another. You will bring the carbon tax back in one form or another.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not believe that the shadow Treasurer has said any such thing, and I invite the member to correct the record.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not an appropriate point of order.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very clear. They can clear the record up now. You will not bring back the carbon tax in any respect at all. We know they will. I would just like to make a few points about how—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

Yes, absolutely. I will make a few points about how damaging the carbon tax is. The carbon tax is a tax that causes illness and death. Let me go through and explain that to the member for Perth.

Opposition members interjecting—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask members opposite to discontinue their interjections, as the previous Deputy Speaker has asked you to do.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that when you apply a carbon tax you increase electricity prices. We can see the effect of increasing electricity prices in New South Wales. In the last year of the carbon tax, the number of households that had their electricity cut off in New South Wales doubled from four years earlier. It doubled! Thirty-three thousand households in New South Wales—

Opposition members interjecting—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member for Perth in particular and to the other members: I have already asked if you could desist from making so much noise. This is a warning. Please allow the member for Hughes to be heard in silence and show him the courtesy of allowing him to finish his speech.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know they do not like to hear these facts. I know it hurts them. I know that they may not care that 33,000 households in New South Wales, double the number from several years ago, had their electricity cut off. What happens when people have their electricity cut off? There are two effects. Firstly, it causes people to live in cold homes. The World Health Organization recommends that the minimum indoor temperature be kept at 18 degrees and ideally 21 degrees if babies or elderly people live in the house. They say: if house temperatures fall below 16 degrees, the risk of respiratory illness increases. In the Health impacts of cold homes and fuel povertyreport, the Marmot Review Team state that excess winter deaths 'are almost three times higher in the coldest quarter of housing than in the warmest quarter. They say:

… excess winter deaths are almost three times higher in the coldest quarter of housing than in the warmest quarter.

They go on to say:

Children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to suffer from a variety of respiratory problems than children living in warm homes.

Further, they say:

Mental health is negatively affected by fuel poverty and cold housing for any age group.

The report says:

Cold housing increases the level of minor illnesses …

And, for older people, they state:

Effects of cold housing were evident in terms of higher mortality risk, physical health and mental health.

That is what happens when you increase carbon taxes and when you increase electricity prices and when you have all these crazy schemes like the solar subsidies and the RET. The effect is that the poorest people of this country are having their electricity cut off. Thirty-three thousand of them!

There is another problem with the carbon tax. When people cannot afford their electricity and they try to keep their house warm, they simply go out and burn wood. I think for first time ever, there were ads running on Sydney radio asking people to buy wood to burn in their homes to keep their homes warm. One of the effects of burning wood in the Sydney Basin is the release of particulate matter. The World Health Organization note:

The most health-damaging particles are those with a diameter of 10 microns or less … which can penetrate and lodge deep inside the lungs. Chronic exposure to particles contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as of lung cancer.

We have a recommendation in this country that for particulate matter called pm 2.5 we have a maximum annual average of eight microns per cubic metre. In the suburb that I represent, in the last two years since the implementation of the carbon tax, we are above that level. I call on members of the opposition, put aside your ideological blinkers and put look at the health and illness effects that the carbon tax will have on the poorest people of this nation.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do need to respond to some of those comments by the member for Hughes, particularly his ill informed comment about the era of desalination. In 2001, when the state Labor government in Western Australia recognised that what had been happening in our—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 18:06 to 18:19

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we can reset the clock to 15 minutes so the member for Perth can start her speech from then.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to see my friend the member for Hughes is back because we can address some of the calumny that was contained in his address.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Yes, I will tell you about this desalination plant. It has been very clear in Perth that, since 1975, we have seen a massive drop-off in both our rainfall and stream flows.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about in Sydney? What about in Melbourne? What about Brisbane?

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that if you are not from Sydney you are camping out, but I am happy to give the member a map of Australia to show him that there are some places other than Sydney in Australia—Perth being one of those and being in a state that punches well above its weight in terms of its economic contribution. As I was seeking to explain to the member, who has never heard of anything outside Sydney, in Perth and in the south-west of Western Australia we have seen, since 1975, a dramatic decline. It is a decline that is occurring exponentially—if you can have an exponential decline—in both our rainfall and our stream flows. As a result, Perth, whose population has been growing very dramatically, was by 2001 facing a very severe water crisis. I want to put on record my congratulations particularly to Geoff Gallop, who was a person who totally recognised in government that this was not just a drought that Western Australia was going through but rather that there was a systemic shift in our climate pattern as a result of global warming.

As a result, we commissioned our first desalination plant—115 gigawatts. In 2001, we made the decision. It was finally commissioned in 2006. Shortly thereafter it became evident that, far from this being some sort of white elephant infrastructure, indeed we needed a second desalination plant. And I think there would not be a person in Perth who would not—

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

We have built our second one. We are a bit ahead of you guys over there in, perhaps, your less sophisticated political culture than what we have in Western Australia. We have managed to get on with the job in Western Australia and build those desalination plants, without which Perth would not be able to continue to grow and be predicted, as it is, to outstrip Brisbane as the third sized city. But I am sure the member for Hughes—

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Hughes to desist and to allow the member for Perth to continue in silence.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure he appreciates the opportunity of having a little bit of an education. I would also say to the member for Hughes: in all this concern about our future, our children, our grandchildren and the cost of electricity, would he look at the impact of climate change, the health effects that are going to occur in the community if we do not face up to the need to address these very serious issues of climate change, and the fact that investment in renewable energy is about providing us with a long-term capacity to provide energy that is not going to cost us the earth, literally. I will comment that even the Warburton report recognised that, in the long term, investment in renewable energy will lead to a decline in the cost of energy.

What I wanted to talk about today is how a provision that is, again, woven into this budget—and indeed the last budget—is causing very poor planning outcomes in Perth. We know that the Prime Minister famously has been reluctant or has refused to allow a rational approach to be taken to the investment in infrastructure in urban areas and that he has, as stated in his Battlelines, a deep and profound ideological opposition to public transport. He does not believe that it provides people with that same opportunity to be a king in their castle. He believes that, because people are going from different places to different destinations, it is not possible to make public transport that is fast, efficient and attractive to the commuter. We know, and people around the world know, that that is abject nonsense.

But we have this incredible primitive ideology now entrenching itself into government policy. And we have this extraordinary decision that has been made even though 80 per cent of Australia's population live in big cities. Big cities, it is understood, rely on public transport to be able to provide the mobility that allows them to exploit the agglomeration benefits of being a big city. The whole thing that that makes a city work is you bring all these people together that have got specialist skills and a diversity of skills and that together creates the creativity and the range of skills that you need to drive the economy forward. All of that depends on there being mobility.

We absolutely understand that even in the Middle East these days they are absolutely committed to massive urban transport projects that are going ahead in Doha, Dubai and Ryad—all throughout the Middle East. We understand that we need to do this but we have got here as our Prime Minister this cultural primitive locked in the ideology of the 1950s and 1960s who literally cannot see it.

The justification of the Prime Minister was 'we are going to walk away from rail and we will only fund roads, but that is not an anti-rail stance because what we will do is we will free up money and that will allow the states to build the rail because we will be spending more money on the roads'. Of course we knew that was never going to happen. And we knew that what was going to be the inevitable consequence was that the state governments would be chasing the dollars so they would move their commitments away from rail projects into road projects so that they can access those virtual dollars. Because you do not get 100 per cent federal funding of a project. Normally you would only get around 50 per cent funding of a project, hence you are creating a perverse incentive for roads to be privileged over public transport.

There is no clearer case of this than in Perth. At the last election, the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, went to the election with two key promises in two marginal seats that he was seeking to win. One was that he was going to build a rail link to the Perth airport and beyond—fully costed, fully funded. That was going to be built by 2016, I think it was. And then he was going to build a MAX Light Rail, which was going to be a light rail system around the inner suburbs of Perth heading up into the middle-ranking northern suburbs—fully funded, fully costed he said.

Since then, the Premier has of course decided that he can no longer afford these. So in 2013, not that long ago, he made that fully funded and fully costed commitment. The Perth airport rail link has been delayed now by some two years to help him manage his costs. And the MAX Light Rail system has been totally and utterly abandoned because he said he just did not have the money. However, the Premier has been able to bring onto the agenda at $1.6-billion road project that was never an election commitment. So we cannot afford to do those rail projects that he committed to at the last election but he can do a road project because he is out there chasing the federal dollars.

We have seen that the proposal that we have now, the road proposal, the Perth freight link, has been the most poorly designed and poorly thought-through project because it was done without any planning, because it was done in response to an ideological imperative. We had a situation where the federal Labor government in 2013 had actually put into the budget $500 million for Perth rail projects. It was not confined to a particular project but for whatever project the state government would want to bring forward for priority funding, $500 million.

That $500 million had to come out of the budget because of the Abbott ideology. But they could not just leave this big gaping hole there; they had to find another project. They had to drum up something. So they created this project, the Perth freight link, which is an amalgamation of three projects. One was already funded under the Labor government, which is an upgrade of Leach Highway and High Street. It was a $59 million project, creating improved pathways into the Fremantle Port. But they added to that the Roe Highway stage 8 and they added this amazing new design of proposed work on Stock Road. That is a $1.6 billion project.

This has been done in the absence of any proper planning in a strategic sense. We know that even the Treasurer is acknowledging that the Fremantle container facility will be at peak capacity in the next 10 to 15 years. However, the projection of the Perth freight link showed that that will happen somewhat sooner than that and that a new port in the Kwinana region will have to be built by about 2021. So within two years of this Perth freight link into the Fremantle port being opened, we will actually have to build a new port in Kwinana on the Cockburn Sound. We will even have to build infrastructure into that. I expect that that new port or that new facility will be privately built, but we will have to provide road and rail access into that port.

How much better would it be if we were to take that money and ensure that we were putting road and rail infrastructure into a port that will be around for decades to come rather than building it because of this need to fill a hole created by Prime Minister Tony Abbott's antagonism to public transport, that we have to get this project, cobble it together, chuck it in and try to make it work?

In the last week we have had the state minister for transport saying, 'We had really robust planning, but I'm not actually sure that we have got the right route into the port.' We are supposed to be in the middle of the project and now, even the state minister for transport, when he realised how many houses and businesses he will have to knock over, is querying whether he has the route of this Perth freight link right. Again, it is absolute and complete chaos and anarchy, caused by an ideological limitation on the part of the Prime Minister.

I urge that we go back to the drawing board. Let us have a look at this project and at what we can do with this $1.6 million. Should we be investing in public transport infrastructure? It is currently predicted that Perth, by 2031, will be the congestion capital of Australia. We have got a far lower rate of public transport usage than the cities of Melbourne and Sydney. So if we want to avoid going down this predictive path of being the congestion capital of Australia, we will really have to ramp up our public transport product and ensure that we get people out of their cars, into modern efficient public transport that can—and it has been demonstrated that it can—attract commuters and help us solve this congestion problem.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak alongside my colleagues on the budget appropriation bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. I am proud to stand as part of the Liberal-National Party coalition government that has delivered the most significant small business package in 50 years. I am proud to stand with a coalition that has delivered for farmers. I am proud to stand with a coalition that offers incentives to help our small country towns like Clermont and Middlemount to attract and retain local doctors. I am proud to stand with a coalition that is investing in fixing up regional highways. I am proud to stand with a coalition that offers rural and regional Australia hope for the expansion of Northern Australia. Unlike Labor, we offer rural and regional Australians hope and direction. Unlike Labor we are not a mouthpiece for unions or for holding back the potential of regional Australia. We are helping average Aussies to have a go.

This budget is the next step in our government's plan to build a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. As the Treasurer indicates, it will help build jobs, growth and opportunity and provide a credible path to budget surplus. The word credible is important to use here, because you will recall that when Labor was in charge of the nation's finances they drove Australia deep into debt and fiscally trashed our global reputation.

Let me outline in detail some of our key budget measures that I have just touched on. In the past, when I walked along East Street in Rockhampton, or other parts of the electorate, small business owners were telling me they were worried for their future and needed some federal support. I listened to these constituents, and each time I brought their voice and concerns back to Canberra.

Small business is one of the biggest employers and it is the engine room of our economy. Thanks to our government and the commitment of MPs on our side of the House, mum and dad businesses will benefit from the biggest small business initiative in our nation's history. It is called our Growing Jobs and Small Business Package. Small business, including Capricornia tradies, sole traders and partnerships will get a tax cut to help boost the local economy. These tax cuts form part of the $5.5 billion Growing Jobs and Small Business Package to help small businesses in Capricornia invest more, grow more and employ more local people.

Significantly, small business with turnover below $2 million can claim an immediate tax deduction for every asset they acquire that is valued up to $20,000 for tax purposes. This is a substantial increase from the previous $1,000 threshold. For example, if Jeffrey Pearce, who, with his mum, proudly operates Cal's Snack Bar in Kawana, an industrial suburb of North Rockhampton, needs to buy new kitchen equipment, a new coffee machine, hot food display boxes, gas stoves, fridges, or even a budget delivery van, he could take advantage of this generous tax related incentive. Any item under $20,000 is immediately 100 per cent tax deductible in its first year. A business is not restricted to just one item, but can purchase multiple items of up to $20,000 each. From 1 July 2015, for incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million the government will cut the company tax rate from 30 per cent to 28.5 per cent. From 1 July 2015 the government will also provide a capped tax discount of up to five per cent to sole traders, trusts and partnerships that are unincorporated businesses and have an annual turnover under $2 million.

Small businesses in Capricornia will have the lowest company tax rate for public and private companies since 1967. These and other measures are significant in Rockhampton, where small business has been doing it tough. Shops along the city's East Street precinct have been closing down due to tough economic conditions. Now, following the new budget measures, there is more optimism. Peter Fraser, a Westpac bank manager, and president of the Capricornia Chamber of Commerce, has described the budget measures for small business as extremely important, and some of the best measures in a decade. When federal Minister for Small Business Bruce Billson came to Rockhampton six days after we delivered the federal budget, Mark and Bruce Woods of Stewarts Department Store, an iconic Rockhampton family business, told him we delivered an excellent budget for small business and the national economy.

We want to help small business get ahead, because small business owners are the biggest single employers in the country. When small business is doing well, larger businesses and our local economy also do well. Small business owners are also some of the most generous in our community. They are the ones who contribute donations to local schools, sporting clubs and community events. The Growing Jobs and Small Business package will also encourage new business start-ups. Start-up businesses will be able to immediately deduct professional expenses incurred when they begin a business, such as legal expenses on establishing a company, trust or partnership, rather than writing them off over five years.

This is a budget that also looks after farmers. It is, after all, industries from rural and regional Australia that produce the bulk of export commodities that contribute to Australia's GDP. Rural and regional Australia in places like Capricornia are big winners from the federal budget. Fast-track tax depreciation for fencing, water and fodder storage are some of the major changes. Let me outline some examples. Firstly, the positive change to how a farmer can deduct the cost of fencing is arguably the most significant benefit that farmers have been asking for help with. A $25,000 new fence was previously deducted over 30 years, but now it can be deducted immediately, giving a $24,000 larger deduction in the first year after it was built. Fences are vital farm infrastructure and can run for dozens if not hundreds of kilometres. Fences protect valuable livestock and help to keep feral animals off the farm. The change in fencing deductions is significant for those on the land, working their guts out to feed and clothe the rest of Australia with the food and fibre they produce. Other examples of how we are helping farmers in their businesses is with water and fodder storage. An $80,000 irrigation system previously was deducted over three years but can also now be deducted immediately, giving a $53,000 larger deduction in its first year. Where a $21,000 steel silo was previously deducted over 30 years, it can now be deducted over three years. This helps viable farmers with cash flow and improving on-farm infrastructure.

Our budget goes further to support communities hit by drought in Queensland, including areas west of Clermont. In fact, up to 70 per cent of Queensland remains in drought. This budget takes the total value of drought help measures available to more than $400 million. It includes $35 million for shovel-ready local infrastructure and employment projects, $25 million to manage pest animals and weeds in drought affected areas, $20 million to expand existing social and community support programs, $1.8 million for additional rural financial counsellors in drought affected areas and $250 million in 2015-16 to continue to give viable farmers access to existing drought specific concessional loan schemes.

My electorate of Capricornia is a vast area spanning 91,047 square kilometres. For country people, roads are often the only form of travel available. In this budget, local councils will be given double the money to get on with the job of fixing local streets and roads. Thanks to this federal budget, work will continue to make our major highways safe in Capricornia. Under local road projects, the government will spend $35 million to replace four bridges on the notorious Peak Downs Highway; $166 million to fix the Eton Range section of the Peak Downs Highway leading to the coalfields, with the first instalment of $30 million paid in 2015-16; and a further $500 million on works to fix up the Bruce Highway in regional Queensland, including Rockhampton to St Lawrence, Sarina and Mackay. This includes a further $21 million instalment on the Yeppen South project, which is raising the Bruce Highway near Rockhampton.

When it comes to local councils, Rockhampton, Livingstone, Isaac, Whitsunday and Mackay councils will receive double their normal road maintenance allocation, worth up to $10 million, across Capricornia towns under the Commonwealth Roads to Recovery fund. Under the program, this financial year's allocations include: Isaac Regional Council, over $2.1 million; Livingstone Shire Council, over $1.2 million; Mackay Regional Council, over $2.8 million; Rockhampton Regional Council, over $2.1 million; and Whitsunday Regional Council, nearly $1.5 million. For example, in Rockhampton the city council could use this money to help repair Quay Street or other roads of their choosing that have been neglected.

The future development of northern Australia, from the Tropic of Capricorn upwards, is important to our nation's agriculture and resource future. Our government is providing a new $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which is the first major step in developing our North. The first ever white paper on developing northern Australia will be released later this year. During this white paper process, I have fought hard for Capricornia to get central Queensland a recognised representative on the Prime Minister's northern Australian task force. The representative is CQ University Vice-Chancellor Scott Bowman. When it comes to northern Australia, in my role of representing Capricornia, I will continue to push water infrastructure projects like the Fitzroy Agricultural Corridor, Urannah Dam and Connors River Dam.

Health and access to GPs in country towns are also a priority for this coalition government. I am pleased to inform the House that 10 remote towns and small coastal communities in Capricornia will now find it easier to attract local doctors thanks to the new federal government budget incentives. The incentives are the result of overhauling the federal government's GP Rural Incentives Programme and spell good news for country patients. The overhaul delivers a fairer system for our rural towns by redirecting incentives that were being paid to medicos in major cities to now attract more doctors in small country towns that have a genuine difficulty in retaining GPs. In Capricornia, towns such as Clermont, Middlemount, Dysart, Sarina, Collinsville, Marian, Glenden, Hay Point and Emu Park will benefit from these changes. It makes no sense that, under the old Labor system, $50 million a year was being used for incentives to get doctors to live in large regional cities like Townsville, with a population of 175,000, and Cairns, with a population of 145,000. Quite frankly, these cities are not isolated. This money will now be spent attracting doctors to remote country towns and small coastal communities that find it hard to get GPs.

Importantly, we have not forgotten about small community groups, which make up the social fabric of our small towns and rural cities. The Stronger Communities program, announced in this budget, will provide a $300,000 pool to Capricornia over two years. Nationally, the coalition's Stronger Communities program will provide $45 million across Australia to fund small capital projects in local communities. In Capricornia, we will receive $150,000 per year to dish out to small projects that deliver important social benefits. Reputable not-for-profit organisations can apply for amounts between $1,000 and $20,000 for small local projects.

In conclusion, the most important thing about our budget is that it clearly demonstrates that the Liberal-National coalition is a government that has a plan for Australia. Unlike Labor, this budget takes our nation further along the path of building a strong, safe and prosperous future for all Australians. It will help build jobs, growth and opportunity and provide a credible path back to budget surplus.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2015-2016, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2014-2015 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2014-2015. Before I make some remarks about the budget, I want to just inform the chamber of a significant event in South Australia. The South Australian branch of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, the union I was a member of and an organiser and official for, had its 125th anniversary this year, and we had a very large dinner to celebrate that. At this dinner, one of the real stalwarts of the union, Roger Nicholls, who I know well and who lives in my electorate, received life membership of the union. The reason Roger received life membership of the union is that he has been a member for 20 years, since 1993. He is employed at the Woolworths distribution centre at Gepps Cross.

Roger is an absolute stalwart not just of the union; he has served as a delegate and a member of the committee of management. But for so long he was just a rank and file unionist, a rank and file worker, but one that people respected greatly and listened to. He was always a voice for common sense and moderation. He has been well respected not just by his friends and colleagues on the floor of the warehouse but also by management. So much of the corporate knowledge of that distribution centre is held in Roger's head, to the extent that he is relied upon by both workers and management in enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations. Roger has been there over the years at the bargaining table, sometimes in some pretty tough bargaining circumstances, but they have always managed to have not an entirely harmonious but a fairly harmonious working environment where problems are resolved through negotiation, common sense and common decency.

That is a tribute not just to the workers but also to the management of the distribution centre. I think Roger sets the scene for so much of that. He is a good unionist and a good Australian. He is a person I have certainly relied upon, not just through my time as a member of parliament but before that as a union official, for his wise counsel and his advice and common sense. It was great to see him get life membership. One of the workers at the distribution centre who was asked to say a few words about Roger said that he was just an all-round good guy. I think that sentiment should be echoed in the parliament as well because I would certainly back that notion.

I should say that Roger and his family are great supporters of the Elizabeth Vale soccer club. I know he would not let me get away without mentioning that. They are such good representatives of the northern suburbs of Adelaide and of the families who live there. They are decent, working-class people who want not just a good suburb or a good state but a good country as well. They are really good people. They look to this parliament, and I think to all governments, with a sense that we should have a fair go and a fair country. That is something that I think is often talked about, but it is another thing entirely to have it expressed in public policy.

That is one of the great disappointments of this budget and one of the great disappointments of this government – the broken promises, the broken commitments, the sugar hits now and the spin that we see as coalition backbenchers try to wriggle out of the electoral trap that they are in. Today we saw a lot of laughter in the House of Representatives about NATSEM modelling. This is modelling that shows that nine out of 10 of the lowest income families lose out from this year's budget, while nine out of 10 of the wealthiest families benefit; they win.

It is worth thinking about how you judge a budget on whether or not it is fair. I think that most people, when they are given that information, will come to the conclusion – when the smoke clears, when the hoo-ha clears, when the spin clears and when they actually have a look at the detail – as they did last year, that his government's approach and values are fundamentally unfair. We can see this in the NATSEM modelling which shows that a family with a single income of $65,000 with two children will be $6,164 a year worse off by 2018-19. A single mum with an income of $55,000 with two children will be $6,000 worse off. A family with a dual income of $60,000 with two children will be $3,843 a year worse off by 2018-19. Particularly for that last family, the key words there are 'dual income' – that is, they are a working family. There are so many of them in my electorate, people who do the right thing by this country because they go out and work for a living. They uphold the values of this nation and do the right thing by this nation. They look after themselves and their families and what they expect from this government is a commitment to the Australian value of a fair go.

Now, we know what the Australian Council of Social Service said about this budget. ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said that the overall budget fails the fairness test because it delivers an estimated $15 billion in spending cuts, including new cuts to child dental and community health programs in the budget, on top of the retained savings from last year's budget. We know that those savings were savage indeed—some $50 billion last year in cuts to education and health, money that is coming out of hospitals and local schools—and we are yet to see the impact. We know that last year we had no fewer than five versions of the GP tax—five versions of a co-payment that would stop a million people going to the hospital in the first year of its operation and 500,000 in the years after. We know that the government, rather than now having the guts to stick to their policy and charge people to go to the doctor, have simply gone in and cut doctor rebates, which will have the same effect.

We see the same policies wrapped up in a different way with a sugar hit and a lot of spin all designed to buttress the Prime Minister's position in his own party room. We know that is a vulnerable position. It is a delicate position: 39 of his colleagues voted for someone else. The choice they had was 'none of the above', because the member for Wentworth did not have the courage to put his head above the parapet, and I think he probably regrets that now, because he might have missed his chance. We know that this budget is based around supporting the Prime Minister's job and is not about the future, including the future of working families.

We have this situation where $5.5 billion has been hacked away from family tax benefits. We have seen cuts to paid parental leave. One minute the coalition had one of the world's most generous paid parental leave schemes, and now they have completely jumped the shark and they are going to hack into the benefits that working families get if they dare to get a paid parental leave provision in their enterprise bargaining agreement or in their salary. It was once said in this country that it was very doubtful that workers in retail would get paid parental leave because of the demographics of the workforce, but Woolworths and Myers are to be congratulated for being employers of predominantly female workforces yet still going down the path of having a paid parental leave provision in their awards and paying for a benefit for working women to have decent and generous paid leave while they have their children. This government is going to go to town on that provision and make it completely worthless for Woolworths to do that, because it will hack into the amount of money that the government gives you at that time. We hear all this palaver about rich public servants, but I tell you: those people will always get by, but the workers and working women at Woolworths and Myers and places like that really value those provisions and really need that money at a very important time in their family's life, the birth of a child.

So you can imagine that the working women of this country are very disappointed about this budget. When they work out their cuts to family tax benefits and when people do their figures on the spin and the smoke and mirrors trick that the Prime Minister has done, the coalition backbench will find that the support for this budget diminishes and seeps away into the ether just like last year's budget.

We have seen this phrase 'Tony's tradies'. I am reluctant to use it because it is one of those coalition things. Like 'Reagan Democrats' and 'Essex man' in the United Kingdom, it is a lot of palaver. It is a coalition desperately trying to associate themselves with the working people of this country, the people who do the work in this country, at the same time as they hack into their living standards in terms of family tax benefit and in terms of making them want to work until they are 70. There are not many tradies whose bodies are not suffering by that age. You would have to be a pretty lucky tradie—a pretty lucky bricklayer or builder—to still be going at 70.

We see the approach of the coalition, this smoke and mirrors trick. We know what they are doing to young workers. They are reducing the waiting period from six months to one month, but that is still one month where young people will have no income at all. I know in my state the effects that they are having at Holden, and we have seen now the first forced redundancies ever at GM Holden in Elizabeth. That tells you something about this government. They have plunged the South Australian automotive industry and with it the Victorian automotive industry—50,000 people—into the prospect of unemployment. We are now seeing the effect of that at Holden with job losses, with people having to face a very tough labour market. Unemployment is up, debt is up, taxes are up so we know people are walking into a circumstance which is going to be very difficult for them to walk out of.

Only today Ian Macfarlane belled the cat in the Financial Review and said that the first subs would not be made in South Australia—and this is after the launch of the Hobart on the weekend. We have had this government promise one thing before the election and deliver very little—broken promises, spin, hoo-ha, sugar hit but nothing substantial in the long term. We know that on submarines, on shipbuilding and on car making they are determined to destroy the industrial and manufacturing base of this nation, particularly in my state of South Australia. It will have a devastating effect on jobs for South Australians and it will have a devastating effect, I know, on my electorate. We see that every single day and every single week out there in my electorate.

I think it is so disappointing for those workers because they do work hard and they do the right thing. The workers at Holden, through their enterprise bargaining agreement, offered up the required amount of savings to make that factory viable if only they had got government support. Rather than government support, what they got was a Treasurer trying to chase them out of the country and a cabinet that was bent on the principle of scorched earth at the time. They have since gone completely to water on every other issue but at the time they were bent on the scorched earth approach. The outcome is 50,000 people are looking down the barrel of unemployment. We see that in my electorate. Only the other day in TheAdvertiser, Mr Adris Salih, 51 of Gawler East—51 is a tough time to face unemployment—said:

Saying goodbye to your workmates who you work with … you get all emotional. They are like your family. You see more of them than you do of your family sometimes. I didn't think I would, but I shed a tear. I have worked with some of them for 28 years. It is sad to leave.

Those are the real stories that are going to undermine the spin and the garbage of this budget. Working people and working families all over this country will soon bell the cat on this budget and reveal it for the unfair document that it is.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition understands small business as the heart and soul of the Australian economy. It is definitely the heart and soul of local communities like the south-west in my electorate. Of the over two million actively trading businesses in Australia, almost 96 per cent are small businesses. Small businesses are those with fewer than 20 employees. They account for 46 per cent of all Australian workers in the private sector, a number that fell significantly under the Labor government. This means that small business employs perhaps 40 per cent of all Australian workers, and in so many small regional and rural communities as well.

The small businesses are, as I said, the heart and soul of the community itself. They are the ones who choose to invest in areas where often there is great need but frequently less profit. They also support local service clubs, community service organisations and sporting clubs. If they are farming businesses, it is often their tractors and machinery that are used for community projects as well as the expertise of the local farmer in actually operating the gear to get the job done. And that is why this small business is so important to the coalition government and why we have demonstrated this so clearly in the budget, our clear and strong focus on small business.

Even in the lead up to the budget we delivered a new way for small business to interact with the Commonwealth, and real powers through the transition of the Small Business Commissioner into the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. It can be often really frustrating if you are a small business making sense of the complex information and range of services the government offers. The government is helping businesses to help themselves. The ombudsman will provide straightforward and honest advice that will help businesses understand disputes and how they can be avoided in the future. We have set up a new unit to provide specialist advice on contracts, and to ensure that small businesses are not disadvantaged, as part of the Commonwealth departments' tendering and procurement processes. The Abbott government has allocated $2.8 million over four years to deliver on this important commitment, which will help small businesses access Commonwealth contracts.

The government has also reduced the compliance burden employers face, when making superannuation contributions, by having the Australian Taxation Office take over the running of the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House—something really practical when your business is working in your business and you are limited for time. It is an online service that helps small businesses meet their superannuation guarantee obligations by allowing employers to pay super contributions in one transaction, to a single location, to reduce red tape and compliance costs—just practical. Another step has been to ensure that small-business people who call the Fair Work Ombudsman now receive priority service with reduced waiting times. If you are in small business every minute counts, and every minute away from your customers counts. This will help them to efficiently improve their understanding of workplace laws so that they are more confident in growing, investing and creating jobs. This is another important plank in our small-business policy.

This government is doing the first comprehensive review of competition laws and policy in more than 20 years, delivering on a key election commitment, and we are doing what we said we would do. The budget in 2015 delivers $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small businesses, and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures—again, practical outcomes. From 1 July the government will cut the company tax rate for up to 780,000 incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million by 1.5 per cent, down to 28.5 per cent. From 1 July the government will also provide a five per cent tax discount for over 1½ million sole traders, trusts and partnership structures that are unincorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million—capped at $1,000—through their end-of-year tax return. As well, until June 2017, small businesses with a turnover of below $2 million will be able to fully and immediately deduct every asset they acquire that is valued up to $20,000 for tax purposes—a substantial increase from the previous $1,000 threshold. Australian small businesses will have the lowest company tax rate for public and private companies since 1967.

The growing jobs and small-business package also includes measures to further reduce the red tape and regulatory impediments that hinder small-business growth, including changes to the fringe-benefits tax system that will expand the FBT exemption for work related portable electronic devices. Reforms to capital gains tax rollover will enable small businesses to change the legal structure of their business without incurring CGT liability, and the government will consult on potential changes to the Corporations Act to reduce compliance costs and make it easier for small proprietary companies to raise new capital. These are really simple, sometimes small and incremental changes but, if you are in small business, each one makes a difference.

The growing jobs and small-business package encourages business start-ups and entrepreneurships as well. Start-ups will be able to immediately deduct professional expenses incurred when they begin a business, such as legal expenses upon establishing a company, a trust, or a partnership, rather than writing them off over five years. This provides immediate cash-flow benefits for small business. If you are starting up, your cash flow is king. We will also provide a streamlined business-registration process to make it quicker and simpler to set up a new business, and a single online registration site will be developed for business registration, including company registration, simplifying it and making it easier to get involved in small business.

The government will remove obstacles to crowd sourced equity funding to help promote small businesses' access to finance by increasing the availability of innovative sources of funding. And, from 1 July, expanded tax concessions for employee share schemes will make it easier for small start-up companies to attract and retain the skills and talent they need to grow—the skills and talent in my part of the world. These measures will help encourage investment—those thousands of small businesses in my part of the world. It will encourage investment, innovation and the start-up of new businesses, which will help Australia's economic future.

The growing jobs and small business package also helps employers to take on inexperienced and mature workers—both ends. No wonder small business is energised and rubbing its hands. For the first time in many years, small business is actually getting the respect it deserves, not what we saw with those five or six small business ministers and basically a throwaway, disposable approach that the previous government had to small business.

Since the government was elected, around a quarter of a million new jobs have been created, but there is much more to be done. New measures will focus on making job seekers more employable, reducing the costs of taking on new staff and bringing job seekers and job providers together. The government is investing $6.8 billion to establish Job Active to improve the quality of services delivered to job seekers and employers. The new Job Active system will be focused on results and reward performance, not the process—something we understand particularly well.

There will be a $1.2 billion pool for wage subsidies to support employers to provide job opportunities and assist job seekers into work—the first step. The government will also deliver a $331 million Youth Employment Strategy, an $18 million national work experience program and changes to Restart to make it easier for small businesses to receive government support when they employ older workers.

Small business has been tasked by the coalition government to transform our economy as the proceeds and benefits of the mining boom taper as that investment phase turns into production. Small businesses are absolutely essential to the growth in our economy and the maintenance of our living standard. We started the job of helping small businesses by previously focusing on the reduction of red tape and other impediments, and we have continued by restoring incentives. In fact, this year's budget was the largest small business package we have seen in this nation's history.

Unincorporated businesses have not been forgotten. Two-thirds of Australian small businesses are not structured as companies. That includes independent contractors, self-employed people and those working in partnerships or through trusts. Under the Howard government, this group provided 52 per cent of the private sector workforce opportunities, but under the Labor years the number had fallen to 43 per cent.

Under those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, 519,000 jobs were lost in small business. Nothing could be clearer than why we need the measures that we have taken. There were actually fewer small businesses employing people by the end of the Labor government in 2013 than was the case when the Howard government was in office. Small business needs a government in Canberra that is a partner, that understands them, that is an ally and that is an advocate for their interests, and that is what we are. Many of us are small business people ourselves.

Implementing our election commitments has seen changes to the competitive landscape. We have seen unfair-contract-terms protections developed, reforms to franchising, the right to repair in the car industry and the idea that suppliers to our major supermarkets should be able to have a fair go and can be respected for their entrepreneurship as well. Recently, the World Economic Forum had us at 128th in the world in terms of overreaching and excessive regulation following those Labor years. This means that 127 other economies were less constrained, more nimble, more agile and better placed to adapt and embrace the economic opportunities within their reach. For the sake of the Australian small businesses, we have to do better.

The government is committed to working with the tax office to make it more digitally engaged. We also want to streamline the business formation process. This government will allow your professional advice to be deducted as an expense rather than depreciated over five years, encouraging people to think about new avenues to finance. We have also addressed new opportunities in crowd sourced equity funding and delivered again for workers and businesses by rejuvenating those employee share schemes.

There is a lot more to be done for small business, especially regional small business. But there is one thing about small business: they generally have a go and do their best to help themselves. Helping those who help themselves is a great outcome for all involved and for Australia. In the package that we have delivered as part of this budget, that is really important.

One of those areas is in the delivery of broadband, which I have been working to help. Australia and my part of the world need better broadband sooner. We need to catch up to the major metropolitan centres and have access that has long been denied to us. We saw six years of nothing happening in my electorate under the previous government. We need to have businesses that can grow and compete, and for individuals, to allow an equivalent level of support. Labor in government failed to prioritise regional communities in the original NBN plan. Many regional areas with no broadband service were absolutely left behind, like mine, and had to watch as metro areas were upgraded and often over-built.

Labor underestimated by a factor of 2 to 3 the number of Australians in remote and regional who wanted the NBN. That is easily demonstrated by the bungling of the NBN interim satellite service, which provides temporary internet access for premises in the metro fringe, regional and remote areas with no other way of getting broadband. In December 2013 the ISS reached its capacity of 48,000 customers, and registrations were closed. In 2014 Labor told 250,000 households and businesses, many with other broadband options, that they were eligible for the ISS. Tens of thousands were left demanding service but were unable to get it. Labor spent $355 million on the ISS—$7,300 per user—yet it delivers dial-up services to many. By comparison we have made unserviced and underserviced regions a priority. This coalition government is committed to rolling out the National Broadband Network as quickly as possible, at less cost to taxpayers, and more affordably to consumers. In nine months, for a start, the number of premises covered increased 65 per cent, and the rollout is proceeding using a multi-technology mix that matches the right technology to the right location and leverages the existing infrastructure.

There are many reasons small businesses in my electorate and in others around Australia are very pleased with this particular budget. But, more importantly, they are pleased that what they do is actually valued and respected by this government. If you are in small business, with your head down and tail up, that is exactly what you want from your government.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. I thought I had best frame my response to Treasurer Hockey's budget by just quoting some of his words so that I, as a member of the opposition, can respond to what he has put to the Australian people and the Australian Parliament. Obviously, the Prime Minister and Treasurer Hocky have been out and said a few things loud and strong. The Prime Minister said:

There is now a budget emergency.

The Prime Minister also said:

We've got to get the budget under control because right now, with debt surging towards $400 billion, frankly Labor has given us a budget emergency.

The Prime Minister also said:

… governments don’t seem to have grasped that you can’t solve a problem caused by too much debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit.

The Treasurer, the person who spoke on budget night, has also made comments. He said:

I mean, we have been saying for years, that there is a Budget emergency; we have been saying for years that there is a major problem at hand.

He also said:

… it would have looked odd and it would have looked deceptive if we had come up with a Budget that just spent money and said to people, 'she'll be right' …

I just wanted to start my response to the budget by quoting those things from the—

I beg your pardon, Deputy Speaker, I think I actually have my notes from last year's budget reply speech, not this year's budget reply! I do apologise. I might just ask my companion, the member for Bendigo, if she is able to look for the correct speech because obviously I am quoting last year's quotes from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, not this year's budget reply speech.

While the member for Bendigo is helping me out, I will just say a couple of nice things about the budget. I have the budget papers here in front of me so I will focus on something good that I know we all agree on, and that is obviously the Prime Minister's signature policy—the paid parental leave policy. That is no doubt something we can all agree is important. It is his signature policy and he announced it on Mother's Day, I seem to recall. He was all for paid parental leave—so I will just say a few good words about it being detailed in this budget paper.

Moving on! It is a bit awkward here when you turn up without your notes and you realise that these things have changed from last year to this year! Obviously, last year was a budget emergency and now we see Australia's net debt is at $285 billion, higher than at any other point in Australia's history—under the Abbott government: unbelievable! And the deficit that was the budget emergency from last year at $17.1 billion; a budget emergency, and 12 months on what do we see? A deficit at $35.1 billion—unbelievable for a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who said there was a budget emergency.

The Liberal Party and the Nationals are always saying that government spending is a bad thing. Well, let's have a look at government spending—a great measure according to the Liberal Party test of a budget as to whether the 2015 budget is a good thing. Spending is now at 26 per cent of our total economy. I repeat it, Deputy Speaker, because you might not believe it: 26 per cent of our total economy. The last time spending was that high was during the global financial crisis under Prime Minister Rudd. Yet under Treasurer Hockey and Prime Minister Abbott they have ratcheted up spending to 26 per cent of our total economy. Obviously, from the Liberal Party—always the party of small taxes, one would assume—in this budget, despite a clear promise before the election that there would be no new taxes, we see 17 new taxes. Tax is now at 22.3 per cent of our total economy, the highest it has been since John Howard was the Prime Minister. And when I say 17 new taxes I am not mentioning those other things like the divorce tax that I will come to later in my speech when I talk about my portfolio matters.

The Prime Minister says he cares about jobs and he guaranteed that he could create one million jobs in five years. And yet here we are in their second year of government and we see in their own budget papers—these budget papers—that unemployment is predicted to reach 6.5 per cent. That is 800,000 Australians out of work, all of those households with the curse of unemployment. The last time we saw unemployment this high, predicted to reach 6.5 per cent, was when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, was the employment minister—unbelievable!

There were no surprises in the budget delivered on a Tuesday night a fortnight ago. It was as unfair as the budget that Treasurer Hockey brought down last year. It still hits the most vulnerable and arguably is even crueller than the 2014 budget. If you break down society into five quintiles you see that nine out of 10 people in the lowest quintile, the poorest households, will be worse off—nine out of 10. Then you flip it around and look at the highest quintile, the wealthiest quintile: nine out of 10 of those households will be better off. That is an un-Australian budget if ever there were one. It is un-Australian to attack the poor and give the benefits to the rich—that is not the Australian way. Not since Federation, not since the harvester decision—you would have to go back a long time to see an Australian society that benefitted the wealthy at the cost of the poor.

In my portfolio, as shadow parliamentary secretary to the shadow Attorney-General, I am particularly interested in justice. I see that the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are hit by this budget. The Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are the engine room of the family law system.

It is obviously more desirable for most of us to reach a settlement in a family law dispute by means other than having a judge make a decision. But, sadly, that is not always the case. There are many factors that can contribute to a dispute becoming intractable and to having lawyers involved. And family violence sadly is often a big factor.

With that in mind, it is essential that parties in family law disputes are represented or can access appropriate legal assistance, that the court process is efficient, and that access to justice is not delayed due to courts being underresourced. I stress again the three things you need for a good justice system when it comes to family law: you need legal advice; you need efficient courts; and you need no delay.

One of the most mean-spirited acts in this budget has been to hit couples who are experiencing a breakdown in their relationship with higher court filing fees, what I am calling a divorce tax. The Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has not yet disclosed how much these fees will rise but it has been reported—in The Australian, I believe—that it may be as much as a 50 per cent fee hike. So it will cost people nearly twice as much to get a divorce, twice as much to apply to have a property settlement, twice as much to ask the courts to help in a family dispute involving domestic violence, and twice as much to ensure that children are safe and out of harm's way in a parenting dispute.

The Liberal government is happy to pay $600 to a Public Servant to give a couple a $200 marriage voucher to keep a relationship together, but when things go pear-shaped, as they sadly do in 40 to 50 per cent of relationships, they will put brakes on that process, brakes that are especially harmful when there are children and/or domestic violence involved.

It is not enough that the Attorney-General has hiked up court fees in the Family Court and the federal circuit court. What is most galling is that the extra funds harvested from the fee hike will not be going into an already underresourced court; instead, it will be going into the Treasurer's pockets, into consolidated revenue. This is nothing but a divorce tax on separating couples, exploiting those who have no choice but to resource to the courts after the unfortunate breakdown of their relationship.

And the Family Court in particular—weighed down by the workload it is forced to cope with—currently has two judges fewer than when Senator Brandis took office. Senator Brandis has not replaced either of the Family Court judges who have retired since he became Attorney-General. What has he been doing? Reading the books on his bookshelf, maybe; deciding what artistic works will go on in Australia? Family Court judges have resorted to apologising to litigants in their judgements for the delay in delivery due to their workload. That is embarrassing.

This is not a court that is underworked and overresourced. Statistics show that 40 to 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. And that does not take into account de facto couples separating; they will also use the Family Court and the family circuit court. The workloads of both of these courts is not likely to decrease any time soon, yet we are two judges down. These courts need more resources, not fee hikes that go into the Treasurer's pocket, and they need these resources now.

The Productivity Commission, the nation's bean counters, in their report Access to justice arrangements, delivered late last year, was scathing about delay. They heaped praise on the justice system, where it was due—particularly with community legal centres. We have not hear Senator Brandis talk about this report, even though it was handed to him. I do wonder if he has even read it. There is a whole chapter in that report dedicated to family law. The Productivity Commission says: 'It is clear that family violence is core business for the family law courts.' One of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission is, 'when resettling the impost on parties should not materially increase in cases concerning family violence'. Even the bean counters can see the implications of the fee hikes. In the 2013-14 year, 14.6 per cent of final order cases heard in the Family Court had filed a notice of child abuse or risk of family violence form. Clearly, any hike in fees for these courts is going to impact on this very vulnerable sector—family violence and children.

The Productivity Commission recommends a whole swathe of measures to increase access to justice, including recommendations concerning community legal centres and legal aid, two other areas that Senator Brandis took his hatchet to in the budget. It was revealed last week that legal aid funding will also be cut. Legal aid in New South Wales is set to face a cut of $16.7 million over the next five years. Deputy Speaker Conroy, I know that will have implications for your electorate.

There is a growing trend in the family courts for self-representation. They cannot afford lawyers. Many litigants find themselves not eligible for legal aid but also unable to afford representation, leaving them no choice but to represent themselves in any court proceedings.

Any reduction in legal aid funding is going to increase the number of self-represented litigants in family courts. The Productivity Commission had something to say about this. They said:

Lack of representation in family law matters can have particularly negative consequences where family violence is involved

They went on to say:

The importance of appropriate … representation can hardly be overstated in parenting cases, especially those that involve issues of family violence. Where one or both parties are unrepresented, even with the benefits of increased judicial involvement arising from Division 12A [of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)], it can be almost impossible for the court to receive the sort of evidence and argument that can lead it to make an informed decision about the child's best interests.

Senator Brandis is putting at risk not only access to justice for adult litigants in the family courts but also the welfare of all those children whose fates are decided by these courts.

Some litigants who have represented themselves in Family Court proceedings have had the benefit of seeking guidance from community legal centres along the way. I say 'some' because there is always far greater demand for the services of those centres than resources that the centres have to meet that demand. I know a little about the Brisbane Women's Legal Service, at Annerley in my electorate of Moreton. My partner and one of my staff members both do pro bono legal work at the Brisbane Women's Legal Service. They tell me that women line up hours before the doors are even open in the hope of securing a coveted place in the queue for the advice clinic. Many of these women and their children are turned away from each clinic. So, with the likelihood of a far greater number of self-represented litigants, there will be even more desperate family law clients seeking advice from these services.

Ironically, Senator Brandis has also drastically cut funding for community legal centres, which are already the leanest of lean legal advice providers in the nation. Twelve million dollars a year will be cut from community legal centres from 2017. Coincidentally, that will take effect just after the next election. Reflecting on the importance that the Productivity Commission place on legal assistance services, the commission recommend that additional funding for legal assistance should be provided. The Productivity Commission—yes, those bean counters—estimate that the total annual cost of legal assistance to government should be $200 million, so it is hard to marry the Productivity Commission's recommendations with the actions of Senator Brandis. They are so far at odds that one must question whether Senator Brandis really did read that report—or he must be of the view that he knows better. Somehow, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe that.

Next month, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. The importance of access to justice was recognised 800 years ago in that field in Runnymede in England. Chapter 40 of that auspicious document, the Magna Carta, says:

… to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

Eight hundred years later, we have our Attorney-General, the most senior legal officer in the land, refusing and delaying justice through his mean-spirited cuts to legal aid and legal assistance services and his failure to fully resource the family law courts. We should not be surprised. In family law, it is often quoted that the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. The unfair budget of 2014 is well and truly reflected in the unfair budget of 2015.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I generally try to keep a positive outlook on everything I say in this House and chamber, but I simply cannot let the previous speakers get away with their absolute blarney regarding debt. The last speaker, in mock horror, talked of the projected debt. This figure is in stark contrast to the projected $667 billion that existed when we were elected to government.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Excuse me, I did not interrupt you once. That figure is now much reduced. We have dropped the interest payments from over $1 billion a day to approximately $800 million. This is still very serious debt, but at least it is trending downwards. Can those in opposition seriously expect the Australian public to believe their twist on the debt picture and say it is all the fault of the coalition? It is just as well that Australians are not so gullible. I ask the Labor Party to be a tad more respectful to Australians and not treat them as empty-headed vessels to be filled with Labor rhetoric. Australians are smart. They are savvy, and this untruth about debt level is actually quite appalling.

Let me now move onto the best of the policies that are in place to both address the debt that Labor left us and work to make Australia a better place to live. The community of Gilmore has many different needs and yet is determined to forge ahead in as many directions as possible to make the region better. As a representative of government, sometimes there are really hard decisions to be made. Last year, we had to make some very tough decisions, but they really were in the best interests of Australia. Our core business is to take care of our economic security and our national security.

In 2014, the world and Australia had to change the public alert level from medium to high because terrorism had increased. We have seen the rise of Daesh—or, under its other name, ISIL. We have been shocked by images of hostages beheaded. We were appalled by the kidnapping of innocent young women, and now we see some of our youth traipsing off to what they believe to be a big adventure aimed at world peace and social balancing. Really, if it were that easy, we would already have fixed the world completely. But instead these young people are used as scouts, suicide bombers and generally expendable foot soldiers.

The coalition is investing an additional $1.2 billion in new funding for national security, adding to the $1 billion announced late last year. We will be investing in our national security, protecting our borders from terrorism and crime, taking steps to stop our youth from supporting or joining terrorist organisations, and making sure we have good communication with many different community groups so the information can be collected easily and acted upon. This expenditure includes $450 million to increase our intelligence capabilities. Also, we have increased our international liaison efforts, sharing knowledge and experience to counter this threat, which is a global phenomenon. We have allocated many millions to our Defence Force for equipment, training and increasing our enlistments. I am particularly pleased by this increased national investment as the local investment in HMAS Albatross is enormous, with over $3 billion for the 24 Romeo helicopters, $700 million for the Helicopter Aircrew Training System and $138 million for the initial structure.

But this government is not just making sure that we feel safe in terms of the international scenario. The borders are being protected in many other ways. We have increased confiscations and arrests in association with the attempted illegal importation of ice and the ingredients of ice, contraband cigarettes and illegal firearms—and the list goes on. All of this would not happen without sustained investment in border control.

We know that by stopping the boats we have prevented countless lives being lost at sea. This has meant that detention centres can be shut down, that due process can be applied for refugee intake, and that now we can rescue those poor souls who have been awaiting allocation to a host nation for many years. Refugees in United Nations camps have fled from war-torn nations and live in desperate conditions, waiting for their approved applications to be accepted by a host nation.

But again it must be emphasised that a government must address all aspects of society. In Gilmore we have a wide mix of family structures, from custodial grandparents to struggling single parents to double-salary families with children. The families package in the budget has been designed to help people into work and to help them stay in work. We will be delivering over $4.4 billion to families, allowing a greater choice and flexibility for child care. Melinda Robertson from South Coast Nannies—who, incidentally, built up a great service business following the successful introduction of a new enterprise incentive scheme—is thrilled that nannies can be seen as an option. I recently spoke to some policewomen and Navy personnel, asking them how this would change their lives. All wanted to increase their hours of work, because flexible child care is so difficult to get. The nanny concept works for families who do shiftwork or have hours that do not fit with preschool or kindergarten times—speaking of which, I am proud to say that our government put early childhood education as a very important part of the investment spectrum for education. The allocation of $843 million to this essential policy commitment shows that this is a government that really cares. It means that young children in the year before school have a chance to get the basic learning skills they need. It is also an opportunity to identify potential learning, social or cultural difficulties so that the first year of school is more meaningful. Schools are able to anticipate student needs before students hit the classroom. This investment is a long-term strategy that assists our young children, helps their families and ultimately helps our society.

In the big picture of protecting our economic society, we will be addressing a large number of concerns. Many people in Gilmore feel very strongly about the initiatives we have taken to address the issues of multinational tax avoidance. I would like to thank Joseph Thompson, Marty Richardson and the Culey family, who have been great advocates and supporters for this. They know it is a large global problem. They also know that it is a policy area that cannot be fixed overnight.

Many in Gilmore have been concerned with the low thresholds before foreign investors have to notify the government, and we have taken steps to address that. In March, the screening threshold for agricultural land was lowered to $15 million, down from $252 million. There is also a new threshold of $55 million for agribusiness investment. This helps reassure people in Gilmore that we are screening to make sure investments are not contrary to our national interests.

It is an interesting scenario that rolls out during question time, when those in the Labor Party screech out that we in government doubled the deficit. Most clear-thinking people in Australia know that budget policies and their associated expenditure are determined in May of each financial year. While Labor were still in government, they set huge levels of spending to occur in the 2013-14 financial year, believing, in their ignorance, that the mining tax was going to net billions of dollars. This crossed over the period after the election in September 2013. In fact, the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, often berates the now opposition by quoting back to them their folly of saying, 'You can bank on the billions of revenue.' This was absolutely not the case. Labor locked in future growth in spending that was simply unsustainable. If you put the proposed expenditure on a graph over time, you could have been forgiven for thinking that you were looking at the pathway to climb a mountain. Thank goodness for our national action to correct the economy. We the coalition have brought this steep debt growth down. It still is not completely addressed. We still have a lot to fix, but at least we are heading in the right direction.

But this budget does more than address the overall national needs in terms of economic security. It addresses the very heart of growth for employment and financial growth. We have almost 9,000 businesses in Gilmore, with about 98 per cent listed as small business. The correct definition of such businesses is that they employ fewer than 20. I know from the different chambers of commerce and talking to my local business owners that the vast majority would actually have fewer than five employees. About 20 per cent of them are in construction; another 10 per cent are in rental hire or real estate; and about nine per cent are in the professional, scientific or technical areas.

Last week was a busy time visiting retailers, cafes and other small enterprises in the Gilmore townships. The policy direction for small business has been almost universally welcomed by these business owners. It was a pleasure to talk about the 1.5 per cent tax cut for companies and the accelerated depreciation of business equipment worth less than $20,000. Some businesses had already invested, but the majority were inspired to consider how they could utilise this to benefit their business.

Amy Richards, from JavaLife Mobile Cafe, has had a coffee van around Nowra for the last two years. She is looking at opening a drive-through coffee business. If trading conditions are right, the tax break on purchases up to $20,000 could result in her purchasing another van.

During that week, I called on many other businesses, including John at The Point Pizzeria and Take Away; Liz from Cutting Point Hair Design, at Sanctuary Point; Amber from the Organic Day Spa; and Nikki at Nikki B's Vintage Collectables and Giftware, in Milton. Angela recently purchased the laundry service in Terralong Street, and I visited Julie from the Stone Wall Cafe in Manning Street, Kiama; the team at Milkwood Bakery; Ingrid Looman from Berry Beauty; and Ristin from Lickety Lick in Huskisson—all very enthusiastic, with great energy surrounding this initiative.

A government cannot produce jobs. It cannot invent a new manufacturing plant, and it cannot offer to save a business through years of subsidy. But a government can work on the conditions of a strong economy and one that has potential for growth. When there is confidence around the economy, then businesses are more likely to employ people. They have more free capital to invest and more staff. This is an overall strategy to develop jobs growth.

The current growth in jobs taken up is three times greater than it was during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Small businesses gained very little during that period except perhaps very high electricity bills that meant they cut their casual employment numbers in order to pay the extra utility costs. Justine at Husky Bakery was literally jumping for joy when the carbon tax was repealed and she received her first post-carbon-tax-repeal electricity bill, which was down by more than $900.

These actions by government all help to promote business growth and help put more cash flow into their systems. But all of us in Gilmore know that a job strategy for youth must be a part of the economic build. This government recognises that and has introduced extra policy initiatives to help inspire young people into work. We recognise that good employees can be the greatest asset for a small business, so recruiting and retaining the right people is a very important factor for business success.

The Youth Employment Strategy is helping disengaged and young job seekers transition to work, and there are a number of ways that this is working. First, there is the new Transition to Work program to help young people aged between 15 and 21 who are not enrolled in education and are not in employment, to get them job ready, giving them pre-employment assistance in community based organisations. Already the local library in Shoalhaven is working on a plan with another fundraising community group to get computers and mentors into action, as they already know that this is a very important step for young people, and they do not often know where to turn for such assistance.

Also, there is the new national work experience program, with access to voluntary work experience for up to 25 hours per week. The period is limited to four weeks for eligible job seekers. This will give the employers the opportunity to develop the skills of potential employees and test their suitability, while the job seekers will continue to receive their income support.

Local business leaders in Gilmore have been keen to introduce this scheme. Such a part-time introduction to work gives a young unemployed person a real-life experience to help them decide if a particular workplace will suit. During the work experience, they will have income support so they do not need to reapply if the job does not work. If the work experience does lead to a job then the employer could be eligible to receive the youth wage subsidy, a $6,500 incentive for the business to hire such young people. For our young people aged between 18 and 30 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months, there is the job commitment bonus. You can get it in two instalments. If you get a job and keep it for 12 months, you get a nice $2,500 bonus. If you keep it for another 12 months, you get a $4,000 bonus. There are lots of young people who would see that that would be great.

There will be a trial program to help young people and parents at risk of long-term welfare dependency, such as people from areas of entrenched disadvantage, to address their barriers to employment. Many in Gilmore are concerned about apprenticeships. Some employers have too many applicants while others cannot find a single one. On 1 July, the new Australian Apprenticeship Support Network will commence. This excellent initiative has the mission to match the right apprentice to the right employer to the training. We have about 1,800 apprentices in Gilmore and most of these are working out well. But not all apprentices complete their training, and this can happen due to a number of causes. But any avenue that can assist a young person to complete their apprenticeship is most welcome. This is a very welcome initiative to promote completion and ease navigation through a system that for some employers can be a little difficult. When the whole concept is to get more young people to complete their studies, the outcome is greater numbers of job ready trainees and apprentices. Overall, there are positive changes, responsive changes and strategies to assist more people through to a better outcome.

We are still addressing the debt bill left to us. We are addressing the needs of families, especially in regard to child care. We are providing opportunities for small business to grow and employment strategies to assist our young Australians into work. It is a complicated business. The plans, the policies and the strategies certainly will not make everybody happy. Sometimes you have to have some people who think, 'That doesn't seem right,' and get an improvement for most Australians for most aspects of their lives. After all, we really do live in the best country in the world and we have the best lifestyle to match. So if you can get most of it right most of the time, you are doing all right. Thank you.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is the first opportunity I have had to appear before you, Deputy Speaker Conroy. I trust that you will do a fine job in this new role. I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. This year's budget is clearly an attempt at a very short-term political fix, with no positive plan for innovation, growth or jobs. For those of us who remember the austere atmospherics around the budget of last year, think about what this budget does: it fails to address the very thing that they spoke about then which was a deficit. In fact, this year's budget seeks to double the deficit over the next four years. Compare that to last year's predictions.

This government has certainly thrown a few sweeteners in to distract from some of the harsh and unfair measures that were in last year's budget, and I will come to that. But for members here, just pause and think that this budget is still has the $80 billion cuts to our health and education. It still has the changes to family payments that will see the average single-income family nearly $6,000 worse off. It still has university deregulation, which makes it a very real prospect of seeing $100,000 degrees. These things still very much impact on my community and, I suspect, many of the communities that members here represent. On the other hand, compare that to what Labor has put forward in terms of writing of the HECS debt for science, technology and engineering students, trying to encourage more students to train for the jobs of the future. That is something that is embracing innovation. That is something that is looking to the future.

We are planning to invest in training thousands of new science and technology students, in bringing more digital technology to our schools and in our most important capital—that is, our people. I would suggest that that is looking to the future—investing in our people so that they can be trained and available for the jobs of the future. Those opposite are, quite frankly, all about cuts. There is certainly no vision and no plan. Very clearly, they have one eye firmly fixed on the next election.

The Abbott government's second budget announced an $11.3 billion cut to Australian aid. This is the lowest recorded level as a proportion of our national income. These cuts will certainly hit some of the world's poorest countries pretty hard and put regional security at risk. Some of our closest neighbours, including the Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, are seeing their aid cut by 40 per cent.

The most astonishing thing about this government's budget is its relentless attack on families, particularly young families. Just look at the derogatory terms that were used for mothers who want to spend precious time with their newborn babies. This is a new low for this government. Referring to mothers as 'rorters' and 'fraudsters' and accusing them of double dipping for simply accessing what was legitimately provided for in their industrial agreements and specifically singling out public servants was a new low for this government.

There were cuts to family payments, including family tax benefit B stopping once the child turns six years of age, which will leave some families thousands of dollars worse off every year. As you would no doubt appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a new father, raising a child in today's world is increasingly expensive and many parents in this place will very much understand that. It is even more acute for single-income families, particularly families coming from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This budget does not discriminate; it is those people who are very much impacted by the harsh measures that were in last year's budget that flow through to this one. One thing that has also largely escaped the attention of many of the commentators is the abolition of the after hours GP hotline service. Again, that is fairly important for families. The triage services that offers were used by over 200,000 people last year—and that has just been cut.

This budget is also very worrying for our young people, particularly vulnerable young job seekers. They will be forced off Centrelink support for a month before being eligible for any form of assistance at all. No matter how hard people try, sometimes it takes a little bit more than a month to secure a job. It is pretty scary to think that vulnerable people might be forced into various situations—some of them probably dangerous situations—trying to get by while receiving no support at all. Whether it is one month or six months, as was originally proposed, Labor is not prepared to stand by and watch young people being forced into poverty and hardship.

This is clearly a budget, as I said, about the next election. It is certainly not one for the nation's future. Labor is happy to work with the government to ensure positive steps are taken, as was indicated with respect to small business. We take the view that we do not stop at a 1.5 per cent cut in tax or the reestablishment of the instant asset write-off. Whilst they are good things, they should not be the be-all and end-all, and it should not be on the basis that this only exists for the next prospective two years. Nevertheless, it is welcomed that these measures have found their way back in—but bear in mind that it was this government that abolished the instant asset write-off.

Labor introduced the small business instant asset write-off. I recall the threshold of $6,500, as well as an accelerated depreciation mechanism. It also applied an initial deduction for motor vehicles. It is good that the Abbott government has decided to reintroduce that, and I think it is good that it is up to $20,000. It is a measure that we support and I think that many businesses will benefit from it. But for two years—this is not what is in order to stimulate growth in that sector and the provision of jobs. I am prepared to concede that this is probably the only positive sign from this year's budget. There are no encouraging steps other than that in looking at job creation.

Many of the leading minds and organisations have had the opportunity now to review this budget and make comment on it. With respect to many of those that I have seen, their view is that this budget fails to plan for the future adequately. They say it is unfair. It certainly forces the most vulnerable in our community to bear the brunt of the cuts.

For instance, the Australian Council of Social Service CEO, Cassandra Goldie, expressed that many of last year's harsh cuts are retained, that the budget attacks those on low incomes disproportionately and that it also fails to stimulate investment in jobs growth. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations comments expressed great concern that 12 specialist organisations representing over 200,000 Australians with disability have not been funded under this budget. The Refugee Council of Australia commented that the budget was mean-spirited and short-sighted for its failure to respond to the world's growing humanitarian crises due to the unprecedented cuts to aid. They went on to say:

Australia, one of the most affluent nations on earth, and one of the few very wealthy countries surrounded by developing countries, has a responsibility to its own people, to the region and to the international community to be a better global citizen. If Australia continues down this current path, the negative outfall of such arrogant policies will affect Australia’s security, trade and long term prosperity.

World Vision CEO, Tim Costello, said these cuts put lives and the stability of Australia's immediate region at risk:

It seems incredible that we should be willing to undermine the stability and security of our own region, hitting the area of closest and most immediate need and undermining our chances for future prosperity.

A further comment comes from the chief executive officer of CPA Australia, who said that the small business package was one of the only high points in the budget and that it was evident the government had been spooked by the negative reception it got in 2014:

… tonight’s budget lacks a real vision and commitment to the serious and overdue structural reforms that are desperately needed to secure Australia’s future.

Clearly, greater investment in infrastructure is vital to improving productivity. It also provides a direct boost for economic growth and jobs. These are the very things that this government has simply not done and simply avoided in this budget.

In the time I have left, I would also indicate my personal disappointment that this budget fails to reverse the $270 million in cuts to various community organisations and continues to plan on cutting the funding for legal and community services assisting victims of domestic violence. I was hoping that we had a bipartisan position in tackling this very serious issue. Instead of what we see, which is ever increasing short-term funding for family violence support services, the government should work on a long-term strategic approach in tackling this community pandemic.

Earlier this year Labor proposed a bipartisan national crisis summit on family violence to work together to develop the best strategies, safety and support for the victims of this terrible scourge on our society. Recently I had the opportunity of meeting with Rosie Batty, the 2015 Australian of the Year, and one of our most passionate advocates concerning violence against women and children, to discuss the issue of family violence generally. Rosie spoke of the prevailing attitudes in our community that allow violence to continue. When you reflect upon the fact that one in three women will be a victim of violence in their lifetime and one in five will experience violence of a sexual nature, what is even more chilling is that every week two women are killed in Australia by a current or former partner. This is one of the most significant issues facing our community, and I will continue to encourage all men to make the commitment never to commit, to excuse or to remain silent on violence against women and children.

In closing, I would like to briefly speak about something very close to home in my electorate: the government's commitment to proceed with the Badgerys Creek airport. Regrettably, during the planning stages the concerns of local residents have largely been ignored. The government has failed to ensure the same curfew that applies in Sydney Airport would be applied to Badgerys Creek. It has failed to outline clearly the infrastructure development plans, road and rail links to support increased traffic through our communities. It has failed to develop a plan for increased investment to attract new business opportunities into our area. Above all, it has failed to undertake an updated environmental impact statement and to engage in proper consultation with our community. This is a very significant aspect of development in Western Sydney and one for which the people of Western Sydney deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and be fully consulted by this government.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and cognate bills. As a member of the government I am so pleased to say that much of the work of this budget will support women's economic empowerment in Australia, such as from the small business initiatives, which are going to help what are often the first steps women take into the workforce—their small businesses and often sole trader enterprises—with the $20,000 immediate deduction for investments in their businesses. That is a very great thing for women. We have also put much additional effort into the business of helping women to address their victimisation in gender based violence scenarios.

But I want to talk to you about the G7 and G20 summits this year. In Berlin I attended a forum where members of parliament from the G7 and G20 nations of the Northern Hemisphere sat down to look at how women were to be best supported and empowered across the globe. There were also several of us from the Southern Hemisphere to represent our region. The G7 and G20 summits this year prioritised the issue of women's participation in the workforce around the globe. This is of critical concern, as women in almost every country on average are paid less than men for the same work. In Australia this amounts to about 17 per cent and it is getting higher as time goes by. We still too often have to deal with the double burden of paid work and unpaid house work and caring, and women still often have to suffer from workplace harassment, discrimination and violence, which, of course, greatly impacts on their very ability to work.

As well, unplanned pregnancies force millions of women and girls around the world to miss the opportunities of education and employment. This is particularly the case in our region of the Indo-Pacific, where there is often a significant number of young and forced marriages and a lack of knowledge of or access to sexual and reproductive health services. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that these are not just issues that affect women. In fact, the denial of women's rights can be seen as critically impacting on a nation's economy.

The Asia Pacific Parliamentary Group on Population and Development has brought together parliamentarians from our region for the past several decades to champion gender equality and women's rights to access sexual and reproductive health services. I am proud to chair the Australian chapter of this group.

While we have seen progress on many fronts in the last two decades, progress has unfortunately been slow and we still have significant challenges in our region. In particular, global donations for reproductive healthcare products and contraception have slowed, perhaps in line with all other donations, but this is particularly concerning. The G7 and G20 summits this year provided us with further impetus to champion women's rights, restating that helping women to enter the workforce is not just good for women's empowerment and financial independence; it is good for the family, the household and the national economy.

When half of a nation's population cannot realise its full potential to contribute to the community, to society and the economy, a nation suffers. The link between women's economic empowerment and development are well established. When women are economically empowered there is a greater reduction in poverty overall and increased opportunities for future generations. Women who are better educated and have greater control over their income are more likely to invest in the health, care and education of their children. Their children in turn are more able to access better employment opportunities and move into the formal economy. They are less often victims in their lives.

In the Indo-Pacific region a lack of economic opportunities for women has significant economic costs in many countries. It is estimated that the region loses up to $US47 billion per year through the lack of employment opportunities for women and another $US30 billion per year because of gaps in education. In our region, female labour force participation is 23 percentage points lower than male labour force participation, and output per worker could increase by up to 18 per cent if women had the same work opportunities and access to productive assets as men in East Asia and the Pacific. It is ironic that while women do most of the hard work, particularly in food production, in East Asia and the Pacific, they are least likely to own title to that land or to be able to sell or buy it.

While we do need to find ways to help women into the workforce, we also need to pay attention to the quality of the work that is offered to them. Although employment trends for women are increasing in the region, the quality of the work is not. Since the global financial crisis, the informal labour market has been increasingly feminised, meaning more women are working without protection, regular earnings and financial or personal security. They are more likely to be trafficked. The rate of vulnerable employment for women is consistently higher than for men, and only one per cent of women in the region run their own businesses with paid workers. In many cases, poor quality jobs can further disempower or marginalise women. Migrants, for example, including those who migrate from rural to urban areas in developing countries are particularly vulnerable. Migrant women have fewer support networks, may have fewer rights, limited access to services including health services, and may face discrimination because of the nature of their work, such as domestic or carer work. These women are more at risk of abuse, harassment and exploitation, facing multiple forms of discrimination based not only on gender but also on their class and ethnicity.

We are also aware that many of our women in the Philippines, from Bangladesh, from parts of India, have to leave their own families and travel to other countries in order to be able to send funds home to support their own families. In the case of my daughter who lives in Singapore, the most marvellous woman has been employed with them for some five or six years now. She sacrificed her own expectation of marriage and children so that she can send back her earnings to look after her own mother and her eight brothers and sisters in the Philippines. Almost 21 million people are still experiencing forced labour or people trafficking across the globe each year, with over half of these people coming from the Asia-Pacific region. Fifty-five per cent of these victims are women and girls.

Another critical barrier to women's meaningful participation in our region's workforce is their limited access to sexual and reproductive health services, and I have already referred to this. Two hundred and twenty-two million women around the world would like to delay or cease child-bearing but are not using any form of contraception. The demand for contraception is projected to grow by 40 per cent during the next 15 years. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is estimated that some 140 million women have an unmet need for family planning.

The health benefits of family planning are considerable. It is estimated that family planning could reduce maternal deaths by 25 per cent, newborn deaths by 18 per cent and unintended pregnancies by over 73 per cent. Furthermore, enabling women to choose when to have a child and how often to have children gives women and girls the opportunity to complete their schooling or training, to earn a better living and so to escape poverty and abuse. Studies have shown that women who use family planning are generally more equal or empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. Children in these households tend to be healthier, do better in school and grow up to earn higher incomes, which enhances economic independence. The lifetime opportunity costs of teen pregnancy have been estimated to range from one per cent of GDP in China to as much as 30 per cent in Uganda, measured solely by lost income. The real costs, of course, are much greater, and they are personal. In developing countries, pregnancy-related causes are the largest contributor to the mortality of girls aged from 15 to 19—nearly 70,000 deaths annually. We are also regularly and rightly shocked at the number of young girls who experience fistula in giving birth too young and often in a stunted or malnourished state. The incidence of fistula is not declining.

In our region, there is a strong suspicion that the rates of female genital mutilation are increasing. This is of great concern when you think of the lifetime of health impacts from these forms of mutilation or cutting. It is extraordinarily concerning when we think that women and girls who have migrated or come as refugees from countries where this is a cultural practice may be returning to those countries to have this mutilation occur.

Barriers to family planning are not limited to the availability of contraceptive methods. Millions of women and girls lack access to information on sexual and reproductive health; face social, economic or cultural barriers to accessing contraception; or face discrimination, coercion and violence. I am reminded of the problems of our Indigenous girls and young women who try to use implants as contraception in our remoter communities and who are then often called 'sluts'; the implant is called a 'slut stick'. Those girls are believed to be promiscuous if they are using one of these forms of contraception, and their male partners or boyfriends often insist that they remove that form of contraception. This is a serious problem for those women and girls. It is also obvious that the men in that community have not been properly educated or engaged in the whole matter of contraception for their partners, wives or daughters.

Violence against women causes more death and disability among women aged from 15 to 44 than war, cancer, malaria and traffic accidents combined, affecting one out of every three women globally. The World Bank has estimated the cost of violence against women to be between 1.2 and 3.7 per cent of a nation's GDP. This includes the direct costs, such as medical expenses, crisis services and legal services; indirect costs, such as the impact on productivity and earnings because of death, injury or disability; and the costs incurred, hopefully, when the perpetrator is incarcerated. Not included are the psychological and social costs to the woman, which may last generations, as children who are exposed to such violence will continue to suffer from the trauma or may even become victims or perpetrators themselves.

In Australia, as the previous speaker reminded us, at least two women are murdered by intimate partners each week. This is a national tragedy and a disgrace in a nation like ours. It is up to all of us in this place to ensure that we do all we can to not just legislate appropriate sanctions but fund appropriately information and education to protect the victims of this violence. We have to educate men that it is not a masculine agenda to force their own sense of inadequacy and need to express their power over another through bashing, assaulting, harming or even murdering their female partner.

Official development assistance, globally, sometimes called overseas foreign aid, is now dwarfed by private flows of funds to developing countries. These private flows in and out of a country may be related to mining, forestry, the tourism sector or some other part of the economy. The private sector can embrace their corporate responsibility, particularly in female-dominated sectors like the garment trade and hospitality industries, where conditions are traditionally poor. We all recall the tragic fires that swept through the sweatshops in Bangladesh. The private sector can empower female employees by investing in better employee protection and training and by leveraging their influence to strengthen domestic policies—and they should. We have to ensure that consumers or customers of those products understand where they were made, who made them and under what conditions. It is up to each of us as consumers to ensure we do not buy products that have as their creators women who are victims. Australian companies often lead the way here, and I am proud to say that illicit flows out of developing countries are recognised by Australia as another huge problem. We, in the United Nations, have championed the identification of this problem of illicit flows or corruption, and we are trying to assist many of our neighbours in developing stronger governance, law and order, customs and tax regimes to capture the legitimate flows of funds in their countries for their own country's use. Poverty in our regions is often in some of our richer neighbours with strong and affluent middle classes. We also have to help those nations to better distribute their income to those most in need.

I want to end by saying that in our region we have some two-thirds of the world's poverty, but only one-third of the aid flowing. Australia more than pulls its weight. I am very proud to be part of a government that is recognising what needs to be done in our region and is providing that support conscientiously and in partnership with our neighbour nations. I commend the bills to the House.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and related bills. At the core of this budget is a gaping emptiness of purpose. It is all about the politics of yesterday—not facing up to the challenges of our future. This budget does not set a path to a better life for Australians. It does not even have regard to what that might look like. This is a budget by a government that has no faith in the Australian people. It does not share their aspirations for themselves, their families, their neighbours—our future. This is its most egregious failing. A budget should set out clearly the direction of a government and for a country. But here we have to sift through incoherence and inconsistency to find these threads. We have come a long way from the budget emergency of last year and still further away from the promised surpluses. This is a budget of political calculation, but it is underpinned by ideology as soon as you scratch the surface.

Make no mistake, this is a government determined to lead us to a more unequal society. We see this in the government's attempts to turn Australians on one another. The lifters-and-leaners rhetoric has been reframed, but the obsession with dividing Australians remains. This is a crucial point in understanding this budget. It is essentially a rebadging job of the previous budget. Let us not forget that the only concession the Abbott government was prepared to make on last year's disastrous and divisive budget was that there had been a poor sales job—the selling, not the substance; not its devastating effect on communities and the state of the national economy. We see this in the fact that so many of the spending measures in this budget are predicated on the cuts in last year's budget being passed by the Senate. The $80 billion worth of cuts to health and education are still there, $100,000 degrees are still there and the GP tax by stealth lurks menacingly in the background of every visit to a primary health care service.

Labor acknowledges, of course, that our economy faces significant challenges—as we did when Labor were in government. The Leader of the Opposition's budget reply spoke to jobs of the future, innovation, the challenges of education and the importance of our cities. The Abbott government could and should have risen to this challenge too, but instead we see in this budget, the subject of these bills, an opportunity missed to make the most of Australia's opportunities to confront the challenges we face—rising inequality most especially. As the economy deteriorates under the government's watch, inequality is becoming more acute. However, instead of trying to stem this flow, the government seem determined to exacerbate the problem. With the release of NATSEM modelling, we have seen the true impact of the government's budget on Australian families. Of course, this is modelling that should have been set out in the budget itself. This is a telling omission and it is easy to see why they are hiding it. For the second year in a row, the government's budget consolidation is being made at the expense of the less well off. NATSEM has found that the poorest 20 per cent of households with children will lose up to 7.1 per cent of their total disposable income over the next four years after all budget measures have been taken into account. This amounts to over $6,000 a year by 2018-19. In contrast, high-income families will actually see their disposable incomes increase slightly over the next four years. It is a deja vu budget all over again: the least well off are doing all the lifting while the most well off are being lifted. Dave Oliver from the ACTU nailed it today: 'Trickle up.'

It is also telling that the Abbott government, rather than engaging on the substance of the NATSEM report, sought to attack the organisation and even went so low as to attack a member of the opposition's staff. This shows the level of desperation and deceit from this government. We saw earlier this week the government seek to besmirch those who rely on family payments as being somehow hopelessly welfare dependent. The Minister for Social Services remarked:

The NATSEM model takes no account of those impacts of people being able to earn a wage rather than earn welfare.

When unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment, is rising, surely this is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make—when the government has no plan for jobs. While he and his colleagues spent plenty of time before the budget talking up fairness, these were clearly just empty words. This was reinforced yesterday in the parliament. The Prime Minister was so unconcerned about the unfair impact of his decisions on families in Page that he pivoted straightaway, shamelessly, to the rhetoric of 'Stop the boats', while the minister, heedless of projections of increasing unemployment, hubristically boasted of the 'choices' opened up into work. It is no surprise that ReachTEL polling today shows voters unconvinced of the government's efforts on jobs and job security, but it would appear that with this government secure work only matters in relation to the tenure of the Prime Minister and his Treasurer.

The only difference between this year's budget and the last is that this time the cuts are buried in the fine print. When the government was talking about needing to do a better sales job, this is clearly what it meant. Nowhere are these cuts owned up to by ministers or the Treasurer. It should not have to take separate independent analysis by the likes of NATSEM to uncover the true nature and hidden intent of a budget. I suspect that the post-budget bluster and bravado that has been on show will fade, as it did last year, as people work out that they have been sold a lemon, yet again, by this government. Not only that but this government is so bereft of vision and values that it simply does not deserve to be in power; it does not deserve the stewardship of the Australian nation and the Australian economy.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 20:24 to 20:36

As far as vision went, the best the government could come up with was another three-word slogan: 'Have a go.' As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, all this budget does is to have a go at schools, hospitals and families. It has a go at those out of work, or those in insecure work. The conflicted and inconsistent economic policies are truly baffling. At one point the Treasurer indicated he wished to engage in bipartisan discussion around closing superannuation loopholes. Indeed, the Assistant Treasurer stated on Sky News:

… you can't look at any of these individual issues in isolation. You have to look at the broader system, and how the superannuation system impacts upon the pension and is affected by the tax system.

But a week or so later the Prime Minister shot them both down and refused to engage in any such discussion. However, I note in last week's Financial Review that there are still some in the coalition who seem to be pushing for changes to be made. Who knows how successful they will be? Is this another signature policy of the Prime Minister signed with his notorious magic ink? The Prime Minister was adamant earlier this week during question time that there would be no further changes, but frankly he has been just as adamant on so many issues before and then backflipped. It is impossible to say for certain. The one pattern, though, is that if the cuts make those on low and middle incomes worse off then this government will persist in that move.

What it will not do—what it is incapable of doing, it seems—is to tackle the lurks and perks of the well off. On this basis I am inclined to believe that the Prime Minister will carry the day and protect those most well-off superannuants, as he has always done, at a great cost to our budget, as well as to equity and our sense of social justice. I note that recent modelling has shown that in four years superannuation concessions will outstrip the cost to government of the age pension—within four years. It beggars belief that this government would attack those on low and middle incomes but not lift a finger to slightly adjust these concessions enjoyed by the wealthy. I am proud that the Australian Labor Party has shown leadership in this area. It is important that all the burden of reducing the deficit does not fall on those least able to carry it.

Under this government we have seen unemployment go up and consumer confidence go down. Bizarrely, the Prime Minister has stated that consumer confidence had in fact gone up. But, of course, the figures do not lie. At the 2013 federal election, consumer confidence was recorded by Westpac at 110.6. It is now 102.4

At the 2013 federal election, consumer confidence was recorded by the ANZ at 122.3. It is now 111.3. A minor up-tick in the sugar hit of the budget has not turned this around. It is little wonder that consumers have so little confidence. They can have no confidence in this government to protect their interests or indeed in its budget projections, beyond demonising those who cannot find work when unemployment is forecast in the budget to continue to rise, to rise to unacceptable levels beyond the 800,000 Australians presently out of work and looking for work.

We also see very curious numbers in respect of forecast for household consumption, which sit of course very uncomfortably, to be most generous, with the unemployment figures and more so with the record low wages growth. And, of course, the budget projections of a sustainable path to surplus are founded on, amongst other things, growth projections that seem little more than wishful thinking, as some very helpful articles by Michael Pascoe and Greg Jericho have set out in the past week.

The small business package in the budget, which has been highlighted as something of a centrepiece, does contain some suitable and appropriate measures. Indeed, it is pleasing to see a return to Labor's instant asset write-off—unfortunately, a policy abandoned by this government when it came into office. So it is pleasing to see this policy adopted belatedly. But its implementation and, indeed, wider priorities raise some additional issues. A $20,000 write-off for tradies and other small business people is one thing. But what about that tradie and that small business person when their youngest child turns six and the impact of the horrendous cuts to family payments? What about the partner of that tradie or that small business person when she wishes to access the maternity leave that she bargained for with her employer which complements the government scheme that exists, the Labor scheme as it was intended to operate? What happens to that small business person and that tradie when he or she wants to visit the GP and has to pay for that privilege, as government members would apparently see it?

What about that small business person who does not want to spend most of his or her time stuck in traffic? Where is this government's cities and urban policy, another notable omission from the government and another stark contrast with Labor, which is concerned with the circumstances of the four in five Australians who live in our cities and the 80 per cent of our gross domestic product which is generated in those cities?

Here we have a central oddity. We have a self-described infrastructure Prime Minister in Prime Minister Abbott, who says that he is leading an infrastructure government. But declining spending on infrastructure over the forward estimates tells a very different story, a very different story in raw numbers about this government's priorities in terms of productive investment and a very different story in terms of the priorities to which those investments are applied. Instead of really having an infrastructure government, this Abbott government is hamstrung by both politics and ideology, and blind to the realities of modern Australia, an Australia which is the most urbanised country in the world where 80 per cent of Australians live and work in cities. Yet again and again, this government fails them not just in this budget, which pretends our cities do not exist, but every day.

As a Melburnian and a Victorian, I feel this most acutely. The Abbott government has slashed Victoria's infrastructure grants by $3 billion and this contempt for Victorians is compounded by the Treasurer's sleight of hand through his so-called locked box of moneys, apparently to go towards a toll road that Victorians voted against in the state election in November last year—an election described by the Prime Minister as a referendum on this toll road. It is extraordinary.

This government, having made this issue a signature issue, continues to defy the will of the Victorian people, but also to defy the views of the experts and to defy the views of Infrastructure Australia, who saw the Melbourne Metro project as the No. 1 project on the list. It is a critical project to change the way the people in Melbourne live and how they work. It is critical to unlocking the productivity of this great city that I live in. It is also critical to its sustainability and it is critical to its livability, particularly to people in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne, the people whom I am privileged to represent in this place.

I have to say that no area of policymaking sums up the incoherence and inconsistency of this government more than its approach to paid parental leave and child care, two extraordinarily important challenges for our country. The Prime Minister has, of course, had a kaleidoscopic array of positions on these policy areas. After attacking mothers for legitimately using a scheme he was previously in favour of, the Prime Minister is now seeking to pull the rug out from underneath thousands of mothers who simply want to spend as much time with their newborn babies as possible. Even worse, adding insult to injury, is the Abbott government holding childcare funding ransom to his attacks on these mothers, dividing mothers against one another. That is not what Australians should have to put up with from their own government.

In closing, this budget discloses that this government has no vision for Australia's future. It is also a budget which is filled with contempt for Victorians and does nothing for the people of Melbourne's northern suburbs. (Time expired)

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 and other appropriation bills. It is great to follow the former speaker, who talked about what this government is doing on infrastructure. This government has the country's largest infrastructure agenda. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you and I—both Queenslanders—know how important that vital infrastructure, particularly road infrastructure, is for our growing and very big state.

I want to go through a couple of these big initiatives locally. To start with, the biggest one, which I think will clear a big bottleneck of traffic jams as we head south from my electorate towards Brisbane, is the Gateway Motorway. So many of the daily commuters in our community know the challenges of that bottleneck between Nudgee and Bracken Ridge. This government is putting $1.16 billion into widening that section of the Gateway Motorway from four lanes to six lanes, which will make a very big difference.

This government is also investing $8 billion in the Bruce Highway, the lifeblood of our local region, the key economic driver and the road that facilitates the greatest amount of movement around our community. We are putting $8 billion into the Bruce Highway across Queensland. Three billion dollars of that is going from the Pine Rivers through to Gympie. So there is over a billion dollars into the Gateway up to the Pine Rivers, and then over $3 billion into the highway from Pine Rivers through to Gympie.

That is upgrading a whole range of things, but one particular example I want to jump on is the Boundary Road overpass. So many locals know the challenges that we face there. This government is committing $84 million, in conjunction with the state government. It was a bit of an effort to get the new state Labor government to commit to that, but they are adding about $20 million extra to that project, bringing it up to about $105 million to build a six-lane overpass at Boundary Road. That is the sort of practical congestion-busting initiative that we are putting into the Gateway and the Bruce Highway.

The other road that locals know is so important to our region is the D'Aguilar Highway. The D'Aguilar Highway has caused far too many tragedies over far too many years. When I first campaigned for parliament in 2010, I made a commitment to fix the worst black spots on the D'Aguilar Highway. Of course, it is a state government road, but we said that we would commit funds to that because of the tragic loss of life on that road. Every local knows that story. At the time, the Labor member—the person that I beat at the subsequent election—said that it was impossible to do that. He said that that would take all the funds from Queensland and that the Labor Party was not interested in doing that or it could not be done. Well, we did not win that election. I continued to campaign, to lobby and to call on the federal Labor government and the state government to put money towards the D'Aguilar Highway. They did not do that, but at the 2013 election I made another commitment of $16 million to the D'Aguilar Highway. I am really proud to say that we are doing what the Labor Party said could not be done. We have allocated that $16 million in the budget. We have committed to that. The design work and geotechnical work has already been done on those vital upgrades to the D'Aguilar Highway. That project has now gone out to tender and we expect construction to start later in the year. That is such a vital improvement for our region. Ultimately, the responsibility rests with the state government. But where they have not acted, I am really proud of the fact that we have stepped in. Ultimately, these upgrades will save lives.

Talking about black spots across other parts of the region, we have committed over $3.4 million to local black spots in the Longman electorate in our local community. That includes, for example, upgrading 500 metres of the Pumicestone Road, which is an incredibly dangerous section of the road. These are really practical things where, again, it is not a Commonwealth government road but we have stepped in with some extra funds to help save lives. I think that many locals will appreciate that significant upgrade.

We have also committed over $20 million to our region through the Moreton Bay Regional Council for Roads to Recovery. Essentially, this is where the Commonwealth government comes in and gives additional funds to local councils so that they can upgrade their roads, which deals with those annoying maintenance issues that we face on our local roads. That is a very significant injection. In the next year, we are doubling the payment that the Moreton Bay Regional Council will receive through Roads to Recovery to do, again, what is essentially their job. This will give them a big financial boost. Next year, with that doubling payment, they will get over $6 million to go in to the maintenance of local roads.

The other thing that we should be discussing in these appropriation bills is, of course, jobs. In our local community, the unemployment rate has been too high for too long. We all know that the big creators of prosperity and the creators of employment in our region are not people here in Canberra. It is not bureaucrats. It is not the government. It is locals who are prepared to go out there, to have a go, to have a small business or start a small business, to grow that business and to employ more people. When you have a society that is big and a government that is small I think that you can create greater jobs growth and greater prosperity for our nation. That is why these initiatives include the largest package for small businesses that our country has ever seen.

The biggest part of that is the $20,000 instant asset write-off measure, which has received an enormous amount of media. Essentially, since budget night, local businesses can go out, purchase that piece of equipment that they might need to grow their business, to make them more productive, to help lift their productive capacity in that business and they can write that off against their taxable income, which is a massive initiative. Many local businesses have been speaking to me and saying how big a difference that will make. As they grow those businesses, they will be ultimately putting on more people.

We have also included a 1½ per cent company tax rate for incorporated companies, something that has been needed for a long time, and a five per cent tax discount for those unincorporated companies, and, of course, we are continuing to slash red tape as we promised to do. When local businesses are not spending hours or days on bureaucratic red tape or putting on extra staff to deal with bureaucratic red tape and we are getting that hassle out of their life, they can do the thing that they do the best, which is to go out there, grow their business and employ more people. We have achieved over double the target that we set when we went to the election. We have already reduced red tape in the first year by over $2 billion.

A lot of that red tape reduction, I am really proud to say, has come from our local community, where local businesses have come to me. We have taken it up with the government and we have been able to remove the red tape that is actually stopping them from growing their businesses and employing more people, and you can feel it when you are talking to these local businesses. They are prepared to go out there and to have a go. That will be what drives the future prosperity of our region and future jobs growth. We have interest rates at record lows. We have the dollar coming down, and we have these fantastic initiatives that will help businesses to be their best selves, to go out there and to grow their businesses.

If you look around our region, you have got some really big projects that will kick-start local jobs growth. You have got the Sandstone Point Hotel, which will be opening next weekend, creating enormous jobs growth in our area. You have got North Harbour, which has been delayed for far too long out there. It is a massive project across the course of several decades. Their economic modelling shows it could create up to 20,000 direct and indirect jobs. You have a great local story just recently where Airwork Helicopters has just had CASA approval to create rotor blades for Bell Helicopter, a world leading innovation and technology in the heart of Caboolture. They have said that they are going to grow their business by up to 20 staff. So there is something special about how we are creating those new jobs in our region. Ultimately, as I said, that comes from the private sector. It comes when we get government out of the life of these local entrepreneurs so that they can grow their businesses.

But, when we have these new jobs, what is important is that we have a pathway for these locals to find these new jobs, because you can have the jobs, but, if people are not skilled up, if they are not ready, if they do not have the right requirements or the right qualifications, or even the right connection and networks to find those jobs, we cannot get people into those jobs. So we have an enormous initiative or drive to help that employment growth. We are spending $6.8 billion on revamped Job Active employment services, an enormous expenditure.

In these measures we have $1.2 billion for a national wage subsidy pool to help those employers put on those staff, particularly the long-term unemployed. I will give you just one example, Mr Deputy Speaker, of where this wage subsidy will help employers to have that incentive to take on that new staff member. If you are an employer hiring somebody who is under 30 and has been on income support for six months, you can expect to receive $6½ thousand over 12 months for taking on that new person, which is obviously a huge incentive to help that business take on that new job seeker.

The other thing that I think is really important, as I said, is that we are providing that pathway for people to find that employment and that very individualised support to get them job ready or to find that job and actually get into employment. So this budget and these initiatives put aside $212 million for a youth Transition to Work program and $106 million for intensive support for vulnerable job seekers. Essentially, these two initiatives empower local organisations which have that local knowledge to give that very intensive, individualised support so that that local person can go in there, find that job and have the right skill set to do that. This will make a massive difference to people in our community and to unemployment in our community.

This is on top of the initiatives we have already announced and have been delivering. The job commitment bonus, one I have spoken about many times in this place, is for job seekers aged 18 to 30. They will be paid $2,500 if they can secure a job and remain in continuous employment for 12 months, and an additional $4,000 is available if they stay in employment for another year. That is a huge incentive. If you come off welfare and you go and find a job, there is a very significant financial incentive to do that.

We know that often people have to move to find a job, and we have been delivering our relocation assistance. If people are moving to take up that job, we will give them that financial incentive to help them do that. If you are relocating from a regional centre to a capital city, there is $3,000 in assistance for you to do that. If you are going the other way, out to a regional centre, there is $6,000 for you to do that. And of course, if you are relocating with a dependent child, we will give you another $3,000 on top for that.

We have been rolling out Work for the Dole locally as well. There is obviously a social contract and a meaning to that initiative. But what I have noticed and I think is really important is that it provides unemployed people with access to a real job, to network and meet real people, to put something that is real and meaningful on their CV. It helps them find that pathway into employment as well.

We have also increased better access to diplomas, advanced diplomas and TAFE by essentially saying that, if it is good enough for universities to have a HECS style system, it is good enough for diplomas, advanced diplomas and TAFE. You do not pay a dollar up front on your TAFE fees or your diploma fees, so you can get those skills or those qualifications to make you more employable.

We have rolled out the Green Army initiative, and I went out and visited the Green Army initiative in Burpengary, which was an absolutely amazing thing to do. There were these great young people from very different backgrounds. Some of them were university graduates and some of them had been working in construction or different areas and had found themselves unemployed and looking for work. The Green Army was giving them, again, real-world experience and real connections to the people that they would need to find future employment and was actually helping them find jobs. Some of them already had jobs lined up for when they finished their Green Army initiative.

The other initiative which has been very popular is our trade support loans. Again, if it is good enough for someone going to university, or if it is good enough for someone going to do a diploma, advanced diploma or TAFE level qualification, it surely must be good enough for our young tradies and apprentices to have a similar HECS style system. Our trade support loans will give them $20,000 up front. As we know, it is very hard for these people to get through that first part of the apprenticeship. This will give them an enormous support to complete their apprenticeship.

As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are doing absolutely everything we can to create the jobs that we need in our community and to ensure that locals have every opportunity to get those new jobs. I commend these bills to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:00 .