Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuum, I start by saying what an honour it was to be re-elected. There were many issues in this election that were highlighted through my area. In particular, saving Medicare was a major issue that we campaigned upon. Locals were very concerned about the government's cuts to Medicare. The government's various versions of the GP tax, their cuts to Medicare rebates, their cuts to funding for pathology and diagnostic imaging and their plans to privatise Medicare were issues that locals were worried about. I heard every day from locals about these issues. They were very pleased about Labor's stance in opposing all these unfair cuts.

Education was another issue that came up many times in the election campaign. Again, locals were very positive about our commitments to fully funding the Gonski reforms on time and in full—and what a difference it would make locally. They were also very concerned about the coalition's plans for $100,000 university degrees. Another issue, of course, was climate change. We were committed to taking effective action on climate change, particularly through our commitment to renewable energy. Again, we had very positive responses to that.

In many parts of the nation—and certainly in my area—there were responses about housing affordability. This was a big issue on the north coast of New South Wales, as it was in many regions and right throughout the nation. Labor's plans for changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax were, again, met very positively in the community as a response to the issues surrounding housing affordability.

Accessing the NBN was, of course, a major issue—the lack of access to the NBN. This government's second-rate plan is an issue that I continue to hear about every day. It was, in particular, an issue that I heard about throughout the campaign. Mobile phone coverage was an issue, as well. In regional areas, it is quite appalling. People are, quite rightly, very angry with the Liberal-National government in relation to this.

Another major issue was marriage equality. Many people just want to see a vote in the parliament. I, like other members of the Labor Party, am very pleased that we are opposing the plebiscite. We believe there should be a vote in the parliament. I have been on the record as voting for marriage equality in 2012. I would like the opportunity to vote again for it in this parliament very soon, because it is very important to have that in place. It was a major issue that came up. Another major issue was that the community was really wanting a banking royal commission. Time and time again we hear about the concerns people have in their dealings with the banks. Still, throughout the community, people are calling for a banking royal commission. There were very positive responses to Labor's plans. Throughout the election, we also heard people's concerns about the Liberal-National plans for expanding harmful coal seam gas in our area. It is always a very big issue for the north coast of New South Wales.

Labor made a range of promises throughout the election campaign. As I said, they were received very positively, particularly the $20 million commitment to the Your Child, Our Future plan. The plan would benefit every child in every school in the electorate of Richmond, with an additional $20 million set to flow to local schools. We also committed $2 million to The Buttery rehabilitation service, which makes a very big difference in the lives of many people seeking rehabilitation. We also made a commitment of $2 million to mobile black spot funding for Lennox Head, Ocean Shores, Pottsville and Uki. We also made a commitment of $1 million for the Kingscliff Sport and Recreation Complex to make sure there was a really good sports complex at Kingscliff. We also announced plans to roll out fibre to the premises for the NBN for up to 20,000 homes. All of our commitments were received very well by the community. These are all important issues that I will continue to pressure the government on.

Throughout the campaign, the National Party made a number of election commitments locally. I will continue to hold the government to account to deliver on each and every one of those in full. I have placed questions on notice to the relevant ministers as to the time frames around these promises. I will pursue these in many forums until each and every one of those commitments is delivered. I will run through those commitments, which I will be fighting for. We had: $3 million committed for the Ballina Airport road; $2.7 million for local roads upgrading; $1 million for the Salt Surf Life Saving Club upgrade; $250,000 for the Ballina weir; $200,000 for a koala habitat restoration on the Tweed Coast; $125,000 for the Tweed art gallery for rooftop solar power; $65,000 for the Bangalow Men's Shed; $65,000 for the Ballina AFL team's change rooms; $62,000 for the Murwillumbah basketball courts; $20,000 for the Casuarina Beach Rugby Club; and $18,000 for the Cudgen Headland Surf Life Saving Club. In all of those issues, I will hold the government to account to make sure that they are all delivered.

I would also like to touch on some of the coalition's comments regarding Tweed Hospital during the election campaign. Just like their state Liberal-National Party counterparts, the coalition really is full of broken promises and, indeed, false promises when it comes to the Tweed Hospital. On the back of the state member for Tweed's broken promise about funding for the Tweed Hospital, during the federal election campaign we had the local Nationals candidate and the then Minister for Rural Health, Senator Nash, visit the hospital and make no commitments at all. Instead, they said the amount needed to fix it was uncertain, with the figure to be finalised in the coming month. I would now like to know what process is in place to ascertain that amount and what action they will be taking. I suspect the answer to both questions is 'none' and 'none'. It really was just a bandaid to get through the election. There never was going to be any study into the hospital's needs. It was just another broken promise.

I note that these particular broken promises were made in our local paper, the Tweed Daily News,on 5 June. The Nationals candidate, in company with the then rural health minister, Fiona Nash, claimed costing on the entire project would take another two months. On 27 June, the Nationals candidate again said that it was uncertain what amount was needed, with the figure to be finalised in the coming months. I do not think anything will happen on that front. As I say, it was just a bit of a bandaid during the election campaign.

I would also like to add we, like all those candidates across the country, had a whole variety of interesting community forums. I think it is great for candidates to be out there talking to individuals and interested groups about their issues. We had others in Banora Point, Ballina, Murwillumbah, Byron Bay and Mullumbimby where we canvassed a whole range of issues. It was great to be able to hear first-hand some of the concerns people have. Of course there were many things we agreed on and some things we disagreed on. People did raise some very important issues.

One issue I want to speak about is vaccination, which was raised in a particular forum in Mullumbimby. I have been on the record many times talking about how much I support vaccination. I think it is very important for the overall health needs of individuals, families and communities. I do acknowledge that in Mullumbimby there are people who have differing views. Whilst being understanding and respectful of my views, which I have been clear about, I was asked at that forum to reiterate for the parliament there are some who do have different views, and I am happy to do that whilst acknowledging I do disagree with them. I did make a commitment that I would bring that up.

One the really big issues raised was that of the Tweed Valley Women's Service. This came up a lot in my electorate. I have spoken before here about the devastating impact of the forced closure of the women's service. I continue to call on the New South Wales government to act urgently to restore full funding and open this important service. The service was forced to close after its funding was suddenly cut. It was advised on 17 December 2015 its contract had suddenly been cancelled by its lead agency On Track Community Programs and that meant $580,000 in state government funding along with 13 jobs were suddenly cut just before Christmas. I like, so many in our community, was shocked and outraged that this could actually occur given the vital services it provides. It has in fact for more than 30 years provided counselling, education, mentoring, crisis accommodation, housing and support for women experiencing domestic violence.

The North Coast Nationals MPs and the state government have chosen to completely ignore locals by failing to assist with what is a very desperate situation. The complete inaction by the New South Wales government and local Nationals MPs is, quite frankly, shameful and irresponsible given the circumstances. So I am still calling on those Nationals MPs, particularly the member for Tweed and the member for Lismore, to explain to the community why their government allowed On Track Community Programs to suddenly cut this funding from this important service, because all the anecdotal reports that we hear say the services for those requiring support have decreased since the closure of the Tweed Valley Women's Service and that On Track is just not providing similar services. It keeps promising it is but I keep hearing from people that just simply is not the case. Quite frankly, it is not good enough. The fact is both our state Nationals members have shown they are unwilling and unable to do the job they were elected to do. So I will continue to work with the executive of the Tweed Valley Women's Service and our community to have this service reopened.

A petition has been launched demanding the New South Wales government restore the funding to this service and the community response so far has been overwhelming, more than 7,000 signatures to date. We will get the 10,000 signatures required to force this debate in the state parliament and to force those state Nationals MPs to explain to the community what they will do about this because so far we have just seen inaction.

We have all seen reports that violence against women is at epidemic proportions. As a former police officer, I saw first-hand the devastating impact of domestic violence on women and children within our community. We do have a crisis that needs to be addressed and services like the Tweed Valley Women's Service are desperately needed and their full funding must be restored. This situation can be fixed today, can be fixed right now so I again call upon the New South Wales Premier to listen to our community and again I call on the Nationals to act and to fix this.

There were many issues, as I said, that were raised during the election campaign. When we look at the overall situation, I think we saw in the campaign that it was certainly the case that the Liberal-Nationals parties are for the big end of town—the multimillionaires and big business—and the Labor Party is looking after those everyday people in our community. That was certainly the message I consistently heard from locals when we looked at the range of policies, particularly those related to health care, saving Medicare and education, but a range of issues were raised.

As I said at the beginning, it truly has been an honour to have been re-elected and I again want to thank the people of Richmond. It is indeed a real privilege for all of us to be serving in this House and representing the people within our electorates. I am very fortunate that Richmond, apart from being the most beautiful part of Australia, is an incredibly diverse electorate.

We also, with the redistribution, had some changes. I lost the town of Nimbin and surrounds. Nimbin is a great area. But instead I now have Ballina included in the electorate of Richmond, and it has been wonderful—the people of Ballina and their community have been so incredibly welcoming, and I thank them for that. It is a real privilege to have Ballina as part of the Richmond electorate now.

It is a very interesting and diverse area. And, as I say, they are very warm and welcoming people. It is a very diverse area, from Ballina up to Byron Bay and then up to the Tweed and the border, including Murwillumbah, Mullumbimby, Lennox Head, Ocean Shores—a very diverse area, with a whole range of people from different backgrounds, and we should celebrate and continue to acknowledge that we are fortunate enough to live in such a diverse area.

Having those ranges of community forums, again it was great to listen to the concerns that people had—and they certainly did have them! In particular, a lot of the self-funded retirees' forums raised a lot of concerns about this government, as well as many of the other concerns they have listed.

I would certainly like to thank all those people who assisted us during the campaign, who were out there fighting hard for Labor values and for a Labor government, knowing what a difference it would make to areas like mine on the New South Wales North Coast, but indeed right throughout the country. They certainly knew how important it is. And we will keep fighting for that and keep standing up for those values, making sure that we strive towards equality in my area. We certainly want to see that for the whole region.

In particular we have a large proportion of older Australians. So of course those people, who have particularly complex healthcare needs, were very, very worried about the situation with Medicare and very concerned about the GP tax and how it would impact their healthcare choices. In fact, they said they just could not afford to go to the doctor if it was in place. So one of the things to do moving forward is to make sure we protect Medicare. I spoke in the House this morning about needing a fully-funded Medicare MRI licence for the Tweed Hospital. That is a campaign we will be continuing with, to make sure that we can have those proper health services within the region of the New South Wales North Coast.

But, as I say, in terms of the election, it is an honour to have been returned with an increased margin. As I have said to many locals: whether you voted for me or not, my door is always open to assist everyone. That has always been my approach: to assist all locals, whatever their concerns may be—indeed, even if they may be state or local council concerns. I am here to help them with whatever worries they might have. It is a real honour and a privilege to be in this role, and I do take it very seriously. I thank the people of Richmond for putting their trust and their faith in me, and I will strive to always fight for them and to make sure that we get a fair go for the North Coast.

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

I thank the honourable member for her contribution. The question is that the bill now be read a second time. I look forward to the contribution from the honourable member for Shortland.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your appointment to the Speaker's panel. I am pleased to make a contribution on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate bills. As a result of the electoral redistribution in New South Wales, my home, along with those of 18,000 other electors, was transferred into the electorate of Shortland, and I was humbled to have been preselected by the rank-and-file members of the Labor Party to be their candidate in the July election. I was then honoured and privileged to be elected as the fourth member for Shortland. I would like to place on the record my sincere gratitude to the people of Shortland for placing their trust and confidence in me to be their representative in this House. All of us who serve in this place are so fortunate to be the voice of our communities in the national parliament.

At the outset, I want to pay tribute to the former member for Shortland, Jill Hall. Jill has served the people of Shortland and Lake Macquarie for over two decades at all three levels of government. I was humbled to have received her support and, on behalf of the people of Shortland, I thank her for her dedicated and tireless service for our region. I also pay tribute to her husband, Lindsay, and all her family, who have always been a great source of support for Jill. I wish her all the best in her retirement. Given that she has family in Canberra, I am sure she will not be a stranger to parliament.

I also want to acknowledge the two members for Shortland who served before Jill: Peter Morris—he and the member for Grayndler were the two most distinguished ministers for transport in the history of the Commonwealth—and the first member for Shortland, Charlie Griffiths. Both Jill and Peter continue to serve on the Shortland federal electorate council of the Labor Party, and I look forward to continuing to benefit from their counsel. I am truly lucky to be only the fourth member for Shortland in its long history, it having been established in 1949.

I would also like to thank the hundreds of Labor Party branch members and volunteers who worked on the Shortland campaign. I will not name anyone individually, as there are just too many, but I do not want to leave anyone out either. All of you have worked so hard. You know who you are. And I am eternally grateful for your hard work. The Labor Party's greatest strength is our rank and file members, and I am humbled by the support and trust they have placed in me. I also want to acknowledge the support I received from the labour movement, specifically the CFMEU mining and energy division, the Maritime Union of Australia, the SDA, the AWU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. I look forward to working with them to ensure that working people get a fair go both locally and nationally.

All members of the House are rightly proud of the communities we represent. Shortland is bordered to the east by the Pacific Ocean and to the west by the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere, the magnificent Lake Macquarie. It stretches from its southern border on the Central Coast, around Budgewoi and San Remo, to its northern border in Lake Macquarie, around Charlestown and Cardiff. I am biased, but I would disagree with the member for Richmond. Clearly the best beaches in Australia—

Ms Bird interjecting—

are in Shortland, member for Cunningham, and they are an essential part of who we are and how we live our lives; as are the lakes that characterise our community—Lake Macquarie, Lake Munmorah and Budgewoi Lake. They are truly stunning places. It is no coincidence that some of Australia's finest athletes, particularly sailors, are far from the Central Coast and Lake Macquarie. I congratulate the many sailors who won medals at the recent Olympics. Whilst Shortland is blessed by magnificent natural beauty, the true wonders are the people who live there. Our greatest asset are our people and that is why I am so very proud to represent them in this parliament.

My priorities for Shortland are the Labor Party's priorities for Australia—growing jobs and protecting and enhancing our most vital public services: health and education. The economy in Shortland, and the Hunter more broadly, is diverse with jobs in a variety of sectors ranging from health, education and training, hospitality and business services to retail and construction. However, the energy, mining and manufacturing sectors do remain the bedrock of the Shortland economy. Unemployment in the Hunter region is above the national average and it has been for some time. This is the greatest challenge we face. However, I am a firm believer that our region is well placed to transition and grow, but it is essential that we have the right policy settings in place to ensure we have strong employment growth locally and nationally.

The hallmark of a civilised society is how we treat our sick, and the universal provision of health care through Medicare is the bedrock of that civilisation. We saw the pathetic outburst on election night from the Prime Minister that I think characterises the greatest dummy-spit in the history of Australian politics. The Liberal Party have never and will never truly support Medicare or the concept of universal health care. They mouth weasel words, but in the end they are not truly committed to it because they do not understand the impact of it. The Labor Party founded the Medicare system and we are truly the great protectors of it. Unfortunately, the people of Shortland know firsthand the Liberal Party's contempt for Medicare, as the Medicare office at Belmont was closed by the Turnbull government earlier this year. The Labor Party opened the Medicare office and the Liberal Party have closed it. I would like to, again, pay tribute to Jill Hall for her years of dedicated campaigning to get a Medicare office in Belmont reopened. Unfortunately, her efforts were undone by the Prime Minister and his government in closing down that said office.

Health care in general is of fundamental importance to the Shortland community. All sections of our community, from young families to older Australians, see access to health care based on need for treatment and not ability to pay for treatment as part of our Australian way of life. This is particularly pertinent in Shortland, as we have the seventh oldest population on average in Australia—so we have a great need for good healthcare services. Yet, our people continue to suffer from the Medicare rebate freeze and the cuts to pathology and medical imaging bulk-billing incentives. There are three main public hospitals that service the people of Shortland: Wyong, Belmont and the John Hunter. These are all suffering as a result of the Abbott Turnbull government's savage cuts to the public health system. The government needs to follow the advice of the new AMA president, who recently said, 'The government must first scrap the Medicare rebate freeze, reverse the cuts to pathology and medical imaging bulk-billing incentives and properly fund public hospitals.' Labor are the only party dedicated to universal health care and we will always champion our Medicare system, that Australians depend on and are so rightly proud of.

Our future prosperity is dependent on a first-class education system. Labor are the party of Gonski. Gonski is absolutely essential for our children to receive the very best start in life. Gonski is quintessentially an Australian solution. It says: look through the sectarian divide, look through the debates of the fifties and sixties and just have the Commonwealth government, for the first time, fund purely on need. It also says to be blind to sectors: 'We don't care whether a student goes to a state school, a Catholic school, an independent Christian school—whatever.' The Commonwealth's role is to fund based on need to guarantee a base level of funding for every student with only five additional weightings based on intellectual or physical disability, low socio-economic status, an ATSI background or a non-English speaking background.

However, the very simple reality is that the Liberal Party has failed on education. The Liberal Party won the 2013 election based on a fundamental commitment that there was not a skerrick of difference—there was not a cigarette paper's difference—between the Liberal Party policy on Gonski and the Labor Party policy on Gonski. Yet this is one of their many broken promises that undid former Prime Minister Abbott and that is still bedevilling the current Prime Minister. The Abbott-Turnbull government has cut $30 billion from schools. This is so blatantly against our national interest and is a damning indictment on their priorities.

For my home state of New South Wales, this cut means that $9.5 billion has been cut from schools. In Shortland, schools will be a staggeringly $164 million worse off because of these Liberal cuts. Schools like Windale Public School, St Brendan's Lake Munmorah and Cardiff Public School will all suffer because of these misguided and devious policies of the Abbott-Turnbull government. I say to the people of Shortland that the next Labor government will have investment in education as a core priority, as we did when we were last in office. As with Medicare and health care, Australians know that Labor backs them when it comes to education.

The other key priority for my electorate is communications. The Lake Macquarie region on the northern Central Coast has the highest number of NBN fibre-to-the-node rollouts in the nation. I could say that as if I was boasting, but, unfortunately, it is a tragedy because the rollout has been a farce. The rollout has led to community members not having phone or internet service for months on end. Ultimately, when the connection has been established, they often that their speeds are as bad as ADSL2 services in their areas—and, in some cases, worse. This is the great story of Mr Turnbull's 'fraudband'. Fibre to the node does not work. Fibre to the node is massively expensive, yet delivers a service woeful compared to what fibre to the premises would deliver. Ultimately, we will have to redo it all at much greater cost and inconvenience to the Australian people. It is a massive issue in my electorate and it is the issue I commit to campaigning on—both NBN provision and then making sure those services are adequate.

Two other communication aspects in my electorate are mobile phone reception and television reception. Parts of my electorate are only 90 minutes from Sydney, the largest city in Australia, and Newcastle itself is the seventh largest city in the country. Yet we have many residents who cannot get free-to-air television reception. Just imagine that: in 2016, many of my constituents cannot get free-to air-television reception. That is a disgrace and is something that I am committed to working to resolve.

Briefly, turning to my portfolios that I have been allocated in the shadow ministry, I have been very honoured to be appointed as the shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy and the shadow assistant minister for infrastructure. I am very much look forward to working with my colleagues, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Grayndler, in these areas. Climate change is a fundamental challenge to our way of life. The Labor Party is the only political party with a serious policy on climate change. The government's Direct Action policy is a joke of a policy. It is a policy the current Prime Minister labelled a 'fig leaf' for doing nothing and 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. It lacks all economic and environmental credibility and it wastes taxpayers' money in providing subsidies to big polluters.

On the other extreme we have the Greens, who have no credibility at all on climate change. If not for their political opportunism in 2009 in voting with the coalition, we would have had an emissions trading scheme in place for seven years now, firmly bedded down, cutting pollution and proving to people that the sky has not fallen in. Whyalla has not been wiped off the map and you can still buy a roast leg of lamb for less than $100. But the Greens failed on their great claim of environmental credibility.

On infrastructure, I look forward to working with the member for Grayndler on assisting with infrastructure policy. Sound investment in infrastructure is fundamentally important to growth and productivity. The last Labor government has an outstanding legacy in this area and the member for Grayndler was an exceptional infrastructure minister. Labor created Infrastructure Australia to independently assess the viability and worth of proposed projects. We began the rollout of the fair dinkum National Broadband Network. We invested more in public transport than all the previous Commonwealth governments combined since Federation. When we left office, Australia was ranked first amongst developed nations in terms of infrastructure investment as a proportion of GDP, having been ranked 20th under John Howard. I particularly look forward to working on how we more effectively and proactively source and encourage private investment in major infrastructure projects. I also look forward to working on Labor's cities policy. Four out of five Australians live in cities, and Labor believes that government investment and sound planning can boost productivity and improve the sustainability and liveability of our cities.

I close today by thanking my beautiful family for their ongoing love and support. Above all, I thank my wife, Keara, and my children, Rachel and Michael. All of us in this place know that our families make great sacrifices to give us the opportunity to contribute to our communities and our country. I am forever grateful for their support and love. I would also like to thank all the other members of my family and friends who have contributed to me being here. I particularly want to single out my mother-in-law, Gail. Gail has been the bedrock of my family. Gail has been incredibly supportive of my continuing to represent Lake Macquarie and the Central Coast in this parliament, and it is fair to say that my family could not exist without the ongoing support, love and sacrifice of my mother-in-law, Gail. So thank you very much for that support, love and assistance.

I again record my gratitude to the people of Shortland for electing me as their representative in this House. There is no greater privilege than to represent over 100,000 people, as each of us do in this House. It is truly the greatest privilege that I will have in my professional life. My great commitment to the people of Shortland is that I will always fight for them and I will always do the best thing for the people of Shortland. Not only will I exercise my judgement; I will always tell you when I disagree with your stance and why I disagree with it. I will always endeavour to represent the best traditions of the Hunter Valley and the Central Coast.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I too congratulate you for joining the Speaker's panel. This debate on the appropriations legislation is an opportunity to look across the agenda of this government and to look back on the election campaign and the foundation that it laid for the coming parliament.

Yesterday, when this debate commenced, was the 100th day since the last federal election—100 days since the Prime Minister promised us 'stable government'. Well, it is not going well. A fortnight ago, the Prime Minister showed that he is a fake Sydney Swans fan when he could not even get off the second verse of their team song on Melbourne radio, but we have known that he is a fake leader for some months now. He is unable to say two sentences without first checking the words with Senator Bernardi or the member for Dawson and the ideological extremists in his party room.

One hundred days into the term of this government, it is clear that the Prime Minister is following the ideological extremists in his party room instead of leading them. The seeds of the destruction of this Prime Minister's leadership authority were sown early in his tenure, indeed before he became the Prime Minister. When launching his challenge against the member for Warringah, the Prime Minister had a choice. He could have said to his party room that he was up for the role but that to be effective he needed to be able to lead; and to say that he would take his colleagues views into account, surely, but that he would not trade away his own deeply held personal convictions. We all know that this is not the choice that the Prime Minister made. Instead, the Prime Minister built himself a gilded cage. He offered up his personal political convictions on climate change, on marriage equality and on the republic, and he handed power to the ideological extremists in his party room. To realise his life's ambition, he chose to destroy himself.

The Prime Minister made a fundamental political miscalculation by trying to negotiate with extremists. As David Cameron has learnt this year, and as the US Republican leadership is learning as we speak, you cannot negotiate with ideologues. If you give them a win, they will just be back asking for more on a another issue the next week. For them, the point is not the substance and it is not the outcome. It is about showing that you are more ideologically pure than those around you. You will never be able to placate them, Prime Minister. The more that the Prime Minister moves towards them, the more that they will move away from him. This is the dynamic that was set in place the moment the Prime Minister went and bent the knee to the conservatives in his party room. A real leader would understand this, but not this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's actions created a leadership vacuum on the conservative side of Australian politics, both in the coalition party room and in the broader community and, since the start of the federal election, a very nasty sludge has begun to seep into the void. Some of it has been coming from his own party; some from parties outside the coalition.

The last federal election will be remembered for some time not as the jobs and growth election, but as the election that returned the politics of One Nation to this federal parliament. The repulsive, un-Australian views of this political party do not reflect the successful multicultural nation that we have built over the last 20 years. However, the scapegoating, snake oil-selling politics of One Nation was allowed in the last federal election by the vacuum of leadership left by this Prime Minister. The return of One Nation followed an election campaign in which the Prime Minister allowed the immigration minister to claim that 'illiterate and innumerate refugees' would take Australian jobs and 'languish' on the dole—without rebuke. Goodbye dog whistle; hello megaphone. This was an election campaign in which the Prime Minister allowed the member for Dawson to publicly oppose the resettlement of any Muslim refugees in his electorate because:

These refugees will either fill jobs Australian workers can do or they will be on welfare, paid for by more taxes from Australian workers.

Again, without rebuke. The Prime Minister let this genie out of the bottle, and now Australia will reap the whirlwind.

Since the election we have seen these fringe elements of Australian politics move to centre stage and set up shop running the Senate and the government. We found out who was really in charge of this government in the very first week of this parliament. Before the Governor-General's speech had even been delivered the public learnt of a notice of motion for a bill gutting section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that had been signed by every coalition backbench senator bar one, as well as seven crossbenchers, including the newly-elected One Nation senators. The repeal and the gutting of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act did not appear in the Governor-General's speech; this was an agenda being imposed on this Prime Minister by the extremists in his party room.

The sexual tension between the extreme right of the Liberal Party and One Nation only grew from this first encounter. The member for Dawson stated that One Nation:

… were not looking at ousting an MP who was advocating the same sort of views espoused by One Nation.

And further:

The views of One Nation to a degree are the views of many in the rank and file of the Liberal-National Party.

Again, with no rebuke from the Prime Minister. Senator Bernardi even suggested that:

… One Nation and others who are saying the things that I think the Liberal Party should be saying, with a bit more nuance and maybe a little bit more delicacy.

This is Malcolm Turnbull's LNP, a party of MPs proudly proclaiming that they are 'advocating the same sort of views espoused by One Nation' and that they 'should be saying the same things as One Nation' but maybe with a little bit more spin and a little bit more political sophistication on top—again, with no rebuke from the absent Prime Minister.

We already know from hard experience that this Prime Minister is too weak to do anything about this, but the failure of any Liberal MPs to speak out against this mollycoddling of One Nation has been genuinely depressing. I grew up in Queensland. I remember the first time Hansonism came to this country, and I recall the leadership of Senator Ron Boswell and I recall the leadership of Premier Rob Borbidge, a man who took a stand against the politics of One Nation. They fought it in the communities, risked their political future and burnt political capital, because they knew that the values of One Nation were not the values of our country. They knew that the future of our country rests not with the scapegoating and snake oil of One Nation, but in the inclusive multicultural society that we have become. They stood up to One Nation and they saw off the threat—they did not accommodate it. Today, instead of being rebuked, these MPs who have accommodated One Nation have been invited to the centre of policymaking in the Turnbull government, writing policy on superannuation, on the backpacker tax and on climate change.

The Prime Minister's humiliation on climate change is now surely complete. From an opposition leader who once said that he would never lead a political party that was not as committed to real action on climate change as he was to a Prime Minister running a baseless scare campaign on renewable energy, the member for Wentworth's fall has been precipitous. Before the Prime Minister was elected to the office he publicly stated that he believed that Australia needed to move to nearly 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050. Last week he was attacking the South Australian Labor Party for supporting renewable energy in that state. Before the election he was congratulating the South Australian government on their renewable energy policies. After the election he was ignoring advice from energy market experts and listening to Barnaby Joyce about the operation of the South Australian grid. It is indeed the most exciting time to be an extreme conservative ideologue in Australia!

Indeed, the only agility and innovation that the Prime Minister has shown is in the speed of his capitulation to the right wing of his party. It is almost as though this has been the sole product of the Prime Minister's innovation agenda, the ideas boom: an act for capitulating on your moderate values. It is not Siri; it is Bernardi. 'Bernardi, can I have a free vote on marriage equality in the parliament?' 'No, Prime Minister.' 'Bernardi, can I take real action on climate change?' 'I'm sorry, Prime Minister, I don't understand that.'

In contrast, Labor has provided staunch leadership and direction about the kind of country that we want to be. We understand that you cannot pander to the scapegoating of populist ideologues. Australia needs a government that will stand up to the hard right's demagoguery. Unlike the Prime Minister during the campaign, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated leadership. He immediately condemned the immigration minister's appalling and ignorant comments, saying:

Mr Dutton didn’t just insult refugees when he made those comments. He insulted the millions of migrants who've contributed to making this a truly great country—refugees like Victor Chang, like Richard Pratt, like Frank Lowy.

I represent an electorate that is comprised of around 60 per cent of the constituents being either born overseas or having their parents born overseas. Suburbs that I represent, like Sunshine, have two-thirds of the constituents speaking a language other than English at home. I have many thousand Vietnamese Australians, refugees to this country, who have enriched our nation beyond measure. They noticed the Prime Minister's comments and they noticed the Leader of the Opposition's leadership in rebuking the immigration minister's comments. They know the value of the nation that we have built and of the Australian identity that we have worked so hard to build since Federation.

The Labor Party, working in conjunction with a broad-based campaign from Australia's multicultural communities stopped and reversed the Abbott government's first attempts to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and again showed true leadership when this parliament by again successfully pushing for the same racial harmony motion agreed by the House in 1996 earlier this week. The contrast could not be starker. When the parliament returned after the election, the priority of the conservative ideologues in the coalition party room was a motion to gut the Racial Discrimination Act. The priority of the Labor Party was a unifying motion that could be supported by all members in the parliament, condemning race-based politics in this country. The distinction is stark.

Labor understands that we need to respond to the appeal of One Nation with a sharp political strategy that addresses people's legitimate grievances. Government must invest in its people and promote fairness and inclusion, investing in education and tackling inequality. A generation ago, the Beattie government responded to marginalisation by devolving public institutions closer to these communities, making sure that disenfranchised voters felt more included in the democratic process. There were a range of democratic innovations pursued by the Beattie government. They pushed institutions closer to the public and then they brought government to them. They heard priorities for investment from marginalised communities, from people who felt disenfranchised, and they matched government investment and funding to those concerns.

That is the way that you confront the scourge of One Nation. You do not pander to snake-oil politics. You do not pander to scapegoating. You listen to legitimate concerns and you act in response. We can respond to the rise of One Nation by working together to form a stronger social fabric built on human connectivity and cultural awareness between our oldest and newest Australians, as countless Australians have done before. We still have boundless plains to share. The return to darkness within our polity and our society can only emerge out of one thing, and the only reason this genie has been let out of the bottle, is the political weakness of our leaders.

Labor have always known what to do in politics: to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves; to give voice to the voiceless. It is embedded in our DNA and we will continue to fight. But I challenge the Prime Minister: join us in fighting this. Stand up to the Hague. Take control of your own party. Follow the model of leadership provided by the conservative leaders of the Hanson era. Look to the example of Senator Ron Boswell. Look to the example of Rob Borbidge. Look, even, to the example of John Howard, who got there in the end after some prodding from Alexander Downer. Do not go down the path of accommodation and encouragement of this kind of snake-law politics. The Labor Party will not. We will draw a line in the sand. My community would expect nothing else.

We see the benefits of diversity. We see the benefits of the nation that we have become. We see the journey that Australia has taken to become the diverse, tolerant, successful nation that we are today. This is a prize, a benefit, that we must go to all lengths to preserve. Labor will provide this leadership at all levels. In Victoria, at least, the coalition opposition is signed on to this approach. We have a saying in Victoria that multiculturalism and support for migration is bipartisan in Victoria. I give the Liberal Party in Victoria credit for that. This is the model that we must pursue. We need to take that bipartisan support. We need to take the leadership in marginalising extremist views and marginalising these views that jeopardise what is most important to our nation. But it starts from the top. It starts with leaders providing guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. We will continue to provide this leadership in the parliament and I call on the Prime Minister to do so too.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by associating myself with a lot of the very wise words about the current lack of leadership and the invitation for our leaders, in particular, the Prime Minister, to put into action some of those words that he used today when the Prime Minister of Singapore was here. He said we are a successful multicultural community—it is nice to say these things when another Prime Minister visits but it is another thing when the rubber hits the road to stand up to people that might have a little bit of something on you. But, I think when it comes to leadership, if people see someone actually taking stands based on principle, people respond to that. I think the community responds to that and it will lead to a more cohesive and stronger community. That is what we all desire.

I am also concerned about attempts to gut the Racial Discrimination Act. I will talk about a meeting I had with a multicultural centre for the Northern Territory just the other day. There is a lot of concern in the community—concern that was probably not there a couple of years ago, maybe even 18 months ago. There is a rising tone of concern within our community in relation to racism, and I made sure that everyone at that meeting knew that my office was open to them and I would be willing to listen to examples of racism happening in the community because it is important that we show leadership in this area.

In relation to the appropriation bills, I would like to make a number of points, some that relate specifically to my electorate and some for the future of our country. As all honourable members know, Labor are not blocking appropriation bills. We are acting responsibly. We have supported around $6.3 billion in savings in the government's omnibus bills. We have done that, but it is important to realise that this does not give the government's economic plan a tick, in fact, far from it.

I think part of the reason we regained some seats—including mine—at the last election is that the government has lost touch. When you think of a $50 billion tax cut to corporations and, potentially, some not paying as much tax as they could, when people are having troubles paying their own bills—particularly in an electorate like mine, with the higher costs of living—then I think people start scratching their heads a bit. They say: 'Well, what is this government's plan, really, apart from parroting "jobs and growth"? Where are their priorities? Are we their priority or is big business?' Big business, obviously, is a very important part of our economy, but is that where the priorities should lie or is there some other work we can do to try to ensure that everyone is contributing to the welfare of our country?

When I say 'welfare', I mean looking after people on the pension; looking after people who are in areas where there is not much work and helping to provide incentives for them to gain work; and looking after people's mental health—it is Mental Health Week. They are important priorities. The Prime Minister talks about participation in the economy, but then you have the defunding of the NT Working Women's Centre at the end of the year—a working women's centre that supports women who are most vulnerable in the workplace. It is no good for the heart and soul of our country and for our workplaces. It is also no good for the economy; there is a big cost to the economy.

Inequality is a rising cost to the economy in our country. Inequality is rising and I can tell you that it is felt pretty keenly in my electorate of Solomon—growing populations, young families. You can see in areas that there is a hollowing out of the aspirational middle classes. People really start to struggle and, unfortunately, they just move south, because it is difficult to hang around Darwin and Palmerston if you cannot afford to pay the bills—you need to head south. We have had a decrease in population in recent times. Some of those costs and pressures are starting to settle a bit in the housing market, but it is still a big challenge.

We are proud, on our side of politics, to believe in a really solid minimum wage. Unfortunately, for a lot of workers their wages in real terms are going backwards. Obviously, everyone is aware that we have slowing wage growth. The coalition want to cut penalty rates—well, why wouldn't you?—from young people who are just trying to get on a path to their future! Why would you do that to people who need that extra money from penalty rates to support their families, support their kids and help their kids to afford university, because that is going to be more expensive as well. There is, unfortunately, a lack of a fuller appreciation for the effect of some of these sorts of policies from the coalition.

Inequality is at a high, and that does have a cost to our economy—as does something else that has been in the media this week: the ongoing shemozzle of the backpacker tax. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources today tried to have a go at us because we simply want to scrutinise the measure of 19 per cent as the new, backflipped tax rate for backpackers, when even some of the government's own advisers say that the case probably does not stack up. The modelling—what is the modelling? To take a couple more weeks to have a look at that I think is a sensible thing to do. But when the government's own modelling says that perhaps it is not going to achieve the desired outcomes, I think we are right to scrutinise it.

It has had an enormous impact on the economy of the Northern Territory. In the Top End we have got mango growers who literally need thousands of backpackers. It has had a big impact. A lot of the damage has already been done. It took them 18 months to decide that going from zero tax for the first $18,000, which was attractive and brought backpackers to the Top End—they spend their money in the Top End and that is good for the economy, for tourism and for the growers—to 32 per cent. They then scratched their heads when there was a 40 per cent decrease in the number of backpackers. That has had a significant effect on the economy in the Top End. To spend 18 months on that and then suggest that we are delaying things I think is pretty disingenuous. But I digress. The ATO and a number of experts have got questions to answer. As I personally represent a lot of the businesses in the Top End I would like to hear some of the answers.

When it comes to the commitments of the coalition and the funding of those commitments there is the PET scanner. I know some people in this chamber would have a deep interest in the provision of medical services to people who are in the fight of their life against cancer. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in the country without a PET scanner.

An honourable member: What do you want to scan pets for?

That's very funny. I will teach you, if you want. A PET scanner is a diagnostic tool that uses radioactive isotopes to track where the cancer is in the body. It shows oncologists where the cancer is. That is really helpful in saving their lives, which we think is really important. The coalition promised a PET scanner. They actually said that it is on its way—presumably, in a truck going up the Stuart Highway to Darwin—six years ago.

An honourable member: It's a slow truck.

A very slow truck. There were many breakdowns along the way perhaps. The current foreign minister stood in the middle of our city over six years ago promising a PET scanner.

When you are not in government obviously you can lobby and ultimately just do your best, but for three years this coalition has been in government. There has not even been a diagram drawn of what this facility will look like. I took the opportunity to go to the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and meet with one of the leading nuclear medical professionals in our country—Professor Rod Hicks—who gave me a brief on exactly what sort of facility we need in Darwin to house the PET scanner.

Not even a diagram for that facility has been produced in three years of coalition government, so we are starting from scratch in Darwin. We are the only jurisdiction in the country not to have a PET scanner. Territorians with cancer continue to have to fly interstate, away from their families, to have these scans. It is simply not good enough. I have asked what the $15 million will cover—a PET scanner is about $2.5 million. We want to make sure that the coalition is actually committed to providing it this time.

I want to touch on one more thing. I was really happy to speak in this place in support of the member for Canning's motion in relation to ADF personnel serving overseas. I quoted Ray and Pam Palmer, who lost their son in Afghanistan in 2010. Ray and Pam are good friends with Sir Angus Houston. I was lucky enough to speak with Sir Angus about the plight of returned servicemen, veterans, in our country. He is obviously very passionate about improving the system of support.

I have approached the veterans' affairs minister about the fact that the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in the country that does not have a deputy commissioner for veterans' affairs.

I do not know whether members here are aware—but I am pretty sure they would be—that we have a big defence community in Darwin in the Northern Territory. We have lots of veterans, more and more veterans moving out into the community but the CEO essentially of the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been away from us. I wrote to the minister many weeks ago now and spoke with him personally in the last couple of days and he is committed to getting an answer back. But I need to stress that the ex-service community is feeling unsupported in the Top End and are feeling like they are not as important as other jurisdictions. They do not have a head of the Department of Veterans' Affairs like everyone else does.

Why should someone in Sydney have better representation, more support than someone who lives in a remote area of the Northern Territory? Why should that be the case? Obviously it absolutely should not be the case. People who work in the DVA office in the Northern Territory go out into the Kimberley to support people out there. So if you are veteran or an ex-servicemen living remotely in the Northern Territory or in north-west Western Australia, you will not get the same support as in states down south. I think that is shameful. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the deputy commissioner for veterans affairs for the Northern Territory is going to be reinstated.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the appropriation bills, which should form the core of any government's program and should really be the foundation of its vision and its purpose. They should be the blueprint for delivering good social and economic policy, for facing up to the social and economic challenges in Australia as a whole and certainly, from my perspective, in Western Australia and in the electorate of Fremantle. Unfortunately across this government, we have not seen that challenge taken up. We have not seen a blueprint like that delivered. The government's first budget really was a ham-fisted attempt at budget repair, inflicting a lot of pain on those who could least afford it. Business groups recoiled, even those who consistently break up the world into lifters and leaners—the most ardent advocates of letting the free market rip and the damage to fall where it lies—thought that that budget was a bit much.

I do not think anyone can remember the budget that followed. It was kind of a 'nothing to see here, folks' budget and the most recent budget stepped out again fairly tentatively, taking its lead from the Labor Party in a lot of areas. So far in this term of government, it has really been a case of trying to clean up and fix up the things that were not done particularly well.

As a representative of Fremantle, the toughest part of the most recent budget is the continuing Commonwealth contribution to the Perth Freight Link project and I am going to talk a bit more about that. In Fremantle Western Australia we definitely need action by government to support economic activity and to support jobs. Of course we hear the jobs and growth mantra every day many times. I am a new member and I have heard it ad infinitum. But there has not been much change since 2013 on that front. There certainly has not been much change in this year since the last budget.

Since 2013, Australia is one of only eight countries in the OECD whose unemployment rate has grown, and of course wages are flat. There are only six countries in the OECD that have reported lower wage rises in the period between 2013 and 2016 than Australia, so we are seventh lowest, which is pretty poor out of 34 countries. In Western Australia we have experienced 20 consecutive months of falling full-time jobs, a streak not seen since the recession of the early 1990s. And since 2013, we have seen an increase in youth unemployment in Western Australia from 8.3 per cent to 11.2 per cent. This year alone, in 2016, youth unemployment in south-west Perth, which includes my electorate, has increased from 9.1 per cent in January to 12.6 per cent in August—so, in six or seven months, a 3.5-percentage-point increase in youth unemployment.

In the face of those difficult conditions, the government has decided to make some changes that will not make it easier for people trying to deal with the circumstances of a tough job market and flat wages. The things that bother me particularly—and I know they bother people in the Fremantle electorate—include cuts to community legal centres and a lack of certainty when it comes to funding under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness.

Western Australia needs leadership and it needs investment in productive infrastructure to support jobs now and to sustain economic activity and jobs in the future. We are not seeing that, I am afraid. In fact, the only prospect of federal investment in infrastructure is through the bizarre and deeply flawed Perth Freight Link. I think people in other parts of the country can imagine what a bitter taste that leaves when there are sensible and well-planned projects that need support and the best that a federal government can do is to put forward the waste, harm and pointlessness of the Perth Freight Link. This week we were told the WA government will rush into signing contracts for stage 1, which is also known as Roe Highway stage 8. I do not think it is an overstatement of any kind to say that that would be one of the most reckless acts of government and one of the most abject failures of governance in Western Australia for decades.

So where did the Perth Freight Link project come from? Nobody really knows. It came from the 2014-15 budget, and the funding has been continued and expanded in every budget since. In fact, it has been increased. I think it started out at $900 million, and it is now at more than $1.2 billion. It came out of nowhere. It took even Western Australia by surprise, which is hard to fathom for a project of that size. It will be the most expensive road in Western Australia's history, and yet, when the first $1 billion of federal funds was announced, the WA Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport was asked for the plans and analysis that underpinned the project, and he said:

The commonwealth has a propensity to make these announcements, as you well know, but the reality is that the Main Roads department and this government will be implementing and designing the Roe 8 extension, and at this stage we have not actually got design plans that are worthy of public scrutiny …

So this is a $2 billion Western Australian project, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport had been taken by surprise. There were no designs in the keeping of the Western Australian government that were fit for public scrutiny. Yet it is a terribly urgent project!

What is its rationale? It is not about transport; it is about privatisation. The current euphemism is 'asset recycling'. It is about facilitating, prompting and motivating the sale of Fremantle Port. Is there really any good reason for the sale of Fremantle Port? No. It is functional and price efficient. We had a presentation in Fremantle a few months ago by the Western Australian Treasurer, Mike Nahan, and he admitted as much. It does its job, and it does it at a very reasonable price to all the users. The only rationale that the WA Treasurer could put forward for the sale of Fremantle Port was that the government did not need to own it. 'It's something we don't need to own,' he said. Yet recent analysis shows what would be common sense: that, if you privatise a monopoly public asset, you get higher prices and you lose control of the impact of that asset on the public realm. There is plenty of evidence in Australia and elsewhere that the contractual terms that require a private owner to invest further in infrastructure over time are not, in reality, enforceable. It will not take trucks off local roads. Modelling by Curtin University shows that within 10 years there will be more trucks on Leach Highway than there are currently because of leakage from any such piece of infrastructure.

So it has no plan. It has no defined benefit or rationale. What about its impacts? Well, it is going to have a substantial, severe and unacceptable environmental impact. The first section of the road, which the WA government intends to rush into signing the contracts for, is called Roe Highway stage 8. It goes through an incredibly important remnant wetland, the Beeliar Wetlands, one of the most beautiful places in Western Australia—certainly in my electorate. It is visited by migratory birds that are protected under our Ramsar treaty commitments. It is also a place with very significant Indigenous heritage, and traditional owners have rejected the road on more than one occasion.

It does not have legitimate environmental approval. In 2006 the EPA said the project involved a scale and degree of damage that meant it was virtually impossible to approve. In the recent process, the EPA approval was found by the WA Supreme Court to be invalid on the basis of the EPA's own policy. The EPA has a very clear and sensible policy which says that you can use environmental offsets to make up for damage caused by a project in some circumstances, but you cannot do it where the environment or the ecosystem that is affected is of very substantial and significant value—and that is clearly the case with the Beeliar Wetlands. The policy could not be clearer—you cannot use environmental offsets for a project that does serious harm to a place of significant environmental value. You cannot cure a project that has that fatal flaw, and the Perth Freight Link is one such project.

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was obliged to follow its own policies and yet, on appeal, that has been overturned. It is now on further appeal to the High Court. I cannot understand why the Western Australian government would sign contracts for that project when the High Court may well yet rule that the environmental approval by the EPA is invalid.

There is a further major concern about the Perth Freight Link which does not get talked about that much because the environmental damage is just impossible to contemplate—it takes up so much of the focus, and quite rightly. The further impact that worries me is that the Perth Freight Link is intended to be funded by its sale as a private toll road. That has always been part of the project: the WA government will build it, it will be half funded by the Commonwealth and it will then recoup funds by selling it to a private operator who will run it as a toll road—the first toll road in metropolitan Perth.

What happens when you get privately operated toll roads is that the government has to provide contractual guarantees that it will not introduce competing infrastructure—that is, it will not go and put in other roads or public transport that, effectively, cut the lunch of the private operator. That has happened in Victoria and in New South Wales. These are called concession deeds. People who are not in the immediate vicinity of the Perth Freight Link should just think about this: if that project goes ahead, any future government that wants to invest in roads or in public transport in the south metro area will more than likely be constrained by those concession deeds within the contract of sale of the Perth Freight Link and the contract of sale of that privately operated toll road.

In relation to projects like that, we have to ask ourselves: is there an alternative? Of course, there is. The alternative has been around for more than 20 years—the development of an outer harbour. It has been a matter of bipartisan policy for some time. It is hard to understand why the current Western Australian project has not proceeded with it. It is hard to understand why a responsible federal coalition government would not push the state in that direction. It is a development that the local community in Kwinana wants. They see it as a vitally important economic catalyst. It is a piece of future-proofing and forward-looking development that my state desperately needs, that my electorate needs and, also, that the seat of my colleague the member for Brand needs.

You have on the one hand a terrible, poorly planned project and on the other hand a perfectly good alternative. It really does beggar belief that we have got to this point. It is a tipping point in the life of my community—a once-in-a-generation, landscape-changing decision. We have been taken to the brink of a terrible folly by a government that has not bothered to follow one single piece of good process. It has no election mandate, no cost-benefit analysis in advance and on a comparative basis, no comprehensive freight and transport plan, no traffic modelling and no legitimate environmental approval.

It is simply unacceptable that the government seeks to advance more than $1.2 billion to the Barnett government to support Roe 8 and the Perth Freight Link. It is unacceptable that we should get delivered onto us the most expensive road in WA's history, the first toll road—which, as I have said, is to be privately operated—and a truck freeway that will cut a rare, precious and significant wetland in half for nothing. It is a road whose purpose really is to giftwrap Fremantle Port for private sale. It is outrageous, frankly, for the Barnett government, which has never sought an election mandate for this project, or for the sale of Fremantle port, to rush into contracts in the shadow of a forthcoming election.

This is a tipping point and it is an issue that affects all Western Australians. Do we move into the future with a plan and a vision for a carefully implemented transport and economic framework in metropolitan Perth; do we apply scarce infrastructure funding—more than two thousand million dollars—to projects that have a genuine productive purpose; do we move into the future with a plan that protects what is precious and cannot be repaired or replaced while creating a long-term capacity for both freight and passenger transport, including much-needed public transport; or does an ailing Barnett government, egged on by its federal coalition fellow travellers, throw it all away? Does a new transport minister barely five minutes into the job—the fourth or fifth Western Australian Minister for Transport—sign away our future? I hope not. I hope all Western Australians join this fight. I hope they get in touch with Rethink the Link or Save Beeliar Wetlands. I hope they get in touch with me and other local members. I hope they do not sit back and just watch this happen and do not find themselves saying later, 'I wish I had done something.' This is a turning point and it is not too late to stop Roe 8, although it is getting very close.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and cognate bills. While we are speaking about government spending, I would like to remind the government of the promises and the commitments they made to the people of Paterson, my electorate, during the election campaign. After Labor forced their hand, the Liberals promised $15 million towards raising the road at Testers Hollow, a road that floods repeatedly. In fact, it has been flooding for the last 90 years, which has cut off entire communities and, tragically, seen loss of life in recent years.

It was also promised to the people of Fern Bay and Fullerton Cove in my electorate that a new mobile phone tower would be built under the Mobile Black Spot Program, which we have now been told is fraught with pork-barrelling and great difficulty. I told the House yesterday how residents in Fern Bay, many over 55, are in the absurd situation that they are just 10 kilometres from Newcastle, the seventh largest city in Australia, and yet cannot get reliable mobile phone service. One lady even said that she stands on the sink in her home and puts the phone above the venetian blinds to try and get just one bar of service.

Also, the people of Kurri Kurri in my electorate were promised, by this government, $100,000 to upgrade their sports ground, the home of the mighty Bulldogs and many other important community events. That promise needs to be made good. The government also promised the people of Raymond Terrace and Nelson Bay $120,000 towards security surveillance and equipment under the Safer Communities Fund. Also promised, to Port Stephens residents, was $50,000 towards the Lakeside skate park. I can tell you the young people are very much wanting that and waiting on that to happen.

But, most importantly of all, the Liberal government made a number of promises to the people of Williamtown and surrounds, the communities that, through no fault of their own, have been caught up in the RAAF base contamination scandal—and that is exactly what this has become—whose land and water is poisoned, whose property values have plummeted, whose banks are circling and whose health is potentially compromised.

To these people in Williamtown and surrounds, the Liberals promised: voluntary blood testing; specialised mental health and counselling; a share in $55 million from the existing Defence budget to manage, contain and remediate PFAS at Defence bases; an epidemiological study that will look at potential patterns, causes and health effects in communities exposed to PFAS; dedicated community liaison officers; $3.5 million to connect Williamtown to town water—some of which is underway; to bring the issue of PFAS contamination to COAG so all governments have a consistent approach to managing potentially contaminated sites; and financial assistance for commercial fishers who were unable, until just recently, to work for more than 12 months because of contamination to our waterways—one of which is a Ramsar wetlands area. Meetings with financial institutions and valuers to address residents' concerns that they are being unfairly penalised, and there is no doubt that they are, were also promised.

They also promised: to establish nationally consistent acceptable levels of these chemicals in food, drinking water and recreational water; to establish guidelines to manage the environmental impact of PFAS; and to begin a dialogue with residents who just want to get out once the human health risk assessment is complete—and it was completed on 9 August—and once the review of the enHealth safe drinking guidelines was complete—which was completed on 9 September.

These dates have come and gone, and the dialogue has not begun. I have previously described the speed of Defence's response to Williamtown as 'glacial' and I take this opportunity to remind the Turnbull government that it has made these substantial and important promises to my community—it has made commitments to the Williamtown community and other communities in the Paterson electorate—upon which it must deliver.

I also rise to add my voice to the message that, while Labor will not block supply of the Appropriation Bill 2016-2017, we will work constructively on budget repair that is fair for all Australians and does not harshly affect the millions of hardworking Australians who put their faith in this government to look after their interests; the faith of the people in Paterson.

Labor won significant amendments to the government's harsh proposals, and I would like to reiterate some of these: Labor worked to deliver more savings than in the government's proposed legislation, Labor worked to protect the most vulnerable in our community and Labor worked to reinvest in Australia's clean energy future by saving ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Labor was also able to ensure affordable access to dental care for children, by protecting Child Dental Benefits Schedule. That is such an important scheme, with many health officials, and also experts around the world and in our country, saying that your health begins with your mouth. Looking after your teeth, and particularly the teeth of children, is something I believe is vitally important. I am proud of our work on that.

Labor's amendments delivered $6.3 billion in savings over four years, more than the government put forward in its original proposals. We promised all Australian people that we would fight to the end for budget repair that is fair for all Australians. We will not, and we never will, support cutting payments to some of the most vulnerable Australian people, people who need the safety net that has been provided in this country over many, many years, by Labor, for those who need it most.

We are pleased that, after hard-fought negotiations, the government saw the light and agreed to fairer ways to save money rather than targeting the poorest sections of our community. The compromise that Labor reached with the government is better, fairer and, quite frankly, more fiscally responsible. It meets the promises that we took to the election. It meets the need to be fiscally responsible but, also, to be true to our values of looking after those who need it most.

We are pleased that the government agreed with us to abolish the baby bonus. It was unacceptable of the government to lecture Australians about the need for spending cuts while indulging the National Party with a new baby bonus. The baby bonus had its time and place but we can no longer afford it, and I am sure that reasonable Australians really do understand that.

Once again, as we always do, Labor went into bat for pensioners, for single parents, for carers, for people with disabilities and for people who have lost their jobs from the coalition's harsh cuts made since 2014. And who will ever forget the Hockey-Abbott budget of 2014? It was truly devastating for so many people.

We saved ARENA by putting forward additional offsetting savings to keep most of their funding, so they can do their critical work. Nowhere is the work of ARENA more critical than in regions like mine, the Hunter region, where we must find a way forward. We must find a way to transition beyond coal to newer, cleaner, more renewable energies. Labor stands committed to a cleaner, greener future, and we will continue to talk with the coalition about how we do transition to a modern, clean and renewable energy approach.

Labor's amendments deliver more savings over four years than the government first proposed, and our measures are fairer. Fairness and fiscal responsibility—that is what Labor stands for. Better, stronger, fairer—that is who we are. We have ensured savings without threatening our gold-plated AAA credit rating, and we have ensured budget repair without hurting our most vulnerable.

But this government can go further—much further. This government could adopt Labor's plans in full, which would deliver more than $8 billion in budget improvements over the forward estimates, and more than $80 billion in budget improvements over the medium term.

Labor has a sensible and fair alternative to the coalition's superannuation package which will deliver $1.5 billion more to the budget. The government can easily resolve its superannuation shambles by working with Labor on a better, fairer proposal. This is what hardworking Australians who have done as governments have implored them to do and saved for their retirement want the government to do.

But, most of all, the government can work with us to make savings to the budget without delivering a tax cut to big business. You see, despite all the hard work by Labor—despite the sensible and fair amendments we were able to achieve—this budget continues to benefit the most wealthy at the expense of the poor. And Labor cannot quietly stand by and watch that happen. This budget continues to give the biggest of businesses a $50 billion tax cut, where most of that and their profits go to overseas owners. It just does not stack up.

This budget continues to give wealthy individuals earning more than $180,000 a cut to their marginal tax rate. The top three per cent of income earners should not be receiving a tax cut from July next year if the bottom 75 per cent will miss out. It is the bottom 75 per cent who need our help, not the top three! How can we ask the poorest of Australians to sit back and watch the rich get richer? Of course we cannot, and Labor will not. In my electorate—where, as I told the House in my first speech yesterday, we have the triple whammy of low incomes, high unemployment and an ageing population—how can we expect people to sit back and watch the wealthiest three per cent of Australians get a windfall when the poorest 75 per cent miss out? Of course we cannot, and we will not.

The Turnbull government is not a government that believes in fairness. Labor does believe in fairness. And the Turnbull government is a government that prioritises the wealthy over the poor. Labor will never do that. While we have said we will not block supply, we will continue to argue for fairness alongside fiscal responsibility. The Australian people demand no less. The people of my electorate, Paterson, in the hardworking Hunter Valley, demand no less.

The Turnbull government continues to include the same unfair measures that the Abbott government tried and failed to get passed in this parliament. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, continues to try to cut $30 billion from our schools. Schools in Paterson need more funding, not less. Schools throughout Australia need more funding, not less.

The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, continues to tell us that $100,000 university degrees are acceptable. University students in Paterson would not agree. They come from hardworking families who make incredible sacrifices for these young people to achieve their full potential. The people of Paterson want their children to go to university, but at what cost? One hundred thousand dollars? How can that be acceptable? It is not acceptable to Labor.

The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to increase the cost of medicines for everyone by increasing the co-payments as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The people of Paterson cannot afford to pay more for essential medicines, and nor should they have to—nor should any Australians. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, dares to call parents rorters and double dippers through changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The people of Paterson, the parents of Paterson, are not rorters and double dippers; they are hardworking people trying their best to work and raise families and strike some balance between the two. They deserve the respect of the government, not the derision of the government.

The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to cut bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging and pathology services. The people of Paterson cannot afford to pay more for imaging and pathology services that are essential to their health—nor can the people anywhere in Australia. The Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, wants to make young jobseekers wait four weeks before receiving income support. What an insult, and at a critical time when people are on the precipice! The people of Paterson probably find this the most offensive of all. In the Hunter we have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. Routinely it is 15 per cent, but it has been over 20 per cent. How are these young people to support themselves without jobs and without government help? Four weeks may not seem like a long time, but it can be a lifetime and it can be a critical time for someone with no income.

The Labor Party will always put people first. We will continue to take the lead on budget repair that is both fiscally responsible and fair. That is what we stand for. That is what Labor stand for. And I implore this government—this government that has so much potential to do good in our country—to do that good rather than trying to choke those who are truly in need while supporting those who, potentially, do not need the same sort of support.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The residents of the Hawkesbury do not generally ask for a lot from their governments. They are an independent, resourceful people, many descendant from the early settlers who came up the Hawkesbury River in the late 1790s and early 1800s. In 1874, the Windsor Bridge was built to allow easier passage across what was then and still is a busy thoroughfare to the bustling heart of Windsor and Thompson Square, itself a Georgian square unmatched by any other in the settlement. Both Windsor Bridge and Thompson Square still stand, but not for long if the New South Wales government has its way and the Turnbull government fails to step up to save colonial heritage and fund an alternative.

If anyone should care about this, it is our Prime Minister, who is a direct descendant of John Turnbull, one of the first Scottish born free settlers in New South Wales. John Turnbull established Ebenezer Church in the Hawkesbury, which still stands as the oldest church building in Australia. In fact, I attended a wonderful fundraising fete there only a couple of weekends ago. So the Prime Minister, whose ancestors will have travelled the route from Windsor to Ebenezer before and after the bridge was built, should care as much, if not more, than the thousands of locals who want to see this bridge and Thompson Square preserved. I am told the Prime Minister is very proud of his heritage, but he must remember that a single building always sits in the context of the towns around it; destroy them and history is lost.

The first step in protecting this heritage is one of those decisions that, in fact, would cost no money. What is needed is a decision to do an emergency heritage listing. The New South Wales government are ignoring their own heritage department advice to proceed with the replacement bridge at Windsor. They are also ignoring the protests of local community members, called CAWBies. The CAWBies have occupied the square in pairs for 24 hours a day for more than 1,000 days—and let me tell you: it gets very cold in Windsor at three o'clock on a Sunday morning in the middle of winter. We believe it is the longest ever heritage protest that has been held in Australia, and it continues to this day.

At a national level, research done during the last three years has identified the real story of this place—not just its Georgian buildings that could be straight out of a Jane Austin novel, but the fact that it is the place of the birth of a fair go, where Governor Lachlan Macquarie, rather than naming this square after a lord or a king, chose a reformed convict, Andrew Thompson, as its namesake. It was symbolic of Macquarie's view that redemption was possible, that a convict could be given a second chance in Australia and make good and that your birthright did not dictate your ability to rise in society through hard work—all these values that helped shape Australia and make it the sort of place that it is today. This is a story worth preserving, and the Minister for the Environment could do it today, as we would have done were we in office. I should also note that only this week Hawkesbury council, newly elected with a new set of councillors, have also moved that they will request the minister to do national listing for Thompson Square.

Not only are the Liberal state government willing to destroy an historic bridge that represents a major engineering project in the state for its time and a square, which is the oldest remaining public square in the country—older than Port Arthur—but they are willing to do it for no traffic improvement. The project replaces a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge. Is it because the lanes are not wide enough? Well, they are three metres wide—the same as those on Anzac Bridge in Sydney and wider than some of the lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. So why invest what is now estimated at up to $100 million in something that destroys heritage and provides no tangible improvement to traffic? You would have to ask why. There is no answer.

Labor thinks there is a better way: save the square and identify and build a third crossing of the Hawkesbury River. That would provide a real traffic solution for those who are tired of spending 40 or 50 minutes every morning crossing two very crowded historic bridges across the Hawkesbury. That is why we promised $500,000 to do a comprehensive study of local traffic, building on the work that has been done in recent years. That was one of our key election commitments—unfortunately not matched by the government.

Let's remember that the only people who have allocated funds to be used on roads in the Hawkesbury in memory are federal Labor. In 2010, $20 million was set aside for improvements to North Richmond Bridge, with $2 million for a study into the short- and long-term options and the remaining $18 million being used towards the work, which, six years on, is only just happening now—and not in full because there appears there is going to be new funding yet to meet the total $28 million bill for it. If it had been left to the Liberals to deliver these improvements, they would never have happened.

Six years on, though, they do not go far enough. Yet there is no genuine desire or action by the Liberals to get this essential third crossing happening, to get trucks out of our towns and to get through traffic off our roads so that locals can go where they need to in a reasonable time. When you have driven an hour and a half from the city after work in the afternoon, the last thing you want is for the last part of the drive, what should be a five-minute journey, to take you 25 or 50 minutes. As the suburban outskirts of Sydney edge closer to the still distinctive Macquarie towns, the rich history of the area—the buildings, the bridges, the spaces—become increasingly important to the community's sense of identity. A third crossing would protect that but allow workers, families and tradespeople of the Hawkesbury to have a 21st century road experience.

I am also disappointed not to see in this appropriation bill additional funding for Hawkesbury Hospital. Hawkesbury Hospital is a really key piece of infrastructure in our community. As the smaller sister to Nepean Hospital, Hawkesbury has long been overlooked, but it serves more than 65,000 people in an area which has more growth to come. There are many things needed at Hawkesbury Hospital, which provides public and private services to our community, and I look forward to working with St John of God, who operate it, to deliver improvements over many years. One of the things needed is a new operating theatre, which Labor committed $5 million towards at the last election.

This time last year there were more than 800 people waiting for elective surgery at the hospital. Older patients were waiting for things like orthopaedic and eye surgery and children were waiting for ear, nose and throat surgery. Doctors tell me that there is simply not enough space for them to do all the operations that they would otherwise have the capacity to do. More operating beds would mean more work for staff and, as the hospital is a key employer in the area, any investment would be a good investment.

The Hawkesbury is a region where, if they can, people want to work near home. Train services are not great, roads are congested as you head towards Sydney and commuting times are long. The more jobs that we can have locally the better it will be for our major centres of Windsor and Richmond. Like cuts to education, which hit our schools and staff numbers hard, cuts to health hit our local nurses and our hospital staff. It is well known that Nepean, which is under enormous pressure due to federal funding cuts, is not coping and that staff there are facing real challenges. It has the worst waiting times in the state. Our local health district is crying out for funding. Hawkesbury hospital could play a role here. This government should be investing in health spending if they want to create jobs and Hawkesbury hospital would be a great place to start.

The Hawkesbury is a very diverse area and one of the things that it thrives on is the local small businesses. South Windsor shops are a sometimes thriving or sometimes quieter part of the world, depending on which day of the week you are there. They are in desperate need of a little bit of support. South Windsor is the heart of the older part of the wider Windsor community. It is a little strip of shops. We have our newsagent, we have our post office, we have takeaways, we have beauty shops and, fortunately, we have a wonderful florist. Jo Dunstan runs Angels Florist and she has spearheaded a campaign to have CCTV for South Windsor shops. She has been asking for years, we have run petitions and we have pleaded with council to prioritise South Windsor. They need help to deter graffiti, antisocial behaviour and, occasionally, serious crime. I am very pleased to say that, during the election, the other side finally saw the light and recognised that our commitment to fund CCTV for South Windsor is an essential piece of infrastructure. This was a bipartisan commitment. I am also very pleased to say that the funding is already finding its way to Hawkesbury City Council, which means that this community is finally going to have, after years of work, the sort of boost that small businesses need not just to stay safe and strong but also to grow. I have also spoken to a lot of pensioners in South Windsor who are very grateful that soon, we hope, there will be an extra layer of security. They tell me that they feel more vulnerable on the streets as they age, so having CCTV cameras will give them more reason to go out and connect with people and walk around South Windsor shops. That is the sort of commitment that we need to be seeing. I am very pleased that one of my election commitments is able to be delivered so promptly.

There is another election commitment that was made by the government, and I look forward to a similar speedy delivery of $300,000 funding for roads for the Hawkesbury District Agricultural Association. The Hawksbury show is one of the highlights of the social, agricultural and economic calendar of the Hawkesbury. Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, came to the Hawkesbury show with me this year. The problem for the Hawkesbury agricultural people is that they have had no investment from government over many years. The amount of $300,000, which we are told will be arriving shortly, will allow them to upgrade roads and make it a fantastic experience for the many people who come from all over, not just from Sydney but from outside Sydney to the show. In fact, this is the largest show outside the Sydney Royal Easter Show, so I would encourage you to come for a visit next year.

The Hawksbury sits in an area that has a very strong and important equine industry. We breed horses in the Hawkesbury and we race horses in the Hawkesbury. The connections to agriculture still run very deep. I met a man the other night who actually wins the tapestry prize at the Hawkesbury show every year. So locals very proudly display their wares at the show. Something like $300,000, it is not a large amount, will make such a difference for this community. As one of the many people who sets up a stall at the Hawkesbury show every year, I look forward to seeing those roads down and tarred in time for next year's show.

There are many other things we would have liked to have seen in the appropriation bills 2016-17, and many I will speak about at more length, but I think the bottom line for the Hawkesbury is that it does not make unrealistic demands on government. Certainly the commitments we made in the Hawkesbury were very reasonable. These are things that will improve people's quality of life. They will boost productivity and employment. They will improve community health, and one of those examples is a $50,000 commitment that we think needs to be delivered to the Women's Cottage. This Women's Cottage provides domestic violence counselling support. It is run by women for women. It is one of those organisations that runs on the smell of an oily rag. How they manage to do so much with so little is an extraordinary feat, and what they need are slightly better premises in which to operate. I hope we see that money coming through. That is the sort of improvement to community life and health that our commitments will bring that we would like to see out of these bills. I will be working to make sure those commitments are delivered by this government.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to join the debate on the appropriation bills 2016-17 and to particularly emphasise the issues in my electorate of Jagajaga that we would like to see given priority by this government. However, I want to start by thanking the people of Jagajaga for, once again, giving me the opportunity to represent them here in the House of Representatives. In March this year, I celebrated 20 years in the House of Representatives and I have never forgotten that it is, of course, my first duty, like it is every member's first duty, to represent the people of my electorate. I want to take this chance to say a very, very big thank you to all the volunteers who helped me. I have listened to many of the first speeches in the parliament over the last couple of months and it is wonderful to hear the thanks given to the volunteers. But even in one's eighth election, you still need lots of volunteers and I want to say a huge thank you to all of those who helped me.

I cannot thank them all, but I do want to name a few. It was a very, very long and cold winter campaign in Melbourne, so to all of you a huge thanks: Di Douglass, David and Loretta Pound, James Gaffey, Duncan Willis, Liz and Adriana Georgiou, Carol Lim Bradish, Sandra Macneil, Jim Bogle, Keith Staples, Wendy Morris, Judy Edwards, Isobel Creed, Terry Mooney, David and Barbara Mackenzie, Helen Morrison, Jason Garufi, La Trobe University ALP club and many volunteers from the Australian Services Union. I thank all of you very, very much, especially for everything you did at the train stations early in the morning in the dark, doorknocking in the afternoon and with the many, many street stalls. I also want to say a big thank you to my personal staff led by Antony Kenney and Alistair Webster. My very, very sincere thanks to each and every one of you.

It would no surprise to anyone in the parliament, especially on our side of politics, that Medicare was the biggest issue for us in our area. Everywhere I went, whether it was Eltham in the north of the electorate or Eaglemont, Heidelberg West or Watsonia, people were concerned about the future of Medicare. Many people, families and older people, are especially concerned about the cost pharmaceuticals and the cost of going to the doctor. One doctor in particular I want to make mention of today is an extraordinary woman in Heidelberg West, Dr Francis. The need for bulk-billing in Heidelberg West is acute. Dr Francis, a single mother of three, took out a second mortgage on her own home so that her practice can continue to bulk-bill following the Turnbull government's decision to freeze the Medicare rebate and to continue to freeze that rebate for some years to come. As GPs in my area know—and GPs around the country are aware—Labor made the commitment to unfreeze these rebates. In this debate, I call on the government to unfreeze the rebates so we do not see a reduction in bulk-billing, particularly in areas like Heidelberg West, which are so needy.

The centrepiece of our health system in our area is the Austin Hospital and Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg. These are world-class hospitals that deliver outstanding health services not just to people in Melbourne but also to people in many parts of Australia. I want to thank the long-term CEO of Austin Health, Brendan Murphy, for his outstanding leadership over the last decade. I want to wish him well: he has just been appointed as the Chief Medical Officer here in Canberra. It is a great addition for the Public Service in Canberra. Hospitals are, of course, at the heart of Medicare. Sadly, since the Liberals came into office in 2013, we have seen billions of dollars taken from our public hospital systems. There is no doubt that at our hospitals we are seeing the results of people having to wait longer to get into the emergency department—a very, very busy emergency department—and to wait for elective surgery. Labor went into the election promising to improve funding for our public hospitals so that we would see reductions in waiting times. I very much hope that, when we are debating the appropriation bills next year, we will see this government improve public hospital funding.

Jagajaga is one of the most well-educated electorates in the country, and parents certainly want to make sure their children get the best education. Parents know that education is a prerequisite to a good job. That is why Labor campaigned so hard for the Gonski reforms. In my electorate alone, that would have meant an extra $24 million if Labor had been elected. Sadly, we see this government deaf to the aspirations of parents, such as those in my electorate, who really want to make sure that their children get the best. I really cannot understand how it can be that this conservative government thinks that investing in our children's education is not worth it. I would say to the Minister for Education and Training: come to Greensborough College or Bundoora Secondary College and say to the parents, teachers and students of those schools that you want to give them less. I think they will demonstrate to you how that Gonski money is being well used now and would be well used in the future.

We also have an outstanding TAFE in the electorate, Melbourne Polytechnic, providing terrific education and training not just to traditional apprentices but also to those who have left school early for whatever reason. Melbourne Polytechnic is doing an outstanding job. I want to reassure them that Labor will continue to stand-up for TAFEs around the country getting adequate support.

Another big issue in my electorate is traffic congestion. It is a huge issue, particularly for commuters using Rosanna Road, Greensborough Highway, Lower Plenty Road, Fitzsimons Lane, and, of course, it is having a very serious impact on people's quality of life. Far too much time is lost in the daily commute. I made a commitment—and I am pleased to say it was a bipartisan commitment—to allocate $5 million towards an options study for the North East Link road project. Since the election I have written to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport seeking that this commitment be met. The government made the same commitment that we did. They should uphold the promise and provide the $5 million so that the options study for the North East Link road project can be pursued. I am sorry to say that at this stage we still have not got a response.

Infrastructure Victoria is of course an independent authority. It has recently released a draft report on the future infrastructure needs, including in our area of Melbourne, and building the North East Link is near the top of the list. It is recommending that the road be constructed over the next 10 to 15 years. This is clearly a long-term option, so I call on the minister again to release the money to the Victorian government to make sure that the appropriate studies can be done as quickly as possible.

Of course we do understand how important short- and medium-term options are and that is why I am very pleased that the state Labor government is pursuing the Bolton Street upgrade in Eltham; the Rosanna Road truck curfew, which certainly has reduced noise at night; and the removal of the level crossing on Lower Plenty Road in Rosanna. They are also going to get a brand-new train station at Rosanna. At last—it is extraordinary how long this has taken, given the age of the Hurstbridge line—the section between Heidelberg and Rosanna is going to be duplicated. I really do congratulate the Andrews Labor government in Victoria for allocating the $140 million to make sure that that happens and to also get the planning done for the further duplication of the Hurstbridge line between Greensborough and Eltham. That will be a very positive move.

We made a number of commitments to the residents in Melbourne's north-east to improve sport and sporting clubs. Like many communities right around the country, we all understand that local sport is really what brings people together. We committed $750,000 for a much-needed upgrade to the Research Park Pavilion. We added to that $500,000 to upgrade the facilities at Eltham North Reserve. That would help the soccer club and the cricket club and be a hub for the Scouts and U3A. There was $500,000 towards the upgrade of the Heidelberg United Football Club ground at Olympic Park. That is a fantastic facility that we would love to see improved. I look forward to working with them. Another great local club, the Eltham Football Club, needs $200,000 to upgrade the electricity supply at Eltham Central Park. We have committed to this. This is the home of the footy club and the cricket club. We certainly want to make sure that we continue to work with the local councils, the state government and the federal government to see each of these clubs improve.

Finally I want to make reference to something very important that is taking place in Eltham right now. I have spoken over many years about the importance of active citizenship where we can see a more secure and cohesive society as a result of people coming together to live in our strong communities. Last week we joined a broad coalition of community groups and local residents in support of the Eltham refugee project. It is a project being managed by St Vincent's Health and CatholicCare that will see 120 Syrian refugees settled in Eltham. I am pleased that the federal government is facilitating bringing these people to our country. The refugees will be a mix of single women, single mothers with children, and couples with one child. The accommodation to be used by the refugees, I want to emphasise, was empty and unused and had fallen into disrepair. No aged-care residents will be displaced and, after two years and as a result of St Vincent's Care upgrading the units, after the Syrian refugees have been resettled elsewhere this accommodation will be available for seniors.

I want to thank St Vincent's Care and CatholicCare for the support that they are going to be giving to these Syrian refugees but, most particularly, I want to say how proud I am of the way in which the people of Eltham are welcoming these refugees into this community. Eltham is a prosperous and compassionate community, and I am very confident that the local community will welcome our newest Australians in the way that only they know how. It is a very special time for them.

To conclude, in the few minutes I have left I want to emphasise that during this period in the parliament I will continue to pursue something that is very close to my heart—that is, to shine a spotlight on inequality in our country and how we can address it. So much more needs to be done to make sure that Australia really is the place of the fair go, and I will do everything in my power to make that the case.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the appropriation bills, and I would specifically like to draw attention to the spending commitments made by the government in the course of the recent federal election campaign. Just before I do that, I also take this opportunity to once again thank the people of the federal electorate of Perth for putting their confidence in me in the July 2016 election to be their newly-elected representative.

The spending commitments made by the government in the course of the federal campaign that was held over the long, cold, dark and stormy months of June and July 2016 number eight in total. They total just over $1.3 million and, broadly speaking, can be divided into three categories. The first category of spending commitments can be conveniently described as investment within local community groups. I will shortly expand on exactly what the subcategories of the local community group investment comprised. The second category of spending commitments is more broadly described as safety and security commitments; namely, commitments to install CCTV equipment around various parts of our local community in the federal seat of Perth. The third category of commitments is those that I might more broadly describe as 'sugar cloud' commitments—that is, those where there was some sentiment and expression of interest made, but no firm solution and certainly no firm financial commitment that went towards properly addressing a significant issue that affects the very heart of the federal seat of Perth. This is within the local community at Bayswater, which is something I have previously spoken to in this place.

In relation to the first category—that is, the local community category of the federal election commitments—the first commitment made by my opponent during that time was for $750,000 to the Bayswater Tennis Club. The Bayswater Tennis Club is a local community of active tennis players. The club has been active in the area for many years—decades, in fact. As a matter of fact, I personally have very fond memories of the Bayswater Tennis Club, which provided me with one of my first sources of income as I was putting myself through university. This was in the context of coaching juniors in tennis at the Bayswater Tennis Club. Whilst it is certainly an important aspect of community investment and engagement, it is one which I am particularly keen to hold the government to account in the context of its election commitment.

The next election commitment that we saw rolled out in the course of the campaign was one which is in very close physical proximity to the Bayswater Tennis Club—and it certainly does not leave anyone guessing as to where perhaps the battleground of the federal election campaign was fought—and that related to a commitment of $100,000 to the Bayswater City Soccer Club. There is no doubt that the Bayswater City Soccer Club is certainly a nerve centre of community engagement, and investment made to improving those facilities is something that is to be encouraged. But what is more important is that the government delivers on its promise for the Bayswater City Soccer Club and ensure that those funds are directed to the club so that it can undertake much needed works to improve the grounds and the viewing venue. That is again very much only the start of the story and does not necessarily scratch the surface in terms of the long-term infrastructure planning that is required to ensure that this vital sporting hub truly unleashes its potential in engaging and drawing in a community of children and parents who are constantly looking for the community and family engagement that the Bayswater City Soccer Club has been doing such a good job of providing over the years. It has the potential to provide an even richer part of the fabric and tapestry of the Bayswater community so it is essential that the government honours its commitment of that $100,000.

The third commitment is for $20,000 to the Bayswater street roller hockey club, a fantastic up-and-coming part of our local community. Again, it is a stone's throw from the previous two community groups that I just mentioned. Not only does it provide a different type of community activity—that is, roller hockey—but I can tell you by personal experience the members do a fantastic hamburger on Friday nights. It is a terrific environment where mums, dads and kids are drawn together, where kids can go and play, the mums and dads can actually each other's company and the company of their friends and extended family members all the time knowing that their homes are only just around the corner. The $20,000 is essential to make sure that we strike the balance between community engagement and ensuring that the neighbours, who have an added level of activity around their place now that they otherwise did not have, are not unnecessarily burdened by the noise effects that come from this fantastic new and burgeoning sport, which in my view is to be encouraged.

In addition to the commitments that really are four corners of a suburban block in the heart of Bayswater, there are two investments that are essential the government is held to account for in delivering. One is a $4,000 renovation to the cenotaph in Mount Lawley, an important but modest community investment. And the other, which is also very close to home, is a $50,000 beautification upgrade to Beaufort Street in Inglewood. That has probably become more important more now than ever having regards to the fact that my electorate office, which is on Beaufort Street in Inglewood, now has adorned a six-foot image of my head on about three of the different windows, so much so that it almost caused me to have a traffic accident driving down Beaufort Street. It is very important that there are beautification measures to ensure that it does not catch any other unsuspecting constituents by surprise. It is certainly essential to make sure there is sufficient beautification that goes into Beaufort Street, hopefully, to avert that potential disaster. They are the community upgrades I have explained and which I am keen to ensure that the government remains committed to delivering in my local community.

Safety and security commitments can be grouped into three categories. The first category is a $100,000 commitment for CCTV cameras to the northern end of my electorate, in Bassendean for the Jubilee Reserve and Mary Crescent Reserve CCTV security cameras.

Just parking that for one minute, I think it is important to note that CCTV certainly has a place, and I do not think anyone in this chamber would dispute that. But it is appropriate at this point to pay special significance and acknowledgement to the active local residents who did not just rely upon opportunities for funding commitments in the course of the federal campaign in order to ensure that their local communities were made safe.

The problem with the Jubilee Park area is that it has long been realised that there is a significant drug problem both in relation to a number of homes being used as points upon which drugs are allegedly sold; but even more distressing and potentially harmful to our juniors is that local parts of the Jubilee Park were being used for drug use. So much so, that when I went up there to meet with residents to discuss their concerns, it did not take long—a matter of minutes—before I and Dave Kelly, the state member for Bassendean, found dozens and dozens of used syringes carelessly discarded just in the nearby bushes. This was potentially a terrible accident waiting to happen for any young kids who might be in the area, which includes a junior cricket club.

So, again, it is appropriate to acknowledge the local members of the community who formed what was called, in a very vibrant acronym, JAG—the Jubilee Action Group—which was designed to try and actually do something about this rampant drug use. In particular, Carol Tharme, Justin Murray, Jack Taylor and Neera Mukherjee should be acknowledged for the important community activism that they displayed, which I am pleased to say has now resulted in a significant reduction of both drug use and community nuisance in the area.

The other two CCTV commitments that it is essential the government be held to account on relate to $98,000 for CCTV security vision in and around the Perth CBD and $150,000 for CCTV footage in and around the Noranda shopping and sporting centre.

But in the time that I have left I would like to bring to the attention of the chamber something that I describe as the 'sugar cloud' commitment made by the government in the course of the recent federal election campaign—the commitment that relates to the Bayswater train station.

In the course of the campaign it was very, very clear that, again, a beating, vital heart of the electorate—that is, the town of Bayswater and the precinct of Bayswater—is currently faced with a situation where the train line runs straight through the town centre, resulting in an underpass or a subway which is frequently blocked by traffic. As a matter of fact, I recall seeing a photograph of the former member for Cowan's campaign truck wedged under the subway, which was unfortunate for two reasons: firstly, the damage done to the truck, of course; but, secondly, it was so far out of its patch. But we will leave that for another day. What it has created is a divided town. It is very clear that we have a once-in-a-lifetime infrastructure opportunity here.

To put it in context: the airport to Forestville rail line is going to be sunk, by way of a tunnelling exercise, to ensure the most efficient way to deliver passengers from the airport through to Forestville, and the capital expenditure for this has already been approved and paid for. What we have, in the context of that significant capital investment and infrastructure spend, is an opportunity to simply use what is already there to continue the tunnelling process. This would see us sink the rail line that currently runs through the top of the town of Bayswater and give us a chance of creating a seamless transition and unlocking the potential of a town centre with a high street that was once glorious and once prominent but is now struggling.

This could then see us explore really interesting infrastructure opportunities, like value capture, and the extent to which we could get value for our infrastructure spend over the ground where the train now runs that could potentially run through an underground station. It is very clear that we have a moment in time to address this. My opponent and the government at the time made lots of sympathetic noises—some ums, some ahs, some moans, some scratching of the head—but ultimately did nothing. Compare that with the commitment made by the Labor Party in the course of that campaign, which was to actually seize the moment and do something about it. So much so, that they called for and actually put their money where their mouth is.

The Labor Party, in the course of my campaign, announced a $1 million spend on making sure the appropriate structural plan was created which saw us (a) ascertain a true assessment of how much it was going to cost to seize this opportunity, (b) work out to what extent we could get traffic flows around the area going again and (c) work out how we could revitalise that town centre, which is only a few kilometres from the CBD, to make sure it becomes a place where mums and dads and kids and small business can all thrive and live together, creating a unique oasis in a once-proud town that people actually want to come to. We want to create the infill on a transport line and ensure that, as our cities grow and expand, we are making the most use of that land and unlocking the potential of land and towns that are close to the city. Compare and contrast the two parties in the context of their true commitment to infrastructure. The Labor Party are committing to a $1 million spend to make sure that we get this right, and the coalition are doing absolutely nothing in relation to that other than making sympathetic noises but going nowhere.

I conclude by making it very clear to my constituents that I will continue to hold the government to account every hour of every day until the eight commitments that I have just outlined are delivered to the community. I will not rest until we do so and I will not rest until such time as we make sure we are properly fulfilling our potential and giving our community what they deserve and not just meaningless promises.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise here today to talk about the 2016 budget and what it means to my community in the electorate of Braddon. It seems that, in bringing together the 2016 budget, the coalition made the decision that led to the Tasmanian community saying, 'Adios, amigos,' to three former Liberal members, in Bass, Braddon and Lyons. In so many areas, the coalition have neglected Tasmanians, and they demonstrated in their budget just how out of touch they are with the needs of our communities and regional Tasmania. Whether it is in the critical areas of health care, education or job-creating infrastructure, the coalition just do not seem to get it. When you compare the priorities of the coalition to those of Labor, it is clear why their agenda was overwhelmingly rejected by Tasmanians.

The centrepiece of the coalition's budget was a $50 billion tax cut for big business and the banks—based on the false premise of trickle-down economics, which we all know just does not work—and tax cuts for those on higher incomes. While the coalition is happy to give these tax cuts of $16,715 to those on higher incomes, the average person in Braddon receives zero. What the coalition does not seem to understand or want to know is that the median income for a wage or salary earner in my neck of the words, according to the latest figures from the ABS, is just $39,887 per annum.

When it comes to funding health care, once again the coalition fails to understand Braddon and Tasmania. Braddon has some of the worst health indicators in the nation. Combined with an ageing population and a disproportionate amount of people receiving a Commonwealth benefit, it becomes clearer why people in Braddon are worried about the cost of health. My electorate has a high degree of chronic disease and poor health outcomes, higher preventable hospitalisations and higher all-cause cancer and all-cause mortality rates compared to the state average. But the ability for people in my electorate to pay more for health care is of concern, and any pressure they face to pay more will only add to poor health indicators for my community.

The national average per electorate of people receiving the age pension is 16.36 per cent. In Tasmania that average is 18.81 per cent of the five electorates. In my electorate the percentage receiving the age pension is 20.67 per cent. The national average per electorate of people in receipt of a Health Care Card is 7.98 per cent. In Tasmania that figure is 10.29 per cent, and in my electorate of Braddon the figure is just below that, at 10.08 per cent. In the adjoining electorate of Lyons it is 10.55 per cent and in the electorate of Bass the figure is 11.89 per cent. So it is little wonder that across all three electorates a universal health care system that does not hit the back pockets of people in our communities is a really high priority. It is a message that the self-styled three amigos failed completely to understand.

If the coalition wanted to look further to understand why health is so important to Tasmanians and the people of Braddon, perhaps they could look at the figures provided by the ABS relating to the number in receipt of a pensioner concession card. These people are not wealthy by any means. Their circumstances are such that they rely on Commonwealth support just to get by. The national average is: 26.59 per cent of each electorate receives a pension concession card. The Tasmanian average is 33.7 per cent. In Braddon the figure is 38.19 per cent. Given the low wage, poor health outcomes and reliance on Commonwealth support, you would think that the coalition would respond in a positive way—but, no. Tasmanian community members shook their heads in amazement when figures obtained from the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed that Tasmanian hospitals will suffer a $1.151 billion cut over the next 10 years. With the health challenges the community faces in my electorate of Braddon, the cut is $153 million over that term. Our local hospitals just cannot afford it.

Then there is the cruel attack on Medicare, with a GP tax being extended for another two years. The coalition wrongly labelled the campaign 'Medi-scare'. But it was not Labor's campaign that scared the community. When you are living on a low income, struggling to put food on the table with a sick member of your family and facing increased costs to see the doctor, you are very scared. Making the sickest and poorest pay more to see a doctor is not fair. I am proud of being part of the Labor campaign that put health care as a payment issue for the community.

But there is more. It seems that the coalition just cannot get enough of slugging those living in regional communities. The coalition cuts to the health Flexible Funds have and will continue to hit Braddon hard. The fund that is delivered by what is known as TAZREACH has been cut from $3.9 million to $1.4 million. On the west coast of Tasmania, where the community has been struggling terribly economically and socially, the TAZREACH cut has had severe impacts. I would like to take a moment to use some quotes from local mayor Phil Vickers on what these cuts mean to his community. On 28 June this year he said:

The loss of these services places more stress on unwell residents and will also place more pressure on these services in other regions as West Coasters will now have to travel to attend appointments.

There is a concern that people will stop seeking help for their medical problems knowing they cannot access assistance locally. You need to understand that the west coast of Tasmania is an isolated community. It is not a place where you can have quick access to any service; it takes many hours to travel anywhere. In winter, sometimes the roads are iced over or snowed over.

It is not just health cuts that cause my electorate so much concern. Braddon, along with the rest of Tasmania, has low educational attainment. The proportion of our community who complete year 12 or gain a tertiary qualification is one of the lowest in Australia. So what is the coalition's answer to this issue? They defund education by refusing to invest in years five and six of Gonski. Implementing the Gonski reforms on time and in full means that students outside of the cities will have the same opportunities to learn the skills they need to succeed. I heard some of our opponents, particularly in Tasmania, say during the campaign that we cannot afford Gonski. If you cannot afford to invest in a proven model of education funding that puts the child first and is based on need—which is Gonski—then you should not be in government. In a community with high unemployment and, in particular, high youth unemployment, you would think the coalition would also be prepared to invest in job-creating and economy-growing infrastructure. The hollow words of 'jobs and growth' were nowhere more hollow than in Tasmania—a state with high unemployment and a slow economy.

In March this year the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania and the Cradle Coast Authority, which represents the nine councils of the north-west coastal region, launched the $160 million Cradle Mountain master plan. Tasmania is experiencing a tourism boom, as international and national visitors seek to enjoy some of the best nature-based experiences combined with some of the most amazing food and wine. But, unfortunately for Cradle Mountain and for northern and north-west Tasmania, this growth is disproportionately favouring southern Tasmania in what is known as the 'MONA effect'—that is, the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, which is very popular with visitors. The issue at Cradle Mountain is its infrastructure, which has not kept pace with the demands for a high-quality experience. Today people are required to queue for buses, have limited shelter from the elements at Dove Lake and are not receiving the world-class experience they expect. For Cradle Mountain to continue to hold its place as one of Australia's iconic destinations, change is needed.

The master plan seeks to renew Cradle Mountain as Tasmania's iconic destination. The proponents of the master plan had it subjected to some of the most rigorous analysis. Deloitte Access Economics research forecasts that the Cradle Mountain redevelopment would have an economic benefit to the Cradle Coast region of up to $29 million per year, based on attracting 59,000 more visitors and translating into 102,000 more visitor nights. Deloitte found the project would create almost 150 full-time jobs in construction and more than 110 full-time jobs in operation—in a region that particularly needs sustainable jobs. Market testing and a funding model have been completed, and planning and infrastructure work has been assessed. Such is the scope of the work undertaken that private investors have committed to build a new hotel.

There was some anticipation in the lead-up to the federal budget that the master plan would receive support. As far back as September last year the Tasmanian government—a Liberal government—was holding discussions with the federal coalition. No budget announcement was forthcoming. The project did receive strong support from the Tasmanian Liberal government, who committed $15 million in their May budget. I am so proud to say federal Labor committed $15 million to this project, with a further undertaking to work with the proponents as the project developed. This provided confidence to private investors that this project had the backing of all levels of government and the Tasmanian community.

So how did the coalition ultimately respond? On 23 June former tourism minister Senator Colbeck—a senator from, and who lived in, my home town, who knows the area very well and the proponents as well—announced the coalition would support this $160 million project with a paltry $1 million to fund a business case, despite all the work previously undertaken. I have to say that the coalition was led kicking and screaming to make any announcement on tourism funding or support for Tasmania. All they announced was a $5 million package. Quite rightly the response from Tasmania's tourism industry and wider community was scathing. It could best be summed up by a tweet from Tourism Industry Council CEO Luke Martin, who said he hadn't been so underwhelmed since Hangover Part IIIandalso described it as a disappointing and lightweight commitment.

The coalition's failures in tourism infrastructure in Braddon also extend to our main arterial roads. The Bass Highway runs from Marrawah, all the way through Braddon to Latrobe, continuing through Lyons and finishing in Launceston in the electorate of Bass. Under the coalition's last three budgets not a single cent has been allocated to any work on the Bass Highway in Braddon. From Burnie to Launceston it is classified as part of the national highway. This part of the highway carries the largest volume of freight of any road in Tasmania. At Devonport the road is the vehicle gateway for Tasmania's tourism industry for those arriving on the Spirit of Tasmania. West of Burnie to Marrawah the road has other classifications, but over the years it has seen a massive increase in freight volume.

I launched a community petition earlier this year in Circular Head, highlighting the state of the road, especially from Smithton to Marrawah. In a matter of weeks the petition gathered overwhelming community support. It was clear that this issue was of high importance to the people of this area. For Labor's part, and with the support of the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport, Anthony Albanese, I was able to secure a funding commitment to invest in this part of the highway. I was hoping the strength of the petition and the voices of the community would jar the coalition into action. Sadly, I was mistaken.

The campaign to fix this section of road continues in Circular Head. Local bus operator, Kimbra Wells, from Wells Wagons, and the Circular Head community road safety committee have been proactive in allowing people to understand the dangers of travelling on this section of road and in giving people a chance to experience what is, at times, a treacherous journey for school kids on the buses. The road is narrow. There has been significant increases in heavy vehicles—milk tankers and log trucks—as well as tourist drivers who may not be familiar with the challenges of this part of the road. Not only that, the road requires significant re-engineering at the Brittons Swamp section.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Kimbra and the committee for continuing to raise this important issue. At Latrobe, on the highway local service station proprietor Ian 'Daggy' Hartnett and his wife, Trudy, gathered over 2,000 signatures on a petition calling for dangerous intersections to be fixed. This is a single lane highway that has the largest volume of traffic, with trucks and cars turning into their petrol station and leaving other vehicles nowhere to go. The near misses, the accidents—it is a scary piece of road.

I am pleased federal Labor was able to respond through shadow minister Albanese and allocate funding for the necessary planning works. For reasons best known to them, the coalition also ignored this section of road. I congratulate Daggy and Trudy for their work and want to assure them that Labor will continue the fight on their behalf. So it is little a wonder the people of Tasmania and Braddon rejected the coalition at the 2 July election. There is no doubt the coalition's budget decisions were at the core of this rejection, along with the failure of the so-called 'amigos' to listen to their communities. It was a budget that contained tax cuts to millionaires and big business, but it was a budget that failed the sick, elderly, vulnerable families, our children and job-creating infrastructure.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the appropriations bills 2016-17. It really is an opportunity to highlight a raft of issues in the government's budget measures that are of incredible importance to not only my constituency but the nation. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's fascination with innovation and agility—they are very well documented. However, how can the young minds of our children be expected to be innovative and agile when they are not given the greatest chance possible of becoming the best versions of themselves? If the government fails to get the basics right—the basic funding right for schools—how can we expect our children to aspire to be prepared for whatever the future holds for them, let alone be innovative and agile?

I am speaking, of course, of the government's failure to fund the last two years of the Gonski reforms and of how very sad that fact is. Malcolm Turnbull's government is short-changing Victorian students $1.1 billion over 2018-19. This is impacting students across our state. Stopping the Gonski reforms part way will lead to entrenching inequality, with many students simply missing out on the support and opportunities available to others. Those with the greatest need stand to lose the most. This is a fact openly acknowledged by Liberal premiers and education ministers. The impact of this can be carried forward through the rest of the child's education and into the workforce. Failing to invest in education is a poor foundation for a high-skill, high-wage economy. Australia will be the worst for it, thanks to this government. Not only will our students lose but Australia will also lose. The OECD reports show that Australia will miss out on a GDP boost of 2.8 per cent unless every student leaves high school with the basic skills needed for the global economy by 2030. That is $44 billion estimated in GDP that the government is foregoing in today's terms.

Furthermore, the report titled Australian schooling—the price of failure and reward for success, completed by former World Bank economist Adam Rorris, found that if all Australian children were to achieve basic levels of literacy and numeracy Australia could receive a windfall of up to $2.2 trillion by 2095. There are also problems with proposals to link salary progression to demonstrate competency and achievement. This reeks of performance pay. John Fischetti, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Newcastle, and Victorian Minister for Education and Deputy Premier James Merlino are amongst many who are critical of performance pay for teachers, pointing to overseas experience that has shown it does not improve student performance. This is corroborated by the finding of the 2012 Productivity Commission report Schools workforce. The major unresolved question, however, is how school funding will be apportioned after 2017 without Gonski, as the minister has made reference to the many funding agreements that exist and to continuing negotiations to reform the school funding system.

This government, however, is not satisfied with just short-changing students as they begin their formal education. It is also intent on gouging them once they enter tertiary education. The suggestion alone that the government wishes to deregulate university fees, which will result in US style $100,000 degrees, shows the true intent of this government. This government wants to maximise profits regardless of how it will impede the ability of those students without the means to pay, so they will have to either forsake their academic potential or submit themselves to crippling debt. This is neither innovative nor agile. Whilst Labor welcomed the government announcement in the 2016-17 budget that the government would abandon its proposal to deregulate tertiary fees, resulting in, as the government said, an estimated saving of $2 billion over five years from 2015-16, it is unclear how the $2 billion in savings has been calculated given the 2014-15 budget did not account for any specific expenses associated with fee deregulation. Make no mistake, if given the chance, the government will float the idea once more. Unfortunately, the government proposes to retain other features of its higher education reform package, including the reduction in the Commonwealth Grants Scheme, CGS, subsidies and the lowering of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, repayment threshold.

Labor recognises that the foundation of a strong society is its citizens. As such, Labor will never back away from the commitment that, for our society to be strong and for our economy to be robust, we must have the highest standard of education at all levels. Our children must be given the best start and our university students must not be discouraged from their academic endeavours. Simply, we must allow our students to flourish so that they can indeed innovate in the true sense of the word.

Labor are and always have been the party for the arts and of the arts, and in government we delivered on this mantra. In the 2013-14 budget, the previous Labor government allocated $75.3 million over four years from 2013-14 to the Australia Council in response to the recommendations of the 2012 review of the Australia Council for the Arts. The budget stated that the funding would be provided as follows: $15 million per annum for arts organisations across a range of art forms to address the demand for high-quality creative content from established, emerging and hybrid art forms; $1.25 million per annum to establish a $2.5 million funding pool for major performing arts organisations to access on a competitive basis, subject to matched funding from state and territory governments; $1 million per annum to build the professional capacity of the arts sector by assisting the council to develop formal programs of professional development for arts sector managers and cultural leaders; and $1 million per annum for the council to develop a detailed and systematic program of data collection to produce an annual publication on the arts sector. The 2013-14 budget also provided $9.7 million over four years from 2013-14 to the Australia Council to continue the ArtStart program.

But that was then and this is now. In 2014-15, the Australia Council for the Arts received a total of $211.8 million. In 2015-16, the Australia Council for the Arts was allocated only $184.4 million. Additionally, in the 2015-16 budget, the coalition government announced that $110 million over four years would be redirected from the Australia Council and apportioned to the Ministry for the Arts, within the Attorney-General's Department. With most relevance to the matters at hand in the chamber today, I note that in the 2016-17 budget the coalition government provided no additional funding to the Australia Council.

That may have been a long-winded explanation of some facts and figures, so I will simplify it. The coalition are bleeding the Australia Council for the Arts dry. Their current budget measures indicate that they have no intention of reversing their decision. Worse still, they have taken away the independent discretion of the Australian government's principal arts funding and advisory body to distribute funds to the most valuable parts of the arts community in a most objective, judicious and considered fashion. They have arrogated it at various times to senior members of the cabinet. I know who I trust to get it right. A member of my staff used to work in the music industry, in fact, and he has told me stories of artists who sought and received Australia Council grants to fund recordings and tours in the early stages of their careers. Some of them are now some of Australia's best-known acts, with global fan bases. From little things big things grow indeed!

My electorate of Wills has a magnificent arts community. A walk through the streets of Brunswick will provide you with an opportunity to see edgy street art and acclaimed galleries. At night you will hear the sound of live music coming from the pubs and venues on any night of the week. And many of the creative people, including authors, poets and actors, who give us all so much enjoyment and respite, also reside in the electorate of Wills.

I said in my first speech that a thriving arts sector is the heart and soul of any society. Its benefits cannot always be measured in traditional economic terms. The invaluable social benefits can never truly be captured on any tangible metric. To some extent, though, you can make a salient economic case for investment in the arts. For instance, a July 2011 report by Deloitte Access Economics attempted the novel task of charting the economic, social and cultural contribution of venue based live music in the state of Victoria. Let me provide you one illustrative point from that report. In 2011, on conservative projections, it was demonstrated that more people attended live music performances in Melbourne metropolitan venues than attended the games of the AFL home and away season.

We think of that beloved game, Aussie Rules—and I am a very tragic Collingwood supporter; go Pies—as such an important part of our city, and of course it is. The ancillary economic benefits provided through the employment opportunities created are well understood but they are not so well understood with the arts community. Indeed, the Deloitte report concludes that the findings 'indicate sizeable economy-wide benefits are derived from the provision of live music in Victorian venues.' The key difference is that musicians, like most creative artists—but unlike a major sporting code—rarely benefit from corporate sponsorship to fund their pursuits. Hence, government grants and government funding play an enormous role in funding these creative efforts in their very early stages. One mainstay contributor to arts funding has been the Australia Council for the Arts and the grants that they provide to artists deemed by this independent body of experts to be doing things worth supporting.

I want to turn to the challenge of climate change, and most specifically how certain budget measures of this government will impact on Australia's endeavour to do its part to tackle climate change. Without getting too far beyond the scope of the appropriation bills, I do believe that Australians, broadly speaking, do understand why this issue is so important, save for a small undercurrent of sceptics and deniers. Climate change is indeed a scientific observation and there is indeed a broad scientific consensus that it represents a threat to the future of this planet.

While many in the public have become leaders on tackling climate change, nowhere in Australia is this more apparent than in my electorate, where residents have made sound, moral and prudent financial decisions to line their rooftops with solar panels. I believe that the government has a pivotal role to play in funding and promoting initiatives to curb emissions and advance and promote green technologies. I recall being personally delighted that the former Labor government made such progress in their term of office to create mechanisms for the Australian government to play its role in this space.

One of the several initiatives undertaken was the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA. The Gillard government established ARENA in July 2012 following the passage of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011. ARENA is a commercially oriented agency of the Commonwealth with a vision to promote an Australian economy and society that is increasingly powered by competitive renewable energy. In short, ARENA aims to reduce the cost and increase the use of renewable energy in Australia. It sought to do this by providing financial support for research, development and demonstration of renewable energy technologies. It continues acting as a conduit for distributing information to all stakeholders in the renewable space. ARENA's publications have become an authority on the topic in this country. In its history, ARENA has also committed more than $1 billion to more than 230 projects, studies, scholarships and fellowships that are helping reduce the cost and increase the use of renewable energy in Australia. It is easy to understand how this is such an important investment in the future of our planet—one that we owe to our kids and our grandkids and generations beyond.

I note that the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 originally included a measure to reduce funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by $1.26 billion between 2017-18 and 2021-22. This assault follows the Abbott government's attempt to kill ARENA in order to realise budget savings in a previous parliament. While they backed away from that idea following a deal with the Palmer United Party in March 2016, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment announced that they would discontinue ARENA's grants program. The cuts proposed in this budget were just a reorientation of that earlier strategy, and the $1.26 billion the government sought to slash from ARENA leaves it with only enough money to honour pre-existing commitments.

Like many members and senators, I was subsequently inundated by outraged letters from people concerned about the gutting of ARENA. They saw the government's substitute for the ARENA grants scheme, the Clean Energy Innovation Fund, as inferior and manifestly inadequate. The outrage spread far and wide, and this is not a niche issue anymore; it is broad. In negotiation with the Labor opposition—work done by our frontbench team, including especially Mark Butler, the shadow minister—the government did capitulate to some extent and agreed to reduce the cut to ARENA by $800 million. This allowed ARENA to continue its important grants work to some extent, albeit in a diminished capacity. So, to this measure, let me say this loud and clear: Labor has saved ARENA.

Labor fought for ARENA because we believe in good environmental policy, and we fought for ARENA because we listened to the public and their uproar at such an egregious act on the part of the government. We know that it is incumbent on the opposition to stand up when we hear that call. Most of all, we fought for ARENA because it was the right thing to do for the sake of future generations. Labor has always been committed to ensuring the health of the Australian people, along with committing to the idea that the quality of care someone receives is not based on how deep their pockets are but is rather because they are Australian. On aged care, when in government Labor put in place a 10-year, $3.7 billion reform program to build a fairer, more sustainable and nationally consistent aged-care system. The budget includes cuts of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, a tool used to assess care needs. This is something that the Labor opposition will be reviewing with great urgency.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My task today is to speak in response to the appropriation bills now before this chamber. This government has been big on rhetoric, describing its budget as its plan for economic prosperity, using the slogan 'jobs and growth' as the centrepiece to describe its plan. It says in this chamber, and in the House, that this plan received the support of the electorate when the government was returned following the election held on 2 July 2016. The reality is that this so-called plan is nothing of the sort, and the experience in my state of Tasmania is that any sort of plan such as that promoted by the Turnbull Liberal government was comprehensively rejected with the defeat of the former members for Lyons, Braddon and Bass.

These electorates in Tasmania saw that the government's plan for economic prosperity did not acknowledge the true concerns of ordinary Tasmanians. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned about jobs, education and health. Ordinary Tasmanians were concerned that this government did not understand the pressures caused by the underfunding of our public hospital system. They also understood that investment in Gonski reforms would deliver real education outcomes for ordinary households and that Labor's infrastructure investments in sewerage works and the UTas transformation project would provide long-term jobs, together with improving educational attainment for our young people.

This government's plan for economic growth did not involve listening to anyone who had concerns about public health, public education or obtaining a job. This government's plan involves a lazy transfer of income tax revenue on the off-chance that the debunked trickle-down economics will improve growth and employment outcomes in the Australian economy. There is a depressing lack of imagination in this government's vision for a future Australia. This government is led by a Prime Minister who is indistinguishable from the last Prime Minister and his policies, with everyone noting his disdain for many of the values that he once held to be true.

Tasmania has problems with low educational attainment and an underperforming economy compared with other states. Respected economists like Saul Eslake link the two issues together and suggest that further investment in education will drive improvements in economic performance. There is nothing in this government's plan, as represented in the budget and these appropriation bills, which recognises that truth. Indeed, it is significant that this government's so-called plan did not include any commitment to the UTas transformation project, which ultimately was the subject of a commitment in the very late stages of the last election campaign.

I am proud, as the then Labor candidate for Bass, that an announcement was made by Labor to support the University of Tasmania transformation project in its two northern campuses prior to the launch of the formal election campaign. Labor recognised that the transformation project was a vital infrastructure project delivering jobs to the Northern Tasmanian economy but also fulfilled a much higher function—that is, assisting young Tasmanians in achieving higher educational attainment, driving economic growth in the long term and improving our community on so many levels. In contrast, the government's economic plan for Northern Tasmania, as revealed in this budget, reveals little about the vision that the Liberal-National Party coalition has for Tasmania.

In my view, local government in the electorate of Bass need not wait until an election campaign to receive commitments from our federal government as to road infrastructure and the like; this is the stuff that federal and local governments have delivered for years in cooperation. It does not speak well of the commitment to infrastructure in our island state if the federal government relies upon the election campaign to deliver basic road infrastructure. Nevertheless, the federal government is to be congratulated for having committed to the University of Tasmania project and to Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project. This project, for all the reasons previously expressed, is absolutely vital to the future of Northern Tasmania and should not have been in any way a matter of contention.

The plan for Northern Tasmania which Labor took to the election was a comprehensive reflection of our consultation with, and our listening to, the electors of Northern Tasmania. The people that I spoke to—during the course of more than 12 months doorknocking and speaking to people at campaign events—were concerned about maintenance of universal public health and an education system that delivered real outcomes for our students. Our communities were disappointed to hear in the course of an election debate that the federal government did not run hospitals and did not run schools. These were propositions that were put in answer to the fact that further funding was required to both health and education in Tasmania. There were real concerns in the electorate of Bass about funding for the Launceston General Hospital, and that concern remains whilst our health system is constantly under stress.

In my short time in parliament, I have listened to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, in particular, lauding the fact that this government is delivering extra funding. The minister refers to increased funding for health. The minister refers to the fact that the government is delivering more bulk-billed episodes of care for general practitioners and scheduling more drugs on the PBS and that this—in a lecturing tone—is only possible due to the government's commitment to a sustainable Medicare system. Now, this is, of course, code and cover for significant cuts to health which are having a deep impact on the front line in our hospitals, not just in Tasmania but throughout Australia.

This government's unfair 2014 budget counted as 'savings' significant amounts of anticipated expenditure on health and education over the forward estimates and out from that. It claims that, as the expenditure was not budgeted for, the savings are not cuts at all. This is an exercise in sophistry. If you talk to our hardworking doctors, nurses and allied health professionals in our hospitals, they will tell you the real impact this government's 'savings' have on the delivery of care in our hospitals—that is, on the front line. Those doctors, nurses and allied health professionals understand, as does the electorate, that health costs—so-called healthcare inflation—typically rise at a rate greater than the general inflation rate. They understand that the volume of presentations at our emergency departments and the acuity of a condition are not reflected in the model which claims to deliver additional funding year after year without taking into account increased demand, greater levels of acuity and greater costs for inputs—that is, the costs of delivering that care.

The same or similar is true with respect to our public education system. There was great support in my electorate for the Gonski reforms to be delivered in full. The people I spoke to understood that the majority of the extra funding, based on need, which was to be delivered under Gonski, was to be delivered in the later years. This government represented that it was on a 'unity ticket' with Labor at the 2013 federal election, but subsequently recanted its commitment to Gonski. Electors from across my electorate and across backgrounds recognised the importance of education as a public good, in improving the lot of all of our students and the community as a whole. I have previously used the analogy that public education is important for the child next door and for the child over the road, as those children need the best education for the community to thrive. Whilst an individual family might have some measure of control over the education of their child or children, it is in the interests of our communities that all children receive the best education so as to fight disadvantage, particularly economic disadvantage.

I have spoken earlier about the contrast between the economic plan taken to the election by the government and what was offered to the electors of Bass by the Labor campaign. It is useful to contrast what the Liberal government said was driving its economic decisions—in particular, the unfair 2014 federal budget—and what this government in fact delivered. Three years ago, the Liberals declared a budget emergency. I would ask them, then: what would they call the budget situation that we find ourselves in now? Despite all their unfair cuts and broken promises, they have tripled the deficit since 2014. Their first budget predicted the deficit for 2016-17 at $10.6 billion. Now we hear from them that the figure is over $37 billion. Net debt is up by $100 billion since the 2013 election. The 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook confirmed that net debt was $184 billion. The 2016 budget papers show that that has now blown out to $326 billion this year. The Turnbull government has failed its own test of fiscal responsibility. Despite the continual chants of 'jobs and growth', after three years of Liberal government spending is up, deficits are up, debt is up, wages are down and living standards are down.

This month, Prime Minister Turnbull graced my electorate of Bass with his presence, to sign a memorandum of understanding with the state government to progress the redevelopment of the UTAS Inveresk campus. Certainly I was thrilled that the Prime Minister finally confirmed the funding which was promised in the election—especially considering the reluctance of the Liberal Party to commit to this project during the election campaign until the last minute. The Labor Party knows that a positive future for Bass is dependent on improving educational standards in Tasmania, which is why we identified the importance of funding the university relocation as a key part of our positive plans for jobs, education and health for the people of Bass. We committed to the project months and months ago, recognising that this long-term investment had the potential to increase educational attainment, revive jobs growth and support a strong economic future for northern Tasmania. If the Liberals understood the importance of this critical project, they would have funded it in the budget—not eight days out from an election, which the more cynical individual might see as a last-ditch attempt to play catch-up and save the seat of the then sitting member.

The people of Bass, my constituents, expect much more from the Turnbull government. They expect a plan for jobs in northern Tasmania. We have an unemployment rate above six per cent and a youth unemployment rate which is, shamefully, above 15 per cent. I am baffled that the Turnbull government still seemingly has no clear plan for northern Tasmania when it comes to the critical infrastructure investment that we desperately need to encourage jobs growth, boost the health and overall wellbeing of Tasmanians and secure a strong economic future. I am, nevertheless, grateful that through the City Deals process, the City of Launceston will benefit from the transformation project, and also, the Launceston City Council's Launceston City Heart Project.

However, there is much more to be done, and much more should be done in a number of critical areas. The Tamar River sewerage improvement plan is one of these key projects that the Liberals did not consider important enough to fund in their budget. Launceston's combined sewerage system dates back to the 1860s. It is clearly insufficient to meet the standards and needs of a growing Launceston community. Just 33 per cent of wastewater plants met their environmental licence in 2015, and within the state of Tasmania there are 23 towns where residents are not able to drink the water directly from their taps. Without a modern, tertiary-standard treatment plant, water quality will not improve. The environment of our river will continue to be degraded and the health and safety of Launceston residents will continue to suffer.

Before the last election, TasWater guaranteed $400 million over 10 years to a $1.8 billion upgrade of that water and sewerage infrastructure, with the project contingent on external funding. I am proud that I was able to seek a commitment from federal Labor to provide $75 million for the extensive works required to consolidate and upgrade Launceston's water infrastructure. I said at the time it was important to make a start, despite the fact that the capital requirement was very significant and the project would take many years to complete. Indeed, the Launceston Sewerage Improvement Project is one of the largest urban infrastructure projects ever undertaken in Tasmania.

Infrastructure Australia has independently assessed the project as a priority on the basis that it benefits the economy and community as a whole. I am still of the view that it would be inequitable for the burden of such a significant capital project to fall purely upon the shareholders of TasWater and the ratepayers of Tasmania. The failure of this Liberal government to act on this project and commit to the necessary infrastructure funding is putting at risk the environment, and the health and safety of Tasmanian communities. (Time expired)

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 and related bills, I am reminded that one of the key issues we should all bear in mind as we discuss government priorities is the quality of life of our local residents and what we can do, as local members, to improve that quality of life. Of course, we cannot add more hours to the day, but we can take substantial steps, as members of parliament, to improve the quality of life and the logistics of life for our local residents.

I want to mention three issues on which I believe far more needs to be done at a federal level to improve the quality of life for my residents in Greenway. The first is aged care. We know that this government has made substantial cuts in the area of aged care, but it is important to recognise the way in which these cuts not only have a very real impact on people on the ground but also really do not bode well for the developments that are happening as we are living longer.

I had the opportunity this morning to discuss with Wendy Harmer on 702 ABC some particular issues to do with my electorate and the growing diversity in my area, where we have a very large population from the subcontinent. In fact, in the Blacktown local government area, which is one of the largest in Australia, the most common surname is not Smith or Jones: it is the Sikh or Punjabi name, Singh. What we have at the moment is a real crisis in managing the future, as many of these people are getting older and they will have the need for culturally-sensitive aged care.

Aged care comes in a number of different forms. You can have activities-based care, which is primarily focussed on getting older people out and about and connected to one another to network and to socialise. There is permanent accommodation. Sometimes that means higher-needs medical care than others. And there is respite care for families who are happy to have elderly parents live in their homes but who need a break every now and then.

One thing that I found very interesting in the last election, through speaking to people, doorknocking, phone calls and mobile offices—one of the clearest issues that came out—was not necessarily what was making the front page of the paper or the lead story of that day. The number of people who are not only caring for children but are finding themselves in a situation where they are also caring for elderly parents or elderly relatives, I think, really is something that is under the radar. The need to support these types of families, many of whom I see being completely exhausted and not knowing where to turn, is a significant challenge. So I particularly want to highlight the issue not only of addressing the large numbers of people who will require different amounts of care but specifically how we are going to assist people who come from different cultural backgrounds as they get older.

Azal Khan has a very interesting article in today's Blacktown Advocate where she talks about how aged care really needs a stronger cultural focus. In it she mentions an excellent local organisation I have had a lot to do with, the Sri Om Foundation, that provides centre based respite care. It started off initially with about five clients. Now it takes clients from just about every nationality on the subcontinent. I think the important thing to note is this: no two families are the same; everyone has different needs. If we are going to have a sustainable, cohesive policy in this area, it really needs to be one which is based on feedback from local communities about what people need, what kinds of services they require to access and it needs to be responsive to that. I am very pleased to see my colleague the member for Franklin, who has instigated an inquiry into making sure that our future aged care workforce is equipped with skills for different cultural needs, different linguistic needs.

One of the first things to go, I understand, if you have early onset dementia is your second language so that would include people who have lived in this country for a very long time and who would have become fluent in English. I have even heard of instances where these people have ended up reverting to their village dialects so there is virtually no-one who can understand them. Considering the number of people for whom it is projected will have dementia or related diseases in the next decade or so, this is a challenge that we simply cannot ignore. I am very grateful not only to my local media but also to our public broadcaster for bringing that to the attention of people. We actually had a number of talkback calls come in and every single one of them agreed with these principles and these views that I am articulating here.

The second issue I want to mention—and I know the member for Longman, being in the outer suburbs of Brisbane, would understand very well—is we talk a lot about investing in public transport but public transport has to be accessible. One of the biggest issues with accessibility for public transport in many parts of Western Sydney is the availability of commuter parking. Because if you cannot actually access public transport then it is virtually worthless or, if it is not worthless, it does have an impact on quality of life as I discussed earlier.

For many years I have been listening to local residents who live around Schofield Station in my electorate. We have a new suburb called The Ponds and we have a lot of new development going on around Schofield and Riverstone. The main station that most of these people use on the western line is Schofield Station. Unfortunately, whilst it is a relatively new-looking station, it does not have adequate car parking. We have a situation where, if you get to Schofield Station shortly after six am, you are virtually guaranteed of not getting a parking spot. So people are forced to park along Railway Parade, nearly all the way up to the Burdekin Road—local residents will know exactly what I am talking about. They are forced to park up unlit streets that are not surfaced virtually in semirural parts around the station, which is completely unacceptable when you consider the amount of traffic going through there and when you consider the amount of time it takes to walk from where they park to the station. So it is a significant safety issue for these people as well not only in terms of traffic but in terms of their own physical safety.

When I started a petition to get more commuter parking in this area, I can honestly say that it was the fastest returned and most endorsed petition that I have conducted as the member for Greenway. I brought this to the attention of our shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, and we examined the opportunities, noting that federal Labor had in the past, for example, funded commuter parking at stations such as Penrith. I was delighted when, during the campaign, Mr Albanese was able to come out to Schofields Station and examine the situation for himself firsthand so he could see exactly what I was talking about. He committed that a Shorten Labor government would provide $5 million towards kickstarting a substantial increase in commuter parking at this station.

I was, however, quite astounded to see that my Liberal opponent did not think that this was much of an issue at all. She said, as reported in the Rouse Hill Times, on 18 May 2016:

The residents that I have been speaking with have been far more interested in the Turnbull Liberal team's plan to support the growth of local small businesses, so that they have more opportunity to work locally and avoid the need to commute.

Well, I would love to have everyone avoid the need to commute, but when you have hundreds of people needing to get outside their area every day and needing to get to their jobs, most often in Parramatta or in the CBD area, simply ignoring the issue will not make the problem go away. When she said that she had been speaking to these people, I do not know who she had been speaking to. She certainly was not speaking to anyone who was actually using Schofields Station. I note that some time later—in July—the state member, when announcing a substantially smaller grant of $2.75 million from the New South Wales government, recognised the need for additional parking at Schofields Station. It is quite astounding that on the one hand we have elements of the Liberal Party saying that there is nothing to see here and that there is no problem but on the other hand we have a significantly smaller amount of money being allocated by the New South Wales state government.

I welcome any money that is going towards this issue, but clearly what is lacking here, in addressing issues of quality of life, is a coherent plan. Again, I point out that we were the only party going into the last election with a coherent plan in this area. I am looking at the policy statement of 19 June from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, Mr Albanese. The plan was to:

…invest $120 million in a Park and Ride Access Fund to boost car parking capacities at high use train stations, and make funding available for new stations where demand growth is expected.

I will contend that there are few areas where you will get bigger demand growth than in the north-west of Sydney and, particularly, around Schofields Station and those emerging areas such as The Ponds.

I want to mention a significant issue that goes to not only quality of life for residents in my area but also the quality of life of people trying to operate their small businesses—that is, the appalling state of broadband access in many parts of my electorate. I commend the Blacktown Advocate for its edition of 14 September. It did a case study of a family in Blacktown, the Terzic family, who enjoy the benefits of being connected to Labor's fibre-to-the-premises network. Blacktown was one of the sites of the first Sydney metro rollout. They have been connected to the network since August 2014. They said:

It gives us all more time to be able to get all our jobs done and to enjoy our interests and hobbies online.

That is from having high-speed broadband delivered by the highest quality infrastructure.

If you go down the road a few minutes and arrive at Sarah El-Akkad's house in Acacia Gardens, her internet is so slow that she is forced to use her mobile phone most of the time. As we know, using mobile data is an incredibly expensive process. Sarah is quoted:

"It's hard for me because uni courses now depend so much on the internet. You need to be able to constantly check emails because they might need to let you know if the time has changed for an exam."

She is one of many Acacia Gardens residents frustrated by national broadband network delays.

All that would be fine if they actually had some relief in sight, but, as I have mentioned in this chamber on a number of occasions, Acacia Gardens is in this broadband black hole. For some reason, there are parts of Acacia Gardens that are too far away from the exchange to be serviced. They have not been prioritised under this government's NBN and they do not even show up on the rollout map. There is a three-year construction schedule for the NBN that has Acacia Gardens and some neighbouring areas, including Kings Park and Parklea, at least two years away from having the NBN turned on. And what NBN is it? It is a second-rate, copper based network, with fibre-to-the-node delivery, thanks to this Prime Minister. By the time they actually get this, in two years, not only will they have an inferior product; it will be obsolete. So there is absolutely no relief in sight for the residents in these suburbs.

If you want to talk about small businesses like my opponent wanted to at the last election, you have got to give them the tools they need. The number of small businesses I have in my area who are so frustrated, who have had to decide: 'I don't know if it's worth going on in this current venture anymore'—it is appalling to think that people have to make these sorts of decisions because they do not have access to basic infrastructure. Contrast that with Labor's fibre-to-the-premises model. I have used on many occasions the example of the Good Egg Studio in Riverstone, part of the site of the first Sydney metro rollout, where business is booming because they have Labor's real NBN. These are all issues of quality of life that this government is failing to address and needs to address.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:17