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

At this very first opportunity, I thank the member for Longman for her wonderful speech and also the member for Burt for the preceding one. It gives all of us who have been here any length of time a great deal of confidence to know that the quality of people who have come into this parliament at this last election is so high. I commend the member for Longman for her contribution and say to her, if she continues with that application, sincerity and commitment, she will be here for a long time. I know that she will represent the interests of the people of Longman well. My sister, incidentally, lives in Burpengary, so she is one of her constituents. I am sure she will make sure that I am advised if and when something needs to be said—and I am sure it will not need to be. I commend the member for Burt, similarly, for a magnificent contribution. I am personally struck on this side of the chamber by the very high quality of the first speeches that have been given in this parliament. This is my 10th parliament and 11th election, so I have seen a lot, and I have to say that the first speeches in this parliament have been among the best over almost 30 years. To those people who have made those speeches, on both sides of the chamber, I say, 'Well done.'

I am in continuation in this debate, and, as I recall—not that I have read the Hansard too recently—we were talking about the budget, but I was referring in my contribution to the election of the new Labor government in the Northern Territory. I made some comments about the success of that election campaign. I congratulated the new Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, and his team of ministers and wished them well. I made the observation that one issue around the budget will be of importance to them on a continuing and ongoing basis—that is, the debate about the GST. I will not make any further comments about that discussion, because I do want to say some other things. But it is important to understand that the CLP administration which was recently defeated in the Northern Territory has left an enormous budget black hole for the incoming Labor government. Why are we not surprised?

It is equally important to understand not only that they left a black hole but that they made things very difficult for the current government—the new government—to meet all of its commitments and promises, because of the state of the budget. That is not new, but what is new, in my view, is the scandalous way in which decisions were made by the outgoing government close to the election that they knew would be legacy commitments which the new Labor administration would have to meet. They knew they were going to be done like a dinner, and they were done like a dinner. There are now only two CLP members in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The former Chief Minister scarpered so quickly you could hardly see him for dust, but they have left enormous problems for the new government. I say to the federal government, to the Prime Minister and his Treasurer: you would be aware that the Northern Territory gets—I do not know the precise figure—in the vicinity of 75 to 80 per cent of its budget revenue from the Commonwealth, either in special purpose payments, general purpose payments or tied grants. So it is important, when you are contemplating the future funding of the Northern Territory, that you are aware of the scurrilous nature of your brothers in arms in the CLP and how they have left the Northern Territory budget.

I have the great privilege in this parliament of being responsible, on the opposition side, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. In the context of the budget, we have seen successive cuts to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander expenditure: $500 million from the 2014-15 budget onwards, $130 million of which came out of health. This is at a time when we are supposed be trying to address the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health outcomes and those of the rest of the population. You cannot cut your way to good health. During the former, Labor government, when I was the minister responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, we developed, in partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, as a result of consultations around the country, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which scored bipartisan support. The incoming Abbott government reaffirmed their bipartisan support and then developed—in partnership, again, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—an implementation strategy for that plan. We are now four years on, and not one dollar has been spent on that implementation strategy. It is a plan for 10 years, and we are in the fourth year of the plan and nothing is happening.

I think this should be a source of acute embarrassment for the government, because, if we are to address the drastic needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and, in particular in the Northern Territory, to address issues to do with chronic disease, obesity, diabetes, kidney failure, rheumatic heart disease, cardiovascular disease and so on, then we will need to make sure that these programs are funded properly and that there is an ongoing funding commitment to Aboriginal community controlled health services not only in the Northern Territory but right around the country. They, as I continue to say, deliver some of the best examples of comprehensive primary health care in the nation—if not the world. They are innovators. They understand their communities. They understand what needs to be done to address the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health needs of those communities and the Australian nation as a whole, through NACCHO, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. And they have state based organisations.

But here I want to commend. I ask those who may be listening that if you are not aware of the work of Aboriginal community controlled health services around this country try to get to be aware of it, because they do fantastic work for their communities and as a result have an impact on the national health outcomes for all Australians, but particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I know my time is almost up but I have a lot more to say about these subjects. I do commend the virtue of talking about health in a much more detailed way than we have currently seen from this government. And no more attacks on Medicare thank you! (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an unexpected pleasure to be able to speak on the appropriation bills here today, in lieu of rostered speakers. It gives me an opportunity to say a few positive things about how pleased I am to have been returned at the recent election as the member for Stirling and the sorts of plans we have for the electorate. I see that the next speaker has come in so I will just take one minute. We do have a very strong agenda for my electorate over the next three years, principally around public safety, which is good, because that also corresponds with my own portfolio.

I have been working very diligently with the local council. I am fortunate that I have only one local council in the federal electorate of Stirling, the City of Stirling, which is actually larger than my federal electorate. It makes it easy for me to have a solid relationship with them, having to work with only one local government authority. We have been working very diligently together to make sure that the federal government is doing what we can to assist with community safety in Stirling. As a result of the promises we made in the last election we will be assisting the City of Stirling with the continued rollout of CCTV cameras. They do have an extensive network already. We intend to work with them to make some improvements to that. I was very pleased to be able to join with the mayor and other City of Stirling councillors to make that announcement in the lead-up to the last election. Now that the next member is here, I will give the floor to the member for Griffith, who was due to be speaking next on this bill.

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

It is also a bit of a surprise to me to rise to speak, given that there were two coalition speakers scheduled to speak. But nonetheless it is a very great pleasure to rise to speak today. Being elected to this place was a very great honour and being re-elected to the first time was also an honour, so I want to take this opportunity during this debate to say thank you to some people.

To everyone who lives in Balmoral, Bulimba, Camp Hill, Carina Heights, Coorparoo, Dutton Park, East Brisbane, Greenslopes, Highgate Hill, Hawthorne, Kangaroo Point, Morningside, Norman Park, Seven Hills, South Brisbane, and Woolloongabba, and to those who live in the parts of Annerley, Cannon Hill, Carina, Holland Park, Holland Park West, Mount Gravatt East, Murarrie, Tarragindi and West End that are in Griffith, thank you very much for again placing your trust in me to be the southside's representative in our national parliament. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and Chloe Shorten and Labor's leadership team for pitching to the Australian people an alternative government that would put people first, as Labor will always do. Thanks also to all shadow ministers and colleagues who visited Griffith in recent times: the members for Grayndler, Port Adelaide, Sydney, Scullin and Moreton, and Senators Moore and Wong and the now senator, Senator Watt, who at the time he visited during the course of the election campaign was not yet a senator.

I also want to thank the great Labor movement involved broadly. I think the RTBU Queensland and the national office. Thank you to the Queensland CPSU and the CPSU national office. And thank you to the ETU. Simmo, I am so glad you are heading back to work—in fact you are now back at work. We are not letting you off the hook that easily, mate. I am pleased that you are very well on your way to recovery.

Thanks also to United Voice, the Services Union and Together, including the ASU part of Together, the Meatworkers, the AMWU, the AWU, the CFMEU, the MUA, Teachers and the Independent Teachers, the Nurses, the Plumbers Union and the Plumbers Union National Office, the FSU, the Alliance, the NTEU, and the NUW, the TWU, the firies and the aviation firies. All of them were so supportive because they want to see a Labor government, because they want to see a government that stands up for working people. Also, thank you very much to the QCU and the ACTU.

I also want to thank Evan Moorhead, Jon Persley, Lucy Collier, George Wright, Paul Erickson, and Ben Coates. Jackie Trad, Di Farmer, Mark Bailey, Joe Kelly and Shayne Sutton are the best local colleagues anyone could ask for. And Annastacia Palaszczuk is inspirational. I also thank Kevin Rudd, who was a great source of advice and someone who deserved the respect and support of this government that the now Prime Minister was regrettably too weak to deliver.

I would also like to thank Carolyn, Jo, Mark, Elly, Clare, Laura, Larry, Vicki and Paul, Jenni, Bernice, Cath, Helix, Nicole, Matt, Kerryn, Richard, Rod, Brendan, Sam, Charis, Samuel, Ray, Linda, Justin, Mary Rose, Fina, Jonathan, Garry, Wendell, Jason, Irene, Valma, Jo, Vivienne, Owen, Kate, Kathleen and the 700 or so other supporters and volunteers who worked on my election campaign. I thank Angus, Lincoln, Emily, Ben, Finn, Lisa, Tom, Charlie, Chad, Sue, and Steph. I also thank my family: Alison, Larry, Lisa, Brad, Jesse, Bailey, Susan, Linda, Marguerite, Graham, Kate and Pete, and of course Troy and our darling children, April and Isaac.

The course of this recent election campaign was one in which we focused on a range of issues that were really important to the Australian people. In my electorate we focused on issues important to the local area. I particularly wanted to talk about one of the election commitments that was made in my electorate of Griffith. We called again and again on the Turnbull government to commit to funding the cross-river rail project, which is an essential project to reduce congestion in this growing city. In its 2014 budget the coalition government cut federal funding for this project. This critical infrastructure project would add a much needed second rail crossing of the Brisbane River in the city CBD. The existing Merivale Bridge will reach full capacity within five years. The resulting bottleneck will constrain economic growth in Brisbane, which, remember, is of course Australia's third-largest city.

In 2013 the former federal government—the Labor government—committed to funding cross-river rail after the independent Infrastructure Australia rated it ready to proceed, but the incoming coalition government cancelled the investment, along with all Commonwealth investment in public transport that was not already under construction. It is time this Prime Minister took practical action to support public transport and to reduce congestion in our cities, including my city of Brisbane. Infrastructure Australia warned earlier this year that traffic congestion would cost the nation $53 billion a year in lost productivity without government action now. The clock is ticking and it is time this government supported this important Queensland project, because we are already seeing the consequences of congestion on our roads in Brisbane; we are already seeing the consequences of congestion caused by inadequate rail capacity, the pressure that it puts on buses and the domino effect that you see on roads.

It is particularly exacerbated in the inner suburbs in my electorate, where the congestion on roads is something that is in and of itself a problem but also, with the amount of development that this Liberal council is waving through in Brisbane, locals are becoming more and more concerned about the pressure on infrastructure as a consequence of the growing population of the inner suburbs. We want to see more people living close to services. No-one is against development, but development has to be appropriate for the local area and has to be sustainable, and due regard has to be given to making sure that infrastructure keeps up with the pressures that are created by increasing populations within inner suburbs.

I also want to talk about the importance to my local electorate of community sporting organisations. They are the glue that holds the community together. Just like so many other volunteer organisations, just like our not-for-profits and just like community support services, local sporting organisations are incredibly important. Take for example my local AFL club, the Morningside Panthers, an incredible club that recently had a great deal of premiership success in the QAFL. I am very proud to be a supporter of that club and am very grateful to the club for the support they give me. They are working to build up their own facilities and are also very keen to open up their facilities for more female participation in AFL. So I was very pleased during the course of the election to announce a commitment that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government would be providing financial support for that club.

There is another AFL club in my electorate that is already doing incredibly well when it comes to female participation in AFL. They are a club that recently held the QWAFL Women's League premiership for three years running. They are a feeder club for the Brisbane Lions women's team. They have a great future in both women's and men's AFL. They are the Coorparoo Roos. I was so lucky: on Friday night I went to the Coorparoo Roos to hear about the successes they had had in the junior teams—men's and women's, boys and girls—throughout that year. What was really amazing about that visit was to actually hear about the work volunteers had put in and the club management committee had put in over the course of the year to grow the club. So I am so lucky to have such great sports clubs. Again, we were pleased to make an announcement during the course of the election campaign that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government would make a financial commitment as well.

But of course there is plenty of sports, there are plenty of local community organisations that it is important to support. Another that I would like to mention is the Clem Jones Centre. The Carina Welfare Association has an amazing history. It was established by Clem Jones himself and it has been providing sporting facilities as well as a range of other facilities and community supports for a very long time in Carina. I see that the member for Bonner is here. His constituents would use the centre as well. It has an amazing sports centre, but the differentiation for that sports centre and others is that they are required, under their constitution, to offer the lowest fees in the area for access to the sporting facilities. There is everything from gridiron to swimming to basketball. In fact, the new Brisbane Bullets are going to be based there—absolutely fantastic. I had the opportunity to meet the coach earlier this year, and some of the management. The centre also has swimming facilities, for elderly people, disabled people and very young children. Member for Bonner, I suspect that you have taken your kids there to swim. I have certainly taken mine.

As the development occurs in the local suburbs, as the population increases, it becomes very clear that there is a lot of pressure on infrastructure. It is not just road and public transport infrastructure but also community sporting facilities that come under pressure. The Clem Jones Centre has a really fantastic plan to grow. During the course of the election campaign I was very pleased to make an announcement that, if elected, a Shorten Labor government would support financially the growth of that centre. And I know that the member for Bonner is a great enthusiast of the club, so he might have a word to the Prime Minister about matching the $2 million commitment that we made in the course of the election campaign—not for the centre itself but for the benefit of the local community—because the Camp Hill Carina Welfare Association is such an important service and facility for people across the local community, including people who are on low incomes, people who are suffering forms of disadvantage. They really rely on that, not just for sports, not just for the health benefits but also for the social benefits of being in touch with friends and colleagues from the local community.

In speaking in relation to the appropriation bills I also want to mention that there was also, during the course of the election, significant argument and debate about Medicare and healthcare funding. The feedback I had in the electorate was that people did not want to see a couple of billion dollars worth of cuts to Medicare funding; they did not want to see a $600 million cut to funding for pathology. People are worried about the idea that if you need to have a scan for a melanoma or to have a breast scan then suddenly you could be paying in the hundreds of dollars or more for those scans. They did not want to see the change to the PBS that would have seen an increase in the price of medicines for everyone, including pensioners. Those were the significant concerns I heard from people in the course of the federal election campaign. They are concerns that I hope this government will take on board, although today's events and the voting against the motion raising those issues do not fill me with confidence in that regard.

I believe that the reason we came so close to winning the election nationally is that people supported Labor's much more community focused and people focused policy of supporting Medicare, of defending Medicare and of believing in and continuing to press for a universal healthcare system where your access to health care is determined by your Medicare card, not by your credit card.

We took to the election very strong policies in relation to superannuation. In the 2016-17 budget, the government has, unfortunately, very much failed on superannuation because of the surprise measure that included retrospectivity back to 2007. It is fair to say this was a really salutary lesson on how not to do superannuation taxation reform in this country, because the surprise proposal went down like a lead balloon, including in my own electorate. Labor, on the other hand, went out well in advance of the election—months in advance of the election—and talked about why we needed to revisit the superannuation taxation concessions. We talked about the fact that those taxation concessions are a very large cost to the federal budget. We also raised very moderate proposals in relation to responding to those concessions and reforming them. Even after the coalition's surprise 2016-17 budget measures on superannuation, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, offered the government a compromise proposal that would have been prospective rather than retrospective, giving certainty to the industry and superannuants. We put that offer to the government, but, sadly, the offer was rejected by the government.

We also took to the election very strong policies on reforming negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. We did that because what is really clear, if you look at the recent history of the Australian economy, is very low inflation and, therefore, very low interest rates as the Reserve Bank has responded to that low inflation. Of course, that has been low inflation in consumer prices. If you looked at asset prices, you would see that house prices have been growing very sharply and much more quickly than the rate of growth of consumer inflation. So it is quite clear that house prices are fast getting out of the reach of ordinary people. In fact, the price-to-income ratio is the highest it has ever been. The consequence is that it becomes more and more difficult for Australians to buy their first home or a home; it becomes more and more difficult to raise a deposit. The flow-on effect is that, once they can afford to buy a house, they are taking on record levels of private debt. We are seeing that in the private debt figures that are showing up now.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course Labor supports appropriation bills for appropriating moneys for the normal course of government to continue. But these appropriation bills are part of this government's budget. I would like to make some comments in the wider context of the budget. I think that the budget can be summed up in one sentence: it is a bad budget from a bad government. It will do more harm to Australia's economy than it will build for prosperity and growth. It is the wrong approach for an economy that is in uncertain and staggering times. The Australian people and businesses know this, and it is reflected in our nation's key economic indicators at the moment.

There has been economic growth of 0.5 per cent over the June quarter and 3.1 per cent over the year, for the latest national accounts. It is not a stunning result; it is not a bad result. It is somewhere in the middle. But if you look at it in the context of the fact that much of the growth in the last quarter of national accounts came from government spending, it is a poor result.

It is reflected in the approach of businesses to our economy at the moment and in the investments that they are making for the future. Private business sector investment in Australia has been tumbling for some years now. Total new private capital expenditure in the economy fell from 5.4 per cent in the June quarter. Over a year, that figure was 17.4 per cent. Over the last 12 months, business investment has fallen in Australia by 17½ per cent—a damning indictment on this government's policies and their approach to supporting business throughout the country. New private capital expenditure has now fallen by more than 30 per cent since this government was elected to power.

Real incomes for Australians—and many of those whom we represent are feeling it at the moment—have not grown for many years. In the June 2015-16 period, the Wage Price Index increased by 2.1 per cent. This is widely recognised as a measure similar to the CPI for prices. Unemployment is stubbornly remaining at 5.7 per cent. More importantly, underemployment—that is, people who want to work more but simply cannot get the hours—is at 8.4 per cent. Our economy is like a car that is struggling to start. It is turning over, but it just will not kick over. Instead of the government giving the necessary boost to support that kick over, we have got the government cutting the fuel line. We have cuts to health, cuts to education, cuts to research and development, the halting of the education and innovation drive throughout the country, a company tax cut plan that will do nothing to boost growth and jobs in the economy, a superannuation plan that is in tatters, and cuts to family payments and pensions that leave the most vulnerable in Australia worse off. Cuts to infrastructure funding and changes to the mandate of Infrastructure Australia could not come at a worse time for our nation.

This is a typical Conservative budget from a Conservative government: tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, cuts to health and education investment and cuts to expenditure that supports the vulnerable. It is trickle-down economics at its worst. We all know, and history has shown us, that this notion of trickle-down economics—you cut taxes for the most wealthy, and that will trickle down to the rest of the economy through increased economic activity—simply does not work. We are finding that out now in Europe and in other parts of the world. Those opposite are going to encourage an outdated, irrelevant and second-rate economy in Australia.

The fiscal position is not getting any better with this budget either. The budget deficit will increase by $26 billion. Net debt will increase by $100 billion since 2013, or 12.8 per cent of GDP, to 18.9 per cent of GDP at the end of this budget period. The company tax cut that this government is offering is all about supporting the well-off in our community. What the government is going to do is change the definition of a small business in the relevant legislation. The threshold for a business to be considered a small business will increase from its current level of a turnover of up to $10 million in 2016-17 to a turnover of up to $1 billion by 2022. In any Australian's book, a company with a turnover of $1 billion is certainly not a small business. That is what the government is going to do over the course of the next eight years. The tax rate for those businesses will gradually fall as well, from 28.5 per cent to 27.5 per cent initially, and then to 25 per cent by 2027. The government is not changing the definition of a small business; it is giving a tax cut to big business. That is the best way to characterise what the government is doing with this budget.

We have seen the cost of this. When it was initially announced, the Prime Minister, in an interview with David Speers, would not—on close to 40 occasions—answer the question of the cost of this policy to the national budget. We found out later, through leaked documents from Treasury, that the actual cost to the budget is $49 billion over the decade, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office. That is $49 billion coming out of our budget that could go to fund health, education, infrastructure, and research and development—public expenditure that would build the foundation for growth, prosperity and increasing living standards in our nation. The government's own Treasury modelling of this particular proposed tax cut delivers very little in terms of a growth dividend for our nation. The government's modelling indicates that, in terms of GDP growth, this tax cut will add 0.05 per cent per annum to our nation's economic growth. That is 0.05 per cent to GDP every year. It will add a 0.1 per cent advantage to employment over the next 20 years, and wages growth will only increase by 0.1 per cent per annum. There is very little benefit to our nation from this proposal, according both to the government's own Treasury estimates and to the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. It is a big cost to the budget and a big cost to fairness.

The other issue is how it is funded. Where does the government find the money to offer a $49 billion tax cut over the course of the next decade to the biggest businesses in our economy? According to the Treasury, it is certainly not funded by jobs and growth, because that is indicated in the modelling that I have just outlined. This would be funded by taxpayers, through bracket creep and spending cuts. So much for an economic plan! Slugging the most vulnerable through spending cuts and increasing bracket creep on hardworking Australians—that is how they will fund this tax cut. This is why I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to changing the threshold turnover for small businesses to beyond $2 million: there is no economic benefit from it and it will do social detriment.

What this economy needs at the moment is investment in infrastructure. It is opportune that the former, great minister for infrastructure in this country, and now the shadow minister—one of the longest serving infrastructure ministers—has walked into the chamber. I have no doubt that, in a moment, he is going to give those opposite a lesson about how to run a portfolio when it comes to investing in infrastructure. I thought it was instructive that, a couple of weeks ago, the new Governor of the Reserve Bank, in a hearing before the economics committee, made the point that Australia should be taking advantage of low interest rates throughout the world and investing in infrastructure, either through government investment in infrastructure or through encouraging the private sector, through planning laws and the like, to run that investment, taking advantage of historically low interest rates at the moment.

This government has done the opposite. They have cut investment in infrastructure. They have meddled with the mandate of Infrastructure Australia. That led Glenn Stevens, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, to say to an Economics Society of Australia conference on 10 June that, in the past year:

Public final spending didn't grow at all. Public investment spending fell by eight per cent …

The key to our nation's economic spending is kicking it over and gathering pace, particularly as our terms of trade begin to fall. That has stopped declining at the moment; it has not got back up to the mining boom levels, but it has stopped falling. But this government will not invest in infrastructure.

When Labor was in government, we took investment in infrastructure to No. 1 in the world. In terms of the investment that a government was making in building productivity-enhancing infrastructure, Australia, during the Rudd and Gillard years and with the member for Grayndler as the minister, was the No. 1 in the world. This government has taken us backwards. They have meddled with Infrastructure Australia and changed its investment mandate. They changed the composition of the board and its independence. As a result of that, we got projects like WestConnex—which affects the member for Grayndler's electorate and my electorate. You have an interchange that will deposit an additional 30 million cars per week on local roads, which simply will not be able to cope. The biggest road transport project in the history of Sydney and the nation goes past the second biggest container port in the country but does not even connect up to it. This massive road project does not even connect up to the second biggest container port in the country, where the majority of freight coming out of it is on trucks—it goes right past it. The interchange is five kilometres further down the road, at St Peters-Tempe, on the other side of the airport, where you are going to deposit millions and millions of cars on a daily basis. Local roads simply will not be able to cope, and the airport simply will not be able to cope. It is nothing less than an unmitigated disaster, and it is what occurs when a government meddles with the investment mandate of infrastructure. Australia, that is what you get—lousy projects like the WestConnex.

I want to finish with the issue of superannuation. Australia has a very urgent issue to deal with, and that is the ageing of our population. Encouraging Australians—particularly those on low incomes—to save for their retirement is vitally important to the ongoing health of our nation and our budget. Superannuation and pension changes proposed by this government do exactly the opposite. The government does not have a policy. Although it outlined something on budget night, we have seen in the wake of that that it cannot get agreement on this issue within its own party room. There is still no agreement in the coalition on the details of the superannuation policy announced on budget night.

Labor has had a consistent approach to superannuation policy going back to 2014, when it was announced by the Leader of the Opposition in the budget reply speech in that year. That approach is to reduce the unsustainable tax concessions that exist for people on high incomes in Australia. A month ago, the Leader of the Opposition even offered to get the government out of the pickle that they are in at the moment, by proposing a compromise arrangement on superannuation, to reduce the high income superannuation threshold from $250,000 to $200,000 a year from 1 July 2017 but not make it retrospective, as was proposed by the government, because we have a fundamental opposition to retrospective taxation policies, and to oppose three of their measures. This would have saved the budget $238 million over the forward estimates and $4.4 billion over the decade. It was dismissed by the government without reading the details or even looking at it. The government could have come to an agreement with the opposition on one of the most important policies facing the nation, superannuation tax concessions, and they dismissed it without even looking at it. That says everything about the approach of the government and everything about the approach of the government's budget. It is not a budget that is fair at all. It is a budget that is bad for Australia, will cut investment in education, will cut investment in health, will cut investment in research and development, and will prove bad for growth and living standards into the future.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate legislation because it gives me the opportunity to speak about the failure of this government when it comes to long-term investment in the infrastructure which Australia needs for future economic growth and future jobs creation.

The fact is that when we came to office in 2007 Australia was ranked 20th in the OECD for infrastructure investment; when we left, Australia was first. In the first two years since the change of government, there was a 20 per cent decline in public sector infrastructure investment. That has a short-term impact on jobs, and we see that youth unemployment is higher today than it was during the global financial crisis. It has an impact on the living standards of people in the short-term. More importantly, it has a long-term economic impact. What we will see is a handbrake on future economic growth, as shown by this government's lack of vision when it comes to infrastructure and nation-building.

Quite extraordinarily, during the last election campaign—during the entirety of the longest campaign since the Second World War—we saw not a single new major infrastructure investment announced by this government. Not one. There was Labor out there announcing support for the Metronet in Perth; announcing support for Cross River Rail in Brisbane; announcing support for AdeLINK, the light rail expansion in Adelaide; announcing support for the Melbourne Metro; and announcing support for Western Sydney Rail, including a connection to Badgerys Creek airport so that public transport is open from day one and those employment lands in Western Sydney are opened up for opportunity. Yet we have seen nothing from the government—nothing whatsoever.

They had, indeed, 78 small announcements during the election campaign—the sorts of projects that you normally see in local government or maybe even state government. They added up to less than a $1 billion. Of the 78 projects, extraordinarily, 76 of them were in coalition held seats prior to the election—76 out of 78! An extraordinary proposition! We will wait to see what the National Audit Office has to say about the government having their infrastructure policy determined not by Infrastructure Australia but by the electoral map. That is precisely what we see happening, including in the upper Hunter with a $1 million road upgrade for something that is used for a billycart race! I know that billycarts can be good fun, but in the 21st century—when high speed broadband, public transport and efficient roads are the key to economic growth—it says it all about the government that one of their priorities was a billycart road for a billycart race that is held once a year in a community. I am not saying it is not good fun—I am sure it is. I am sure it is worthwhile. But the fact that it came out of the nation-building budget says it all about the government.

Of course, Deputy Speaker Irons, you would know that, because you have in your electorate of Swan the largest road project that has ever been held conducted in Perth—the Gateway WA project. You were there when I turned the first sod on that project. You were there when that project began, and you were there also when, while we were still in government, parts of it were being opened. Yet, during the Senate special election and during the by-election for the electorate of Canning, we saw the government pretend that it was somehow new!

I had a repeat of that last Monday when I was in Redcliffe. The Redcliffe rail line extension was first discussed in 1884 and first promised in the Queensland state parliament in 1895, but it took a federal Labor government in 2010 to commit, with the Bligh government and the Moreton Bay Regional Council, to making that vision a reality. I was able to visit the new stations that have been built as part of that project. Indeed, it is an incredibly exciting project. Of course, the Prime Minister was there. The Prime Minister will never miss an opportunity to be at a ribbon cutting. The problem is that he is never there when a project begins. Under his watch not a single new rail project has begun anywhere in the country.

I quite like the fact that the Prime Minister likes riding on trains. I just want him to fund some or to fund one—that will do; fund one project. Fund AdeLINK, fund the Perth Metronet or fund the Cross River Rail. He does not even have to find new money; he can just put back the money that was cut in the 2014 budget from projects like the Cross River Rail project. At the press conference after the opening of the Redcliffe rail line the Prime Minister was asked, 'What about some funding for Cross River Rail? We know that it will reach capacity within five years and that will have an impact not just on residents of Brisbane but on residents of the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast as well.' The Prime Minister said, 'We are waiting for more information.' Well I have got news for him. It was approved as the No. 1 priority project by Infrastructure Australia in 2012 and was subsequently funded by federal Labor in the 2013 budget.

This is a project that stacks up. This is a project that is vital. This is a project that would be under construction today had Tony Abbott not cut the budget in 2014 because he had, quite frankly, the mad ideological view, as he outlined in Battlelines, that public transport was not the responsibility of the Commonwealth. He said that the federal government should 'stick to its knitting' and that we could be engaged in cities without having any public transport. Of course, that saw a distortion of the market into roads. We saw the money change to the East West Link in Melbourne, which had a benefit-cost ratio of 45c for every $1 returned. As I have said to various coalition members over the years, if they are happy to give me $100 I will give them $45 back next time I see them. If they think that is a good deal, I am up for it. I am absolutely up for that arrangement.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've only got a $50 note on me.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite says he has only got $50. Well I will give you $22.50 back next time I see you. That would be a good deal, according to you. That is the economics of those opposite with their funding of the East West Link.

They took money not just off rail projects but off the M80. On the M80 last Sunday they had a sod turn on this new section of investment. The problem is that it was funded in 2013. Had they not cut it in 2014 they could have been there at the opening of the project, not at the sod turning. Infrastructure Australia, which now seems to just adopt things after the government and tick them off as a good little obedient servant of the government rather than actually being proactive, has said that the M80 is on the priority list. It was on the priority list five years ago. That is why it was funded. This is the last bit of the sections.

The Moorebank Intermodal project has been underway for years. It was put in a budget well before the 2013 budget. It has been underway. An Infrastructure Australia board member—Kerry Schott, who is a fine member—is the Chair of the Moorebank Intermodal Company and yet a press release came out today from Minister Fletcher saying that somehow this is new and is now on the infrastructure priority list. It is an absolutely extraordinary position taken by those opposite.

What we saw in the budget was a $1 billion cut in infrastructure and investment over what had been allocated by the coalition government previously. There has been a $1 billion cut, including $853 million cut from the Asset Recycling Fund as well as a $162 million cut. Since then we have seen the backpacker tax debacle that impacts on the tourism sector. Now out of nowhere there has been a $5 increase in the passenger movement charge. It is exactly the same process that led to the backpacker tax debacle—no consultation and no economic analysis of what the impact would be.

This is a government that is simply not competent when it comes to infrastructure. In the WestConnex project we have seen a complete debacle. We see a road tunnel begun without knowing where it is going to pop up. We have seen more than a dozen design and scope changes to the project. This is the sort of thing that is going on in my electorate. I note that the person in charge of planning responsibility in New South Wales, Lucy Turnbull, did not even know that there had been more than 100 heritage homes demolished in one suburb—Haberfield—in my electorate. She was completely oblivious to it.

No wonder they are angry. I got this letter from a constituent in Northcote Street, Haberfield, just over the weekend. It is a copy of a letter to the WestConnex authority complaining about the works that are occurring. The writer said:

'On 7 October my work was disturbed midmorning—as you know from our face-to-face meetings I work from home—by the noise from tree cutting and mulching in the street. I went out to find a WestConnex team destroying the trees on the verge of the street as well as cutting the 100-year-old frangipani in my garden, without any permission being given on my part. I could have given them a lecture on the garden suburb planning principles behind Haberfield's inception and why that is still important in today's environmentally fragile world, but I would have been wasting my breath. This tree destruction work was all without notice, as the WestConnex team leader smugly advised me. To add insult to injury, a note was put in our letterboxes later that day stating that our trees were to be cut that day.'

That is this mob's idea of communication. It is what is occurring. Blackmore Park in Leichhardt is under threat. A whole series of decisions are being made without proper planning and without proper consultation with residents. That is why there is such a backlash, in particular against the Baird government but also because of this government's failure, when it comes to infrastructure, to undertake proper planning and make sure that it occurs. The funding came first, and then the planning and the approvals came much later. They have got it the wrong way up, and it stands in stark contrast to what they said they would do prior to the election. They said they would have proper analysis for all projects above $100 million in value.

This government has changed some of its rhetoric on public transport and cities and urban policy, but it has not changed any of the policies, and it certainly is not changing any of the outcomes. That is why this government's infrastructure agenda has been treated with such contempt not just by communities around Australia but also by the business community, which understands that this is a government that has simply failed to deliver.

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

I rise to speak on the appropriation bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017. I should say up-front that these appropriation bills are not controversial inasmuch as they provide for the continued functioning of the Turnbull government for the remainder of this financial year. Obviously, the Labor Party will not block supply. We have always been very clear about that. There has only ever been one political party that has blocked supply for political purposes, and I think Australia condemns the Fraser government for so doing. However, I should point out that Labor does not agree with the way the Turnbull government is going about or attempting to go about budget repair. Nevertheless, the Labor Party, under the guidance of Chris Bowen, is working constructively with the government to achieve budget repair that is fair.

I do point out that under the party that claims to be supposedly good with the books we now have tax as a percentage of GDP at 25.8 per cent. Just to put that in context, that is at a similar level to that which Labor had during the global financial crisis. We are now in the fourth year of the Liberal and National parties' government and of them handling the books, and we have got tax at that amazing rate. Now, those that may have seen the Menzies show know that there are times when the nation can run deficits. But the Labor Party was lectured for years and years by those opposite before they came into office about how they were going to reach surplus. I think the Joe Hockey said that they were going to reach surplus within the first year. We have now had increased taxes and increased spending, as we saw finance minister discussing recently in that great train wreck of an interview with Leigh Sales on the 7.30 Report. But the party of supposedly responsible spending and taxing have shown that they have lost control of the situation.

Thankfully, in the Labor Party, we are still doing what we do well. Under Bill Shorten, we were not prepared to be a small target opposition in the lead-up to the last election, and ever since we have been prepared to take on budget repair. We did so before the election campaign—in fact, a year out. Labor's budget repair package would actually raise more than $80 billion over the medium term. But, obviously, because we are the Labor Party, it is budget repair that is fair. For example, when it comes to superannuation, our package is not retrospective. I know that people in Moreton were very worried about the retrospective changes that the government said that they would bring into effect. There has been some retreat from that, but there are other things that were rock-solid election promises that they are not prepared to back away from.

Labor made that strong commitment to reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax. These were sensible changes that would come in over time and would not influence anyone who already had negatively geared properties. But they would in the long run make home ownership more achievable, particularly for the millennial generation, who are missing out on the benefits of home ownership and of being able to transfer accumulated capital to their children. I would hate to see an Australia where owning a home was no longer a dream held by most Australians.

Our budget repair package also included increased tobacco excise. It opposed the return of the baby bonus and it included an $8,000 per year cap on VET FEE-HELP loans. All of these measures are considered. We lost a bit of bark over them, but that is what sensible alternative governments do. They are all measures that are fair and reasonable.

Sadly, the Turnbull government or the Turnbull-Morrison team is committed to delivering a very different budget that focuses on giving big businesses a $50 billion tax cut at a time when we have a budget under stress. That is an unbelievable commitment. As we know, nearly $9 billion of those benefits would flow to overseas companies rather than to Australian companies or to Australian pensioners or schoolkids. They also wanted to give a cut to the marginal tax rate of individuals who earn over $180,000—not exactly battlers. That would be a tax cut to the top three per cent of income earners. Whilst I am always happy to hear their concerns, I do not think a sensible government needs to worry as much for people who are earning over $180,000.

So Prime Minister Turnbull is shackled to the same unfair measures that the member for Warringah brought into place in that disastrous 2014 budget. I am sorry to bring that up for you, Deputy Speaker; I know it troubles you whenever that 2014 budget is mentioned, but that is the reality. You are still out there defending measures that Mr Hockey and the member for Warringah brought in in that horror budget and that they are still trying to visit on the Australian people. It is saddling our children with debt before they have even earned a wage with these $100,000 university degrees. It is raising the pension age to 70, which would give Australia the unlikely record of having the oldest pension age in the world. The age of 70 for a lawyer is not the same experience as for a manual labourer. The experience for an electrician or a builder would be completely different.

I still recall your former colleagues, Deputy Speaker, talking about the double dipping and rorting levelled at hardworking parents when it came to changing the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That was until they found out that some of the people they were talking about were their own spouses. There was also that horrible suggestion of leaving the young unemployed to fend for themselves, magically, for four weeks before receiving any unemployment benefits. That was an incredibly short-sighted and cruel measure. How could any sensible government expect young unemployed people to go to job interviews, to look presentable for those job interviews or to have a phone with some credit when they have no money to house themselves or to feed themselves? That was a particularly cruel measure. Lastly, there was the cutting the pension of migrant pensioners when they visit their families back in their homeland.

Here we are in the fourth year of this Liberal-National government. Let's look around at the nation. Are we in better shape now than before the Liberal and National Parties took the reins of government? No, not by any reasonable measure! Obviously they talked about the debt and deficit disaster. Well, what has happened under their watch? If we look at the Treasury books at the moment, we see that the coalition has tripled the deficit. Net debt has increased from more than $100 billion; it is now north of $326 billion. The national unemployment rate, which is a good measure of whether the engine of government is working well, has increased to 5.7 per cent, whereas when Labor left office it was 5.1 per cent. This is the government that still has the hide today to talk about jobs and growth. I would also point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are told by the people in your electorate, that not a single full-time job has been created by the Abbott-Turnbull experiment. There are currently more than 700,000 unemployed Australians—40,000 more since Labor left office.

There was an election commitment that the government made while in opposition that you would create one million jobs in five years. We are now in the fourth year of this government, and you really need to get a wriggle on if you are to meet that one million job target. As we have also seen with the ratings agencies, there is the risk of our AAA credit rating being downgraded.. We have seen the concerns raised by those international agencies. I would point out that under the Labor government with the member for Lilley as Treasurer we had, for only the second time, three international ratings agencies give the Australian economy a AAA rating.

The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook has confirmed that Australians are much worse off in this fourth year of the coalition government. Spending is up, deficits are up, debt is up; wages are down. Wages growth is the lowest since they started to measure wages growth; so people are effectively going backwards which means that their standard of living is going down.

We are still prepared to act sensibly and work with the government to make amendments to their budgets. We have secured important amendments in their omnibus bill which will protect the most vulnerable from the harshest cuts and preserve the ongoing viability of ARENA. We secured that $800 million for ARENA over five years to ensure the continued investment in Australia's clean energy future which will deliver jobs and a planet that we can leave to our great-grandchildren. Labor has also secured the continuation of affordable access to dental care for children by protecting our dental benefits scheme. We have also seen the dropping of the Baby Bonus payment which ensures that all existing categories of recipients to the Energy Supplement will continue to receive this modest supplement. We removed the cuts that would have seen people with severe psychiatric conditions lose support.

Labor's amendments of $6.3 billion in savings over four years can be added to Mr Morrison's budget bottom line, and that is more than the government put forward in its original legislation. We can see that we have a Labor Party that is adventurous when it comes to policy and that is prepared to retail its ideas.

I do ask myself: what is the point of the member for Wentworth when it comes to vision? If it were revenge on the member for Warringah for having knocked him off as leader back in December 2009, that would have been a short-term step towards the Lodge but then you have to lead the nation. We sadly see a member for Wentworth who is beholden to the right wing of his party. There is almost no Liberal left in the Liberal-National Party—almost none. Deputy Speaker, you are one of the last of his tribe—the last of his tribe. You have the member for Dawson setting the tenor and direction of the government—this sort of hillbilly-harbourside alliance is a crazy combination when it comes to ideas.

So we see the member for Wentworth, who has Oxford Street in the middle of his electorate, representing a significant group of the GLBTIQ community, saying that we will enforce a plebiscite on the GLBTIQ community, where we know there will be hate and division peddled throughout that community and we have had mental health experts saying that that will have horrific consequences.

We have in the member for Wentworth a former environment minister. He was elected 12 years ago yesterday, I think. He was passionate about climate change. Do you remember when he was the environment minister in the Howard government? Now we have a policy on climate change where we will see emissions going up year on year under this government. We saw his ludicrous defence in question time today. What is he passionate about? The enterprise bargaining arrangements between some workers and volunteers that fight fires in Victoria.

This is the vision of the member for Wentworth. It is unbelievable. We had a double dissolution election; we wrote off to the Governor-General saying it was crucial that we go to an election on the ABCC legislation and the registered organisations legislation. They barely rated a mention in the election. We had that most laughable of speeches ever, the speech by the member for Wentworth at the Wentworth Hotel on election night. It will surely go down in political history as one of the worst political speeches ever.

From that I will segue to a comment made by one of the greatest speechwriters ever, Don Watson, Paul Keating's speechwriter, who worked on so many great speeches, including the response to Mabo—that Redfern speech, crafted by Don Watson, where the government had to respond to the Mabo decision and came out with the native title legislation. It was an incredibly difficult idea to sell to the Australian people. Don Watson, writing about the member for Wentworth recently in The Monthly, had a line that, like much of what Don Watson writes, is incredibly poetic but also incredibly accurate. Speaking of the member for Wentworth's previous nature, he compared him to Steppenwolf—being like a wolf. Then he said, 'Now look at him. He is bland in tooth and claw.'

Sadly, it is a damning line about the member for Wentworth; but, more troubling, it says that the nation, when we need direction and a steady hand on the teller, lacks it. When we need some guidance and vision, instead we have this man who is a hollowed-out version of what he used to be.

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

I thank the member for his contribution. The member for Moreton did mention the word 'adventurous' a few times in his speech. Remember that members who sit in this chair are independent. You might want to structure your speeches in a way that does not reflect on the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and related bills. What an honour it is, if somewhat intimidating, to follow the member for Moreton in this important debate. His oratorical and poetical skills are famous throughout this place. Sometimes they get beyond him, but we are never left in any doubt about what he believes in and what he thinks of the legislation before the House, which is now a set of appropriation bills—a package of bills which are required to fund the normal ongoing business of government.

We have taken a longstanding view that, however repugnant we might find the materials and the decisions underlying the appropriation bills, we will not block them. We will not oppose the appropriation bills; but that does not rob us of our obligation to provide patriotic criticism of some of the policies that lie behind the bills.

I would like to start that patriotic criticism with a bit of analysis of where the economy sits as we near the end of the first calendar year of this parliament. Despite 3.3 per cent GDP growth, we face some significant challenges in this economy. The simple fact of the matter is that since the election of the Abbott and then Turnbull governments, Australia has gone backwards—particularly in terms of its budget, but also in the experience of everyday Australians.

Wages growth is at the lowest level ever. Many may say that there is some good in suppressing wages growth, because if you keep a lid on wages growth that creates an incentive for small and large businesses alike to create more jobs. Then we have a look at the jobs growth part of the ledger. We see that unemployment is at or near the same level, not as it was when the government was elected, but as it was during the global financial crisis. More than a million Australians cannot get the hours they want, and we have a real problem with long and entrenched unemployment.

So the lived experience of people right around the country, particularly in regional Australia and the places that I visit and where I come from, is that they are disconnected from the excitement that the Prime Minister feels when he talks about the fact that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. Their experience, when it comes to their living standards, their capacity to find a job and their capacity to pay their bills or keep their head above water, is that they are not going forward: At best they are running very, very fast to stand still, and in many instances they are going backwards.

If you look at what is underlying all this, if you look at the things that are driving economic activity, you can begin to see where some of the problems are. One of the important things to ensure that we see continued economic growth in the out years is growth in investment and, in particular, private sector investment. But over the last 12 months we have seen private sector investment plummet by over 4.7 per cent. In fact, it is the worst yearly drop in over 16 years. So much for Malcolm Turnbull wresting control from the member for Warringah to take control of the prime ministership, the parliament and the country on the grounds that he had a better economic narrative, a better economic plan and better economic credentials to run this country. What we have seen is the country going backwards on his watch.

Not only that, there is no real sign of things improving. In fact, when it comes to the budget bottom line we see that the deficit has tripled from the disastrous 2014 budget. Indeed, the expected deficit for 2016-17 was $10.6 billion, but it will now be $37 billion. It has more than tripled between 2014 and where we stand today. The people of Australia are in for a very rude shock when the Treasurer gives the mid-year financial update, because we expect it will be very bad news.

To the matters before the House: the real judge of any bill before this House, particularly a money bill or a bill which touches upon social policy, is how it adds to or decreases inequality in this country. Is it a bill which has a tendency to increase inequality in this country? Is it a bill that tends to decrease inequality in this country? We have given a solemn commitment that we will work with the government on the mission of budget repair, but we will sign up for budget repair that is fair and not budget repair that entrenches or increases inequality in this country.

What we see in the bills before the House and in the agenda of Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is most of the same measures that led to the downfall of the member for Warringah. The coalition budget continues to benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary working families. On the table there is still the plan to give the big end of town a $50 billion tax cut and give wealthy individuals earning $180,000 a year a tax cut as well. The top three per cent of income earners should not be receiving a tax cut from 1 July next year if the bottom 75 per cent are not receiving some benefit as well. There is no plan to address this problem in the bills before the House, and there is no plan on the table to address this problem. If anything, those people are going backwards.

On top of that there is a plan to cut $30 billion from school funding. This is going to have a devastating impact on our capacity to deal with entrenched inequality and to ensure that we can give kids from modest backgrounds or from wealthy backgrounds the best chance in life. Added to that they have not withdrawn, they have not recanted and they have not stepped back from the plan to introduce $100,000 university degrees.

In question time today we saw the health minister and the Prime Minister talking up the situation with medicines in this country. I applaud the fact that there have been some cuts to the price of medicines, but they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other, because there remains on the books the plan to introduce the co-payment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is still part of the budget forward estimates. There is no plan to remove this, so they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other when it comes to medicines in this country.

The plan to give Australia the world's oldest pension age by increasing the pension age to 70 has got many who have worked in industry all of their lives scratching their heads. There is a good reason why they say to themselves that only a Prime Minister who has worked in an office all of his life instead of with his hands could propose a plan to increase the pension age to 70. If you have worked with your hands all your life, you know that by the time you hit your late fifties and early sixties your back and knees are starting to go and arthritis is starting to hit. For many people trying to still work by the time they are 70 would be simply impossible. But that is still the plan. It is still in their policy proposals, and we say, quite simply, that it is wrong.

Labor believes that it is a fundamental mission of everyone who comes to this parliament to do what we can to reduce inequality in this country. The sad fact is that we are seeing cuts to health care, education and pension payments and changes to the retirement age, which are entrenching, not improving, inequality. Earlier today, in question time, I saw the Prime Minister confect himself up with rage—that vaudeville, that pantomime, that he has become famous for—and howl across from the dispatch box at the Labor opposition for telling the truth about their plans for Medicare during the election campaign. He said that outrageous lies were being told and that there were going to be no changes to bulk-billing as a result of their Medicare changes. The sign that gives the lie to that statement is this one here. This sign has recently been displayed at the Milton Medical Centre—

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

The member knows he should not use props. The member will put the prop down.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It says that there will be changes to bulk-billing and fees are set to rise. It bells the cat. This sign says, 'Due to the Medicare rebate freeze and rising practice costs there will be some fee increases from 1 August this year. Because of the rebate freeze we can no longer guarantee bulk-billing for consultations and services.' There it is, in black and white, on the front window of the medical practice at Milton. This is the sign that gives the lie to the Prime Minister's confected outrage. He is saying one thing, but all Australians right around the country know that in GP practices around the country something very different is happening.

We have an obligation to do something about the growing inequality in this country. We know that inequality is growing in the country that once prided itself on the fact that Jack and Jill were as good as their master and that we had programs in place to ensure that no matter what your standing in life, whatever the circumstances of your birth, through a good education system, through a social welfare safety net and through a fine healthcare system you could go on and reach your aspirations in life. But what we are finding is that cuts to education services, withdrawal of funds from obligations in the healthcare system and no plans to deal with fundamental underlying problems mean inequality is growing.

In the time I have left I want to point to the issue of home ownership. Australia has traditionally had a very high level of private home ownership. We call it the Australian dream. If you work hard you can afford to get the deposit for a mortgage and own your own home. And that becomes a safety net for you, throughout the course of your life, and ensures that you do not suffer from poverty in old age. The sad fact is that home ownership is becoming beyond the reach of ordinary everyday Australians. In fact, in that crucial age group between the ages of 25 and 34—when people are putting their roots down and attempting to buy their own homes—over the last decade home ownership rates have gone backwards, not by a little bit but by a lot, by over 12 per cent.

Today the Swinburne Institute for Social Research released a report that says, quite frighteningly, if you have not purchased your own home—if you have not got your foot in the door of the property market—by the time you are 40 you are probably not going to get one. It is precisely for this reason that we took to the last election a set of measures that would have made home ownership more affordable in this country. It would have put a brake on the excessive tax concessions that go to people after buying their second, third, fourth and fifth properties and would have taken some of the heat out of the property market and would have brought home ownership back within the reach of ordinary everyday Australians once again.

They said on that side of the House that it was going to be the end of the world as we know it, but we know that in their heart of hearts they know it is the right plan. I would not be surprised if, at some stage over the next two years, it were a plan they brought forward because, with home ownership increasingly being pushed beyond the reach of everyday Australians, we know that inequality will grow and we will have a big problem with our economy.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to have my friends from the National Party rush in to listen to my speech, in readiness of a very significant contribution—as always—and confident that I will be very keen to point out to them the error of their ways, particularly with respect to agriculture policy.

Before I turn to that important matter I just want to say that in my 20 years in this place I have been through three electoral redistributions—that is, for those listening, changes to electoral boundaries. The last one was a particularly willing one for me, because New South Wales lost a seat in the House of Representatives. And, in the end, that seat happened to be mine. Fortuitously—and I hear my friends applauding now—I survived that process and I remain in this place. I want to reflect on some of the opportunities that has presented to me as a local member.

I lament the very many people in communities, friendships, including work working relationships, I lost when large parts of my electorate were carved out of the new Hunter electorate. I miss those people very much. It is a challenging thing when you spend so many years developing those relationships and suddenly you lose them. But I have been delighted, and it has brought me some new energy to meet so many new people in so many new communities, and I have been delighted to find the same sense of community spirit and commitment within those townships—that is, the townships on the western side of Lake Macquarie, in places like Cameron Park, Edgeworth and West Wallsend.

I should not be surprised, because I am a boy who grew up on what was affectionately known as the coalfields towns, including Cessnock, Kurri Kurri and Maitland, which—not so much Maitland but certainly Cessnock and Kurri Kurri and the villages in between—were built around poppet heads of the underground coalmines of the day. Many of the townships on the western side of Lake Macquarie had a similar birth, both coalmines and coalmines that feed the electricity generators on the western side of Lake Macquarie. Of course, I have a significant coal fire generation capacity in the original parts of my electorate. So it is not surprising, on reflection, to find the same strong sense of community spirit and camaraderie in the new parts of the Hunter electorate as I enjoyed in the original parts of the electorate.

I am not going to pretend I have had the opportunity to meet every person or even every group on the western side of the lake, but I have been busy meeting as many people as I can, building on those relationships, including working relationships, working closely with Lake Macquarie City Council. It is an outstanding council and I look forward to working with them, and I look forward to working with the community.

The Hunter Region is strong—probably stronger and more economically diverse than ever before. It is certainly stronger and more economically diverse than when I arrived in this place 20 years ago. Unemployment is much lower, but it remains too high. At one point, during the height of the mining investment boom, unemployment in my electorate sank to about 3.5 per cent, a long way from the 13½ per cent we suffered when I was elected in 1996. But, alas, it is on the rise again as the heat comes out of the mining boom and people struggle and scramble to make a transition into employment elsewhere.

As the member for Paterson so eloquently pointed out earlier today in her first speech in this place—a fantastic speech, I have to say—youth unemployment is a real concern. It is far too high. It is not at its peak. It is not the highest it has ever been, but it is certainly stubbornly high. It is that issue which has probably driven me more than any other issue in my 20 years in this place—seeking ways to break that cycle of unemployment, which is commonly known as intergenerational unemployment. Over those many years in this place, I have been involved in both the development and the implementation of a whole range of labour market programs designed to break that cycle, and we need to keep finding the best ways to do that. The programs we have had have all played their roles. Even the unfortunately named Work for the Dole plays a role, but the outcomes are very limited and the success rate is very low. I think it is around 15 per cent for Work for the Dole. I am just old enough to remember the RED scheme implemented by the Whitlam government. We have had plenty of labour market programs over that time, but we are yet to see one which produces the sorts of results we would find satisfying both as members of parliament and members of the community.

I came to the conclusion over those many years of work that the only real way to break that cycle is to intervene at the youngest age. There is one place that almost all kids eventually go and that is a place called kindergarten. We need to give our schools, and in particular our public schools, the resources to identify children who come with challenges. Some of these kids, unfortunately, are effectively born to be idle. They have not spent their early years in a household culture where work is the norm and where people wake up at a particular time to an alarm clock to go to work. We need intervention very early.

At the same time we need the resources to intervene with the kids that demonstrate a particular talent so that we can ensure that those children reach their full potential. This is why the government's approach to schools funding is so disappointing for me. That is why the cuts to Gonski have so failed my community. Like we all do, I went to school presentations at the end of last year, and at every school that I attended the principal publicly thanked me and, through me, the Australian Labor Party for the commitment we had made on Gonski. They talked publicly about the difference it was making in their school, both in terms of intervening with children with particular challenges before them but also providing those with more personal talents and more advanced children with the best opportunity in life. I do lament that opportunity foregone.

But, of course, properly resourcing our schools will not deal with all our transitional issues. We are an economy which is very, very strong in the services and manufacturing sectors, although much of our manufacturing sector is in itself tied to coalmining. But the day will come when the big power generators of the Hunter electorate will no longer be in commission. Liddell Power Station, for example, will probably reach the end of its natural life in around a decade. Some, such as Eraring and Bayswater, will remain longer but their time will come within my lifetime. And when those coal-powered generators go, so too, potentially, will the coalmines that supply the coal to those diverse coal-fired generators. The transition will be very large and we cannot expect that new coal-fired generators will replace those generators—they will not, quite clearly. If they are to be replaced by other fossil-fuelled generators, they will be gas generators. But there are question marks about whether the efficiency of high-voltage transmission will continue to necessitate the locating of power generators so far from our capital cities.

These are big transitional issues that we need to grapple with as a parliament and as local communities, including in partnership with our state governments and local government bodies. But what does not help is this ongoing demonisation of renewable energy, which will be an important part of the energy mix. Leaders from Howard through to Rudd and Gillard and Abbott and now Prime Minister Turnbull have all had market-based policies—although it is a little bit doubtful with respect to the current Prime Minister's policy, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt—designed to help us through that transition. We need to depoliticise this debate and to start bringing some common sense to the debate, rather than watch on and see people like the Deputy Prime Minister so ridiculously reacting to what happened only a week or so ago in South Australia.

I think the Hunter has a big opportunity in agriculture. This can be one of our new sectors. It is part of our economy now but I believe it can be much greater. But it will only happen if the government in this place put the right policies in place. We have heard here lots about the growing food demand in Asia and the so-called dining boom. But, as I always say, the dining boom will not just come to us; we need to go to it. For us, the dining boom will not be so much about volume, as important as that might be; it will be about value. We in this place should be developing strategic plans for pushing our agricultural sector further up the value curve and securing a greater return on the investment of our limited natural resources in this country. It is a myth to say that we are a land with an abundance of water. We are, of course, the driest inhabited continent on the earth, in the world, and our fertile soils, as a proportion of our land mass, are very limited indeed. We need strategic plans to ensure that those resources are being invested wisely and most efficiently and in the most productive way.

The other issue is of course our human resources. Our human resources are critical. I will use that point to make two additional points. The relocation of the APVMA is the most ridiculous policy proposition I have ever seen in my 20 years here. It is populism at its worst; it is pork-barrelling at its worst. The idea of moving 180 or so scientists and lawyers and other professionals who are living here in Canberra, with their children in schools in Canberra, to Armidale in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister is an outrageous proposition. It is outrageous not just because of the nature of the pork-barrelling but because of the impact it is going to have on the agriculture sector. The agriculture sector needs, for example, crop protection sprays and other chemicals; it needs veterinary medicines. It needs those medicines and sprays to be approved in a timely manner. This move to Armidale is going destroy the APVMA. These professionals are not going to move. Today I ask only one thing of the Deputy Prime Minister: table the cost-benefit analysis—the $272,000 worth that the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned to look at this relocation. Why won't he table the cost-benefit analysis on this relocation? I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker: he knows that it shows the relocation will be a disaster for Australian agriculture.

My two friends at the table—members of the National Party or the LNP; before I get picked up on a technical point—the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler say nothing about this attack on Australia's agriculture sector. The question has to be asked in their electorates: why are they remaining silent? More particularly, I cannot say they have all been remaining silent on the issue of the backpackers tax, which is another human resource issue. The member for Mallee, in particular, has been quite vocal, and I congratulate him for that. I cannot say the same for all of his LNP colleagues in Queensland, unfortunately, or, indeed, those who hunt around the Wagga Wagga area. This has been a debacle from day one. There have been some expressions of concern from the other side but nothing like the vocal opposition we would expect from them.

I was astonished to have a briefing from Treasury on Thursday where I was told that the modelling on the fall-off on backpackers shows no change between 32.5 per cent tax and 19 per cent tax. I see the member for Mallee nodding his head. I am shocked that he knew this already. If he knows this, why hasn't the member for Mallee been more vocal? Why is the member for Mallee accepting, without reservation, a move first from zero to 32.5 per cent tax and now a move from 32.5 to 19 per cent, notwithstanding the fact that he knows—he has seen the modelling—that it is going to make no difference. The labour shortages caused by this ill-conceived tax are going to continue to impact on farmers, including farmers in his electorate, and these two sitting on the other side of the table are going to say absolutely nothing about it.

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

The member for Adelaide has a personal explanation.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do.

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

Please proceed.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Claims by Peta Credlin and Miranda Devine, published in the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun on 9 October, allege that fraud in the family day care sector has occurred as a result of the National Quality Framework, which, as the minister, I introduced, and have either stated or implied that I am responsible for this fraud. The facts are: (1) there is no link between the National Quality Framework, which regulates the quality and safety of services, and the decisions of individuals to defraud the Commonwealth by claiming subsidies for which they are not eligible; (2) the current minister for education has himself confirmed that there is not a link between the National Quality Framework and fraud in the family day care sector; and (3) I cannot be held responsible for a billion dollar blow-out in this program, which has occurred under the current government, whilst three Liberal ministers have been asleep at the wheel. I would suggest that Peta Credlin is showing that she makes about as good a journalist as she did a chief of staff.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These appropriation bills, as we have heard from many people in this chamber, are in relation to the government's budget—the budget that was brought down just before the federal election held on 2 July. This budget still contains what we call on our side of the House 'zombie' measures—that is, measures introduced in that disastrous 2014 budget of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Those measures include things like cuts to health; cuts to education; cuts to Medicare; increasing the age pension age to 70; trying to make young job seekers wait up to four weeks before receiving income support, which is of particular concern to me; and changes to the pension that will make 190,000 pensioners worse off. There are still a lot of zombie measures in the budget that was introduced just before the election—and what an election it was.

In my home state of Tasmania, we saw health and education become very big issues in the election. Tasmanians were particularly concerned, because they had been told time and time again by the government that there would not be any cuts to education. They were told prior to the 2013 election that the government was on a Gonski ticket with Labor when it came to funding. There was great concern about the funding for years 5 and 6 of Gonski. In the election campaign this time, it became very clear that the government was not going to give Tasmania that additional funding for our schools. We have a really serious issue in Tasmania where a lot of the students do not finish years 11 and 12. This is very high in terms of continuation rates at school, and then we have a very high youth unemployment rate. In the south-east of Tasmania, we have a youth unemployment rate of over 20 per cent. This funding for schools in Tasmania was really critical indeed.

The difference between the Gonski and the non-Gonski funding that the government is offering Tasmania is worth $62 million over the two years that Tasmanian schools would have available to them that they now do not have available to them. This is a serious amount of money that Tasmanian schools and Tasmanian students need. If you want to base funding according to need, if you actually want students who need that support to get that support then that Gonski funding as originally initiated by Labor should be provided.

The other education cuts—the higher education cuts—are still in the budget. The $100,000 university degrees are still on the agenda of this government, as it was with the Abbott government. We saw that quite clearly in the campaign too. I went down to the University of Tasmania and spoke to many students. The concerns from students were about how this measure would work, particularly if it would mean cuts to the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania is in a really unique position, in that Tasmania only has one university state wide. It is the only option for students in Tasmania. It is not like they can go and shop around to try to find a cheaper degree somewhere else. There is not any other option. This is a really serious issue: the transition to make sure that more Tasmanian students complete year 11 and 12 and that we get students, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, into university in Tasmania so that they have the best employment opportunities.

One of the other issues that I talked about a lot during the campaign was the fact that there has been more than 5,500 jobs lost in Tasmania since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister. Unemployment remains a really serious issue in Tasmania, and we have seen unemployment go up over the last few months. Of particular concern is the participation rate dropping below 60 per cent. That means Tasmanians have given up looking for work, because they know there is no longer any work available. That is why that measure of making young jobseekers wait four weeks before receiving any income support at all is of such concern to me in a state like Tasmania, where you have students not completing year 12; the $100,000 university degrees putting them off from going to university, even if they do complete year 12; high youth unemployment; and a low participation rate. It really is a recipe for disaster for the future of Tasmania's economy if this is not addressed.

On the Labor side, we went around and we talked to a lot of community organisations in Tasmania. We spoke to businesses in Tasmania. We had a lot of consultations about what a positive plan for Tasmania might look like. We put that to Tasmanians during the campaign, and what a result Labor had in Tasmania at that election campaign. We now have no Liberals in the lower house in Tasmania whatsoever—zero, none. The reason for that is twofold: it is because Tasmanians did not believe in the Liberal plan for jobs and growth—that is because there have been over 5,000 jobs lost in Tasmania since Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister—and because Tasmanians were concerned about health and education funding.

Tasmanians were really seriously concerned, because they saw the cuts that had happened under the Liberal governments. They had a Liberal state government that would not properly fund our hospitals. After the Abbott cuts, we had a state government saying to the federal government, 'We cannot absorb these cuts. Tasmania cannot afford these cuts,' and we had the federal government not listening to what Tasmanians were saying.

Tasmanians were a little bit encouraged when the Prime Minister changed from Abbott to Turnbull; but the issue now is that Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, does not seem to have a real interest in Tasmania at all. It was only after one of my speeches in this place and after several negative front pages that we finally saw the Prime Minister came back to Tasmania close the election. I can count on one hand the number of times that the member for Wentworth has been in Tasmania since he got elected to parliament, since he was minister for communications and since this government has been in government—on one hand.

He is not interested in Tasmania. We have had Smart Cities have roundtables in Tasmania and around the country. They did not have one in Tasmania until it was on the front page of the newspaper. We had a decision to say that we were going to shut down the Antarctic Division's centre on Macquarie Island, which was backflipped a day later after it was on the front page of the paper. This government is wholly disinterested in the state of Tasmania as to what is going on. We have seen it time and time again. We saw it prior to the election campaign, and we have seen it from the Prime Minister's own lack of interest. We saw from their plan in the election campaign that they do not have a serious plan for Tasmania. They do not have a plan to address real jobs and growth in the state of Tasmania. They really seem disinterested on what is happening on our island state.

The backpacker tax is another one of those issues where the government has not been paying attention. We have had the fruitgrowers in Tasmania come out several times about the backpacker tax. They are saying there has been a 40 per cent reduction in people applying for picking work in Tasmania because of that backpacker tax. We have had one of the growers on radio today say, 'This change down to 19c will not make any difference at all. We're going to have fruit that's not going to be able to be picked in Tasmania.' That is because of this government's lack of consultation, its long period of inaction and its disinterest in this issue. Their disinterest just seems to be a repetitive theme from this government.

From the Labor side during the campaign, as part of our plan for Tasmania, we had a tourism package where we were going to invest $15 million in Cradle Mountain, we were going to complete the Three Capes Track and we were going to invest in local and community projects for tourism in Tasmania. The Liberal government came up with a plan to give $1 million to Cradle Mountain, when they had asked for $30 million and we were prepared to put in $15 million. It shows that that side of politics really did not have an interest and had not been listening to what the local issues were.

Tourism has been one of the growth sectors in Tasmania. We have particularly been seeing more international tourists come down to our state. Labor, after consulting with industry and with businesses across the state, decided that this was a good investment Tasmania. It was something the industry had asked for; it was something the state government had asked for. We were expecting the Liberal Party to match our commitments as part of our Tasmania plan, but that did not happen. Instead, they got a much smaller commitment just days out from the election and, again, this was because of disinterest.

The NBN on the West Coast is another example. It took Labor saying that we would provide fibre to some of those West Coast towns before we finally saw some action from the Liberal government in trying to provide some fibre to the West Coast of Tasmania. There was Labor's commitment for the University of Tasmania—and I have talked about funding for the University of Tasmania—where Labor was going to provide $150 million for new campuses in Launceston and in Burnie to trial some sub-bachelor degrees to see if we could try to lift some of the participation in tertiary education in our state.

Labor made that announcement in April of this year. It took the federal government up until the week before the election to make the same commitment after this issue had been on the agenda for months and months. There had been a business case, a feasibility plan and discussions with all sides of politics to try to get bipartisan support for what is a critical community program in Tasmania. We had the state government say that they would fund some of it. Again, the disinterest in what was happening in Tasmania from those opposite was clearly apparent.

It was not until the last week of the campaign when the government finally came to the party and said, 'We might be able to also match Labor's commitment when it comes to the University of Tasmania.' I am very pleased to see that commitment. I, of course, will be making sure that it gets delivered on, because I have my doubts.

The Liberal Party has form on election commitments, when they win elections, in not delivering in Tasmania. One of those was in my electorate in 2013: the Hobart airport runway. Senator Abetz came out and promised that this runway would be 'operational' by 2016. Well, he has turned the sod. The sod has been turned, and $1 million of the several million dollars that is going to be provided to this project—I think it is $38 million in total—has been provided to date. And the sod has been turned. In fact, I was invited to the sod-turning, just a month or so ago. So at least, after two election wins, we have finally seen something happen as to the Hobart airport runway extension. But I will not hold my breath for the completion of that project.

We have seen it again when it comes to the Huon Highway-Summerleas Road intersection, also in my electorate, which Labor actually had in the 2013 budget prior to the election. We had an agreement with the state government and a commitment that that upgrade would occur. It is a very serious crash site, unfortunately, and there have been quite a few incidents in this area. But, again, after several pieces of correspondence and several discussions with the state and federal Liberal governments, I finally got a letter from the state minister saying: 'Construction should start before Christmas this year.' This money has been in the budget since 2013, and it might start by this Christmas! Again, that is two elections that my constituents have had to wait for, for election commitments in Tasmania to actually occur. As I said, I will not be holding my breath on that one. It is a bit like the Hobart airport runway.

But one election commitment that my constituents were expecting this election that they did not get is of great concern. We have now had three rounds of Stronger Regions funding, and my electorate—even though it is regional; even though it is about 7,000 square kilometres—has not received one cent in three rounds of Stronger Regions funding, even though a project in my electorate has had bipartisan support. Even though the Liberal candidate and Eric Abetz and the Liberal Senate team all went and had meetings with the mayor and took their photos and put them up on Facebook and everything, there was not one cent of funding commitment for a vital project. They need $5 million to open up $80 million of development in an area where unemployment is very high, and they cannot get it. They have a business case that stacks up. They have a whole feasibility study that has been done. They have got community support for it. It is part of a master plan that Labor funded last time we were in government for the area. We have got the state government investing in an integrated care centre in this new precinct. And the government will not fund this under Stronger Regions. I do not know why they will not fund it. And they have not been honest with people about why they were not funding it. The mayor from Kingborough has gone back to the department several times and actually asked for some feedback, and they have been told that it meets the criteria. But it just has not got funding. It is the $5 million redevelopment of the old Kingston High site. It is really important to locals for opening up and creating a new Kingston Park area in Kingston in the south of my electorate—very close to where Senator Abetz lives. And I would have thought that the Liberal Party and Senator Abetz and others would have supported this project. Given that they have put it on Facebook, given that the candidate went down and talked about it, I am really surprised that, in the lead-up to the election campaign, this project did not get funded. And I was even more surprised that, when the last round of Stronger Regions got announced last week, it was not in that. But of course I was able, as a Labor candidate, to make a commitment during the campaign that, if Labor had been elected, we would have funded it, because we have a good record of delivering, not just for my electorate but for the whole state of Tasmania—unlike those opposite.

In the few seconds left to me, I do want to thank the people who worked on my campaign, because you do not often get a chance to do that. I particularly want to thank my staff—Jess, Gabby, Simon and Liam—for their hard work; my campaign team: Innes, Nat, Jackson, Lisa, David and Dan; and my poster-putting-up team, Evan, Mike and Graham. Thank you so much to everybody that worked on the campaign and to anybody I have not named. Thank you to Lisa Mycko who has come back to work with me, and to everybody, and particularly to my duty senator, Senator Catryna Bilyk. I want to put on record that Catryna and I have been working together now in the Franklin electorate since 2008, and it is great to have such a local senator who is happy to be out and about on the ground, working with community groups and supporting me as the local member; I think we make a formidable team. And I look forward to continuing to represent the people of Franklin in this place.

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

I concur with the member for Franklin when she raises questions about the National Stronger Regions Fund. My area in Bendigo has also had a number of projects in the mix. And I do welcome the member for Murray, who is here today, because there is a project that the member for Murray moonlighted into Bendigo last week to announce. He announced that this government will fund the Bendigo tennis centre redevelopment and upgrade. We were very worried that this government did not understand the importance of this project. This government scrapped the funding for the project when they first came to office after the 2013 election, which was devastating to the community of Bendigo and devastating to the Bendigo tennis centre community. So I do acknowledge the member for Murray, who has been an advocate for this project, first in the state parliament and now in this parliament. He has delivered for Bendigo, more than the senator who is based in Bendigo has, in his short time here. But of course Bendigo was not the only electorate he popped up in last week. He was a very busy man last week. He also popped up in the member for Indi's electorate to make a few announcements around Stronger Regions. He popped up in Castlemaine as well. So it appears that the member for Murray is not only the member for Murray but also the acting senator for Victoria for the National Party, given the road miles that he is doing at the moment. Perhaps Senator Bridget McKenzie from the other place needs to get outside of the inner city of Melbourne, rediscover her roots and travel back to the regions and speak up for the regions and speak up for Elmore instead of Elwood.

This is the great challenge that we have: there are lots of projects that still have not been funded. It is great to see the tennis centre be funded. It was something that Labor committed to at both the federal election in 2013 and the one in 2016. It is great to see the government realise the importance of this project and now fund it.

I am concerned, however, about the number of projects in the region that have missed out on funding. I hope that their commitment to fund the RSL upgrade—the revitalisation of the Bendigo RSL project—will go ahead. We had thought that that would be announced in this round of Stronger Regions funding. I hope that the government will continue their commitment towards this bipartisan project.

I also have a number of questions for the government. They announced $10 million during the election for the Calder upgrade, but we still do not know specifically what they are talking about. There are some rumours that it is about going north of Marong and there was some talk that it was for the south. They have said that they will match it with the state government, but the state government are saying that they are waiting to see what they are proposing about this. I would urge the government to look at Marong, to look at Lockwood and to look at the very dangerous intersection after passing Ravenswood as areas of need for prioritising this funding. I know that VicRoads are in active discussion to see some of that funding come south. I appreciate that there are problems on the Calder going north of Bendigo, but Marong is a growth area and we do want to see some of that funding going towards the Marong part of the Calder.

Roads funding is always critical. It is also an area, when it comes to Roads to Recovery and Black Spot funding, that is largely bipartisan. In fact, it was this side of the House that came up with a solution for the previous government about what to do with all of the tax they had collected. You might remember that in the last parliament they asked petrol companies to start collecting an increase to the petrol tax—the tax excise—even though this parliament had not passed the legislation. So, with the clock ticking and with this money collected, the money would not go back to motorists if the parliament did not pass the legislation. This side provided a solution to the government by suggesting: 'Why don't we put it into roads? Since you have collected it, and since we do not want to see it go back to big petrol companies and it will not go back to motorists, let's at least put it into the roads that motorists use.' So it was this side that provided the solution about what to do with that money, even though it was a government mess caused by them getting ahead of themselves in asking for the increased tax to be collected.

It is the role of our local governments and state governments to suggest the roads projects that should be fixed. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to believe that I have a say, I do not. No federal member actually has much of a say about which roads should be prioritised. Like all constituents, we can put forward our projects and we can actively lobby but, ultimately, it is up to local governments and state governments to make recommendations to VicRoads, in partnership with the federal government. The federal government funds these works but ultimately the priority list comes from local governments and state governments. So it is really cheeky of ministers and of those opposite to say, 'I will upgrade this road'. Well, no; it is local and state governments that decide on the priorities. This place allocates the funding to projects, and we want to see that funding allocated. It is wrong to suggest out in the community that this government makes those decisions. The only decision this government makes and this place makes is how much money goes into the kitty. Unless this government is talking about cutting funding to Roads to Recovery or to the Black Spots funding program, it is not fair to communities to go out there and suggest otherwise.

To this day, we still hear the government ranting a lot about 'jobs and growth'—I think we have discovered that it is the Treasurer's pet phrase, because he seems to be the only one continuing to harbour the term 'jobs and growth' and to labour it over and over again—but what we have not seen from the government is a concrete jobs plan. How are they going to rebuild full-time secure jobs in our community? The government has had many opportunities in my electorate of Bendigo and in regional Australia. You cannot go past decisions that this government has made in relation to defence uniforms and uniform manufacturing. Bendigo is home to ADA. We have one of their manufacturing facilities in Bendigo, and they are currently manufacturing the combat uniforms—the men and women, predominantly women, who work there have done so. The contract they are working on for this government was signed when Labor was last in government. When the tender for the dress uniforms came around, the facility in Bendigo was not awarded the contract. Whilst ADA was successful in the tender, this government went for an entirely overseas manufacture subcontract and import even though they have the capability and the skills in Bendigo—as well as a number of other manufacturing sites in Victoria—to manufacture the dress uniforms. This was a missed opportunity to create good secure jobs in Bendigo by simply buying Australian made.

It is laughable that a number of defence industry ministers—somebody with the job title 'defence'—have turned up in Bendigo and have talked to the workers—posing for photos—about the great work they do manufacturing combat uniforms, when they are the exact same government that refused to sign a contract to allow those workers to manufacture the dress uniforms. That would have created extra jobs in Bendigo and in Central Victoria. Instead, the government is saying: 'Well, we have run out of ideas on how we are going to get people into work. We are going to put up some funds and say to the not-for-profit sector that they should come up with some innovative programs about how we could get people into work.' We could invest that close to $100 million in Australian-made product. That creates jobs. We could invest that in supporting apprentices by restoring funding that has been cut from our apprenticeship schemes. The number of apprentices continues to decline in this country, and this government's plan is not to reinvest in apprentices and not to reinvest in TAFE but to invest in the program, an exploitative program which is basically going to offer employers—rather than employing the next young person—the chance to hire someone at below-award wages that is then topped up by the government. There is no accountability and no safeguards in place for this program—none whatsoever—to ensure that, when somebody leaves a job, an employer, rather than advertising and hiring the next young person and paying them award rates or paying them on the collective agreement rate, does not go straight to the government's subsidised PaTH program. There are no safeguards whatsoever to ensure that they are not giving a chop-out to their mates in business so that they can hire people on this program. This is essentially what will happen. It has been nicknamed the 'supermarket internships program', and that is essentially what will happen. It is not a genuine program that will attract young people into new jobs; it is another subsidised program which will see the government potentially displace into exploitative arrangements thousands of young Australians who otherwise would have got the job.

We have not seen this government prioritise a crackdown on worker exploitation. To this date the government has failed to implement any of the recommendations coming from any of the reviews or inquiries about the exploitation of workers. And we are not just talking about the exploitation of temporary workers that we have in our country; we are talking about the tens of thousands of Australian workers who are also being exploited. We are not investigating enough or resourcing the Fair Work Ombudsman enough to investigate cases where people have been made to get their own ABN when they actually should be directly employed by their company. We are talking about cleaners at Myer. There are cleaners in Ballarat—people who, rather than working directly for the cleaning company, were made to get an ABN and are paid well below award wages.

It is not their choice if that is the only option that is on the table. This is where the government likes to get quite tricky with their language and say, 'It's their choice.' It is not a choice if the only job available requires you to go out and get your ABN. Essentially, you are making the employee responsible for their own work cover, you are making the employee responsible for their own superannuation and you are making them responsible for all of their entitlements. Yet, as we know, as defined by the Fair Work Ombudsman, if these people do 100 per cent of their work for this one contractor, wear the uniform of this contractor and use the chemicals and equipment supplied by this contractor, they are not a subcontractor or someone who should be employed on an ABN; they are in fact an employee.

This is happening throughout our economy and throughout our communities, particularly in relation to temporary workers. There are currently 200,000 backpackers in this country, and some of them are employed in some quite precarious situations. Weekly we see reports of their exploitation appear in our media, but, rather than tackle that issue head-on, the government seeks to ignore it. They have appointed another task force, which again will make recommendations that this government will probably choose to ignore.

I talked about the 200,000 backpackers that we have in our country and I have to say that, despite all the rhetoric of those opposite, those 200,000 backpackers are not working on our farms. We do have labour shortages on our farms, I completely agree, and we do need to sit down and look at that issue. But backpackers in the current format and the way in which the visa is structured are not the solution. We need to look at that visa and work out how best to help our farms and our ag industry when it comes to work shortages.

Predominantly these 200,000 backpackers that we have working in this country work in the cities or big regional centres. That is the reality. A small proportion of them do work on farms, but the majority of them work in cities—and why? Farm work is hard. It is hard work, it is low paid, it is hard to get to and it is hard to find living arrangements. So it is wrong for us to stand here and think that whatever happens with the backpacker tax will be the solution for the bush and for our farmers in terms of workforce shortages.

We need to do more in this space to ensure that people coming into our country are not taking the jobs of young Australians. We need to do more in this country to ensure that we genuinely know the impact of temporary work visas. There are 1.2 million people here in this country as ISB: backpackers, 457 visas, 462 visas and international students working here in this country. We need to review and properly understand what impact that is having on the labour market.

Whilst the government talked a big game about jobs, they have delivered nothing in the way of genuine jobs—full-time secure employment—to Australians. They are tricky with their figures and will talk about stats and statistics that suit them. They are not genuine about creating job opportunities. They are not genuine about funding our regions properly. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017. Of course, this bill encapsulates what unfortunately represents another unfair budget by this coalition government. While they have tried to hide from the Australian people with the fact that indeed this does not have the nasty elements of what we experienced in 2014, many of the elements are still there. There is still a $30 billion cut from our schools. There are still cuts from our universities. There is still a plan to have a pension age of 70, the highest in the world. It is a budget that calls parents rorters and double dippers and one that makes young job seekers wait for four weeks. It also is cutting the pension to 190,000 pensioners through the plan to limit overseas travel to Australian pensioners. Far from being a budget that supports our most vulnerable in our community—a budget that looks to lift people up—it is a budget that is inherently unfair.

One of the things that we keep getting lectured about by the government is that we need to live within our means. Of course, what they forget to mention is that they are giving a $50 billion tax cut to some of the largest companies in this country. On one hand they are cutting investment in our future, cutting investment to education and to our healthcare system; at the same time they are giving a $50 billion tax cut to what potentially are very large companies. One really can only describe this as trickle-down economics: hoping that this big tax cut to very large businesses will lead to benefiting those most vulnerable in our community. I think that the government probably should have learnt from the Reagan era. Trickle-down economics does not work. It has been shown time and time again that we need to actually invest in our people if we want to get good economic and social outcomes.

Obviously Labor will not block supply, but there are many unfair measures in the budget that was put before us on the eve on an election. We had to bring the budget forward and then rush to an election, because the government was so worried that any scrutiny of the budget would see them do not so well in the polls. On this side of the House we will continue to hold the government to account. We will oppose unfair measures that do not deliver to those who are most vulnerable. There are a number of different challenges before us. There are a number of issues that I want to highlight, but I do want to voice in particular my concern about the cuts to universities that are still in the budget. We still have not heard from the education minister about any plan going forward, except about the 20 per cent cuts to our universities, which are still in the budget. We continue to see other unfair cuts, which Labor will stand against. The most vulnerable know that they have a strong advocate in the Labor Party standing up for them. We are standing up for education, standing up for health and standing up for those that rely on income support when they are most vulnerable.

Tough decisions do have to be made when it comes the budget repair, and in the election Labor was up-front and honest about our priorities. We made it very clear that we chose to protect middle and working families. We will not chip away at Medicare until we destroy it in order to provide a tax cut to big business. That is a difficult decision to make. That decision is not saying, 'We'll be everything to everyone.' We clearly illustrated during the election period how we would go about repairing the budget in a way that was fair. I think this is a really important point to make. We will continue to do that as we go forward and we hope that we will, through our stand, be able to protect Australians from some of the worst elements of the budget.

I would implore the government to learn the lessons of the past. Slashing and burning basic healthcare services and other essential government services is not the answer if you want to encourage greater prosperity. If you want jobs and growth, then burning, cutting and slashing is not the way to go. I would urge the government, as they move forward, to rethink some of their proposals—either that or get George Christensen, the member for Dawson, onto the job! He is pretty good at getting the government to change its position on a whole range of things, so we might enlist him! In fact, on many occasions it might be time for the member for Dawson to cross the floor, to come over and join us, because his opposition to what the government is doing is almost as great as the Labor Party's opposition—not always on the same things; nevertheless, he is a fierce opponent of this government. We hope that the government will listen not only to George Christensen but also to the opposition. We think we make a lot more sense.

In addition to that, as I said, Labor will make responsible budget savings. In the election period we outlined a range of savings measures, and we also provided support for reasonable savings in the government's Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016. When the bill was before the House, I did not get the opportunity to talk about one of the bipartisan elements of the bill, which was support for the single appeal pathway in the portfolio area of Veterans' Affairs. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is amended to create a single appeal pathway of review. This legislation was initially introduced to parliament as part of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill.

The process as it stood was quite complex. Under chapter 8 of the MRCA, an applicant wishing to make an appeal could either seek an internal reconsideration by the commission or apply to have their decision reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board. If they were unhappy with this, they could appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for final review. The process was further complicated by the time in which the applicant lodged their application. In addition, the appeal path chosen could also affect the level of legal aid funding an applicant could access. This was a complicated process, and the inability among stakeholders to reach consensus on how to move forward during the development of the MRCA had caused a lot of angst for many veterans attempting to work their way through this process.

This being so, Labor did support the concept of a single appeal pathway. However, at the time this legislation was introduced, we raised significant concerns with elements of the legislation outlined in 2015. Concerns included the removal of the internal reconsideration process, and the lack of opportunity of awarding costs to the veteran. We urged the government to undertake significant consultation with stakeholders, and as a consequence the legislation was referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Recurring issues raised with the committee included confusion around the internal reconsideration process, access to legal representation, access to costs for matters and access to legal aid.

Following the report of the committee, Labor worked with the government to adopt a range of amendments recommended by the Senate committee, which vastly improved the outcomes for veterans. Under the amendments, when an applicant is dissatisfied with the commission's determination, they can appeal to the Veterans' Review Board. This triggers an automatic internal review of the decision by the commission. If the applicant is unhappy with the internal review outcome, they then can proceed to the board for determination. Finally if the applicant is unsatisfied with the board's decision, they are then able to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with legal representation and access to legal aid, as well as, importantly, have costs awarded under certain circumstances. The amendments provide an incentive for the right decision to be made at the earliest possible opportunity and provide clarity to applicants on the appeal process.

Due to these amendments, Labor was able to support the legislation. As a result of Labor working with stakeholder organisations and the government we have been able to strengthen this legislation to make a clear and consistent appeal path where decisions are made as soon as practicable, and that enables veterans to access appropriate support. In addition, we listened to the ex-service organisations about the role of lawyers at the Veterans' Review Board stage. Despite pressure from a number of legal representatives, we supported the government's position not to admit lawyers at the Veterans' Review Board stage, which ex-service organisations felt was unnecessarily adversarial and did not respect the professional role played by advocates at this stage of the appeals process.

This amended legislation is important. I must pay respect to the member for Batman, who did a significant amount of work on this legislation. He worked with the minister to get a good outcome for veterans. The passing of this legislation demonstrates that Labor aims to work constructively with the government to strengthen legislation and work on budget repair that is fair. However, what we will not do is just roll over when there are issues that we think are inherently unfair. At the election we have put close to $8 billion worth of savings forward to the Australian people. I am pleased to see that the government may have listened and be taking some of our suggestions on board, including the proposed $8,000 a year cap on VET FEE-HELP loans. The government has sat on its hands over the last number of years letting these warts continue in the VET FEE-HELP area. Of course, we hope from all reports that they will propose and actually support proper administration of this important area and at the same time not make TAFE and vocational education unattainable for so many.

We want to see the government start acting in the area of fairness. We have seen a government that seems absolutely obsessed about giving tax cuts to very large businesses. Part of that is the fact that deep in their DNA the Liberal and National parties are the friends of big business. That is their number one constituent. That is why we have seen the Prime Minister and his ministers work so hard to prevent what I believe is supported by the Australian people—that is, a proper investigation, a royal commission, into the banking and financial services sector. It is so important that we actually allow victims, the many victims who have lost their homes, businesses and retirement savings, an opportunity to have their say. But, more than that, we need to identify the systemic issues that have led to these circumstances and ensure that it does not happen in the future.

So, while the government seems to want to have meetings and try to work with the banks and the financial services sector to work out how not to have a royal commission into these very important issues, Labor will continue to pursue this issue. This is something I have spoken to many constituents in my electorate about and they fundamentally believe that unethical practices and potentially illegal practices need to be properly investigated and need to be safeguarded against for the future. I call on the government to stop being the party for big business and actually be a party for middle Australia, for low and middle Australia. They need you to be responsible and effective.

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

I was 11 years old when I bought my first computer. It was back in 1984 and the machine called an Aquarius. It had rubber keys, a cassette drive, a black and white television was its monitor and it held a little less than four kilobytes in memory. Back then, the machine was, well, not start of the art, but pretty close. We have come a fair way from that to the advent of the iPad Air.

We didn't get there by settling for second best. We did not get there by saying, 'Well, the technology of today will do us for the course of the next generation.' That is the lesson that this government has failed to learn with its National Broadband Network. It is a government that thinks that investing in the future involves buying millions of metres of copper. Since the change of government, we have seen Australia fall from 30th to 60th in global internet rankings.

The National Broadband Network is 21st century infrastructure. For my electorate of Fenner the lack of access to high-speed broadband is one of the chief issues that is raised with me at street stalls, when I am out doorknocking and when I am speaking with constituents on the phone or in my office. My constituents recognise that we need a technology that is continuously upgradable. Back when I had my Aquarius, the Sydney Morning Herald's computer correspondent predicted that no computer program would need more than 16 kilobytes of memory. Since I stood up to speak tonight I have probably received at least a couple of emails of a size greater than 16 kilobytes. The fact is that the same thing will occur with the National Broadband Network, and the suggestion that Canberrans will only ever need 25 megabits of data per second misses the fact that the urban standard in South Korea is already 100 megabits per second and that country is now rolling out 1,000 megabits per second.

Australians do not deserve second-rate infrastructure. They need a national broadband network that ensures that schoolkids can engage in high-definition videoconferences. At the Gungahlin Public Library, where the internet hub is located, I have seen students from nearby Harrison School engaged in a high-definition videoconference with their counterpart school in Japan. In that environment there is the opportunity for schoolchildren to interact with one another almost as though they are in the same room. That is what superfast broadband can do—but only if we get fibre all the way to the premises.

In the last election the quality of national broadband was a critical issue in the ACT and I believe one of the reasons ACT Labor saw a swing towards us, not just on the north side, in Fenner, but also on the south side, in Canberra. It was a recognition of the importance of the National Broadband Network and a recognition that when it comes to infrastructure investment it is this side of the House that recognises the importance of investment. Canberrans can see already the benefits of Labor's far-sighted investment through the Majura Parkway, an infrastructure project jointly funded by an ACT Labor government and a federal Labor government under Julia Gillard, a piece of infrastructure that never would have received funding under a coalition government but that was funded by a federal Labor government because we recognised that what matters is the benefit-cost ratio—the economic benefit-cost ratio, not the political benefit-cost ratio.

In the electorate of Fenner I was very pleased to be supported for the last election by an extraordinary team of campaign volunteers: Suzanne Tatum, Teresa Foster, Maxine Deakins, David Simpson, corflute construction experts extraordinaire Rob and Robin Eakin, Glen Rose, David Adams, Guy de Cure, Martin Geng, David van der Wolf, Greg Gurr, Denis O'Brien, Keith Sayers, Ken Maher, Paul Maggs, Darryl Erbacher, Packi Rayappu, Teck Lee, Trev Smith, Anna Damiano, John Zerilli, Karen Dahl, Kris Sloane, Joe Walker, Rhianne Grieve, Gerry Lloyd and Maddy Wood. Gerry Lloyd is an extraordinary campaign volunteer, somebody who was first brought into active involvement in Labor politics when Gough Whitlam asked him to play a senior role in the branch—and Gerry has not looked back since. We all learn from his example of selfless dedication to the Labor movement.

On election day we were very fortunate to have as branch captains James Griffith, Naomi Nicholson, Damien McGrath, Nawaf Ibrahim, Lulu Respall-Turner, Helen Roberts, Rob and Margaret Eakin, Charlie Lewis, Gordon Ramsay—who is now standing as an ACT Labor candidate on the weekend—Russell Rollason, Leigh Ramsay, Wayne and Rhonda Berry, Nick Green, Michael Quirk, Vanessa Jacobsen, Chris Sant, Chris McGrane, Lisa Zwankhuizen, Mark Smith, Denis O'Brien, Meredith Hinchcliffe, Christine Wise, Chris Golding, Annie Haggar, Garrett Purtill, Aimee Kable and Richard Niven, who is also standing as a candidate in this weekend's election.

As booth workers: Minister Chris Bourke—again, a candidate in this weekend's election—Kim Tan, Bob McFadden, candidate Tara Cheyne, Darcy Egan, Chong-Suk Choe, Noel Gallagher, Ross Humphreys, Martin Geng, Bob Webster, Ian Pieper, candidate Kim Fischer, Bronwen and Ron Davis, Alan Roberts, Stanley Hambesis, Clare Best, Kevin Bryant, Valerie Ryle, Linda Rasmussen, Leanne Blackley, Roseanne Toohey, Margaret Gracie, Teresa Foster, Jesse Everett, candidate Deepak-Raj Gupta, candidate Minister Meegan Fitzharris, Krishna Nadimpalli, Barbara Preston, Dominic Dolan, Abi Nathan, Alexander See, candidate Michael Petterson, Joe Kelly, Thomas Hodgson, Emma Wise, Chris Hallett, Robyn Henderson, Robert Kelly, Dorothy Horsfield, Seamus Gill, Sankar Chatterjee, Patrick Rooks, Michael Bakos, Minister Yvette Berry, Darcy Egan, Adina Cirson, Ben Molan, Jeff Manny, Philip Dale, Wayne Ryan, Kim Johnston, Emma Webster, John Garnett, Michael, Warren, Nathalie Shepherd, Ann Thorpe, John Edge, Yar Ayub, Cheryl Gay, Belinda Hunt, Ian and Ute Diversi, Justin Underwood, Narelle Atkins, Rebecca Marks, Alexander See, Hayden Shaw, Roger Marchant, Christine Duke, Margaret Ryan, John Goss, Diane Spooner, Carmen Richardson, Alison Barnes, Michael Bailey, Erin Richardson, Deb Raha and Malika Gupta.

With a campaign team like that, one can hardly but wonder that Labor did so well in Fenner at the last election. But that focus on an investment approach to the ACT also characterises the way in which ACT Labor has approached its campaign. I mentioned in my remarks a number of those candidates on the north side who are now standing this weekend as candidates: Gordon Ramsay, Richard Niven, Chris Bourke, Tara Cheyne, Kim Fischer, Deepak-Raj Gupta, Meegan Fitzharris, Michael Petterson and Yvette Berry. They are part of 25 extraordinary candidates whom Andrew Barr will be leading to this weekend's election—an election which will be a referendum for the ACT on the investment approach versus the cuts approach. Here in the ACT we have an ACT government that recognises that Canberra is at its strongest when we continue to invest in the future. The benefits of the National Broadband Network that I spoke about earlier are not simply benefits in terms of how Canberrans use their computers for entertainment or indeed to access government services; they are also benefits that flow through on the business side. A recently released report by Deloitte Access Economics, prepared for Google, found that those nine per cent of small businesses that have an advanced level of connection are 1½ times as likely to be growing revenue, eight times as likely to be creating jobs, 14 times as likely to be innovating and seven times as likely to be exporting.

Here in the ACT, the benefits of the investment approach flow through to having a strong private sector. The federal coalition government has cut deep into the Public Service. They have shed more than the 12,000 jobs they said during the 2013 election would go—it is now getting up towards 20,000 public service jobs. It has been the ACT Labor government that has stepped in to ensure that the ACT economy does not tank.

In the ACT we have seen a government which recognises that light rail is essential for the ACT. Frankly, it has been surprising that Prime Minister Turnbull, who is so pleased to take selfies of himself with light rail in Queensland, is curiously reluctant to jump on the train when it comes to light rail here in the ACT. It is the same principle: a public transport system which is in the long-term interests of Canberrans.

We have also seen Andrew Barr's government delivering international flights for Canberra Airport, with regular international flights now scheduled to both Singapore and Wellington. Those who do frequent business in the ACT—and many in the parliament are among those—will appreciate now having the New Zealand and Australian capitals connected by a direct flight and being able to use Singapore as a gateway destination or, indeed, as a final destination in itself. That again epitomises the investment approach that we have seen from the ACT Labor government.

That investment approach involves investing in the health of Canberrans, too. The ACT Labor government has promised that, if ACT Labor wins the election, there will be new nurse-led walk-in centres in Weston Creek and Gungahlin. These centres have proven enormously popular among Canberrans. The Belconnen centre had more than 16,000 attendances in the last financial year. It provides free, one-off advice and treatment for people with minor illnesses and injuries, ensuring not only that people get the health support they need but also that they do not clog up the emergency system. While the ACT Liberals have been promising to rip money out of the ACT health system, it has been the ACT Labor government under Andrew Barr that has been investing.

There have also been important investments in ensuring that the social fabric of the ACT remains strong. There is a commitment from ACT Labor to maintain the Safe Schools Program, with the ACT being a leader in Australia in making sure that we fight the scourge of homophobia and bigotry in our schools. The ACT has always been a social leader for Australia, with a 100 per cent renewables target that enjoys bipartisan support. This is something which I know Canberrans cherish. It is, therefore, surprising that it is the Canberra Liberals that are so socially regressive. Canberra is the most conservative state or territory branch of the Liberal Party in Australia. It is a branch which got rid of a relatively progressive Liberal senator, in Gary Humphries, and replaced him with one of the most conservative Liberal senators, in Zed Seselja.

In the ACT we have seen the savage impact that cuts by the Abbott and Turnbull governments have inflicted on Canberrans. We know community legal centres have an important role to play in assisting Canberrans who get into trouble, particularly as victims of financial scams or of family violence. But Malcolm Turnbull and George Brandis have cut $52 million from community legal centres, legal aid commissions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. That is why the Labor Party made a commitment at the last election that, had a Labor government been elected, we would have ensured that the Women's Legal Centre, Canberra Community Law and Street Law had the funds they needed to keep their doors open. We know that the impact of not having adequate legal presentation can be significant. One case study, from a woman named as Amanda, gave the instance of a young Aboriginal woman who had commenced receipt of youth allowance payments when she was 15 and had spent time in and out of refuges. It was only through help from an ACT community legal centre that she was able to have an unfair debt waived.

It is vital that we continue the investment approach here in the ACT. I hope that Canberrans will see the wisdom of that approach by supporting Andrew Barr's government to be re-elected on the weekend.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017. I understand that this bill, which is part of a package, is required to ensure that the ordinary functions of government continue for the remainder of the 2016-17 financial year. I understand this bill will appropriate some $58 billion for the 2016-17 financial year, which is in addition to some $41 billion that was appropriated in the supply acts earlier this year. Labor have always made it clear that we will not block supply bills.

The reality is that the government has mismanaged the economy. The facts speak for themselves. We have a deficit that the government projected to be $10.6 billion this year but that is going to hit $37 billion or perhaps $38 billion. Net debt has increased by $100 billion since 2013 and is expected to reach $326 billion this year. Foreign debt has gone up from $976 billion last year to $1,045 billion as at June this year. Spending is at a nearly all-time high at 25.8 per cent of GDP—just slightly under the figure of 26 per cent at the height of the GFC, when spending was higher in order to keep Australia's economy strong. We know that, as a result of those figures, Australia's AAA credit rating is at risk of being downgraded. If that happens, when the Australian government borrows money it will borrow it at a higher interest rate and that, in turn, will simply add to the mounting debt of this country. The reality is that debt is up and the deficit is up, but wages and the living standards of Australians are down.

We have a government that is trying to spin its way out of all of this and has been doing so for over three years now. One day it says that we have a spending problem in this country; the next day it says that we have an income problem. The reality is that it lies somewhere in between, and perhaps we have a problem with both. But it is clear that the government does not know what it is doing if it is jumping from one argument to another in order to try to defend its position when it comes to managing the economy and, in turn, the budget.

We saw in 2014 an austerity budget which the Australian people clearly rejected. In fact, it was as a result of the Australian people clearly rejecting the austerity budget of the Abbott government at the time that the Prime Minister found himself in great difficulty. His personal following and support throughout the community dropped markedly. We saw the Treasurer effectively lose his job because of mismanagement of the Australian economy. Some could say that he actually secured himself a better job, depending on what you prefer to do in life, but clearly at the time the Treasurer was under pressure and had lost control of the Australian economy.

Yet whilst we have all of these things happening and the government telling everybody that it has a plan for the future—jobs and growth—and that it will control and manage the Australian economy wisely, prudently and so on, it is prepared to give $50 billion back to the big corporates of this country. At a time when it is trying to squeeze the last dollar out of low-income households, this is a government that is saying, 'You, the low-income earners of Australia, need to just tighten your belts a little further. But, for the corporate into town, we are happy to give them an additional $50 billion or close to it.' Most of the $50 billion of tax cuts that the government was proposing was going to go to the big corporates, including the four big banks, which again this year together collectively made billions of dollars in profits. That is not to mention that those same corporates are paying their CEOs tens of millions of dollars for their work whilst Australians on perhaps $200 or $300 a week are being told that they have to squeeze their belts.

The government's mismanagement goes further. Just like the previous Treasurer that I referred to lost his job over the economy of this country, the current Treasurer is just as incompetent. We have seen in the last 12 to 18 months a series of backflips, the most recent being the backflips in respect of the superannuation policy of this government, going from one side to another. He was ultimately rolled by his own backbenchers and had to cave into their demands. We saw another backflip only last week, or perhaps a week or so ago, in respect to the backpacker's tax. Again, it is not the outcome that everybody wanted, but the government had to compromise in order to get something through. But, clearly, it was a compromise that the Treasurer never set out to achieve when he proposed the backpacker's tax.

Then we have the debacle about negative gearing, which this side of politics put forward. We know full well that it was a policy that the Treasurer and perhaps the Prime Minister personally supported. I understand that they were rolled within their own party room over it. We also have the debacle—that is the best way I could describe it—in respect to the public GST debate about a year or so ago. Again, that has got nowhere as well. We even had the Prime Minister talking about empowering the states to levy their own income tax. Nothing has come of that also. Clearly, this is a government that does not know which way to jump whenever there is a problem.

What this government does know is that it is only policies are policies that bring more austerity measures to people on low incomes in this country. It is a government that continuously looks at trying to cut social spending. Prudent management of the economy and preventing abuse and rorts is one thing; austerity policies that simply punish already struggling families is another. Low-income households spend all of their income on consumables and within their local economy. They keep their local economies going. When their income is cut, so is their spending. There is then a flow-on effect right through their local communities and, in turn, it is felt by the local communities and the small business operators within them in particular. As one business person in my community once told me, and he has been in business pretty much all of his life: whenever Labor is in government, his business does better.

What equally concerns me and should be of concern to all Australians is the way that this government, whilst it is focused on low-income Australians, has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to many of the government programs. I refer to in particular the VET courses, the VET course operators and the childcare centre operators who have rorted this government out of billions of dollars. Indeed, in respect to some of the rorting, I cannot understand how any government could not have seen what was going on. I cannot understand how the alarm bells did not ring for any minister when some of the payments were being made. It is beyond comprehension.

Whilst the government now talks about fixing the problem, changing their VET scheme and following up on those people who rorted the scheme, the reality is that it is too late. Much of the money that was rorted, from my understanding, will never be recovered. Indeed, I understand that some of it has already left Australia and been sent offshore. When you look at the figures again with respect to the VET FEE-HELP costings, the figures speak for themselves. According to one report, the Department of Finance paid out $325 million in 2012. In 2014, the figure was $1.8 billion. In 2015, the figure had blown out to $2.9 billion. Surely, that kind of trend should have rung alarm bells much, much earlier. There were members in this place—including the member for Bendigo, who is at the table, and myself—who spoke months and months ago about the rorting that was taking place. It took so long for the government to actually do something about it. This is a government that was prepared to turn a blind eye to that rorting but say to low-income Australians, 'You have to forgo another $5 out of the measly amount of money we are already giving to you.'

Again, we saw this with respect to the omnibus bill. It was only after Labor's responsible amendments to the bill that the government was able to get those measures through the parliament. I am pleased to see that at least the government was not able to totally close down the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and that $800 million has been preserved for that agency to do the good work that it has been doing and that it will continue to do. I am also pleased to see that the energy supplement for low-income earners was also preserved as a result of Labor's stance on it. In particular, I see that the Child Dental Benefits Schedule has been put to one side. At least it was taken out of the omnibus bill. It has not been saved at this point in time, but Labor will do all it can to ensure it will be saved, because this is another example of a government trying to disguise a new scheme as better than the scheme currently in place. The reality is the disguise is so that the government can cover for the cuts it wants to make to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule.

My understanding is that some one million eligible Australian children accessed that scheme over recent years. That is about 32 per cent of those people that could have accessed it. The government says that those figures are too low and the scheme was not working. What the government does not say is that it did nothing to try and publicise the scheme at all. But it is the alternative that the government has in mind that is of more concern to me. The government wants to reduce the scheme so that public dental services will only be available through public dental service providers—in other words, through government funded dental service providers. There are a couple of problems with that. The first is that public dental services are not located evenly around Australia. The second problem is that there is already a waiting list ranging, depending on which state you live in, from several months to several years before you can get in to a public dental service. So people wanting to access this service will be waiting a long time before they can, and if you add more people to it then of course that is going to make the waiting lists even longer.

For regional and remote Australians this is another cruel blow. We already know that regional and remote Australians cost the government some 60 per cent less for health services than their counterparts in the city. For them, if they have to access a public dental service, it could mean driving two, three or four hours to get to it. If the service is further away from them—and just bear in mind that some half a million Australians live in remote Australia—then clearly they are less likely to ever access the service at all. So it is simply going to disadvantage them even more. Remote Australians are already grossly disadvantaged with respect to the health services they can access. Not surprisingly, the statistics will show that their health is much, much worse compared to Australians in major cities—across every statistical area you can go to, the health of people living in remote and regional Australia is worse. Here is an example of a government trying to penny pinch its way out so that it can save a few more dollars at the expense of the people who are already doing it the hardest.

The last point I want to make is this: we recently had both the census and the federal election. In my view, both were the worst managed of their kind that I can recall. With respect to the federal election, for almost eight weeks my office became a de facto Australian Electoral Commission office, fielding questions and queries that people in my community could not get answers to anywhere else and so ultimately came to my office for answers on. That is what my staff did almost full-time for the eight weeks after the election was called. On election day, there were people waiting at many booths in my electorate for not one hour but for two hours or even longer. That is simply unacceptable. With respect to the census, the whole thing was a debacle and I think it was a public embarrassment for the government.

The point I make about all that is this: I suspect the reason why both the federal election and the census were so badly managed was cost cutting. I suspect both departments were under-resourced. I suspect both departments had their funding cut and I suspect both departments had fewer staff to deal with both matters. I am not blaming the staff. I am suggesting that the government again ought to think carefully about where it makes its cost cutting, because the Australian voters are no fools and ultimately the government will wear the wroth of their anger when they have to go and vote or fill out census forms.

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

I rise to join the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate bills. It has been some time since I stood in this chamber to join a legislative debate, some time indeed.

I have been thinking a bit about time today and asking myself the question: how long is it since we heard our now Prime Minister, in a press conference on the lawn just out here, say that he needed to challenge the member for Warringah because this country needed economic leadership? How long ago was that? How long ago was it since we had the 2016-17 budget? It seems like an absolute age since the budget. Why would it be such a long time for us in between a budget, a budget reply and me being in my place, making my contribution? I remember. It is because we had an eight-week election campaign—a double dissolution election that those in government determined, with a bit of help from their mates in the Greens, that we needed to have. They determined that we had to have this double dissolution election; that we had to have an eight-week campaign—the longest campaign in most people's memory—and a winter campaign; and that after the election we needed to be away from this chamber, the people's House, for another three months before we returned to this House to get on with the business that the Australian people pay us to do. They send us here to represent them.

Months later I am standing here making a contribution on the appropriation bills. I strongly suggest that the government be condemned for the time wasting that has occurred this year. Our Prime Minister should ask every day when he looks in the mirror: 'Where is the man who was going to deliver economic leadership? Where has he gone?' That is what the public are asking. The public are asking, 'Where is that man?' We know from the 2016-17 budget, we know from the change in leadership for those opposite and we know from the eight-week election campaign that nothing has changed. Nothing has changed with the change in the leader. Nothing has changed with the change of members in the seats previously held by that side. A lot has changed on this side because we have a lot more members, and I look at my colleagues around this room. The other thing the Prime Minister said was that he has got a working majority. Of course, in the first week back at work he found out what a working majority should look like—but it did not look like that late on Thursday afternoon.

We also know that nothing has changed. We have got a work-shy government. We have got a government that does not want to show up and sit on the benches opposite and be held accountable to the public of Australia. They want to run the country from inside a shock jock's studio or inside Sky News. They do not want to be in this space and run this government. They do not want to answer questions at question time. It is not a surprise because, let us face it, straight after the election we saw the Prime Minister's battle plan and 23 of the 25 points in that battle plan were Abbott policy. Nothing has changed.

In the PM's battle plan there was no mention of climate change policy—no mention at all. We heard about it last week though when they hijacked and politicised a natural disaster for political ends. The coalition are usually hot on the tail of anyone who tries to politicise a national disaster and suggest that climate change is real. Suddenly they found a disaster that they could leap off the back of, but they did not mention doing anything about climate change. They used it as a wedge to suggest that renewable energy is a threat to energy security.

In that 25-point plan there was no mention of the NBN—surprise, surprise! Call the police. Every time we on this side mention the NBN we are going to call for the police, because the things that have been happening with the NBN are indefensible. We have had another backflip on the NBN of late. In our communities and in the electorate of Lalor the public know. The people in my community know that what they are getting with this government's second-rate NBN is entrenched digital divide. I have emails from people in the country who cannot believe that so close to the city of Melbourne, so close to the CBD, we have people on ADSL1 and ADSL2 and have people who can access neither ADSL1 nor ADSL2 and who cannot get the NBN. There was no mention of that because that is not a good news story.

There was no mention of protecting Medicare in this 25-point plan. Today in this House those opposite came in and voted not to defend Medicare. There is no new vision from this Prime Minister because he is being held captive by his coalition friends. He is being held captive and he cannot do anything without first checking with the member for Dawson. The member for Dawson is actually running the country. That is what we on this side are coming to understand every day.

The worst part of this is that we know that, since this Prime Minister came to office after the election, he has been intent on continuing the unfairness of the last government. He is still planning to give tax cuts to big business rather than assist the most vulnerable. You have got the education minister, Minister Birmingham, with his fishing rod throwing out the bait in the education debate and suggesting that there are very wealthy schools that are overfunded. Well, hello, John Howard! Very wealthy schools have been overfunded by those opposite for a long time. They are seeking to divide the community around school education because they refuse to back in their promise and fund the Gonski model, as they promised at the 2013 election. They refuse to change their position on that and they seek to divide us wherever we turn.

We have a government that is refusing to hold a royal commission into banking. Why would you refuse to do this? Why would you choose to dig in on this point? Why would you choose to live with the pain of the embarrassment of having the committee meet with the banks? Now we are going to go to some kind of tribunal with the banks when what we need here is a royal commission. It is high time in this place that those opposite started to put those who need help before the interests of big business and to hold big business accountable for their actions. We all know that the banks have a case to answer. The public know that the banks have a case to answer. The government need to get behind it and do the job that they have been elected to do.

It is time for them to invest in education and to give up on their $100,000 degrees. It is time for them to dig in and do the work and give the community the consistency and the certainty that they need. It is time that they got busy in employment and creating jobs. It is time they got busy in backing in health. It is time they got busy sitting with state ministers to talk about funding for our hospitals. We on this side remember the cuts that were delivered in the 2014 budget to hospitals in this country. Our communities are living with those cuts every day. It is time they started supporting the Australian people and started supporting our neighbours in our communities who are really doing it tough.

In my contribution I want to go to housing and homelessness because I do not feel that it gets raised enough. This government has no policy for homelessness. They have nothing on the table around housing affordability. They have nothing for that growing number of people in our communities—families in my electorate; mum's with kids—who find themselves, through either mortgage or rental stress, sleeping in cars.

It is over three years now since I was elected as the member for Lalor. One of the first things I did was hold a homelessness forum with the community organisations that support the homeless. We knew what was coming even before the 2014 budget hit the ground, because the messages were coming out that this government did not want to fund advocacy in the community sector. What a terrible thing if we know what is going on in our communities! What a terrible thing if the people who work with the most vulnerable and the most at risk have a voice and can contribute to the national debate by being funded to provide the research and the papers that we need to stand in this place and advocate for the people that we represent!

Three years ago this was becoming a crisis in my electorate. The city of Wyndham has the highest number of evictions in the state of Victoria. They were in crisis, but during the last three years under this government it was fast becoming something worse than that. On 11 August, the ABC Lateline program vividly captured the tyranny of local homelessness in my electorate. It was a reminder that any one of us can fall on hard times and find ourselves sleeping rough. The solemn reality is that many are forced into homelessness because of circumstances completely out of their control.

This program highlighted a young homeless man in Wyndham in the electorate of Lalor. He had lost his job when his employer shut up shop. He lost his home and he is now living in his car. He is a tradie, so the last thing he is going to give up is his car because without that car he is not employable. He has made a really smart decision to keep his wheels so that he has got the capacity to rejoin the workforce. This young man talked about his battles trying to stay connected in the community and looking for work and just trying to survive at the same time. This is one story; there are many in the electorate of Lalor. Local council and support services in the area are all reporting increasing numbers. None of the people that I have spoken to—and I have spoken to several who are homeless in our community—want to keep suffering the perpetual indignities that come with this. They simply want another chance to be part of their community.

Unfortunately, the cuts that have come into play across the last three years from that dreadful 2014 budget are pushing those services that support these people further and further behind the eight ball. The guard rail that used to stop people from going over this cliff edge is being undermined by the cuts from this government—and they are across the board. They are about domestic violence. They are about community legal centres. They are about community organisations. They are about relief funding. In Wyndham we are down to families and individuals getting one food voucher a year. It is outrageous. Cutting funding to these initiatives has meant heartbreaking stories. These are my neighbours. These are people who are living in our community. This government has no homelessness strategy, and they went to an election with no housing affordability strategy. In fact, they went to an election telling parents, 'Shell out. You need to shell out to buy the kids a house. That's how you can do it.' I am not sure what planet they live on 'Get yourself some rich parents and life will be good.'

Where is there a reference in this bill to homelessness or to housing affordability? Where is it in the appropriations bill? Where is it in the budget? Nothing has changed. This government is here, but they are giving us no certainty. They are giving no certainty to the most disadvantaged people in our community and no certainty to the systems that our communities rely on. They are giving no certainty around school education. If you want to apply a business model to all of our services, what they need is certainty. We need certainty in hospitals. We need certainty in aged care. We need certainty for our community organisations and some certainty for our community legal centres. We need certainty in the renewable energy sector. Pensioners need certainty. Superannuants need certainty—in the last 24 seconds, let's not go to the roller-coaster that superannuants have been on. Workers need certainty. What we are getting from this government is not certainty. There has been no action on the casualisation of the workforce. We have a system that is undermining conditions in workplaces. This government failed to deliver in last three years. This new government will do the same.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to briefly speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017. I echo the sentiments of my colleagues on this side of the House that say this government, both before the election and since the election, has been nothing but an absolute failure at looking after people who need support that government should provide. The trickle-down economic theory that the government runs does not work. It has never worked anywhere, and it is not going to work in this day and age.

While the government talks about trickle-down economics, we see their popularity on a great, big, fast slide. That is because they have focused on one thing. The government has been looking after big businesses at the expense of families and people who can least afford it. It is a government that is too scared to come out and say, 'Look, we've made a blue here and there, and we will look to address it.' To illustrate the point, I use the GP Super Clinics program that was started under the Gillard and Rudd governments. We have had one open in Wallan since 2013. The health ministers in these conservative governments refused to come out and officially open it because that would then stuff up their rhetoric about the GP Super Clinics program being a failure. It is absolutely embarrassing that the government is too scared to come out and open something which not only is working for the community but is at the point of us saying, 'Hey, we have to look at how we extend this. How do we make it bigger, because of the amount of people going there and being part of the services?'

The minister laughs. He sits there at the table and laughs. This is a program that has delivered something strong in a regional area, and your lot are too gutless to come out and open it because it means you would have to admit you were wrong. It is almost like Fonzie in Happy Daysthey just cannot say the word 'wrong'. They stumble and say 'wr-wr-wr', but nothing comes out. The failure of this government is just about endless. We have seen the now Prime Minister—