Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Deputy Prime Minister to propose the schedule for consideration of the portfolios, I would like to remind all members of the purpose of the consideration in detail stage and outline the way it is expected to proceed. I believe all members are aware of the general arrangements that are being proposed. This will allow maximum participation in this stage of debate. Shortly, the Federation Chamber will be asked to agree to a proposed schedule for the times for consideration of portfolios. This may need to be varied, but it is a useful guide to assist ministers and members to arrange their commitments. Chairs will not be seeking to enforce this arrangement strictly.

Consideration in detail is a debate, and the call will be alternated between the government and non-government sides as always. Even though this debate sometimes takes the form of question and answer, this is not question time. Ministers and government backbenchers both will be considered as speakers on the government side, and this should be borne in mind when they seek the call. All speakers are required to be relevant to whichever portfolio is being examined, but there is no requirement of direct relevance in any respect to the responses. It might be practical for ministers to respond to more than one speaker when they seek the call. Each minister and member will have up to five minutes to speak each time they are called, but they may wish to speak for a shorter time. Ministers may wish to make an introductory statement when debate on their portfolio begins, but, as they are not moving amendments, this is a matter for them to decide.

The Federation Chamber will now consider the bill in detail. In accordance with standing order 149, the Federation Chamber will first consider the schedule of the bill.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, may I suggest that it might suit the convenience of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order and groupings shown in the schedule which has been circulated to honourable members. I also take the opportunity to indicate to the Federation Chamber that the proposed order for consideration of portfolio estimates has been discussed with the opposition, and there has been no objection to what is proposed.

The schedule read as follows—

Agriculture and Water Resources

Infrastructure and Regional Development

Communications and the Arts

Attorney-General's

Immigration and Border Protection

Health

Health—Aged Care

Treasury

Treasury—Small Business

Employment

Defence/Defence Industry

Defence—Veterans' Affairs

Social Services

Social Services—Human Services

Industry, Innovation and Science

Education and Training

Prime Minister and Cabinet—Indigenous Affairs

Environment and Energy

Finance

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Foreign Affairs

Foreign Affairs and Trade—Trade

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the wish of the Federation Chamber to consider the items of proposed expenditure in the order suggested by the minister? If there is no objection—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have no objection as such, but this is a change to the normal arrangements. The minister has indicated that there has been consultation with the opposition. I would not challenge the truth of that statement, of course, but I am certainly not aware of it. If I could have a copy of the schedule, that would be enormously helpful.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Clerk will give you a copy of that. It is so ordered.

Agriculture and Water Resources Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $904,828,000

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has been a great budget that builds on the $4 billion agricultural white paper. We have been doing so much in agriculture within the coalition. It has been an incredible success. There is no-one who denies the fact that, to December last year, we had a 23.7 per cent increase in the value of agriculture. This has been spectacular. It is spectacular when you consider that, in the last section of the Labor-Independent-Greens alliance government, agriculture actually reduced by 0.5 per cent. We are really turning the show around.

There are things that we have done. We have also invested in core funding requirements, such as biosecurity, and we are currently dealing with issues such as white spot disease. We had great success in areas such as Panama race 4, which was a threat to the half-a-billion-dollars-a year banana industry of North Queensland. I know that the member for Capricornia is very aware of that. We have had some success, against all odds, in that space, and it just goes to show that investment in biosecurity actually brings real dividends.

We have also included in this budget $4.1 billion worth of resourcing for the agriculture and water resources portfolio. We have had to deal with a whole range of issues, such as funding cliffs in the water section of the portfolio. We have managed to get these financed, and we are driving forward two agendas that will see the completion of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—something that people were sceptical about when we brought water back into agriculture, but that is now delivering real outcomes and real delivery in this very serious portfolio section.

We continue on our program of farm support. Well over 7,000 people have had access to the farm household allowance to try and help them through the tougher times. We are now rolling out well in excess of $600 million in concessional loans. That is working on the back of starting the process of establishing the Regional Investment Corporation, which we have now brought about. It will be based in Orange. It is a multibillion-dollar organisation. It just shows the dynamism that the coalition has in this area.

We worked very closely with the infrastructure portfolio on the delivery of such things as the $8.4 billion into the Inland Rail. This will be a huge boon to the development of sections of Victoria—right up into Wodonga through Seymour; through western New South Wales; through Parkes; through Narrabri; through Moree; right up into Queensland; into Goondiwindi; through to Toowoomba; and, of course, to the bookends of Brisbane and Melbourne. I know that you yourself, Deputy Speaker Coulton, are very aware of this major delivery that we have brought about and what a huge assistance it will be to the agricultural sector in those areas. It goes hand in glove with Roads to Recovery and the Bridges Renewal Program. All of these things are about refurbishment to assist the record turnaround that we have seen in the agricultural sector in Australia.

We continue to stand behind the live export trade. We made sure that we worked very assiduously to get the Livestock Global Assurance Program in place. This has meant that we continue to see those record prices bring real prosperity to people up in the gulf and in Western Australia. This goes to show that we take this portfolio incredibly seriously and have definitely made it a pillar of government that is delivering back in spades.

On agricultural levies, we have introduced a plant health levy of 0.1 of a cent per kilogram for avocados. We have increased the plant health levy on bananas and rounded up the banana marketing levy to 1.15c per kilogram. We have reduced the emergency response levy on laying chickens. As for seed cotton, we have introduced an export charge of $4.06 a tonne on seed exports. These show the matching funding of government and how we are investing continually in research and development—driving forward so that we not only have an agricultural sector that is one of the best in the world, if not the best in the world, but also continue to maintain it as one of the best in the world through the research we are doing.

The thoroughbred-horse-breeding sector has also come into the levy system now. It has been a big fight, but we have managed to deliver a levy system there because we know how important that also is to regional Australia and to the racing industry. What a huge employer they are in our areas. As for departmental staffing, the level of staffing in the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for 2017-18 will be 4,488 people. That is a slight decrease of 43 in the final figures, but it just goes to show the massive investment that we have made. (Time expired)

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

I acknowledge all colleagues on both sides with an interest in this area of portfolio responsibility and, indeed, the many staff members from the minister's office who work in challenging times. I just hope there is someone back there answering the phones! Minister Joyce, you and I agree, I am sure, that there is nothing more important in this portfolio than biosecurity, and I welcome a new initiative in the budget which has been described as 'the new national biosecurity initiative'. Can I ask you to explain how this new construct will work, and how much money has been allocated in the budget for the initiative?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the minister will take several questions and then answer them in a block or take them on notice.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The forest industry is vitally important to the south-east of South Australia. As part of the agribusiness sector forestry contributes $1.8 billion to the South Australian economy and employs directly and indirectly some 22,000 people. In my electorate of Barker softwood and hardwood plantations, sawmills, and paper, tissue and particleboard mills employ over 5,000 people directly and 8,000 indirectly. The forestry sector is enjoying some of the best conditions in its history with an ABARES report showing that the volume and value of logs harvested reached record levels in 2015-16. Log harvests exceeded 30 million cubic metres and were valued at over $2.3 billion. Australia's softwood plantations, which make up the majority of the forest task in my electorate, had a record harvest reaching 16.3 million cubic metres. This growth is due in part to strong export demand for our products, in particular woodchips and round wood logs. Export of these products contributed to an overall rise of 7.8 per cent in the first quarter of this year. ABARES reports that for the September and December quarters in 2016 growth in demand for Australia's sustainably managed timber and wood products resulted in a record harvest of softwood. Demand for wood fibre in the Asia-Pacific region continues to expand, creating huge potential for our sustainably managed forest industries. Australia is well placed to take advantage of this demand for wood fibre.

There is no question that livestock industries, specifically beef and sheep, are experiencing extraordinary growth, which is great news for my electorate of Barker. Relief from the drought and high prices, in part due to this government's three free trade agreements with the Asia Pacific, are providing significant opportunities for cattle and sheep producers. These critical trade deals are one of the driving forces behind latest forecasts that in 2016-17 Australia's agricultural production as a whole will surpass $60 billion for the first time ever. For example, a cattle farmer's cash income in southern Australia over the past two years have been the highest recorded in over 40 years. Cash income for sheep operators is expected to rise and increase to an average of $133,000 per farm this financial year, which is around 70 per cent above the average over the past 10 years.

The volume of beef and sheep meat products exported is projected to rise from a whopping 1.36 million tonnes to 1.52 million tonnes over the next five years. Export earnings for livestock and livestock products are forecast to rise to $22.2 billion off a level of $20.9 billion. Farmers in my electorate of Barker are in pole position to capitalise on a growing middle class in Asia and their increasing demand for the high-quality goods and services that our region has to offer.

Australia's food and wine industry is experiencing exciting growth, which is great news for my electorate also, which produces some of the highest quality food and wine products anywhere in this nation. Export figures show that in my home state of South Australia food and wine exports increased by $6 million in 2015-16, reaching $5.22 billion.

Horticulture is one of our most valuable and important industries. It is Australia's third-largest agricultural industry valued at $9.13 billion and employs around 57,000 Australians across this great nation. This government's free trade agreements are supporting this important industry. China has now become Australia's largest market for agriculture, food and fishery exports, being worth almost $10 billion in 2015. Export of oranges, for example, are also up more than 56 per cent to $52 million into China.

Horticulture exports to Korea have also grown substantially. In the first year of the Korean free trade agreement exports of potatoes for chipping have more than doubled to over $13 million following tariffs being slashed from 30 per cent to 12 per cent, and they were slashed even further to six per cent beginning at the start of this year.

In addition, we have gained technical market access for new commodities into China and Korea. Australia sent its first shipment of nectarines to China in November 2016, and we have now seen over 150 tonnes of the fruit exported to China. Blood Oranges are now being exported in to Korea under new technical market access agreements.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What measures in the budget will help continue economic growth for the livestock, forestry and horticultural industries in my electorate of Barker?

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

I note that the minister is going to take questions en bloc. I appreciate that, because it is going to save time and allow members greater opportunity to put questions to him. In addition to my question about plant biosecurity, I foreshadow that I am going to ask the minister questions about the Regional Investment Corporation, the APVMA and his ministerial office in Armidale. There will be others if time permits.

On the Regional Investment Corporation: Will it be obligatory for the chair and board members you are selecting to be based in Orange? Has any work been done to compare the cost of the Commonwealth's administering the farm concessional loans to the cost of having the states administer those loans, as is the case now? How many staff members does the minister expect to be working in Orange when the RIC is fully developed and operational?

On the APVMA: How do you explain the difference between the roughly 200 staff working at the APVMA now and the 150 staff that we are told at Senate estimates are expected to be working in Armidale when it is fully operational? Are they staff lost to the APVMA or are they staff working elsewhere—for example, from home in Canberra or McDonald's in Dubbo or whatever it might be? On 23 November, the minister wrote to the finance minister seeking agreement to additional funding for a digital strategy. Can you further expand on the digital strategy and on what you expect to be the cost of that digital strategy? What is the objective of the strategy?

On your Armidale office, Minister: I am trying to determine the extent to which the Armidale office is being used as a ministerial office. To determine that, I would like you to inform the House of how many agriculture stakeholder, water stakeholder—portfolio stakeholder—meetings you have had in that office in the last six months.

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

Rookwood Weir has been described as a game changer for Central Queensland. It has the potential to create 2,100 new local jobs in the region as well as to double farming output along the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy catchment is the largest river system draining to Australia's east coast. That is thousands of potential jobs and investment flowing straight past Rockhampton's door. Rookwood Weir has the potential to double agriculture production in the Fitzroy basin by a multiplier of three for additional service and secondary industries. It will guarantee water security for urban and industrial use in Gladstone, Rockhampton and Livingstone LGAs. In a further sign of the growth potential for regional Australia, farm production is forecast to leap 8.3 per cent during this financial year. But these opportunities will be lost to Central Queensland as Queensland Labor continues to drag the chain.

The Turnbull-Joyce government has committed $2 million to the business case for the weir. It has completed EPBC approvals and has committed $130 million towards construction. We still have no commitments from Queensland. This is all for a project that, in 2006, Peter Beattie declared would be built by 2011. The final regulatory hurdle was approved in December 2016, when Queensland's Coordinator-General gave environmental approval to the Rookwood Weir. Business Queensland, the group that carries out economic evaluations on behalf of the state government, issued a statement in October 2016 saying the business case could not be rushed. This situation is the height of hypocrisy, because when it comes to major projects like Brisbane Cross River Rail or Townsville stadium Queensland Labor asks for Commonwealth money without a business case ever being started.

The Queensland minister for agriculture and member for Rockhampton has stated that the state government is now working on the business case for Rookwood Weir. This is the business case which the federal government committed to funding in 2016. In that time the Western Australian government has completed feasibility studies, committed its own funding and submitted two applications to the Commonwealth government for major water projects. It is the same in Tasmania, where the state government has completed business cases for their water projects and is now building them. Agriculture is delivering a record contribution to the Australian economy, with exports up 10 per cent and overall production at a record-breaking $63.8 billion.

Central Queensland will again be missing out until the Queensland Labor government gets moving on vital infrastructure projects like Rookwood. Queensland Labor desperately wants funding for Brisbane's Cross River Rail without a business case. Why will they not apply the same urgency towards Rookwood Weir? Hundreds of people have signed my petition for the state government to get on with building Rookwood Weir. It is the No. 1 job-creating project for Central Queensland. The other states can do it; it is not hard. The Queensland government just needs to get on with it.

Capricornia need dams and water infrastructure. We need a commitment from the Queensland state government. If former Labor Premier Peter Beattie maintained he could have the Rookwood Weir built by 2011, why is this current state government stalling? Will the minister update the House on measures the Australian government has taken to increase agricultural production and water security in Central Queensland? And will the minister explain to the House what is causing the delay of Rookwood Weir?

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

Given the contribution from Capricornia, I ask the minister: does he agree that it would be prudent to establish a business case for the project before proceeding with full planning and construction of the project? Does the project have any business whether it be in the area of urban infrastructure, industrial water, urban water or indeed agriculture water customers?

On Shoalwater Bay, I welcome the fact that the government has agreed that there will be no compulsory acquisitions of agricultural land in the region. I ask the minister: what steps has he taken to satisfy himself that voluntary acquisitions will not be lead to a significant supply shortage in the beef supply chain? Because obviously whether they are compulsory or voluntary, it has the same impact on the supply chain, on the supply of cattle and therefore the same impact on the town if farmers in the region are not shopping in the town.

I refer him to his contribution to the House not all that long ago on the issue of carp eradication. I ask: the minister, if the next steps in the research are completed and successful, when does he expect that project to come to fruition—in other words, when would he expect a significant reduction in European carp in our waterways? I ask him whether he realises now, having misled the House, that scientists are not proposing a venereal disease and, if he now acknowledges that, whether he is prepared to correct the record? I would advise him to correct the record.

On the issue of white spot disease outbreak, I point out that the fisheries RDC has undertaken research on the economic impact of the outbreak. The cost has been to farmers and to the industry. It has been suggested it is nearly $50 million, which is very significant particularly given the proportional size of the contribution the minister has made. I ask the minister whether affected prawn farmers, those affected by white spot, who would be eligible for the extended or changed arrangements in farm concessional loans for farmers, would be eligible under that program as well?

On the issue of concessional loans and the Regional Investment Corporation, I ask the minister: given the new criteria for the loans has not been determined and it was suggested in Senate estimates that in fact part of the remit of the RIC board will be to determine what these loans will look like—how they will be designed, shaped and who will be eligible for them and given that they are not coming into effect until 1 July 2018, what market failure is the minister seeking to address by reshaping the loans?

If he has not identified a market failure—or, in other words, he does not really even know what they are going to look like—isn't it true to say that in effect the program will now become simply a lender of last resort for farmers? If that is not the case then I would welcome his contribution and explanation as to why it is not the case.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to put an area of concern to the Deputy Prime Minister: horticultural biosecurity and, in particular, fruit fly control in the electorate of Murray and throughout the Goulburn Valley. As we know, the domestic value of the horticultural, forestry and grains industries around Australia is estimated at around $31 billion. In 2015, the value of export trade in all agricultural plant commodities that need a certificate of pest freedom—from any pest, that is—was approximately $1.6 billion in this area. More than 170,000 people are employed in the horticultural, broadacre farming and forestry industries.

Within the electorate of Murray, the Goulburn Valley is often referred to as the food bowl of Australia, and around 25 per cent of all of Victoria's agricultural production is generated in the Goulburn Valley. We know that the GMID, the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District, produces over 82,000 tonnes of apples annually, 28 per cent of the Australian total; 105,000 tonnes of pears, which is 86 per cent of the Australian total; and 42,500 tonnes of peaches, around 70 per cent of Australian production. There is a burgeoning tomato industry throughout the Goulburn Valley. In the 2013-14 year, we had 223,000 tonnes. That has increased to around 286,000 and 274,000 tonnes in the last two years, generating around $30 million in value.

Sometimes we forget about the flow-on industries that are associated with or hang on the back of our primary production. There are certainly the packaging, manufacturing and transport industries that only exist on the back of our horticultural and dairy industries. The amount of employment in those areas leads us to understand exactly how critical these second-tier industries are.

Recently, of course, our free trade agreements have been driving primary production, opening up more and more opportunities for our producers and our exceptional horticultural and agricultural products. Two weeks ago, Deputy Prime Minister, you will remember you were able to visit one of our Shepparton orchardists, Mr Peter Thompson. Peter said:

Market access is critical to key export destinations like Taiwan, China and the United States. Pests limit our export markets. Working towards pest free zones will only enhance our export opportunities.

In relation to biosecurity, we need to protect these markets, and biosecurity controls are obviously going to be critical in maintaining Australia's clean, green, safe reputation both domestically and internationally.

One of the greatest biosecurity threats that we have—certainly throughout the Goulburn Valley—is fruit fly. Over 75 per cent of Australia's fruit and vegetable exports are susceptible to fruit fly, and it is estimated that fruit fly at the moment is costing Australia around $300 million in control costs and also in lost markets, with the actual losses to the fruit crops put at around $159 million per annum.

We understand that some of the work that is going to be done with this new announcement that you have put forward, Deputy Prime Minister, will be on trials of automated fruit fly traps and on strengthening the fruit fly surveillance program and other programs that, we are hopeful, will lead to an area free of pests. I put this question to you, Deputy Prime Minister: how do you see this funding of $2.2 million for biosecurity benefiting the long-term future of our horticultural industries?

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

The arrival of the member for Moreton and his ill-chosen tie has reminded me to point out to the minister that he is wearing the wrong-coloured tie. I know he was a senator from Queensland, but I thought he had come down and joined the strength. I will be giving way to members of the government backbench to save time because I am sure the minister would like at least five minutes to answer the extensive questions I have put to him, and I would urge him to use his authority to make sure he does find himself at least five minutes.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Mallee, I will indicate that this debate will conclude at 1.15 pm.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a really good question for the minister for agriculture, but I just want to talk about some of the things that have been happening, because they do feed into my question, which is going to be about the instant asset write-offs in the context of agriculture and horticulture. One of the things that needed to happen was the facilitation of confidence in the agriculture and horticulture sector, particularly the agriculture and horticulture sector in Mildura. When I was VFF president I spent a lot of time walking around the corridors here, trying to advocate to Tony Burke, who was water minister at the time, about the value of the Sunraysia Modernisation Project, a project that was about investing significant amounts of Commonwealth money into our horticultural industry to really grow opportunities. I could not get anywhere with Tony Burke, the water minister at the time.

In contrast, I have to say, has been the work of Barnaby Joyce, as shadow water minister and now as minister for agriculture, to see that project developed. There has been $103 million of federal money and $17 million of irrigators' money. There has been no money from the Victorian Labor government. This federal money has instilled confidence. So you have the first level of confidence, which is that the federal government is putting money into infrastructure. But the next step, the step that I want the minister to answer a question about, is the on-farm instant tax write-offs, the ability to deduct infrastructure, such as irrigation infrastructure.

We are now building infrastructure that is letting people put water to their farms, but we have also created the tax environment on those farms so that those things—those irrigation systems, those trellises—are, I believe, going to be instant tax write-offs. The other thing is that when you grow these great vineyards and you produce these great table grapes—and, I might point out, table grapes that have great market opportunities because of the free trade agreements delivered by our government—you are going to need to pick those table grapes and you are going to put those grapes in one of those little four-wheel drive things they drive around. They call them mules, don't they? I believe they are under $20,000; you can get them for about $15,000. Under the tax regime that our government has delivered, they are currently 100 per cent tax deductible in the very year they are purchased. So, when you think about it, from the very first step of building the water infrastructure—for which Barnaby Joyce has delivered $103 million—to the tax deductibility of building these trellises and putting in the irrigation on the farm and then picking that fruit and taking it in your little mule, which cost less than $20,000, everything is about creating a strong economic framework.

I will also add something about what we, in contrast to the opposition, are doing in the water space. There is now confidence that there will no longer be purchases above a 1,500 gigalitre cap. In my patch Penny Wong is regarded as the worst water minister that the country has ever seen. Not only did she require people to hand over water for five years; she required them to pull up the water infrastructure. That water infrastructure is now being put back into the same blocks from which it was pulled up by Penny Wong, largely under the administration of the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources​.

My question is to the man who is regarded as the most saintly agriculture minister to ever walk on the hallowed grounds of Sunraysia, the man who has delivered $103 million worth of infrastructure, the man who has given tax incentives to farmers to build trellises, the man who has allowed those farmers to deduct the value of their little mules to cart their fruit, the man who has been the strong advocate for selling their products overseas and getting good prices, the man who has put some confidence back into the water market.

My question to the minister is: can you explain just how more asset tax write-offs are helping the people of Sunraysia, because they are obviously very, very happy and were very, very upset with the very poor management we saw on water under Penny Wong and the lack of infrastructure we saw under Tony Burke? That is my question.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): It gives me great pleasure to speak here today and ask a question of the minister in relation to the National Landcare Program. In my seat of Wide Bay, agriculture provides over $1 billion to the economy. It is very important that the National Landcare Program works in conjunction with these agricultural producers. I have beef production, forestry plantation, sugar crops, small crops and large macadamia farms throughout Wide Bay.

On our side of the chamber, the government understand that when it comes to conservation and sustainability through land care no-one understands those things better than our rural producers. There are people on the other side in Labor and the Greens particularly pretending that that is what they are about, but we know that they are more about the extreme vegetation management type laws that were attempted to be introduced in Queensland recently. They are a 'lock it up and lose your land rights' approach to farmers, saying, 'Let's grow as many weeds as we can in that space.'

The federal government has announced $1.1 billion to fund a new National Landcare Program. The funding is made up of two components: around $1 billion over five years from 2018-19 for the second phase of the program and $100 million for four years from 2016-17, as was announced by the government in December 2016. This demonstrates that the coalition government has a strong commitment to Landcare and the volunteers across this nation. It also demonstrates that the coalition government's Landcare Program is about achieving productive environments. It supports the protection of and restores our soil, water, vegetation and biodiversity—the natural resources of our unique environment which underpin the productivity and profitability of agriculture and fisheries in local areas like Wide Bay.

The producers in Wide Bay are already doing some great things when it comes to sustainability and the environment. I mentioned the macadamia producers before. We have the third-largest macadamia industry in Australia. It produces $20 million worth of macadamias each year. Those producers have entered into an agreement with Ergon and created an energy plant that provides through the combustion of the waste of macadamia nut shells enough energy to supply 1,200 houses a year. That is equivalent, in terms of reduction of greenhouse gases, to taking 200 cars off the road. This is what our agricultural producers are doing to improve our environment.

Our sugar producers in Maryborough have environmental action plans in relation to water pollution, nutrient run-off and chemical plants. They are very, very active when it comes to trying to reduce the sediment and nutrient run-off into the Great Barrier Reef. Recently I was very happy to announce a grant for the Mary Valley under the National Landcare Program, which was really good. We cannot forget that Labor's greatest effect on the Mary Valley and agriculture was its attempt to put a dam there, which was basically going to kill the whole area. I must admit, though, that it was the Labor government that stopped the pain, so it was an interesting exercise in Labor bringing and then stopping pain—a little bit like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop.

Anyway, my question to the minister is: can the minister provide some information on the measures that the coalition government has in this year's budget that will help my local agricultural producers regarding the National Landcare Program?

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister, which today will be on decentralisation, but I will preface my question with a few remarks about decentralisation.

Deputy Speaker Coulton, you would know that it is crucial that every part of Australia benefits from the economic growth that government agencies—and their jobs—can help deliver to our local communities. We in country Australia understand that. The only people who seem to complain about decentralisation are people in the big cities, who hate it—oh, and the member for Hunter; he does not like decentralisation either. We have just had a wonderful example of a new agency being decentralised, the Regional Investment Corporation, which is going to be based in the electorate of Calare. The RIC, as it is known to its many friends, was a key coalition government election commitment and is designed to improve the delivery of funds to farmers and to ensure greater national consistency in farm business loan assessments. It is going to be responsible for administering concessional loans such as drought relief and water infrastructure loans. Ultimately, the corporation will administer over $4 billion in loans. There will be 25 new jobs in the set-up stage, with 31 to be delivered in the first two years. This loan book is going to quickly grow.

You may well ask, 'What has the reaction been?' The reaction out there has been very positive, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the comments of Mr Reg Kidd, who is Deputy Chair of Regional Development Australia Central West. Listen and learn, Member for Hunter:

This is great news for our region and surrounding communities. It means new jobs, more career pathways for regional people and greater regional investment opportunities. It not only benefits our regional communities, but it provides the government with much stronger regional partnerships and taps in to the expertise we already have here.

That is a ringing endorsement if ever I heard one, but it gets better. This is what Fiona Simson, the head of the National Farmers Federation—herself a farmer from the Liverpool Plains—had to say about the announcement:

It just make sense for an agency charged with administering concessional loans to farmers to be based in the regions where farm businesses operate.

That is a lot of sense from Fiona Simson from the National Farmers Federation. She went on to say:

At a state and federal level, monies are made available with the best interests of farmers in mind, however the red tape involved often actually defeats its purpose. In some cases the process for accessing financial help causes more angst for farmers at a time when there is already high pressure. It just makes sense for all farm finance support to be handled by one federal agency. Certainty over when and where the RIC will be operating is welcomed. We look forward to being updated as the project progresses.

Those are commonsense, very positive comments, in contrast to the very negative output on this topic from the member for Hunter. You swan around this place in your RM Williams, but you really should be kicking them off and putting on beads and Roman sandals, because you carry on like a Green in this House, and it is very disappointing.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know what they call the shadow minister out where we are? The shadow minister for re-centralisation. That is what they call him.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

It is very disappointing that we continue to have interjections from the shadow minister for re-centralisation.

Mr Joyce interjecting—

It is frustrating, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. It demeans the office you hold, member for Hunter.

An honourable member interjecting—

It might be his time to shine, but he is not shining terribly brightly at the moment. I think his constituents would be appalled to know that he is selling out regional communities. It is an absolute disgrace. Deputy Prime Minister, my question to you is: why is decentralisation so important to ensuring the vibrancy and growth of rural and regional Australia? I want to thank you for the valuable work that you are doing for country Australia. It is greatly appreciated.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So many things have been brought up. Why isn't the Labor Party wanting to build dams in Capricornia? That is a question on everybody's lips. Why does the Labor Party stand against decentralisation? Why doesn't it support the RIC? Those are questions on everybody's lips. Why doesn't the Labor Party get out and support the Inland Rail? That is a question on everybody's lips. Why doesn't the shadow minister ever get a question in question time? That is not on anybody lips, but I want to talk about it. Why doesn't Albo ever get a question? I do not know. Who would know? It is an embarrassment for the Labor Party to even have a shadow minister for agriculture because they never ask a question on it.

We have delivered so much. The other questions we are happy to take on notice. We will get back to you, because there are so many questions that need to be answered about why we are doing such an incredible job in agriculture, how we are delivering for horticultural producers in the seat of Murray, what we are doing in the apple industry, how we are building a $4 billion organisation in Orange, how we are going to build dams in Central Queensland—except the Labor Party does not support us—and how we are going to do more sealing of the Laverton to Winton Road in western Queensland.

Of course the question on everybody's lips is: when are the Labor Party going to take this seriously? When are they going to take agriculture seriously? When are they actually going to mount up? When are they going to support decentralisation?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time has expired. We started a minute and a half late, and I have allowed that.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 13:17 to 16:00

Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $1,847,190,000

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to consider the budget in detail this afternoon. If it suits those opposite, I will make a few introductory comments and then give the floor to those opposite to raise any concerns. I think there are members on this side who have some statements that they would like to make as well. Perhaps the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and I will then seek to respond, in a collective sense, as the proceedings continue.

The budget, as the Treasurer has indicated, is about making choices. It is a fair budget, and this government is making the right choices to provide for the security of our nation and is helping to deliver opportunities and a fairer system not just in our cities but also in our regional communities. We are getting on with the job of delivering everything we promised in the last election campaign and a lot more than that. We are seeking to deliver the infrastructure that our kids and our grandkids will thank us for and a record $75 billion investment over 10 years, which will include projects in our capital cities, in our regional towns, on our regional highways and in remote areas, which will deliver real changes throughout Australia.

We believe—and I am sure that those opposite would agree—that good investment decisions and good infrastructure decisions can change lives and can save lives. They change people's lives by reducing congestion, improving productivity, getting our freight to markets, and providing economic prosperity through moving freight in a more efficient manner. They also saves lives by reducing road trauma, through investments in safer and better roads. I know the member opposite is appreciating investment in projects like the Midland Highway. That important stretch of road has seen a reduction in road deaths and serious injuries.

The highlights, from the government's perspective, in this year's budget have been well canvassed publicly. I would like to raise them again here on this platform. The Inland Rail project, the National Rail Program and Western Sydney Airport are very significant projects that we are very proud to be delivering as a Turnbull-Joyce government.

There is the Inland Rail project. For decades people have talked about linking Melbourne to Brisbane—linking our goods on the eastern seaboard and moving freight in a more efficient manner. This is the biggest rail project in the past 100 years. People have talked about it for decades. We are getting on with the job of delivering it. The $8.4 billion equity investment in the ARTC will see construction start later this year as we work to overcome the great freight task challenge as we see freight double in this nation by 2050.

In relation to the National Rail Program, the Commonwealth is pleased to announce a dedicated fund which will allow us to work with the states to identify projects and deliver them. It will allow us to focus on being an early participant in the planning of these major projects—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

because we recognise that there will be opportunities to create jobs during the construction phase, and we will be seeking to reduce congestion, improve productivity and save lives. The member for Grayndler will get his time.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

His answer is, 'Just fund it.' I have noticed that the member for Grayndler has been wandering around Australia over the last four weeks, racking up the numbers and trying to find out who will vote for him in a future leadership ballot. He spent about $150 billion over those past four weeks. There was $114 billion on high-speed rail. He said that he is just going to fund the metro project in Melbourne, Cross River Rail, the link to Sydney Airport and Perth Metronet. He spent about $150 billion in four weeks, which, even by Labor's standards, is a remarkable spending spree. The member for Grayndler will get his chance in a moment. I look forward to his contribution.

This is a government which is getting on with delivering infrastructure that our kids and grandkids will thank us for. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will talk in a few moments time. I am sure that he will mention the $5.3 billion investment to build Western Sydney Airport, which will be operating by 2026, creating thousands of jobs in construction and also revolutionising the huge growth area of Western Sydney.

Complementing the new infrastructure announcements in the budget are the ongoing commitments to projects like the Bruce Highway, a project where we have committed $6.7 billion over 10 years—$1 billion more than Labor ever committed to the Bruce Highway. There is $5.64 billion to see the Pacific Highway duplicated by 2020. The duplicated highway will link Sydney and Brisbane, will cut travel times by in excess of a couple of hours and will also save lives. In the Western Australian package we will see 17 projects, worth more than $2 billion, delivered. Victoria will see an extra $1 billion, including $500 million for regional rail, on top of the $3 billion deal secured last year.

This is a government that is getting on with the job of delivering the infrastructure that our communities are demanding across our nation. We look forward to getting on and building for our future. Those opposite, unfortunately, are just whingeing about it.

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

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia have said that the budget 'confirms the cut to real budgeted capital funding to its lowest level in more than a decade, using a mix of underspend, reprofiling and narrative to cover this substantial drop in real capital expenditure'. That is not people in the Labor Party saying that; that is the peak industry body on infrastructure for Australia. That is what they are having to say, and I assure you, Minister, that what they say in private is less polite than that. They have contempt for what this government has done. The funding is cut in the current year by some $1.6 billion. Last year the budget papers indicated that there would be $9.2 billion expended in the current year. The actual fact is $7.6 billion. Inconveniently for the government, they produce budget papers with figures on them. The budget papers indicated across the forwards that that declines to $4.2 billion in 2020-21.

Budget Paper No. 2 has a story to tell. There is only one new investment mentioned—$13.8 million for the Far North Collector Road near Nowra. I acknowledge that that is a new project. It is the only new funded project in this entire budget over the next four years—one road. There is nothing for the Nowra bridge but this Far North Collector Road does get $13.8 million. If you look at the details, it is a mix of a return of some funding that was cut in previous budgets, such as Infrastructure Australia.

Let us look at the Infrastructure Investment Program. For Victorian infrastructure investments, page 134 indicates that there will be zero, zero, zero and zero. When you look at the Infrastructure Investment Program offsets, it shows a $1,631.6 billion cut in the year 2020-21. Let us look at Keys2Drive. I acknowledge that the government has put funding in that it threatened to cut. It is a good thing that that program has continued.

Let us look at other funding in the budget. Supplementary local roads funding for South Australia has been put in—again something the government threatened to cut—but there is no new investment. When you look at other programs, including the Bruce Highway, it clearly indicates that there are zero additional dollars. That is all from existing funds. At a time when the economy needs support for infrastructure this is an appalling budget. The government will spend less next year than this year on the Bruce Highway. For the Pacific Highway this current financial year the allocation is $1.37 billion and next year it is $710.1 million. Again that is less.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport raised the quite farcical National Rail Program. It is a big announcement—a $10 billion program—unfortunately, there is not a cent while they are still in government in this term. There is not one cent because there is not a dollar this year, not a dollar next year and not a dollar the year after. For the next three years, there is not a dollar of new investment for national rail. Then, in 2019-20, there is $200 million. In 2020-21, there is $400 million. So I acknowledge that they have established this program. Unfortunately, it is not for this generation. You could walk the length of the country until a dollar comes on track. It is pathetic. In this budget as well, Victoria will receive eight per cent of the national infrastructure budget. Once again, the government is punishing Victorians for having the temerity to vote in a Labor government. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to add to the remarks of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in relation to the 2017 budget.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

The 2017 budget has seen—

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will resume his seat. The level of interjections is getting too high. Member for Grayndler, I know your electorate. This is not the Crocodile Farm Hotel on Liverpool Road; this is the Federation Chamber. Keep the interjections to a dull roar. Thank you.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The 2017 budget sees an extraordinary level of investment commitment to transformative national projects. I want to speak about two of them. One is the Inland Rail corporation. There is an $8.4 billion equity contribution to this transformative Inland Rail project—a project that will bring together three states: Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It will enable producers in those states to access markets more quickly and efficiently. It will significantly improve the rail share of the freight task between Melbourne and Brisbane. As we all know, the rail share east to west is very high, but, along the eastern seaboard at the moment, it is very difficult for rail to match the timing and reliability of road. But, with the Inland Rail, it will be possible to meet a reliable, 24-hour-journey time from Melbourne to Brisbane and vice versa. So this is a very important initiative. It is a nation-building initiative. And I make this point: a project which links together three states is a project that no one state government can deliver. Only the national government can deliver a project of this scale. This is nation-building infrastructure, and so too is the $5.3 billion commitment, the equity investment, that the Turnbull government is making in Western Sydney Airport.

For 40 years, governments of both political persuasions have failed to make the decision to proceed with a second Sydney airport. I want to acknowledge the work of the shadow minister, when he was the minister, in taking some important steps, particularly the joint study into the aviation needs of Sydney in 2012, which confirmed the need for a second Sydney airport. This government—the Turnbull government—has committed to a $5.3 billion equity injection into a new company to be established, WSA Co, which will build this vital facility which will deliver the additional aviation capacity that Sydney needs and the nation needs. Let's remember that Sydney is Australia's international aviation gateway, with 40 per cent of international traffic coming to Sydney.

The study that the shadow minister established when he was minister reported to the two governments—New South Wales and the Commonwealth—that by 2027 there would be no more slots available at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. The study reported that, by the mid- to late-2030s, there would be no additional capacity available at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, even with so-called upgauging—replacing smaller aircraft in a slot with larger aircraft. There is an urgent national need to build a second Sydney airport, and that is why this budget contains a $5.3 billion equity commitment to building Western Sydney Airport. It will meet the needs of Western Sydney. It will meet the needs of New South Wales. It will meet the needs of the nation. And, of course, it will deliver some 20,000 jobs by the early 2030s, 9,000 jobs directly and some 11,000 jobs indirectly. So this will be a major contribution to economic growth, jobs and opportunity in Western Sydney, an area where some one million additional people are expected to be living over the next 20 years.

We are working very closely with the New South Wales government in relation to ground transport infrastructure, including the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. We are working on urban planning around the airport so that we can maximise the economic and beneficial impact of Western Sydney Airport, this very significant project for Western Sydney and for the nation. This budget contains major equity commitments to nation-building infrastructure. That is what an infrastructure budget should be doing. That is what this budget does.

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

) ( ): For the last four months we have had National Party MPs wandering around the length and breadth of this country shouting the words, 'Decentralisation, decentralisation, decentralisation!' I am sure there is a pet shop in the main street of Tamworth and, if you go in there, there will be a galah sounding remarkably like Barnaby Joyce. It will be saying, 'Decentralisation, decentralisation!'

An opposition member: It would probably make more sense than him.

It would make a hell of a lot more sense and probably be a lot less florid!

Given the amount of noise the National Party have been making and what they have called a campaign that they have been running about decentralisation, you would expect to find something in the budget which backs in their idea that they are going to move vast swathes of public servant jobs out of Canberra and into regional Australia. You would expect to see some money in there. We know you would need to have some money for it because we know the cost to the public purse of the failed experiment of moving the APVMA out of Canberra and into the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate. We know that that has cost in the order of $130,000 per employee. It takes a lot of effort to move an agency from one town to another. It was a cost of $130,000 per employee, leaving half the staff who refused to go, including the agency head, and having to recruit almost half the entire workforce.

We also know that over the time they have been in government this government has had an appalling track record on public sector jobs. Around 18,000 jobs have been cut out of the public sector. They have not spared regional Australia. Over 200 jobs, for example, have been pulled out of the tax office in the regional town of Townsville. The CSIRO has been shedding jobs hand over fist in regional places around Australia as well. And 150 jobs were lost out of other regional tax offices around the country.

We expected to see something in the budget that was going to back in the plan that the government says they have about decentralising public sector jobs. There is nothing in the budget. The only thing we see in the budget about public sector jobs is a plan to axe nearly 1,200 jobs from the Department of Human Services. Anybody who knows anything about the Department of Human Services knows that it is the most decentralised department in the public sector. So my question to the minister is quite simply: is the government going to quarantine the regional offices of the Department of Human Services from the 1,200 job cuts? If it is not going to quarantine the regional offices from these 1,200 job cuts, we know that this decentralisation campaign that the National Party is running is nothing but a cheap fraud on regional Australia. It is nothing but a hoax and nothing but a cheap fraud on regional Australia. It would be an expensive fraud if they put a dollar in the budget to back it in. But there is not a dollar in the budget to back it in, so we know it is a cheap fraud.

While I am talking about cheap frauds, I would like to minister to respond to the impact of the freeze that the government have put upon financial assistance grants to local government. I note that they followed Labor in removing the freeze in this budget, but the cost to regional councils and other councils has been permanent. Nearly a billion dollars has been lost to these councils, and the councils that are suffering the most, the communities that are suffering the most, are regional communities like yours, Deputy Speaker, and like mine and other regional communities around the country. These are the communities that Gough Whitlam had in mind when he put in place the Financial Assistance Grants program: regional councils around the country that were struggling to meet their basic services. The National Party say they support them, but they have ripped a billion dollars out of their bottom line. There is nothing in the budget to put it back.

So my question to the minister is: what are they going to do to ensure that councils around the country and the regional communities they support can catch up to the money that the government have cruelly ripped out of their budgets and have no plan to put back? They have no plan to put it back. What are they doing about decentralisation? Is it anything more than a cruel fraud? What are they doing to refund the local governments to ensure that they can provide the services that regional communities rely upon?

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to ask the minister about a very important project in the Perth metropolitan area and a very important project to my electorate, the Perth Freight Link, a project that would create over 10,000 jobs in WA that we need right now. Minister, there has been a debate in Perth about this project, and there have been protests led by a very local minority who chose to misrepresent the facts about this project. Of course Labor, as they always do, have sided with the protesters and the green, left, latte drinkers, and they have moved away from the people and the jobs. They have given in to the noisy, trendy cafe set.

I think that in WA it is important for us to remind ourselves about the Perth Freight Link project. As well as creating 10,000 jobs, the Perth Freight Link project would take 7,000 trucks and 74,000 light vehicles off local roads each day. These are roads like the Leach Highway, Farrington Road, South Street, Stock Road, North Lake Road, Beeliar Drive and other local roads. It would create east-west access across the Perth metropolitan area, servicing the Perth Airport, the Fiona Stanley Hospital, the St John of God hospital and Murdoch University. It will bypass 14 sets of traffic lights on the Leach Highway and Stock Road, and it will reduce traffic pressure on South Street and the Leach Highway.

In relation to the construction, we have to remember the facts. Roe 8 will impact on 0.49 per cent of the entire Beeliar Regional Park. It would save 450,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2031, and $45 million would be invested to accommodate environmental sensitivities and provide better access to the area. Infrastructure Australia are very supportive of the Perth Freight Link project. They say that the project aligns with Infrastructure Australia's strategic priorities to increase productivity, expand productive capacity and build on Australia's global competitive advantages through delivering a more efficient freight network. The member for Grayndler likes to quote Infrastructure Australia when it suits him, but not always. He likes to talk about the costs that urban congestion will have for our nation if it is unaddressed. Yet, in the same vein, he ignores the advice and the position of Infrastructure Australia in supporting the very important Perth Freight Link project.

WA needs the Perth Freight Link project. It needs Roe 8 and Roe 9. And, yes, the state ALP have stopped it. They claim a mandate. The minister will be interested to learn that, in those areas directly affected near the construction of Roe 8 and Roe 9, the Labor Party actually achieved a swing of less than average—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

albeit still a swing—albeit, Member for Grayndler, still a swing for the Labor Party; I accept that. There was a change of government. But, if the Labor Party were really going to pretend that the people in the southern suburbs were against the Roe 8 and Roe 9 project, you would assume that there would be a greater than average swing to the Labor Party in those suburbs, and there was not. I am serious, Member for Grayndler.

But I do accept the great work that the federal Commonwealth government and the state government did in renegotiating a whole range of other infrastructure projects in relation to Western Australia, and a big win for my electorate is that the Roe Highway will be extended. It will be extended across the Kwinana Freeway to provide access to the Fiona Stanley and the Murdoch Activity Centre.

That extension of the Roe Highway is important, but the southern Perth community and WA need jobs now. My question to the minister is: what is stopping the Roe 8 and Roe 9 projects from commencing? Is there funding available in the budget? I understand there is a contingent liability, and I would like the minister to explain on what basis the funding would be made available. I understand from the Treasurer that, if the state government made a decision to proceed with this project, the federal government would allow that money to become available, supporting jobs, infrastructure and, more importantly, the people of Western Australia with the direct access they need east and west across our important city.

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

I am pleased to see the minister in the chamber. He was absent yesterday from the MPI. It is an utter disgrace that the coalition government has failed to invest in vital infrastructure in the Hunter and Central Coast communities. These regions in New South Wales have major significance to Australia's economy. In fact, their combined population is a million people and yet this government neglects them. My first question to the two ministers—the senior minister and the junior minister who gets him his sandwiches—is: why won't they fund the Glendale transport interchange? The Glendale transport interchange was identified by all 11 Hunter councils as the single most important project for the region. Every dollar of Commonwealth investment in that project will leverage $94 of private sector investment—94 to one. Private sector analysis has said that it will drive the creation of 10,000 jobs in the surrounding area and drive the construction of 6,000 sorely needed homes, yet this government refuses is to fund it. In fact, this government has taken one funding decision on this project in its four years in office: to cut funding to it by $1 million. So my first question to the two ministers is: when will they reverse their disastrous decisions and finally fund the Glendale transport interchange?

Secondly, the intersection of the Golden Highway and the New England Highway in in the electorate of Hunter is incredibly important. It is one of the most dangerous traffic blackspots in the Hunter region. So I ask again of the ministers for infrastructure: when will the government fund this important project to eradicate a very dangerous blackspot.

Thirdly, is the Singleton bypass. Singleton sees over 25,000 vehicles pass through the town every day, and around 3,750 of these are heavy vehicles. With traffic volumes predicted to grow over the next 25 years, the Singleton bypass would reduce traffic volume by an estimated 30 per cent, easing congestion in the town. Ministers, when will you fund this vital bypass that will reduce traffic in Singleton by 30 per cent? Another bypass that will reduce heavy-vehicle traffic through a town is the Muswellbrook bypass. This would improve traffic times around the New England Highway, and in 2013 the Gillard government allocated $10 million to make the project shovel-ready. The New South Wales government already allocated $3.1 million in 2016-17 to continue planning, so when will the ministers fund this important bypass?

The next project of vital importance to the million people that live in the Hunter and Central Coast regions is a link between the M1 Pacific Motorway and the Pacific Highway, which would improve connectivity, improve traffic flow and provide more reliable traffic times for motorists and freight operators. The New South Wales government has already provided $7 million to continue planning for the extension, but where is the federal money? These bypasses are incredibly important. We have a great piece of infrastructure—the Albanese-Fitzgibbon expressway. That was a signature piece of infrastructure of the last Labor government, but we need to build on it. The member for Dobell has written to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure about the urgent need for a footbridge over Sparks Road, which is an incredibly busy road with a GP superclinic and MacKillop Catholic College nearby, and there have been too many near misses. Why isn't the government funding a piece of infrastructure that will make the community safer?

Finally, there are a group of projects in Robertson that have been announced, and I ask the minister for information about funding time lines and funding sources. The member for Robertson has announced $7.2 million for a number of road projects around Ryans Road in Umina Beach, Oceano Street in Copacabana, Murray Street in Booker Bay, Davis Street in Booker Bay and the intersection of Langford Drive and Woy Woy Road in Kariong. In fact, that was a 2013 promise that has not been delivered. My questions are: where has the funding come from for these projects, and what is the time line for the delivery of those projects?

These are really important questions. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know the one project in the Hunter and the Central Coast that this mob have actually funded, the one project they have supported in a region that has over a million people living in it? It is $1 million of funding for a billycart race road in Gresford. They have put aside a million dollars to fund—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

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

exactly—a billycart race. This is their level of commitment to a region that has a million people: to fund billycart races rather than black spots and the Glendale transport interchange, which is the most important project in the entire region. Minister, when will you deliver on this important project and finally pay attention to the million people who live in my region?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to respond to some of the contributions that we have already had. The member for Grayndler expressed a great deal of interest in new projects. He has expressed a great deal of interest in new jobs. We all know that he has a project of his own underway: he is only creating one new job as he seeks to become the new Labor leader. That is his vision for Australia. The member for Grayndler in his comments said, 'I never let my junior speak,' which I found quite bizarre, but it does explain why the member for Maribyrnong never lets him get a question anymore in question time.

We have so much work underway right now. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure and I have $75 billion over 10 years to deliver projects right across the nation. The member for Grayndler managed to find one group that reacted in a negative sense in some way to the budget, but some of the other reactions to the budget are quite illustrative. The Australian Logistics Council's Michael Kilgariff said:

The Government should be commended for making clear commitments to two significant infrastructure projects crucial to the freight and logistics industry …

Pacific National CEO David Irwin said:

Inland Rail is a true game-changer and we commend the Government for its commitment to such an important nation-building project.

Fiona Simson, from the National Farmers Federation, said:

$8.4 billion for the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail is the real crown jewel of tonight's budget for the farm sector.

We are getting on with the job of delivering infrastructure that our kids and our grandkids will thank us for right across this great nation, from our cities to our regional areas.

The member for Grayndler raised the infrastructure spend in Victoria. Can I just make one simple point to the member for Grayndler. He may have forgotten that his friends in Victorian Labor, with Premier Daniel Andrews, actually paid $1.2 billion to not build a road. Imagine the roads we could have built in Victoria with that. We could have built the East West Link, to begin with. But, in the past 12 months, we have reached an agreement with Victoria to spend $3 billion on a range of projects. That $3 billion will see a billion dollars spent on the Monash upgrade. It will see the Murray Basin Rail Project undertaken. There will be $690 million in regional roads. There are projects right across Victoria as a direct result of the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and me working with the Victorian government to deliver a $3 billion commitment, which is $1.5 billion from the federal government and $1.5 billion from the state. But, in this year's budget, there is an additional $1 billion. Of that, there was $500 million committed to regional rail and $30 million for the Tullamarine planning work—finally, some planning work to link the great CBD of Melbourne to the Tullamarine airport—and we are still negotiating with Victoria on other projects that we can undertake with the additional funding that has been made available.

The member for Whitlam raised some concerns about the government's agenda in relation to decentralisation. I find it quite extraordinary that a member who purports to come from a regional area is now against regional jobs. The Labor Party in its past used to have bipartisan support for decentralisation. I refer to projects in my own electorate, where ASIC was moved to Traralgon. The business register moved to Traralgon.

An honourable member: A good initiative.

A former Labor government did that, and the member indicates 'a good initiative', so what is wrong? What is wrong with this government seeking ways to move more Public Service jobs out of Sydney, out of Melbourne and out of Canberra and into our regional centres? The government are embarking on a long-term agenda for regional Australia where we want to see an ambitious decentralisation plan delivered. We are taking a leadership role; those opposite are simply whinging about it. If it was not their idea, they do not want to have a part in it. The member for Whitlam, who pretends to represent a regional community, is now telling us he is against regional jobs. We will continue to pursue the decentralisation agenda. He asks why there is no money in the budget for any of these decisions. Well, quite simply, it would pre-empt the process. There would be no point prescribing an amount of money before we even determined what was in scope. Decisions around the first tranche of agencies to be decentralised will be made in the 2018-19 budget, and the member is well aware of that. We will continue to pursue our decentralisation agenda.

In relation to local government funding, the member asked some questions regarding indexation. The coalition government will resume indexation of the Financial Assistance Grant program from 1 July 2017, and indexation will result in an extra $836.5 million to be delivered to councils across Australia over the next four years.

This is a government that is getting on with the job—

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

of delivering everything we promised the Australian people at the last election and more.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Whitlam will cease interjecting.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said at the outset, there is $75 billion over 10 years to invest in major projects, like Melbourne and Brisbane Inland Rail, Western Sydney Airport and the National Rail Program, and projects right down to the level of Roads to Recovery projects, Black Spot projects and the Bridges Renewal Program. This is a government that is delivering right across Australia, not just in our cities but in our small regional towns as well.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, I would just remind everyone to keep their conduct orderly. If you are going to model yourselves after anyone, I would suggest that the member for Bonner is a model member.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it was four weeks ago that the budget was handed down and I waited, as did my Tasmanian colleagues, with bated breath to hear 'Tasmania'—'the state that dare not speak its name'—uttered from the Treasurer's lips. Not once in the budget speech was Tasmania mentioned. In the intervening weeks, the minister has been up on his feet a few times, like an angry chickenhawk, extolling the supposed virtues of this so-called infrastructure budget, and I have waited yet again to hear about all the wonderful projects that this government is doing in Tasmania. But there has been no mention of Tasmania. A quick look at the budget papers explains why. Out of the $75 billion those opposite boast about, there is nothing for Tasmania. In fact, over the course of the last 12 months the government have cut investment in Tasmania's infrastructure by $26 million. At budget time last year, Tasmanians were promised $173 million in 2016-17; however, the latest budget reveals our state will get $147 million—a $26 million cut in a budget that is supposed to be all about infrastructure. Well, thank you very much! Funding cuts nationwide are $1.6 billion; in Tasmania, they are $26 million.

Let's look at the list to see where the cuts to these programs are happening. For Black Spots—areas that require more funding, if anything—$2.9 million was promised in the 2016 budget but actual is $0.7 million. It will not even make it to a million dollars. There has been $2.2 million cut from Black Spots. Road projects: promised in 2016, $114.3 million; delivery, $91.3 million. The minister was on his feet earlier talking about how we welcome the investment in the Midland Highway. I remind the minister that the Midland Highway project was started by Labor, and we promised $500 million. This mob got into government and the first thing they did was cut $100 million out of it. So they have cut funding for fixing dangerous black spots on local roads by $2.2 million and they have cut funding for major road projects in Tasmania by $23 million in a budget in which Tasmania did not rate a mention in the Treasurer's speech.

Funding for Tasmania will continue to fall over the next four years under this government: in 2017-18, $174.6 million; in 2018-19, $115.2 million; in 2019-20, $52.6 million; and in 2020-21, $61.6 million. It is a descending graph. It is like Malcolm Turnbull's—sorry, the Prime Minister's—approval ratings in Newspoll: down, down, down they go. Every major federally funded project currently underway in Tasmania was originally identified and funded by the former federal Labor government—whether it is irrigation, whether it is roads or whether it was the real NBN. That is an infrastructure project, although I know it is not under this minister's purview, where we delivered FTTP.

I was in the chamber earlier today talking about Launceston being the only gigabit city in Australia. That was possible only because we delivered FTTP, whereas this government has come in and is delivering FTTN and wireless and satellite, and is making it impossible for new businesses to invest in the economy of the future, which is all about information technology. At every turn, Tasmania is losing under this government. It did not rate even mention in the Treasurer's speech and has not rated a mention whenever the minister gets to his feet. No doubt he will get to his feet in a minute and talk about all the wonderful things he is doing. Remember what Labor promised in the last election: a big program for Cradle Mountain, HMAS Tobruk would have come to Tasmania, extra road funding for the Midland Highway. Compare what Labor was going to produce for Tasmania with what these guys are doing. There is no comparison.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate is home to a sun-swept coastline of known and unknown natural beauty. It is also home to some of New South Wales's worst traffic. Three of the 10 most congested roads in New South Wales are either on the northern beachers of Sydney or feed into the northern beaches of Sydney. It is a place of lifters, not leaners. In 2014-15, my constituents paid net tax of $1.9 billion. The average electorate pays $1.3 billion in tax. My electorate pays 46 per cent more tax than the average. We give so much, and we ask for so little.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

You will enjoy this next paragraph, Member for Grayndler. The New South Wales government is currently building $75 billion of infrastructure projects and has announced $120 billion more. This is vital investment, required after 16 years of Labor neglect, corruption and incompetence under Bob Carr; Morris lemma; Nathan Rees; my favourite Sky interviewer, Kristina Keneally; and, of course, those saints of the Labor Party in New South Wales and de facto premiers, Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and Joe Tripodi, when nothing happened.

The member for Grayndler, who was warned by the Deputy Speaker to be orderly—go gently on him, Deputy Speaker Hastie—cannot get a word in downstairs, so he comes up here out of a sense of frustration.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

He is trying to give the people—we have almost forgotten what he sounds like, so it is good. In my electorate, where five years ago it took 30 minutes to travel to the CBD it can now take over an hour. The lost productivity through this traffic congestion is $9 billion per year and rising. One project which will ease traffic congestion on the northern beaches is a metro from Chatswood to Frenchs Forest. It would take cars off the road, put families around dinner tables rather than in traffic jams and markedly improve the quality of life of not only my constituents but people right across Sydney.

I am proud that the Turnbull government is committed to playing its part in investment in vital infrastructure in New South Wales and right around Australia. The Australian government will invest $10 billion over the next decade for the national rail passenger program—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

which will fund transformational rail projects, Member for Grayndler—transformational, something the Labor Party has never been able to do—

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

NBN

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members opposite mention the NBN. They got it past, I think, a few homes in Tamworth. We just took it past 5.1 million homes. They would not know a transformational infrastructure project if it painted itself fluorescent purple and danced on their noses naked! An additional $30 million will be provided to fund the development of a business case for the Melbourne Airport rail link. We will work with the Victorian government to access potential further funding for this project from the $10 billion national rail passenger program. The government will connect regional centres to our capital cities—always a good thing—with faster, more-reliable rail services, with regional Australia getting its fair share of the new $10 billion national rail passenger program. The budget builds on funding for significant rail projects, such as $95 million for the Gold Coast light rail, in Queensland; $490 million for the Forrestfield-Airport Link, in Perth; $42.8 million for the Flinders Link; $365 million, by way of equity, for the $1.9 billion Moorebank Intermodal Terminal, in Sydney; as well as the recently-announced $792 million towards projects for Perth's metropolitan rail network, part of a $2.3 billion road and rail package for the Western Australian government.

The government is working with the states to develop urban rail plans or our five largest cities and their surrounding regions and has committed $20 million, under our Faster Rail Initiative, to support the development for up to three formal business cases for faster rail connections. Can the minister outline the purpose of the Turnbull government's $10 billion rail fund and how it can help make a Chatswood to Frenchs Forest metro a reality on the northern beaches? How will this money be allocated and what will this money be used for? (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal budget establishes $10 billion in national rail programs, yet it does not commit any new funding to South Australian rail projects. The South Australian Liberal Party has recently made a very ambitious election promise for a freight rail bypass from the Murray lands, taking freight out of the Adelaide Hills. It also includes a regional freight airport in the Murray lands. Was an examination of this proposal considered during the establishment of the National Rail Program? If so, why was it not funded or money at least put aside in the forward estimates? Was this proposal even put forward to the federal government by the Liberal opposition?

The South Eastern Freeway, in South Australia, which goes through the heart of my electorate, provides a crucial transport link between the Adelaide metropolitan area and dozens of towns across the Adelaide Hills, and extends beyond to Murray Bridge. It is also the only freight link out to Melbourne and Sydney. Can the minister provide an analysis of when the freeway is likely to reach its capacity? Has any consideration been given to potential upgrades to the freeway to reduce its congestion? The minister would know that we have had a number of deaths on that freeway and a number of trucks have caused significant chaos. It is really just too congested.

I would like to talk about the Building Better Regions Fund. The Treasurer spoke specifically about investing in the regions, before announcing a $200 million fund for a further round of the BBRF. Under the current eligibility criteria, cities such as the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Geelong are considered regional, while townships such as my area of Charleston in South Australia, with a population of just 530 people is not considered regional. It is an isolated area, with in Charleston having no health services and no public transport. It is a true regional area but it is not considered regional, yet the Gold Coast is. What analysis was undertaken to determine the significant urban area maps, and what was the best determinant for eligible regions? Are there any plans to review this spend to address this clear anomaly, where the Gold Coast is deemed to be an eligible area for a regional grant but towns in my community like Charleston and Echunga, towns that are truly isolated, are not considered?

The budget papers detail that the Australian government will continue the Regional Development Australia committee program by providing $74 million for the period 2017-18 to 2020-21. However, it also indicates that the current funding arrangements have been extended only until 31 December 2017. Minister, will Regional Development Australia continue beyond 31 December 2017 or will it face the axe? If it is to continue, could the minister please elaborate on the capacity in which it will continue?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise to my feet this afternoon, and I am even more delighted that the member for Grayndler is here, because—

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

You guys are a bit obsessed with me!

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do no know about 'obsessed', but I am delighted that the member for Grayndler is here, because he walked out on my speech in the House of Representatives yesterday. I am hopeful that he will not walk out on this speech today, although I know that the member for Grayndler gets very upset when I talk about how, when he was the infrastructure and transport minister, he did absolutely nothing for the Sunshine Coast.

Just last year, the federal government announced a $743 million commitment to the Bruce Highway upgrade between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. That was under the minister for transport and infrastructure who is here this afternoon, not under the previous Labor infrastructure minister, the member for Grayndler. The project is going to make a significant improvement and will change the lives of many of my constituents on the Sunshine Coast. All up, it is a $929 million project. I notice that the member for Grayndler is trying to ignore what I am saying right now, which is quite sad. This stretch of road will change from four lanes to six lanes. It will include a new diamond interchange at the Caloundra Road Interchange. It will include a new interchange at Sunshine Motorway.

Just a few weeks ago, in the budget, the federal government announced a further $650 million for upgrading the Bruce Highway south of Caloundra Road. I know that many of my constituents are over the moon. We are seeing unprecedented expenditure on our Sunshine Coast section of the Bruce Highway so that people travelling to and from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast will no longer be trapped in gridlocked traffic. It is going to take three or four years to do this work, and, as they say, you cannot make an omelette without cracking an egg. There are going to be some difficult times ahead, but this government is prepared to make the difficult decisions. All up, just in my patch, just on the Bruce Highway, the federal government has committed $1.6 billion to road infrastructure. I want to congratulate both the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on the work they have done for the Sunshine Coast.

But we are not stopping there. We on this side of House understand that, despite the state Labor government in Queensland, commuting to and from Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast requires a holistic approach. We understand that we need a better rail system. We on the Sunshine Coast have put up with a single-track line north of Beerburrum since the 1890s. That is for the 10th largest city in the country. I am very proud to be part of a government that recently announced, through the National Rail Program, a $10 billion facility for the state Labor government to tap into, to tender and bid for duplication of the North Coast railway line. That rail line duplication will take a lot of pressure off the Bruce Highway, and I commend the two federal ministers sitting here today for that project.

My first questions to the minister are: What is the likely impact of the National Rail Program around Australia? How will the government prioritise projects under the National Rail Program? And, very importantly, has the minister received any contact from the Queensland government with regard to incorporating the duplication of the North Coast rail line between Beerburrum and Nambour into that program?

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

I rise as the shadow minister—and the minister elect, the way this government is going. I can answer the question from the member opposite, which was, 'What will the impact be of the $10 billion national rail fund?' The answer is zip, because there are zero dollars this year, zero dollars next year and zero dollars the year after. You do not announce a program for the next term in your first term and pretend that it is real. Then, when it is actually funded, the first year is $200 million and the next is $400 million. It is a great example of the illusion that is this government's budget—an illusion that includes the Bruce Highway. Here are the figures—they are on page 133 of Budget Paper No. 2—on the Bruce Highway. It says:

The Government will provide $908.6 million over seven years from 2016-17 for infrastructure projects including—

And it includes the Bruce Highway projects. It says:

The cost of this measure with the exception of the Far North Collector Road will be met from within the existing resources of the Infrastructure Investment Programme.

There it is in black and white: there is not an extra dollar for these infrastructure projects—not one dollar—apart from the Far North Collector Road. That is on page 133 of Budget Paper No. 2.

Of course, before the budget we saw the establishment of the Infrastructure Financing Unit. That has now been renamed the 'Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency', perhaps because those opposite worked out that the acronym was not the best. Eventually, they worked that through. That is the minister's contribution: working out that that was a bad acronym. But the fact is that the industry thinks it is totally unnecessary. This is what the industry said:

iii. We cannot identify any currently proposed infrastructure projects which are commercially viable and not already attracting finance; therefore we cannot see how the IFU will increase the pace of infrastructure project delivery;

…   …   …

vii. Commonwealth debt or equity investments provide an illusory benefit to the budget’s bottom line, but the Commonwealth is also taking equity or … risk on complex projects – meaning that risky investments' in marginal projects will likely never be repaid;

…   …   …

1. The IFU should not be established.

That is what was said. And what this government did was take $17 million out of the construction budget administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to fund bureaucrats at the high end in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They actually reduced the money that was intended for road and rail infrastructure in order to fund this unit. That is a solution looking for a problem. There is not a lack of financing available in this country for good infrastructure projects; what there is a lack of is a pipeline of projects and proper planning for projects.

One of those projects in which there is not a problem is the Cross River Rail. On 30 April 2013 I received a letter from Scott Emerson, the then minister in Campbell Newman's government. Campbell Newman confirmed on TV on Monday night that this was a project that was absolutely ready to go and that the details had been sorted out thanks to Infrastructure Australia and thanks to negotiations between the two levels of government. There was a five-point plan, confirmed in writing minister to minister by Mr Emerson. The letter said:

It goes on about equal capital contributions of $750 million each. It goes on about funding the availability payment stream for the PPP component of the project on a 50-50 basis for the duration of the concession period. It committed the Queensland government to funding rail operating expenses for the project. It said:

That is exactly what some of those opposite, who think they have discovered these things called 'value capture' and 'public-private partnerships', do not seem to understand—that it was happening and it got stopped in the 2014 budget, just like the funding and agreements for the Melbourne Metro got stopped before that budget. It is quite farcical that the government has established this unit, which will not be able to achieve anything at all, and is establishing a rail fund asking for bids when projects that were approved by Infrastructure Australia five years ago and funded in a budget four years ago remain unfunded due to this government's intransigence. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address a number of the matters that have been raised by parliamentary colleagues this afternoon. I will first address the comments made by the member for Tangney in relation to the Perth Freight Link. The member is not here anymore—he has had to go to another commitment—but I do want to acknowledge his outstanding advocacy for the Perth Freight Link project, a project that was identified by Infrastructure Australia as a high-priority project addressing national connectivity. Infrastructure Australia ranked this project as a high-priority project, and the Turnbull government therefore committed significant funding to it. It would have delivered, as the member rightly observed, very substantial benefits for people in the southern suburbs of Perth, particularly freight traffic moving efficiently to and from the port of Fremantle.

The incoming Labor McGowan government in WA unfortunately succumbed to the desire to chase Green votes, which is such a disease which infects Labor governments and Labor oppositions around Australia. We have seen this very disturbing trend. We saw it in Victoria, where the incoming Labor government abandoned the East West Link project, ultimately ending up costing Victorian taxpayers over $1 billion. They did that in a desperate attempt to protect two inner-city seats. We saw a similar pattern occurring with Perth Freight Link, with the incoming Labor government abandoning that project—again, in a desperate attempt to win Green votes. In fact, we almost saw it last year in the lead-up to the federal election when the member for Grayndler, who claimed previously to have been a supporter of WestConnex, performed an extraordinary backflip under pressure from the Greens in his own seat. To the ABC in 2014, he claimed credit for $1.8 billion of funding that his government, when they were in government, allegedly had committed to the Perth Freight Link. Two years later, he told ABC Radio the precise opposite. He said, 'We provided $25 million for funding and we never provided any substantive funding.' That was an amazing backflip and part of a regrettable pattern all around the country. The Labor Party really are not interested in providing better transport solutions for hardworking Australians in middle-ring and outer-ring suburbs, because they are so desperate to contest the votes of the latte sippers and try to get those votes away from the Greens. Unfortunately, the interests of hardworking Australians are sadly abandoned.

I repeat for the benefit of the member for Tangney: there is a commitment that this government has made contained in this budget. There is a contingent liability of $1.2 billion in this budget for the Perth Freight Link. Should any future Western Australian government wish to build the Perth Freight Link, we stand ready to fund it with $1.2 billion. That is why there is a contingent liability in this budget.

We heard from the member for Lyons, who made some assertions about the nature of infrastructure projects in his electorate and, indeed, in Tasmania. Perhaps I could remind the member for Lyons that the Turnbull government is contributing $260 million over the first five years of the 10-year $400 million Midland Highway upgrade program. Perhaps I could remind the member for Lyons about the $24 million commitment to the Hobart airport roundabout, the Highland Lakes Road upgrade, the Glen Road upgrade, the Industry Road upgrade, the Soldiers Settlement Road upgrade, the Cove Hill Bridge upgrade, the Saltwater River Bridge upgrade, the Bass Highway-Wynyard intersection upgrade, the Bridport western access road, the Bass Highway-Westbury Road intersection upgrade, the Bass Highway, and the Cooee and Wynyard planning money—there are a very substantial range of commitments in Tasmania by the Turnbull government. The member for Lyons is, sadly, misinformed.

The member for Mackellar expressed his strong interest in the National Rail Program. I commend him for that. I look forward to the opportunity, in a later contribution, to expand in more detail on that very exciting program.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. I indicate to the chamber that it is my view that the interjections were too loud during that contribution and I will intervene in future if that continues.

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

It is always a matter of rare enjoyment to cop a lecture on latte sipping and working-class values from the member for Bradfield. I want to talk about a lack of initiatives in the budget that will lead to employment growth and economic growth, particularly in southern New South Wales, the area that I represent and that you also represent, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird. It is a matter of deep disappointment when you look south from Sydney. It is almost as if these ministers do not understand that there are parts of New South Wales that exist South of Sydney. I am talking in particular about some key projects that would make an enormous difference to the region. I have long advocated for them and you have long advocated for them, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there is no funding for them within the budget. I would like to hear from the minister about whether there is a possibility that these projects are going to be funded.

In the Illawarra, I am talking about the Maldon-Dombarton rail link. The member for Grayndler would recall that, when Labor was last in government, $60 million and a line item in the budget were set aside to ensure that this project could get up and running. We knew at that time—as we know today—that there was significant private sector interest in forming a public-private partnership or going into partnership with the government to ensure that this project is built. Those on the other side of the chamber who pretend to represent regional Australia understand that this is an important project not just for the Illawarra and surrounding regions; it is absolutely critical if we are going to have a more efficient and effective way of getting grain and bulk commodities from western New South Wales into one of the best deepwater seaports in Australia. My question to the minister is: is the government going to fund this project? Has the government been working with the New South Wales government to ensure that this project can get up and running?

The second project that I want to talk about is one that we were leading the way on. In fact, we were encouraging the government to match our commitment. Of course, I am talking about the Nowra Bridge project. Before the budget, Labor made a commitment to put $50 million into the Nowra Bridge project to ensure that the bridge is built. We were hoping that this would excite and coerce the government into putting money of their own into the budget to ensure that this project is built. But, once again, the people of Nowra and the people of the Shoalhaven have been let down. I can only assume that they do not have a strong, local advocate in their party room who is going into bat for this project. In fact, if you look at the record of the member for Gilmore over the last term and a half, the biggest capital works project in her electorate has been the upgrade of her electorate office. I am sure that is very good, but the people waiting in queues on the highway as they attempt to cross that bridge want to get the project built. They want to see the bridge built, and we encourage the government. We ask the minister: will the government match Labor's commitment to ensure that this bridge is built?

In the time that I have left I will also ask a question about Regional Development Australia. We know that last year the minister received a review into the structure and operation of Regional Development Australia. We know that the minister has had a copy of the recommendations from Mr Warwick Smith's review for at least five months. We are well beyond the deadline when that review was going to be published. We see that within the budget there is $74 million over the forward estimates for funding of Regional Development Australia. My third question to the minister is: what is the plan for Regional Development Australia? When will the review of Regional Development Australia be published so that RDAs throughout the country can get on with the job of putting together plans for the economic development of their regions and putting bids to government and to the private sector to ensure that those regional development plans can be put into action?

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

It is always terrific to stand in this place and speak in some detail about what this government is doing for infrastructure around the electorate of Forde and its surrounds, particularly in regard to the M1 merge at Eight Mile Plains, one of the great projects that is occurring to upgrade the M1. It is being very well received by the electors of Forde and also the electors of Bonner and Rankin and those further south. To the minister: I know this has been a long time frame and a long piece of work, and I am pleased to say that we finally got to a resolution on this matter, as well as for the project on the Gold Coast, in the electorate of the member for McPherson. It is part of an overall package for the budget.

Importantly, I would like to ask the minister this. As I said, I am very pleased that these projects are proceeding, but I would be interested to know what else we are doing in the infrastructure space. I would like the minister to elaborate somewhat on this particular project and how that is going to roll out and on our commitment to other infrastructure in Queensland, which is extensive. Also, what hurdles still remain for further funding to finish off the remainder of the M1 project?

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good afternoon, everybody. It is lovely to have you here. I would also like to welcome two of my constituents into parliament today, users of the north-east railway line who have a great interest in the outcome. It is lovely to have you here. Minister, the questions I have to ask are about the north-east line and in particular about the $100 million allocated in the budget. There is nothing about this other than great gratitude. The people of north-east Victoria want to say thank you and how much we are looking forward to that money flowing.

My first question is: when? When can we expect the plan and the beginning of works? The next question is about the relationship with Victoria. Can you please tell us—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Will Victoria pay? How much will they pay? Who will pay first? And will it be enough? There are some other questions I need to ask, other than when the commencement date is going to be. Will you ask New South Wales to pay, because we know that the XPT also has enormous trouble with our line? Last time I was talking to the customer service people on that XPT, they showed me the bruises up and down their arms from being bumped around on the train line. The next question is: who will ultimately be responsible for delivering the project and the expenditure? If it is Victoria and New South Wales and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, who actually takes responsibility? One of the big problems we have had in the past is that no-one has actually accepted responsibility, so the poor old communities got stuck with poor service, and everyone else was not saying who should be responsible.

In terms of the plan for the $100 million, can you give us a broad outline of the types of work that are needed and how far you think the $100 million will go? Is your intention to spread it across the whole line, or would you consider doing a small portion and doing it really well? We know that there are sections that have really bad mud holes. Would we reconstruct the whole line and get a section of it working really well, or is the plan to go the whole distance?

The questions that the community is asking are not only around the actual spending of the money but also about some sort of reporting mechanism to the community. Minister, as you know, more than anything else, this problem has become really political. In the political nature of it, I think we have lost sight of the fact that it is an engineering problem that needs a solution. We have got caught up in playing politics rather than saying: how do we solve a problem? How do we get the trains working better? And then how do we have a plan for the next 50 years that is going to give us good passenger service?

Another consideration—and I would really welcome your advice—is we know the ARTC sees their main customer as freight and we understand how important it is that the ARTC raises a considerable amount of its revenue from freight, but from my perspective the passengers need to be included in that relationship. How do we have a coexisting collaboration between freight and passenger services? Can you give me some sense of the planning around that? Will that mean we need more passenger passing loops or freight passing loops? If we do—and we all know that they are expensive—how will they be paid for?

That leads me to my final question about the relationship between our $100 million—it is such a lot of money and it means so much to us—and the inland freight project. These two things obviously operate together, but the community is really interested to know how these two will coexist. Can you give us a commitment that some of our money will not be used for crossings, raising bridges or doing more freight stuff?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will seek to respond to a few of the members opposite and the issues they have raised. The member for Mayo raised some concerns about the Building Better Regions Fund. I can confirm that the government has committed a further $200 million to the Building Better Regions Fund from 2017-18 to 2020-21, which will bring the fund to a total of nearly $500 million. It will allow more regional communities across Australia to benefit from that fund.

The member indicated she had some concerns about the geographic eligibility. The program actually uses Australian Bureau of Statistics's significant urban areas of the major capital cities to determine the geographic eligibility of that program. We will seek to review the program, including that eligibility criteria, after round 1 of the funding.

In relation to Regional Development Australia, the member also inquired as to the government's approach in this budget. She would be aware that in 2016-17 the Australian government provided $18.3 million to the 55 RDA committees across Australia. The committees are designed to drive economic growth in regional areas. An independent review of the RDA program commenced in 2015 and reported back. Minister Nash is currently considering her response to that review. Obviously we seek to ensure effective regional planning going forward. I look forward to the minister's response in that regard as well.

The member for Grayndler raised the Bruce Highway once again. Members of the coalition right along the coast of Queensland have been extraordinary advocates for the Bruce Highway. I know the member for Capricornia, who cannot be here, is very keen on future projects on the Bruce. I will just set the record straight, because the member for Grayndler cannot help himself on this particular issue. The federal coalition government has allocated $6.7 billion to the Bruce, which is $1 billion more than Labor ever committed to the Bruce Highway. He knows that is true. He is not even interjecting on that point any more.

We are delivering on every single project in the Bruce Highway package of works that we promised. We are delivering on them. In the 2017-18 budget we announced an additional $844 million would go to new projects. The member is right in the sense that a smart government operates like this: when we were achieve savings we reinvest them in additional projects on the Bruce. The Pine River to Caloundra project will remove one of the last major bottlenecks on the Bruce Highway, in one of the fastest-growing areas of Queensland. There is the Pine River to Caloundra project and the Deception Bay interchange, $11.4 million for the Wide Bay intersection and $182 million for road safety upgrades. They are all projects that Queensland MPs have strongly advocated for. I can assure the member for Grayndler that when someone goes to work on a project they are not going to say to me, 'Is that new money or old money, Minister?' They are just going to say: 'I've got a new job. I'm working here and I'm delivering a better product for the people of Queensland.'

I will not be able to get through all the questions from the member for Indi—she did have quite a few—but I can assure her that my relationship with Victoria is patchy sometimes but going very well at the moment. We have had some very productive discussions in recent times. We have not reached a resolution yet on the $500 million regional rail package, but there have been negotiations since both budgets were handed down and the dust settled a bit. I had meetings with Minister Jacinta Allan in Brisbane a week or 10 days ago. We are very much focused on getting results.

The member correctly indicated that the people from the north-east—and I welcome your two constituents from that beautiful part of the world—just want results. They do not want to see silly political games. The $100 million that we allocated in the budget was a breakthrough in the sense that the people in the north-east have been waiting a long time for a decent rail service and this will be the start of the process.

I met with the chief executive of ARTC, John Fullerton, this week and impressed upon him the importance of securing a better passenger ride experience on that line. I can indicate that Mr Fullerton has a critical role in delivering that other project we have talked about a bit tonight, the Melbourne and Brisbane Inland Rail project. The member for Indi quite correctly reflected on that that it is an important project which will require additional investment—and I stress that—in providing for the double-stacking of trains along that route into the future.

So the $100 million is aimed at passenger rail investment. I want to use this opportunity to congratulate and thank my state colleagues Tim McCurdy and Steph Ryan for their fearless advocacy on this issue and also Senator Bridget McKenzie. Senator Bridget McKenzie, Steph and Tim were very active in making sure I was aware of the issues and inviting me to visit. I travelled on the line a matter of two or three months ago. I think the local community would be disappointed that I had a great experience that day! There were no delays on the day I was there. The only delay on the route was caused by a rolling-stock issue and the door would not shut at Wangaratta. It is about us investing in rail infrastructure but also the state government getting on board. There is no free ride. The Victorian government will have to invest in better rolling stock as well.

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

I rise to question again the gap between the rhetoric and the reality from this government when it comes to actual investment in infrastructure. One of the things the government continually does is speak about the 2013-14 budget. I have news for the government: Wayne Swan delivered that budget. That was not a budget delivered by the current government, but it adds in that figure as if it was when it was in government.

This time around, any analysis shows a $7.4 billion cut in actual infrastructure investment over the forward estimates. Yet the rhetoric of the government is about $75 billion. Well, sometimes it is. In the government's own glossy produced as part of the budget papers, it says it is $70 billion in infrastructure commitments. Then if you go through and have a look at the details you see $1.2 billion committed to the Perth Freight Link. But then the same $1.2 billion is listed for the Metronet rail project. That is on page 10 of the budget glossy document. However, on page 8 it says there will be $700 million going towards the Metronet rail project. So it is not clear from the budget papers themselves whether it is $700 million or $1.2 billion. And then there is the same $1.2 billion double-counted for the Perth Freight Link project.

It is a bit like the Victorian circumstances where you have $1 billion and then there is $3 billion committed to the East West Link but it is the same money. It is the same contribution—the advance payment that was made from the Commonwealth to Victoria of $1.5 billion as a result of its 2014 budget. There was, further up in Queensland, $13.6 billion allegedly allocated but $844 million for the new Bruce Highway project, and we just heard from the minister that that is new money; that is a reallocation of existing funding. You see that pattern repeated throughout the budget.

Let's look at actuals for Victoria for 2017-18 through to 2020-21. There is $791.2 million, then $568 million, then $606.3 million and then $280.7 million over the life of this budget. For Queensland $2,049 million goes down to $1,874 million, then to $1,866 million and then down to $1.652 billion in 2021. South Australia begin with $759.2 million. Then in 2018-19 they will get $434 million. In 2019-20 they will get $349.5 million. In 2020-21, they will get $95.2 million—that is the entire Commonwealth contribution for South Australian infrastructure.

Then you see the great fiddles of the Inland Rail project being off-budget.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

I do support the project. We provided on-budget funding. We did not provide a fix or a fiddle, pretending that it would happen. This government has stopped the project 38 kilometres short of the port, thereby reducing the cost of the actual construction of the project. Then, what they do with this project is have it all funded off budget. There is not a dollar of on-budget funding, even though John Anderson's report said that expected revenue over 50 years will not cover the initial capital investment. John Anderson said that it needed on-budget investment. That was the report to the government. It has been totally ignored. Then, we know that what they are counting is not the Inland Rail revenue; it is revenue from the whole of the ARTC. So, as a fix, they are using the profits that are made from the Hunter Valley rail network to pretend that that is the way that you finance this project. If this were a private sector operation, people would go to jail, but you, as a government entity—

Government members interjecting—

It would! This is a corruption of the public financing of taxpayers, and that is why— (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has expired. I will just remind the House that my warning on interjections was for both sides.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Grayndler knows full well from his time as the minister with responsibility for NBN, it is well-established practice for the Commonwealth to make equity investments into substantial infrastructure projects. And I do not recall the member for Grayndler describing that funding method as being corrupt—or as any of the other extravagant flourishes of language he has used now. What we have seen from the member for Grayndler, in his claims about total levels of infrastructure funding in this budget, is that he has looked at one part, a very substantial part, a very large part, of the funding that is being provided—namely, grants to states—but he has completely ignored another equally large part of the infrastructure funding in this budget, and that is the multibillion dollar commitments of equity going into inland Rail, Western Sydney Airport and, of course, Moorebank. And, indeed, we also have loan financing going from the Commonwealth government to Sydney Motorway Corporation to underpin WestConnex.

This reflects a clear policy approach from the Turnbull government. We are providing funding and financing in a range of ways, and the total amount that we are putting into infrastructure is greater than ever before. In fact, over the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, average spending was a little over $6 billion. Between 2013-14 and 2020-21, the figure, as we have informed the community, will be around $8 billion. We are seeing very significant financial commitments to infrastructure by the Turnbull government. It really does not advance the cause when somebody as experienced in infrastructure policy as the shadow minister wilfully turns his eyes away from one significant part of the form in which that funding and financing is provided.

Let me now respond to the contributions made by the members for Mackellar and Fisher, who expressed significant interest in the National Rail Program—and for very good reason. This is a commitment by the Turnbull government to commit $10 billion to funding rail programs and rail assets around the country. We know that major rail lines are city shaping. They are transformational. They have an enormous impact on the functioning of our cities and on the functioning of the regional areas around our cities, which, of course, form part of an integrated economy with our major cities. We have people living in Geelong or in Ballarat commuting into Melbourne. We have people living in the Blue Mountains or on the Central Coast commuting to Sydney. We have people on the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast commuting to Brisbane. Our $10 billion National Rail Program is available to fund transformational rail investment within our major cities and also to deliver improved connections between our major cities and surrounding regional areas.

I want to commend both the member for Fisher and the member for Mackellar for their strong interest in these programs, their strong advocacy and the encouragement which they are already expressing for their respective state governments to come forward with proposals under this program. We want to encourage proposals coming forward so that we can allocate this funding in the most effective way possible to encourage the provision of transformational rail infrastructure in our major cities and between our major cities and surrounding regional areas. I commend those members for their advocacy in relation to their areas. It is exactly the kind of competitive energy that we want to encourage through this program. We want to see the best ideas coming forward. We have included a $20 million commitment to co-fund up to three business cases in relation to faster rail links between our cities and surrounding regional areas, part of an overall integrated approach to infrastructure in this budget, which involves record financial commitments for nation-building infrastructure all around the country, in the cities and in the regions, providing support from the federal government for the delivery of vitally needed infrastructure.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Communications and the Arts Portfolio

Proposed expenditure $2,427,440,000

I am pleased to rise in this consideration-in-detail debate regarding the budget appropriation bills in the communications portfolio. The Turnbull government's 2017-18 budget contains great outcomes for the Australian broadcasting sector, for those who love Australian arts, entertainment and sport, and for Australian families. Funding measures and policy announcements outlined in the May budget will further augment innovation and competition in our communications sector. They will provide much needed reform of the media and broadcasting industry, and they will continue to support participation in Australia's artistic and cultural life.

The government will provide the portfolio with $13.2 billion to deliver its priorities through the 2017-18 appropriations bills, combined with prior year appropriations for the NBN. In 2017-18, funding will contribute equity and a short-term loan, totalling $10.7 billion, to take the National Broadband Network rollout to 75 per cent completion by the end of the financial year. A combined total of $1.3 billion in funds will also be appropriated for our national broadcasters—the ABC and the SBS. Close to half a billion dollars will be provided to our national collecting and cultural institutions to engage, educate and inspire the hundreds of thousands of local and international visitors who will flock to our galleries, museums and archives in the coming year. And $664 million will be appropriated for the Department of Communications and the Arts and the Australian Communications and Media Authority to make our communications and media sectors work in Australia's interest, to ensure access to diverse Australian content and to foster Australian arts and culture.

Funding will continue to flow to rounds 1 and 2 of our highly successful Mobile Black Spot Program—of course, an area that saw egregious, complete, continuing, absolute and shameful neglect by Labor for six years. How much money did Labor spend on mobile blackspots in their six years in government?

They spent zero. And why is that? It is because the Labor government and the Labor Party have no interest in regional Australia. They are utterly and completely shamelessly indifferent to the communications needs of regional and remote Australia. There has not been one dollar for mobile blackspot communications from the Labor Party in six years in government. What a shameful record, but it is a record that, by contrast, we have been working to correct. We have been working to roll out, with great success, new mobile base stations around the country.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have also seen a comprehensive package of reforms to protect our children from gambling advertising, to modernise and assist our broadcasting sector and to recognise the changing media landscape, which has affected the way in which Australians consume content. The government has listened to the community. We are taking action to protect Australian children from regular exposure to gambling advertising during live sporting programs. This budget has seen an announcement of the government's intention to abolish broadcasting licence fees, providing fee relief of around $127 million a year—helping to level the playing field so that Australian broadcasters can compete in the modern media environment and continue to tell high quality Australian stories. In its place, the government will charge broadcasters a new fee for the spectrum they use of around $40 million, which is much more reflective of its value.

The government is continuing to support the development of Australian drama, children's programs, documentaries and other content by commissioning a joint review of the current regulation and funding framework. Our content review will identify policy enhancements that will ensure the ongoing production of Australian and children's screen content for domestic and international audiences, regardless of platform. There are adjustments to modernise the antisiphoning scheme. There is funding of $7.5 million a year, over four years, to increase the coverage of sports that currently receive low or no broadcast exposure and it provides funding to replace advertising revenue that the SBS has been unable to realise without legislative change. We have wide-ranging media and content reform proposals, responding to the growing pressure on our broadcasting sector. I look forward to ongoing discussion of these reforms, and other reforms, throughout this consideration in detail section.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of those who have joined us, I will indicate that a lively interjection is one thing but loud yelling will not be tolerated from either side.

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

On 11 May The New York Times warned the rest of the world about this government's second-rate NBN. The title for the article was: 'How Australia bungled its $49 billion high-speed internet rollout.' The article went on to say, in relation to the Prime Minister's broadband plan, that it has been:

…hobbled by cost overruns, partisan maneuvering and a major technical compromise that put 19th-century technology between the country’s 21st-century digital backbone and many of its homes and businesses.

Meanwhile the rest of the world has been moving towards fibre. In January Ovum declared that 2016 had been a tipping point for fibre deployment. They noted the business case for FTTP had improved dramatically with costs falling significantly across the globe.

The UK is now exploring plans to expand fibre deployment to 10 million premises and British Telecommunications are reported to have halved the cost of FTTP deployment in their rollout trials. New Zealand has a blossoming fibre network and its own space program. It has brought down the costs of fibre deployment by 44 per cent. Meanwhile, here we are, stuck with a $49 billion second-rate copper NBN. This government's digital transformation agenda has collapsed before our eyes, and consumer complaints about the NBN soared over the 2015-16 period. Through all this the government has stood by and watched on as a spectator. Our constituents are fed up with the broken promises, the missed appointments, the dropouts and the blame shifting, which have characterised their experience since moving to the NBN.

The 2017-18 budget will provide $7 million in funding for the implementation of a speed monitoring program. Labor welcomes this announcement and considers the program can help ensure consumers are better informed to make choices about the services they purchase and the factors which impact on their speeds. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn the ACCC proposed the broadband speed monitoring program to government in the week commencing 15 February 2016. That is right, last year. This was their evidence to the NBN joint standing committee.

Fourteen months has elapsed since February 2016. Why has this sensible step taken so long? Why did the government and the minister sit on this for 14 months?

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

As the minister is aware, I am extremely committed to children being as safe as possible online. I have delivered hundreds of cyber safety presentations and have worked closely with the minister, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, on the establishment of the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. I note that it is the 10 year anniversary of the death of Carly Ryan. It is one of the instances that I have frequently quoted the young people and parents as a reason why impersonation online is such a critical issue and why young people should never go to meet in person people they have met online. As we know, Carly was only 15 when a young man by the name of Brandon Kane, who claimed to be 18, wanted to be her friend. Over time Carly believed that she loved Brandon, because of the communications they shared and how interested he was in her and the things that mattered in her life. Over that time, a gentleman claiming to be Brandon's father asked to come to Carly's party, and then made some pretty obscene comments to her. Of course, when he left it was not long before Brandon got back in touch with Carly and said, 'I need to make this up to you. I need to meet you.' Carly eventually gave in and went to meet Brandon Kane at Port Elliot. Unfortunately, there was no Brandon Kane, there was only Garry Francis Newman, a 50-year-old online sexual predator and paedophile. Of course, Carly still would not do what he wanted, so in the end he assaulted her, he shoved her face sand and he drowned her.

This is a case that I repeatedly talk about when I talk to young people and parents. The reason I am so concerned is that in every class I do young people have the courage to admit to me that they have been to meet people in person whom they have met online. In one class I had seven 11-year-olds who admitted this to me, which significantly scared the teacher and their parents. Even more importantly, the youngest person's mother contacted my office after one of the presentations I did to say that her 11-year-old daughter, after listening to my presentation, realised that she was being groomed online for sex—at 11.

I have a very deep commitment in this space, Minister, which you are very well aware of, and I have worked with you on this for some time in this place. Minister, could you explain how families, teachers and schools are using the resources and services provided by the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner? Could the minister explain the importance of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill, which I spoke about today, and the process the government is using the develop civil penalties for online image based abuse?

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

In his rhetorical flourish opening his statement on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2017-2018 the minister posed the question: how much money did Labor spent on mobile black spot programs? It is a very good question with which to open these proceedings. The answer to that question is $250 million, slightly more than the government is currently spending on its mobile phone black spot program, but it was more targeted and it was not used as a political slush fund.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you would know that unless you have backhaul cable that is connecting a mobile phone tower to the rest of the network, those towers you build are just poles in a paddock. They are not connecting a network and they are absolutely useless. This is a fact that appeared to be lost on the minister opposite when he asked how much money Labor spent on a mobile phone black spot program. The answer is $250 million, and a hell of a lot of the towers that they are now funding could not have been built unless Labor had put the Blackall cable into the ground. That is a fact that is lost on these guys.

My questions go directly to the Mobile Black Spot Program, which has been roundly condemned by independent economic and probity analysts. First it was the Australian National Audit Office, which, in its damning report into round 1 of the program, highlighted serious flaws in the design and the administration of the program. As if that were not enough, it was then followed by the Productivity Commission's December report into the universal service obligation, which, on page 266, said:

… the Commission is concerned that there is a risk that Australian Government funding is directed at expanding mobile coverage in locations for political reasons rather than to locations where overall community wellbeing might be better served.

You would have thought after reading both of these reports and having the sirens go off that they responsible government would have heeded the warning. This is round 1, seen to have been corrupted by a political process, with round 2 in danger of repeating the very same mistakes. So, at the Senate estimates hearings last week, you can imagine our surprise at the answer we got when we asked the department and the minister responsible for administering the scheme whether they had adopted the recommendations of the ANAO, whether they had learnt from their mistakes and whether there would be a transparent competitive process for round 3 of the program. What was the answer? The answer was no. They are repeating all of the same mistakes that had been made in rounds 1 and 2 of that program, the same mistakes that had been roundly criticised by the ANAO and by the Productivity Commission.

In April 2014, you told the listeners to ABC Ballarat this about the program when it was first announced: 'It will be obviously necessary to prioritise and make sure that the money we have that we allocate to areas is to the areas of greatest need.' My question to the minister is: what has changed? Why are you now not using a transparent and independent program for round 3 of the program? Why have you not learnt from the damning findings of the ANAO report and why will you do not implement the recommendations of those reports to ensure that mobile phone towers are built in the areas of the highest need?

The shadow minister and I have highlighted a number of areas in regional Australia which have been subject to bushfires and other natural disasters and have put in very compelling bids for funding under this program but have been overlooked time and time again. I highlight the advocacy of the member for McEwen for mobile phone towers in his electorate in those areas subject to the Black Saturday bushfires for which reports and community organisations have said a phone tower would have made the difference. Why are they not funded? Why will the minister not learn from these previous reports?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to turn to the remarks from the member for Whitlam. The fundamental fact about government programs to support increased mobile coverage in regional and remote Australia is that in six years Labor did absolutely nothing. They did zero because they just do not care about regional Australia. Then the shadow minister had the temerity to put out a media release which contained this laughable statement:

Labor's policy on mobile black spots is to place a far greater emphasis on a fair distribution of funds across a fairer spread of electorates.

I will tell you what Labor's policy on mobile black spots is. It is to do nothing. The only honest statement of Labor's policy on mobile black spots would be: Labor's policy on mobile black spots is to spend six years doing absolutely nothing. The best the shadow minister can come up with is a few selective quotations from an ANAO report. Here is the bit that he forgot to quote:

The department established the key elements that would be expected to form part of a competitive, merit-based grants programme …

It was very selective quotation. That is all he is good at.

I say to the member for Whitlam: when you go to regional towns all around Australia, as I have had the privilege of doing, and meet with people, they are desperate to have mobile coverage for all of the safety benefits it provides and for all of the convenience benefits it provides—because, as they rightly say, increasingly in modern society people assume that you have a mobile phone. When you deal with your bank, your insurance company or a government department, they just expect that you will have mobile coverage.

The critical thing is to take the money that is available and leverage it to the maximum extent possible and deliver as much as you can further dollars, and that is precisely what we have done. For $100 million of taxpayers' money in round 1, we delivered 499 base stations. The Mobile Black Spots Program is rolling out all around the country. We are seeing, under both round 1 and round 2, an extensive rollout of mobile phone base stations. This is a program which the coalition is very proud of because it is changing lives every day. It is an extensive rollout of mobile base stations that would not be there but for this public policy program initiated by the coalition after Labor did nothing. For six years, Labor did nothing.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me turn to an area of great substance of which the member for Forrest has been an extraordinary champion, and that is the question of children being as safe as possible online. The Turnbull government established the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner. Because of the work of the Commissioner and the office's staff, thousands of Australian children are much safer online. It has been a significant journey getting to this point. The online safety working group was established when the coalition was in opposition, and it worked extensively with experts around the country. We drew extensively on expert input and advice. The member for Forrest has done such extraordinary and consistent work in this area. As a result of that policy work in opposition, we established the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner and the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill was passed into law. Since June 2015, the office has had over 3.3 million visits to its website.

Of course, the work in this area simply continues. The Minister for Justice recently introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill 2017, which is a reflection of the government's strong commitment to preventing harm to children both in person or online. Such harm, including sexual exploitation of children, is of course devastating for the children involved, their families and their communities. The introduction of this bill follows the tragic case involving Carly Ryan, which the member for Forrest explained to the House this afternoon. This is a vitally important area, and the Turnbull government is working very effectively in this area.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out to the House that members on the minister's side, in their great enthusiasm, no doubt, actually drowned him out and forced the no doubt reluctant minister to have to yell his response. Keeping the volume of enthusiasm down a bit would be helpful, I would suggest.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I would like to talk about Australia Post. It is charging more for services such as delivering letters but it is slowing its time for delivery. It has also just recently changed the clearance time for street boxes in regional areas. I note that one of these regional areas is where my electorate office is in Mount Barker. I will say that that area is considered rural and regional for health purposes but is no longer considered regional when we are talking about the Building Better Regions Fund, despite it being one of the fastest-growing inland regional areas in Australia. However, I digress. How will this affect delivery times for regional and rural areas, which are already at a disadvantage for the delivery of mail, when compared to metropolitan areas?

Minister, in relation to the Mobile Black Spot Program, round 2 closed early last year, as you are aware, and successful applicants were announced late last year. There is a significant inequity in the allocation of funding under the Black Spot Program across the electorates. Mayo only had two successful bids, whereas the electorate of Grey received 13 and the electorate of Barker was allocated just five. Can the minister please explain the reasons behind the inequitable allocation of funding? Will the program be extended to address all priority sites? Surely, the minister does not think that mobile phone coverage in regional Australia is complete. If he does, I will advise that on a drive from the north of my electorate to the south, on the mainland part of my electorate, I drop out at least 10 times on the main arterial routes.

Mobile battery backup on our mobile towers during outages and emergencies is an area of immediate concern for my electorate. During the summer storms over the Christmas period we suffered lengthy power cuts. What be realised was that those of us who were on NBN fibre to the node no longer had a landline. After four hours, the mobile phone tower batteries died. This meant that people in my community had absolutely no way of communicating with authorities or with each other. In areas of high risk for bushfire, in which category is the majority of my electorate, we need to have some sort of surety that we can at least use our mobile phone towers. Power is cut deliberately in a high-risk bushfire areas on days of catastrophic risk. We need the minister to address this essential service, because without the internet, without a landline and without mobile phone towers, we are beyond vulnerable. I would like the minister to address that this evening, please.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very lucky to represent the electorate of Berowra. It is a beautiful electorate and it has a range of different ways in which people can live. They can live in suburban built up areas, they can live on the beautiful Hawkesbury River and they can live in the rural areas of the electorate. The geography of the electorate presents beauty—there are hills, valleys and the river—but it also presents challenges. I have found that the people who choose not to live in the suburban areas of the electorate, particularly people who live on the river or in rural areas, choose to live there for a range of different reasons. Some have lived there for generations. When I was visiting the Sackville North fire brigade, recently, I met John Turnbull, who is a distant cousin of the Prime Minister, who goes back to the time of Lachlan Macquarie and the settlement of Ebenezer, which is in the electorate of Macquarie. There are some people who have lived there for generations. There are some people who love the rural lifestyle, who want to have a river experience. There are some people with large families who live there. There are some people who like to have privacy, the privacy of not living on top of the person next to you is a great benefit of my electorate.

Despite the fact that my electorate starts only about 40 kilometres from the CBD, it often feels like you can be at the back of beyond, because, while Berowra has its suburban areas, its rural areas are no different to rural areas in other parts of Australia. They are rural areas, particularly, because their geography makes mobile telephony and mobile coverage a real challenge. Those of us who rely on mobile phones, and so many of us do now, take mobile phone usage for granted. We need mobile phones for calls, for texts, to check the internet, to check emails and to use apps, and we need them for family life and for businesses. Many of the people who live in the rural areas of my electorate in their own businesses. Many of the people who live in the rural areas live in bushfire prone areas, and we need mobile phone coverage, particularly for emergency services.

The black spots in mobile phone coverage arise because of the patchwork of coverage in the vast landscape in my electorate and the particular geography of the electorate. As Australians continue to embrace this technology, we need to ensure that people have a life and have a level of communications technology that can assist them, regardless of where they live.

I want to pay particular tribute to the minister at the table here today, Minister Fletcher, who was absolutely central in bringing on board the Mobile Black Spot Program. The Mobile Black Spot Program has been a great boon to people living in regional areas and in outer suburban areas like mine that have particular geographical challenges. In contrast to speeches from those opposite, we have invested seriously in addressing mobile black spots. I have to say that, other than the issue of roads, mobile black spots are probably the second most important issue—the second most frequent issue—that people raise with me when they come to see me in my electorate.

Residents in the north-west of my electorate have chronically poor mobile phone coverage. People in towns like Sackville North, South Maroota, Glenhaven, Maraylya and Forest Glen might live in one of the most beautiful parts of the electorate, but it is a very difficult part in terms of mobile black spots because of the particular landscape of that area. Those homes are often connected by a thin network of sealed and unsealed roads. As you follow the river along, you get wonderful things like the ski resorts, the caravan parks and the Supercross tracks.

On my recent visit, which I mentioned, to the Sackville North rural fire brigade, it was clear to me how poor mobile coverage interferes with the work and the lives of local residents. A driver needs to know that they can get to a particular scene if there is an accident. A family need to know that they can make a call if a powerline comes down or their home is damaged in a storm. A patient with a medical emergency needs immediate contact with an ambulance, and the ambulance must be able to reach them. Even when you have a bar or two of reception, in the summer months and around Easter, peak demands spurred by tourists and extended families can keep locals stuck in queues trying to get their share of the signal.

A new mobile phone tower for Sackville North was granted funding in the first round of the Mobile Black Spot Program. I understand there are three candidate sites for the tower and that a final decision about that site has not yet been made. So my question to the minister is: when will the tower be constructed, and when will it be brought on line to deliver coverage to my constituents?

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

I have listened to the minister stump and thump and beat his chest about how good he is and how good the government is. In the context of telecommunications and service delivery in the north of Australia, he has been absolutely absent. I might say that a recent issue which brought the community's attention to the lack of interest by the government in people who live in my communities in Lingiari, and indeed the Northern Territory generally, was the decision by the ABC to shut down short-wave radio.

This issue was not seen at all by the government for a long while. We had no participation from the Northern Territory CLP senator around this issue, but it was something which drove a lot of energy through the pastoral community of the Northern Territory—a community which is very important to the economy of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the economy of Australia in terms of live cattle exports. It was raised by truck drivers across the Northern Territory, who used short-wave radio regularly. It was raised by fisherpeople in the Northern Territory who used the short-wave radio service. It was raised by ranger services in the Northern Territory who used this range of services. It was raised by people who are travellers in the Northern Territory who relied on those services.

Indeed, the response from the ABC was less than informative because, in the first instance, we were told that they consulted widely. We learnt later from Ms Guthrie, in evidence to the Senate, that in fact there had been no prior consultation with the communities of northern Australia around the proposal to cut the short-wave radio service. They said that, in its place, the VAST service would work, and that would be able to be utilised by people in the bush. In fact, of course, the VAST service is only useful if you are stationary, and people who relied on the short-wave service were travelling. I say to the minister that it was a shame that there was no interest taken in this subject by the government. What we have seen, in response to the ridiculous assertions made by the ABC and the mismanagement of this process by the ABC, is that Mr Jay Mohr-Bell, a cattle station manager outside of Katherine, dismissed the ABC's view by saying:

The ABC fails to understand that their audience who listens to local ABC via shortwave do not 'favour' this service, this is their only available service.

He told The Guardian:

The ABC likes to be heard but fails to listen. Essentially the ABC is closing down the shortwave service and replacing it with nothing.

Minister, you may see this as something which is of no interest to you, but it is of great interest to the people of Lingiari and, indeed, the people of northern Australia generally. It typifies a lack of interest by your government in people who live in my electorate.

I give you the example of a barramundi farm in Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo Barramundi is the largest barramundi farm in the country and one of the most successful farms of its type in the country. It is halfway between Darwin and Kakadu in Humpty Doo on Anzac Parade. It does not have effectively any telecommunication services. This is a commercial operation that is at the forefront of its industry and it has a lack of telecommunication services. This is the responsibility of you and your government and yet nothing has been done for them.

Most importantly, Minister, I find it hard to believe that you could look past this decision by the ABC to cut this shortwave service in the Northern Territory and not request they do something to replace it, because there is nothing in place at the moment that can replace this service. I am wanting to know how much was set aside in the budget to ensure that the people I have referred to—the cattlemen, the fisherfolk, the tourists and the residents of northern Australia who have relied on these shortwave services—are not punished for the coalition's savage cuts to the ABC? How much has been put into the budget to ensure they have a replacement service that is actually effective and works?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me address a number of comments made by the member for Greenway in relation to the NBN. I thought it might be informative to look at the number of premises that were ready for service in the electorate of Greenway as at 9 September 2013. When Labor left government it was about 10,000. Today it is over 46,000. How many were connected when Labor left government? It was not 10,000 and it was not 1,000; it was 237 people. There were 237 people connected to the NBN in the electorate of Greenway when Labor left office and today there are 32,000 premises.

Whitlam is another interesting electorate and another interesting case study. There were 871 ready for service on 9 September 2013, when Labor left office after 4½ years of supposedly delivering the NBN. They had managed 871. How many are ready for service in Whitlam today? Remember that there were 871 when Labor left office. How many are ready for service today? Seventy-two thousand. The number connected in 2013 was 54 and today it is 35,000.

The member for Greenway also asked about the broadband monitoring program. I welcome her generous, open-minded support for this program. This is an important program. Indeed, on 7 April this year the Turnbull government announced a commitment to funding $7 million for the Broadband Performance Monitoring and Reporting Program. That funding will go to the ACCC to implement the program. Of course, the ACCC is well placed to manage this program, given its role in enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act.

The program will be funded on a cost-recovery basis from industry via the annual carrier licence charge. Carriers will be required to contribute to the cost only if they are providing broadband products over the NBN. The broadband monitoring and reporting program to be carried out by the ACCC and funded by the Turnbull government is a very important initiative. I thank the shadow minister for her interest in the program.

I was asked some questions by the member for Mayo about the Mobile Black Spot Program, rounds 1 and 2. The Mobile Black Spot Program was structured so that applications were made on a base-station-by-base-station basis and ranked in accordance with the guidelines. One of the factors which weighed on the rankings was the amount of money contributed from other sources, including state governments, the telcos themselves and private sector contributors. That meant that this was a very effective way to leverage the Commonwealth taxpayer contribution to maximise the outcomes. It is the case, unfortunately, that the South Australian government committed no money at all to support round 1 and only $1.5 million to support round 2. While we welcome that, the reality is that that was materially less than most other state governments. As a consequence of that, 20 mobile blackspots were funded in South Australia in round 2, of which two were in Mayo. I would encourage the member to take that matter up with the South Australian government, but it is pleasing that it has been possible to fund two base stations in Mayo, and I hope there will be further opportunities in the future.

The member for Berowra asked about the Sackville North tower and gave, I thought, a very good explanation of the value of the Mobile Black Spot Program and the benefits that that can deliver to communities which do not have adequate mobile coverage at the moment. He spoke at some length about how important the role of the local Rural Fire Service is in Sackville North and described his visit to that important location. I want to thank the member for Berowra for his interest in the Mobile Black Spot Program. He asked about progress on that tower, and I can advise the House that construction of the Sackville North tower is expected to commence in the third quarter of 2017 and, subject to planning approval from council, to be online by Christmas.

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

I would like to ask about some of the arts elements in the budget. Unfortunately there was not a lot a lot of mention of the arts, but we have questions. We have seen the actual amounts to be returned to the Australia Council in this year's budget and across the forward estimates from the closure of Catalystand the transfers of the Major Festivals Initiative and the Australian World Orchestra. From those figures can you update the amount of uncommitted funding—in total and over each of the four years from 2017-18, year by year—available to the Australia Council to support the really important small-to-medium arts sector? Has the final round of Catalyst been completed? If not, when will that occur, when will announcements be made and how much of those uncommitted funds over the forward estimates have been or will be expended on the final round of Catalyst?

I also want to ask about national institutions. Members will have seen reports this week that, despite small amounts of capital funding for national institutions, there are collections at risk from prolonged cuts. CPSU researchers have looked into this. Years of budget cuts have heaped pressure on staff and limited public access to collections. The report in The Canberra Times shows that they have made it harder to acquire and preserve items, slowed the efforts to digitalise historical documents, and put artefacts at risk of deteriorating. Can the minister explain why he has neglected the national institutions and, as reported in The Canberra Times, ripped out $30 million from museums, galleries and libraries since 2013?

I would also like to refer the minister to the expenses under the arts and cultural heritage subfunction, which are estimated to decrease by 2.6 per cent in real terms from 2016-17 to 2017-18 and by 12 per cent in real terms over the period 2017-18 to 2020-21. This subfunction includes programs that support funding for the arts and cultural institutions. The estimated decreases reflect the implementation of efficiencies and arts related savings measures from the 2014-15 budget, the 2015-16 budget and the 2015-16 MYEFO. So with cuts of this nature affecting the long-term sustainability of the arts sector, what is the minister's overall vision for the arts, and how is he planning to remedy this double-digit cut in arts support that has been engineered entirely by this government?

They are the questions that I would like to ask on the arts, and, if time allows, I would like to turn to questions on the NBN specific to my electorate. The budget claims high-speed broadband in regional areas is a key priority. But in my electorate of Macquarie, we have been condemned to complete chaos on NBN delivery with a mishmash of fibre to the premises—put in under Labor—satellite, wireless, fibre to the node and fibre to the curb. How is this budget fair when residents in the lower Blue Mountains suburbs like Glenbrook, Blaxland and Springwood and in parts of the Hawkesbury like Wilberforce are entitled to fibre to the curb, while residents in the upper Blue Mountains at Blackheath, Katoomba and in the Hawkesbury's Mcgraths Hill and Freemans Reach are relegated to outdated copper from the node to homes? How is it fair that Grose Vale has some homes that will have FTTC, some that will have FTTN, and others that are due to have fixed wireless? How is it fair that Pitt Town has some residents that have fibre to the premises, some that will get fibre to the node eventually, and others that will have fixed wireless? Where is the fair nationwide approach when there will be fixed wireless in Maraylya but satellite in Colo Heights?

In many parts of my electorate, when the power goes off and the fibre to the node NBN goes down, there is no mobile phone communication. People have no way of communicating during an emergency and this is creating great fear amongst many in the community. What is in this budget to ensure that, in a bushfire-prone area like mine, people will be able to reliably access mobile communication when the power goes off? And what is in this budget to address a whole bunch of issues that have come up in the upper Blue Mountains? Community radio station Radio Blue Mountains in Katoomba has been trying to get fibre to the premises. They have been quoted nearly $150,000 by NBN, and they are in the CBD of Katoomba. Speeds are not matching the promise. What steps are the government taking to reduce the coexistence issues while ADSL and NBN are both using a single copper line? We have properties that are missing out at the moment because of long length of copper. What are you doing to fix that? (Time expired)

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as you know, the Turnbull government has announced a landmark package of comprehensive media reforms. This package of reforms will strengthen the protections for families and for children in relation to exposure to gambling advertising, provide substantial financial relief to enable the broadcasting sector to adapt to a changing landscape, and recognise the changing consumer viewing patterns for high-quality Australian content. I am particularly pleased that this is a package that seeks to preserve and enhance the viability of Australian media organisations who are under threat from foreign tech giants. I also note that tonight, CEOs of every major Australian entertainment company are here in Parliament House supporting this package. It is indeed a major achievement, unheralded in my lifetime, that a government has come up with a media reform package that has the support of every single major media player in Australia. I am sure that you will agree that this is a package that is unabashedly pro-Australian media, pro-Australian voices and pro-Australian stories.

We as a government have listened to community concerns about the impact of gambling on children who just want to watch live sport for the thrill and love of the game, not be exposed to odds and other gambling advertising. From my perspective, I know my constituents will welcome the further gambling advertising restrictions in this package as a community dividend from these comprehensive broadcasting reforms. As you know, Minister, the package will also provide relief for broadcasters by abolishing the cumbersome broadcasting fees charged to free-to-air networks from the bygone era when they occupied a dominance in the market, replacing them with a spectrum charge more appropriate to their use of terrestrial broadcasting spectrum. Further, the government proposes to abolish the two-out-of-three media ownership rule and the 75 per cent reach rule to reflect the current state of the market and allow media organisations to configure themselves in the way they see fit. Important protections against too much concentration of ownership will remain in the form of the 5/4 independent voice rule, the one-to-a-market rule for television, and the two-to-a-market rule for radio.

I have on a number of occasions heard the Labor Party, and, in particular, the Member for Greenway, be critical of the government's media reform proposals. Labor said the original proposal to reform just the ownership rules was piecemeal. They called for a comprehensive approach.

My understanding is that whilst the previous proposal was important and enjoyed the support of most of the media industry, the government has now put forward a very comprehensive and holistic package. It contains the abolition of licence fees, a new spectrum charge, changes to the anti-siphoning scheme and list, further restrictions on gambling advertising in live sport—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume Labor are opposed to that because they are arcing up—and critical changes to restrictive ownership rules that are holding Australian companies back. The government has also announced a review of the Australian and children's screen content and a $30 million package of support for the broadcasting of women's, niche and underrepresented sports. It is a very comprehensive plan—the only comprehensive plan in town, and it enjoys the support of the entire media industry.

Minister, you would think Labor would welcome this package and support it through the parliament. But, no, Labor say they have a problem with it. So what is their comprehensive plan? David Crowe reports in The Australian today that the member for Greenway told caucus they would support a standalone bill that just dealt with the 75 per cent reach rule. Can you believe it! Labor call for comprehensive reform and their policy is to support a bill with just one single change to one ownership rule—it beggars belief.

Minister, if you are looking for a comprehensive reform plan for Australia's media industry, who would you rather take advice from? On the one hand, there is Seven, Nine, Ten, Prime, WIN, Southern Cross Austereo, Foxtel, News Limited, Fairfax and the commercial radio industry. They are unanimous in their support for the Turnbull government's plan and have called for it to be passed in its entirety. Or, on the other hand, there is the member for Greenway and her plan to do very little and let Australian companies wither and die. This is the Labor approach to policy—score cheap political points, no matter the cost to jobs, livelihoods and children watching sport.

Minister, can you explain why the Turnbull government's plan is so comprehensive and holistic? How will it ensure the ongoing viability and strength of Australia's critical media industry? What support does it enjoy from industry? What alternative comprehensive and holistic plans for media reform are you aware of?

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

Could the minister please advise the House how he and the member for Mackellar voted a couple of months ago on an amendment to the Interactive Gambling Act, which dealt with the very issue of banning gambling during live sports? Secondly, with reference to the communications portfolio, can the minister advise how many pieces of government legislation this government has passed and which have received assent in the 45th Parliament, aside from the amending legislation to give effect to the 2016-17 budget measure on licence fees?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I address a number of issues that have been raised. The member for Macquarie asked about Catalyst funding. In March this year, the minister announced the transfer of the majority of funds from Catalyst to the Australia Council. This will see a transfer of approximately $61 million in uncommitted funding over four years transferred to the Council from 2017-18, restoring the Australia Council's funding to a similar level as it stood prior to the 2015-16 budget decision. The Major Festivals Initiative and funding for the Australian World Orchestra will also transfer. The Department of Communications and the Arts will retain $2 million a year to provide an alternative avenue of funding for organisations that are not funded through the Australia Council. All current Catalyst funding agreements will be honoured and all applications received for Catalyst funding by 18 March 2017 are being assessed under the existing guidelines.

I was also asked about the national institutions. The Australian government is committed to supporting our national collecting institutions through the Public Service Modernisation Fund, and $48.5 million over three years commencing in 2017-18 is being directed to our national collecting institutions for capital works, the delivery of public programs and services and to develop shared services, capabilities and efficiencies. This funding is in addition to $16.4 million over three years commencing 2016-17 provided under the Public Service Modernisation Fund announced in December 2016 to support the National Library of Australia and its highly successful Trove program.

I was also asked about NBN in the electorate of Macquarie, and I can inform the House that in 2013 the number of people connected after Labor's 4½ years of chaotic and disorderly mismanagement of the NBN was 269. It now stands at 16,000, and the number of premises ready for service in Macquarie is 32,000. While there is more work to do, the position has improved out of sight in the time that the coalition have been in power, as compared to the chaotic, disorderly mess that we inherited from the Labor government.

Talking about chaotic and disorderly messes, let's turn to Labor's answer to the question of how as a nation we ought to deal with the phenomenal and fundamental forces of change which are sweeping through the media industry. The media industry is undergoing extraordinary change. Broadcasting, television and radio are subject to competition from global internet players that do not face any requirements for Australian content. This industry is undergoing an extraordinary amount of transformation and it is very important that there can be a competitive response to it. What is the shadow minister's careful and deeply thought through policy response? The shadow minister's careful and deeply thought through policy response is to put her head in the sand and pretend that the changes sweeping through the broadcasting sector are not occurring. She pretends that the unanimous view of companies right across the broadcasting sector and the media sector in Australia—an unprecedented degree of unanimity—is not happening. She is not prepared to engage with the comprehensive package that the minister has brought down: protecting Australian children by banning gambling advertising; undertaking a wideranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content; abolishing broadcasting licence fees for television and radio, allowing broadcasters to better compete with other media platforms; introducing a price for the use of spectrum by broadcasters that better reflects the value of Australia's limited spectrum resource; and some adjustments to the anti-siphoning scheme. Of course, this is a comprehensive package that includes the removal of outdated rules: the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent reach rule.

The media sector is unanimous in its support for these measures, this integrated package to help them remain competitive. Unfortunately, the shadow minister has her head in the sand and is trying to pretend that these comprehensive changes to the sector are simply not occurring. This government is engaging with reality even if the opposition, tragically, is not.

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

I am going to keep this question very short and I am going to ask the minister to commit to responding to this question directly instead of avoiding it by taking a question from one of his own MPs. The question goes to satellite provision of NBN. There are consumers from households all throughout regional New South Wales who are deeply concerned about the performance of this government in rolling out the NBN through the Sky Muster service, including unreliability of service; over 60 towns being forced onto satellite, as opposed to the previous rollout plans that had them on wireless; consistent dropouts; problems with services; and unreliability. Will the minister commit to a full, independent inquiry into the operation of Sky Muster and will he commit to that today?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After six Labor years of chaotic mismanagement of the NBN, we hear this ludicrous suggestion from the shadow minister. The frank reality is that the rollout of the NBN has been transformed since the coalition government came to power—in every aspect. We inherited chaotic mismanagement from a government that had absolutely no idea what it was doing, and across all fronts—fixed line, fibre to the premises, fibre to the node, fixed wireless and satellite—the performance has been comprehensively transformed. The numbers are rising very sharply, with some five million people now able to connect. The numbers were in the order of a few hundred thousand when Labor left government. We inherited a staggering record of incompetence and mismanagement. We have systematically and steadily turned that around. How have we done that? We put in place a competent and experienced chair in Ziggy Switkowski. We put in place a competent and experienced management team—people who actually have experience in the telecommunications sector. What a good idea! They are led by Bill Morrow, who has led Vodafone in Australia and Vodafone businesses all around the world. We have got on with systematically delivering a rollout to meet the needs of Australians. Of course there is more work to do, but the rate of progress has absolutely transformed since the chaotic mess that we inherited from the Labor government. So I will not be accepting helpful suggestions from the shadow minister, because Labor has an extraordinary track record of incompetence in this area.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Attorney General's Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $3,053,744,000

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

The proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's portfolio reflects the fact that this has been a very challenging year for the agencies within the portfolio, not least, of course, because we have been dealing with a security situation globally that has significantly deteriorated, and as a result we have had a very significant deterioration in Australia's global security as well. We have been reminded of this, very sadly, just recently, with the handing down of the Lindt coronial findings in response to the Martin Place siege, which occurred several years ago, and the atrocious Manchester bombings at the Ariana Grande concert that, quite barbarically, targeted teenage girls in particular going for a fun night out. We have had an arrest of a 22-year-old woman in South Australia on terror charges, the appalling slaughter of Coptic Christians in central Egypt, three police officers killed in Jakarta and, just overnight, the shocking news that a 12-year-old Australian girl was killed in a suicide bombing in Baghdad—quite amazingly, when she was going to get ice cream after the sun went down to break her Ramadan fast. It was actually the ice cream parlour that was targeted by these barbarians. I would like to pass on my sincere condolences to the Al Harbiya family during what must be an extraordinarily difficult time for them.

It is these incidents that make the government extraordinarily resolute in what we are required to do to make sure that Australia is, as much as possible, immune from this threat. We consider national security to be our highest priority, and that is what we have been focused on within this portfolio over the past year. Since coming to government, we have given our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence community very significantly enhanced powers as well as significantly enhanced resources, with $1½ billion, which supports our efforts in combating terrorism and strengthens their ability to provide law and order for our country. In just this budget, we have invested $321.4 million extra with the Australian Federal Police. This is the largest single investment in the AFP's domestic capability in a decade. We have tripled the investment that goes into countering violent extremism—it is now $45 million since we have arrived in office—and we have recently invested $13½ billion to strengthen national counterterrorism arrangements with the states and territories through training, exercises and purchasing of specialist equipment. Importantly, we have passed eight tranches of unprecedented counterterrorism and national security legislation through the parliament. I acknowledge that that has been done in a cooperative way with the opposition—and it is fitting, of course, that in this parliament we have a bipartisan approach to issues of the utmost importance such as national security.

A key element of the reforms introduced by the government is the new offence of 'advocating terrorism'. It is very clear that the threat of a five-year jail sentence has meant that some of the groups that have been advocating quite abhorrent behaviour in Australia have been silenced. The AFP has advised me that as a direct result of this legislation a number of people who have previously been quite active and vocal in this space have ceased their activities.

We have also modernised the ability of our agencies to collect intelligence. We have strengthened the control order regime, which can regulate people's behaviour. This can be particularly important for breaking up groups of people who might be getting together to engage in behaviour that would be against our national security. We have reduced the arrest threshold for terrorism offences. This is incredibly important because it allows the police to move in earlier when they have information that people might be planning to do the wrong thing. We have introduced new offences that make it a crime to enter a declared area, such as Al-Raqqa or Mosul. If we can prove you were in those declared areas and you have committed a prima facie offence we can prosecute you for that, unless you have a reason for being there. Most recently, in conjunction with the states, we have done a regime of post-sentence preventative detention, which means that if somebody has been convicted of terrorism offences and has served their sentence but has not been rehabilitated and still poses a threat to the Australian community, we will continue to detain them. We cannot offer blanket protection from terrorism, but all of these measures have made Australia significantly safer. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to inquire about this government's completely unacceptable treatment of ASIO's director-general, Duncan Lewis. Last Thursday, in a late-night Senate estimates hearing, One Nation senator Pauline Hanson tried to have Mr Lewis confirm her prejudiced views about refugees. We know what Senator Hanson was trying to do. We know that she was trying to fan the flames of prejudice and fear in our community. We know that she was trying to spread false claims about refugees. What we got in response from Duncan Lewis, the director-general of ASIO, was, as you would expect from a man of Duncan Lewis's stature, a very measured and very sensible response. This is what Mr Lewis said:

I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism.

That innocuous and straightforward answer earned Mr Lewis days of criticism from right-wing commentators, and, if that were not bad enough, days of criticism from government backbenchers. All of that criticism was completely unjustified and, of course, as Mr Lewis made clear in a radio interview this morning, because he has had to come out himself to deal with this, he was never suggesting that there are no cases of refugee involvement in terrorist attacks. He was saying that there is no link between being a refugee and being a terrorist. That is the way we need to approach all such matters of national security: by looking at the evidence and stating the facts. Yet Mr Lewis was torn apart as if he were saying something completely different, and senior members of this government, including the Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General, stood by and watched. It is a disgraceful performance. This is a former major general in the Army, a former ambassador to NATO, the former secretary of the Department of Defence, and the man who now, as head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, has helped to keep Australians safe from 12 major terrorist attacks—and this is the treatment he gets!

This government has had many undignifying moments and this was one of them. It is not the job of the director-general of ASIO to pander to prejudice and to say what the tabloids want him to say. It is his job to tell the truth, and that is what he did. It took until today—that's right, nearly a whole week—for the Attorney-General to come out in support of Mr Lewis. This is Mr Lewis, who is the director-general of ASIO, who is receiving all of the intelligence that is collected by ASIO and is reading that intelligence, and I know who we should be trusting on matters of national security and it is certainly not these government backbenchers, let alone the right-wing commentators who come out to attack him. We have yet to hear a peep from the Minister for Justice, who, I assume, in the course of his work as the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, deals very closely with Mr Lewis. Why won't this government stand up for senior public office holders? Why did it take so long for the Attorney-General to stand up for a man we all rely on to keep Australians safe, and why has the Minister for Justice said nothing at all? Is it because these ministers are so scared of their own backbench that they can no longer see straight and cannot defend the truth and cannot defend the plain speaking and sensible words of the director-general of ASIO? Truly, this is an Attorney-General who has so completely checked out of his job and is so busy packing his bags for London that he has completely abandoned his duties and his ability to defend his most senior public servants.

This is a government that pretends it is conservative, but it has a terrible record of defending institutions that it is meant to respect, particularly when it comes to the Attorney-General. This year it is ASIO and last year it was the Solicitor-General who came under direct attack from the Attorney-General, just for trying to do his job. That was a disgraceful episode which showed the Attorney-General's contempt for the law and its institutions and his inability to handle those who disagree with him. One could go to the disgraceful treatment of the president of the Human Rights Commission, but I do not have time. My questions are these. Why did it take so long for the Attorney-General to defend Mr Lewis? Why has the Minister for Justice not said one single word to defend Mr Lewis? When will this government start to respect the truth? When will this government start to respect the integrity of government institutions and the people who run them?

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by wishing one of our Hansard publishers here in the House tonight, Sally, a very happy birthday.

I ask the minister to update the chamber on the Turnbull government's announcement to support the community legal sector by providing an additional $55 million in funding over the next three years. Mine is a capital city seat, so I have a fair number of community legal centres around Brisbane and they provide an important role in giving access to legal advice and ultimately justice for many people, particularly vulnerable people. The community legal centres around Brisbane include the Women's Legal Service, the Youth Advocacy Centre, Basic Rights Queensland, the LGBTI Legal Service, the Brisbane Family Law Centre in Albion, the Legal Advisory Service in Fortitude Valley, North Brisbane Legal Services, Caxton Legal Centre and many more. I went through that list because you will be able to see from some of the names on that list that there are some strong areas of specialist support provided by those community legal centres around Brisbane—for example, for women, families and other vulnerable groups. I note that because I understand that the new money, the additional $55 million of support for the community legal centres is intended to prioritise victims of domestic and family violence. It is for front-line services and it will be delivered via state governments, of course. It is proudly being provided by the Turnbull government on top its other historic commitments to protect Australians from violence. Notably, there is the $100 million Women's Safety Package and the $100 million Third Action Plan.

I want to note how many community legal centres from the list above would have a client list that either directly or incidentally supports the victims of domestic or family violence. On the weekend, I visited the Brisbane Trans Fair Day at the New Farm Neighbourhood Centre. I spoke with the LGBTI Legal Service there and I also spoke to the crowd at the official opening of the fair. I mentioned this extra funding for the community legal centres, and I spoke about the need to start to raise awareness and actually deal with the long hidden problem of domestic and family violence within the LGBTIQ community. After I spoke, a couple of people came up to me and told me quietly and matter-of-factly about how domestic violence was a big issue in the LGBTI community and how they had suffered personally as a result of it. So I hope that the LGBTI Legal Service can benefit from the extra funding being committed to community legal centres by the Turnbull government. I hope that the Women's Legal Service and many of the other community legal centres I listed from across Brisbane can benefit as well. I note that for a few months there was some nervousness from some community legal centres and their supporters about whether the level of funding from the Commonwealth would continue to increase. These are tight fiscal times after all, and not all worthy causes and government agencies are being funded or getting funding increases. I suspect the minister may well want to touch on that topic, given that these extra funding commitments of $55 million that I am asking about will actually mean that the Turnbull government is delivering record funding, compared to every former government, to the community legal centres. It is important to note also—the minister may choose to expand on this—that the states and territories do remain the principal funders of legal assistance in Australia, given most of the court proceedings in Australia are conducted in state and territory courts and under state and territory laws. Lastly, I hope that the minister may expand on where specifically some of the $55 million of additional funding may be directed, given the government's stated preference and intention for the extra assistance to be received by the victims of domestic and family violence.

Further on the subject of law and order, I would like to ask a second question of the minister, that he update the chamber on how the government's Safer Communities Fund is improving community safety and supporting crime prevention in areas in my electorate like the Brisbane CBD and Fortitude Valley. The minister will recall I am sure visiting me on the campaign trail to discuss projects to help improve community safety and to boost crime prevention measures in Brisbane. The projects that I committed to under the Safer Communities Fund are intended to help local businesses, venues, shops, councils and other stakeholders more easily report and share information about crimes with the police, as well as to respond more quickly to incidents and even to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place. It is all about utilising the great investments that many local businesses, venues and the council have already made in things like CCTV, ID scanning and other crime preventions, and about maximising the benefits of those investments by making sure that the benefit of all that information flows to the police and everyone else who can use it. The safer communities program is extremely important to Brisbane, as the minister may also talk to, because the increased attention on crime prevention will lead to more jobs. (Time expired)

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin my questioning to the minister tonight with a quote:

Clearly, if you are going to cut resources—if you are going to cut the number of personnel in our agencies—it is going to hamper the ability of law enforcement agencies to do their job.

Can anyone guess who this is? They sound like words of a man who goes to the cabinet table and successfully argues for an increase in funding and an increase in staff to his relevant agencies. But what I will be asking the minister about today is the savage cuts that have been made to the Australian Federal Police, including an extraordinary 151-person reduction in personnel over the next year alone. I ask the minister: what affect is this going to have on law enforcement?

It is critical that when the minister addresses this point he talks about the extraordinary dishonesty that came with the announcement that was made in the day before this year's federal budget. On 8 May this year the Minister for Justice and the Prime Minister stood before the Australian people and announced what they described as 'an additional $321 million in funding for the AFP and an extra 300 AFP personnel.' I was really happy, because it is really important that we properly fund the AFP. But what I was shocked to discover the following day is that the budget actually shows the complete opposite. It shows a cut to overall funding to the Australian Federal Police over the forward estimates and it shows a reduction in the personnel of the Australian Federal Police of 151 people to the next year alone. Despite this fake announcement of $321 billion, the AFP is actually losing funding, and it will get worse in the coming years.

I am glad that we have the shadow Attorney-General here in the chamber, because he has raised a very important point. There is a lot of political argy-bargy that goes on in this building, but it is not just Labor who is talking about the impact of these cuts. In fact, in Senate estimates last week and at the National Press Club today, we heard the AFP commissioner stand up and say that there is a reduction in resources going to this organisation. I will provide the quote to the minister in case he was not paying attending during the announcement. The commissioner said, 'The forward estimates show that our total resourcing levels will go down.' The AFP commissioner today was right there in the Press Club, in front of the Australian people, admitting that this so-called boost to the AFP is actually a reduction in funding. Will the minister apologise to the Australian people for misleading Australians about the funding that is provided to the Australian Federal Police?

When the government cut funding to the Australian Federal Police last year, the Australian Federal Police commissioner was asked in Senate estimates what areas would be impacted by the cuts. On 28 February 2017, the commissioner identified the areas that he was going to cut as a result of the government's cut to the AFP budget. He talked about organised crime, he talked about drug work and he talked about fraud. These are extraordinarily important national priorities, yet, due to the minister's inability to argue for increased funding for one of his most critical agencies, these are the things that will be losing resources. My second question to the minister is: given that the government is cutting $184 million over the forward estimates from the AFP, could the minister please confirm which programs relating to organised crime, drug work and fraud will be cut?

I notice that the minister is getting very agitated at some of the things that I am saying. I point out to the minister that these are not my words. I am quoting the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in Senate estimates and at the National Press Club.

I will turn to the issue of staffing, because this is incredibly important in a resource intensive organisation like the Australian Federal Police. Again, I draw to the attention of the parliament the fact that this minister stood in front of the Australian people and committed to funding for an extra 300 police, yet the budget shows in absolute black and white that there will be a reduction of 150 personnel in the AFP over the next year alone. My third question to the minister is: could the minister please explain the discrepancy between his dishonest announcement and what is actually in the budget?

It is not only cuts to the AFP that we are concerned about. The Australian Federal Police Association have been working very hard to get an appropriate pay rise for their members. They have talked to us a lot about their concern about the attrition rate, in addition to the personnel cuts. I would like the minister to address this point in his statement.

Finally, I say to the minister: we began with a statement from you about your commitment to fighting for funding for this organisation. I ask you: given you have cut resources and the number of personnel from the AFP, do you agree that you are hampering the ability of this law enforcement agency to do their job?

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

I will try to deal with these issues in turn. I will start by dealing with the sensible contribution that was made by the member for Brisbane. I thank him for his keen interest in law and order issues. I would be very pleased to go to visit him in his electorate and go down to talk to his constituents about what they require from the Commonwealth government in terms of law enforcement resources. I will continue to work with him to make sure that we are doing all that we can to keep his patch in Brisbane as safe as possible.

The member for Brisbane asked about the record investment that we are making in legal assistance services. I am very pleased to inform the House that in April this year my colleague and friend, the Attorney-General, Minister Cash and Minister Scullion announced that a further $55.7 million would be injected into the legal assistance sector over the next three years. That is $39 million to community legal centres and $16.7 million to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. This is in addition to existing funding, including over $1.6 billion provided under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. It represents the largest ever Commonwealth investment in legal assistance services on an annualised basis and a record Commonwealth commitment of over $1.7 billion over five years.

The budget builds on this government's earlier initiative of $45 million for frontline legal assistance and family law services provided through the 2015 Women's Safety Package and the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. This funding completely fixes the 'Dreyfus cliff' and reverses the 2013 MYEFO savings measure. The 'Dreyfus cliff' made up a majority of the reduction in funding expected by community legal centres from 1 July this year. For the last two decades, the Commonwealth's focus in legal assistance has been on Commonwealth criminal matters, Indigenous legal assistance and complex family law matters, generally involving family violence. Accordingly, the national partnership agreement, another Turnbull government legal assistance funding initiative, ensures that the Commonwealth funding is appropriately targeted.

We make no apology for not emulating the ad hoc funding approach that was so beloved by Labor. Labor was content to provide one-off funding to services, apparently selected by reference to little more than past practice. It was for the coalition government to establish an objective, evidence-based funding allocation model, moving to ensure that those most in need of help received it.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

If I could appeal to you for a little bit of order, Deputy Speaker Claydon. I can hardly hear myself speak.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I could have pulled you up as well. I am going to let this slide, and I will give a reminder to everybody at the end of it. You are eating into your time, so I would suggest—

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

Thank you for your protection, Deputy Speaker! The Turnbull government has treated addressing family violence as an urgent national priority. The very first decision of the Turnbull cabinet was to approve the $100 million Women's Safety Package, of which $15 million was allocated for frontline legal services. There is more I could say about that particular issue, but I just want to quickly turn to the member for Brisbane's question about the Safer Communities Fund which we have established as a result of an election commitment. We committed $40 million to that at the last election. As the member for Brisbane is very well aware because some of this funding has flowed to his electorate, this will boost the efforts of local councils and local community groups in combating crime and antisocial behaviour.

Very quickly, I will turn to the issues that were raised by other speakers. The shadow Attorney-General asked me about the Director-General of Security. I would agree with his assessment that Mr Lewis is a very distinguished and well-regarded Australian public servant. Of course, the government has worked very closely with the Director-General of Security, who has done a tremendously good job providing leadership, in conjunction with the leadership provided by Commissioner Colvin of the Australian Federal Police, in keeping the Australian people safe. The shadow Attorney-General says that I have not said anything about this, but there have been three question times in the House of Representatives since these comments were made and the shadow Attorney-General has never taken the opportunity to ask me about this. I would have been very, very happy to talk to him about the professionalism of ASIO and how important ASIO has been in keeping the Australian people safe and to support the Director-General of Security, as I am very happy to do here in this chamber today. (Time expired)

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just have a little word to all parties. It is difficult tracking multiple conversations in the House. But the minister is guilty of this as well, so let's not start picking out sides here.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, as you are very well aware, there is a grave concern in this country when it comes to family law proceedings, particularly in the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court of Australia, in situations where domestic violence is alleged and, as it is in many family law cases, where accused perpetrators are able to personally cross-examine their alleged victims during proceedings. This is an opportunity for retraumatisation and revictimisation of people who have fled domestic violence situations at home.

In order to deal with this issue, the courts need to be armed with the power to prevent parties from personally cross-examining their exes. There also needs to be a means by which to ensure that parties can then go and get a lawyer to perform the cross-examination on their behalf. Without that second limb, obviously there is a grave risk of the denial of natural justice. Remember, these are allegations at this stage—they are not proven—and it is very important that parties be able to indirectly, through a lawyer, cross-examine each other should the need arise in order for natural justice to be afforded. So you need two things: the court to have the power to refuse people being able to personally cross-examine their ex and the court to be confident that the person who has been refused the right to personally cross-examine their ex will be able to get a lawyer. That requires law reform. It also requires legal aid funding to ensure that the legal support is available for both parties. Of course, if one person is getting a lawyer, you do not want the other one left unrepresented, as so many parties are in the family law courts.

The Productivity Commission, way back in 2014, recommended reform to allow the courts to prevent the personal cross-examination of alleged victims by alleged perpetrators of family violence in family law proceedings. This is policy that Labor took to the last election. We took to the election a commitment that would equip judges with the power to make orders preventing the personal cross-examination of victims by their alleged perpetrators. We also made a funding commitment of more than $40 million in additional funding for legal aid so that courts could be confident that the parties would be able to get the representation they would need in order to avoid the denial of natural justice.

This is a reform that has been called for, as I said, by the Productivity Commission but also by Women's Legal Services Australia, former Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, Fair Agenda and many other people. It is an important reform and a really commonsense one to provide permanent protection for family violence victims and survivors in the family law courts. We recommitted to this policy back in November 2016 on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, which is of course also White Ribbon Day.

I was very pleased on budget night when the government announced that it would commit to cross-examination reform to prevent the personal cross-examination by alleged perpetrators of victims; however, I was surprised to note that there was no accompanying funding commitment to enable additional legal aid to ensure that people would not be left unrepresented and to prevent the denial of natural justice. Accordingly, I have some questions for the minister.

How will the commitment from the government be facilitated? How will the government ensure that persons who have been refused the right to personally cross-examine the other party in family law proceedings are nonetheless able to have the other party cross-examined by a lawyer? How will they ensure that there will not be any denial of natural justice to either party in those proceedings? When can we expect to see the release of the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 that were foreshadowed on budget night? Finally, will the government make a commitment to fund additional legal aid for parties in this situation or does the government expect existing legal services to absorb the cost of this additional representation?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recent terrorist attacks all over the world have rightly concerned many members of my local community. The tragic events that we have seen in Manchester, Jakarta, Stockholm and Nice have shown that terrorists will not restrict their attacks to the largest Western capitals. There is, it would seem, no corner of the globe that these terrorists do not consider a target. Though we must not surrender to irrational fear, it is a fact that regional communities, like mine on the Sunshine Coast, are at some risk, just like our capital cities are.

I understand that Australia's national terrorism threat is currently set at 'probable'. This means that our security agencies have credible evidence that individuals or groups have the intent and the capability to commit a terrorist attack in Australia. Indeed, tragically, since that threat level was set in September 2014 we have seen four such terrible attacks. The 2014 Lindt Cafe siege has rightly received a great deal of attention in recent days, but we must also remember the stabbing of two police officers in Endeavour Hills in that same year and of a man in Minto in 2016. We should also remember the brutal murder of Curtis Cheng in 2015, who was an innocent public servant killed outside his workplace.

These attacks, along with those in Nice, Paris and Manchester, among others, show us that, although these terrorists prefer to target government institutions and famous landmarks, they are more than willing to make indiscriminate attacks on ordinary people as they go about their daily lives. Any large crowd, any place where people congregate, has become a potential target for an attack. The main threat that faces Australia is exactly that kind of attack from individuals or small groups.

These so-called lone wolf attacks use simple and widely available tools to commit their violence, things like knives and cars that we all use every day. With these simple tools, with a simple plan and no need for coordination with others, these attacks can be difficult to detect and disrupt. Until the attack begins, a terrorist planning such an attack may not do anything of any great concern to authorities or give any clear signal that they mean to commit us harm.

The recent Manchester bombing has shown us that large-scale coordinated and complex attacks remain a real possibility. These coordinated attacks require particular knowledge and skills. Sadly, however, these skills can be all too readily acquired. They cannot act alone and they cannot pick up the required abilities in the ordinary course of life. These acts of terror are more difficult to plan, but the impact of a large-scale, coordinated attack on multiple targets is devastating. They must be avoided. That is why I believe our continued resolute involvement in coalition efforts in Iraq and Syria must be maintained. We must deal with these larger-scale attacks at their source.

People I have spoken to in my electorate tell me they are particularly concerned about the threat posed by Australian individuals who have chosen to travel to Syria and Iraq to fight with jihadist groups. Around 200 Australians have made this ill-judged, foolish and unlawful journey. I understand that as many as 76 Australians may already have been killed. My constituents are concerned that those who remain will pose a serious threat if they returned to this country. Unfortunately, the twisted and violent ideology of groups like Islamic State and al-Qaeda continues to appeal to a small number of people within our borders. Worse, these groups use the internet and social media to target our young and most vulnerable. In Australia we are seeing ever younger people being radicalised by this evil internet propaganda, and we are seeing that process increase in speed and intensity.

The threats from terrorism are varied and complex. Extremists seek to frighten and divide us just as much as they seek to cause us physical harm. Our first and most important line of defence is a passionate commitment to upholding our shared values. However, people in Fisher have told me that they expect to see our defence forces, security agencies and border protection agencies receive everything they need to protect our community and our shared Australian values. Our first priority must be to keep Australians safe. I therefore ask the minister: what is the Australian government doing to keep Australia and Australians safe from the risk of terrorism?

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

I am aware of the minister's portfolio. My question is to do with terror, not terrorists, and not homegrown terrorists but terror in the home—the terror that can come when love turns to hate, especially when children are involved. Minister, the family law system in Australia is in crisis. Judges, legal practitioners, frontline service providers and families have all been calling loudly for better resources in the Family Court—calls that have not been heard by the Attorney-General. There are currently five judicial vacancies in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. These are funded, budgeted positions that are not filled, despite the backlog on dockets continuing to grow like Topsy.

The 2017 Turnbull budget announced $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearings, a vague announcement that has caused much confusion in the legal fraternity and the general community, especially for the member for Corangamite, who is the chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into family law. What will parenting management hearings be like?

The Attorney-General, in his $12.7 million media release after the budget announcement, described parenting management hearings as being a:

… forum for resolving simpler family law disputes between self-represented litigants.

However, during Senate estimates, the Attorney-General said he wanted to deal with 'the most difficult and intractable of those matters that come before the family law system'. Just yesterday the member for Corangamite, in a committee inquiry, said that she 'assumed that parenting management hearings would not include contested matters'. Here is a tip, Member for Corangamite: if they are not contested, they have agreed, and they would not be there in the first place. In his media release the Attorney-General said that:

… those managing the hearings will run inquiries and gather evidence to inform their decisions.

The description in the budget paper says that:

PMHs will be given powers to make binding determinations …

However, during Senate estimates, Senator Brandis said that determinations will need to be embodied in a consent order.

So we will have determinations and we will have consent orders. This Attorney-General really could not organise a rock fight in a gravel pit, that is clear. If the determination of this parenting management hearing needs to be embodied in a consent order, then before it is binding it would be a toothless tiger. Parents would essentially have to agree with the determination after the hearing and then sign a consent order confirming that they agree. How often do you see both parents come out of a family law hearing saying they agreed with the judge's determination? Most often neither is completely happy with the decision, as the judge's focus, rightly, is on the children.

It is troubling that the Attorney-General is moving children's matters away from being heard by a Family Court judge or a Federal Circuit Court judge. I am very concerned that the Turnbull government has a policy to create an alternative, nonjudicial venue for parenting disputes, a venue where it will not be a judge with experience in family law who will be making determinations.

Of all the decisions judges make, surely determining how a child spends their childhood is the heaviest burden. Why would we even consider outsourcing these decisions to anyone other than the most respected and experienced decision makers? Children have many rights under part VII of the Family Law Act; parents have none. Parents have duties and responsibilities; they do not have rights. The Attorney-General should remember this when developing radical new policies on the run.

The government would be wise to reconstitute the Family Law Council, the statutory body whose mandate is to advise and make recommendations to the Attorney-General about the workings of the Family Law Act and other legislation relating to family law. Incredibly, that statutory body currently has no members, as the Attorney-General has failed to appoint any. If you want further confirmation that the Attorney-General has no interest in family law, look no further than Senate estimates yesterday, when he said, 'In other jurisdictions it is now very common practice for the court to require there to be a form of mediation before all the cost and expense of a trial is engaged on. If ever there was a system in which we ought to be doing that it is in the family law system.' It is a great quote, a great idea, in fact. In fact, if the Attorney-General looks at section 60I of the Family Law Act he will see the requirement for compulsory family dispute resolution for all parenting matters. It is unbelievable. The Attorney-General has no interest in family law and no interest in properly resourcing the family law system.

Minister, have steps being taken to fill the five judicial vacancies? When will those replacement judges be appointed? When will the Family Law Council be reconstituted? How will cases be screened for suitability before a parenting management hearing? What cases will not be allowed: cases involving family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse? Will these hearings be mandatory or will parents have a choice? Will a determination be binding without having to enter into a consent order? Who will be hearing parental management hearings?

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

I will address the questions that the member for Moreton has asked and the contributions made by the member for Fisher and the member for Griffith. I will start by addressing the nonsense that was peddled by the shadow minister for justice, the member for Hotham. I have offered her a briefing on the budget process to try and explain how it works so she can make some more-informed comments when she comments on it, but instead she insists on coming up with these nonsensical untruths about the way the budget works. I am happy to repeat it to her again.

The budget works over a four-year cycle, and that is the way budgets have always worked. When we commit to a program over a period of four years, it terminates at the end of those four years. Those terminating programs are up for discussion. The Australian Federal Police will come back and talk to the government about the continuation of those measures. A very good example is the National Anti-Gang Squad. It was funded for four years, and when its funding ended we re-funded it for another four years. The shadow minister for justice continually asserts that the budget of the Australian Federal Police is somehow going down. That is complete and utter nonsense. The Australian Federal Police has never been supported in the way that it is currently: $1½ billion has been given to the Australian Federal Police and other agencies for counterterrorism measures in the most recent budget; $321.4 million extra specifically for the Australian Federal Police to increase its capabilities. The importance of that budgetary contribution announced in this year's budget was acknowledged by the commissioner in his speech today.

If the shadow minister for justice wants to continue to peddle untruths, if she wants to continue to display her ignorance about how the budget works that really is up to her, but I hope that nobody will take seriously anything that she suggests. The Australian Federal Police has never been supported better than it is now. I am very happy to renew my offer to provide her with a briefing about how the budget works. I would have assumed that most members of this place would have an understanding of it by now, but sadly the shadow minister for justice does not seem to have a clue.

Moving on to some of the issues that were raised by the member for Griffith—she has left the chamber; I am not sure why she is asking questions if she does not want to know the answer—and the member for Moreton about family violence—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Maybe you could pass it on to her. Maybe she is watching in her office. Anyway, the Australian government takes very seriously the issue of family violence. We believe very strongly that all Australians deserve to live free from violence, free from fear and free from coercion.

On 22 March this year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs announced its inquiry into a better family law system which will support and protect those families affected by family violence. This inquiry is ongoing and it will examine how the family system protects those affected by family violence and make recommendations to the government about how that system might be improved. There have been a number of expert reports to the government on family violence and the family law system. The committee's recommendations will be avidly devoured by the government once they are made, and we will respond as sensibly as we can.

The issue was raised by the member for Griffith about the cross-examination of victims in family law matters. We will soon release the proposed amendments to the Family Law Act that will ensure victims of family violence are not put in a position where they are personally cross-examined by their alleged perpetrators or are they themselves required to cross-examine their alleged perpetrators. We recognise that they are very important amendments to balance protection for victims of family payments with procedural fairness, as I am sure the member for Moreton can appreciate. In circumstances where direct cross-examination is banned, the proposed amendments will provide the cross-examination occur through an intermediary appointed by the court. This is happening in conjunction with the significant investments we have made in the family law system, including in this budget—$10.7 million for the purpose of engaging additional family consultants in family law matters, $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearings and $3.4 million to set up six new domestic violence units to provide essential services to women who are experiencing or are at risk of domestic or family violence.

I apologise to the member for Fisher; I shall address some of his concerns in my next available slot. (Time expired)

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start first with a preamble and then I will make it clear when my questions begin. My questions will exclusively relate to national security and counterterrorism. I will not be so presumptuous as to start lecturing the minister on terrorism 101 as he lectured our shadow minister for finance. I would assume that the minister knows his portfolio, though I am increasingly becoming aware that that is not the case.

The government has repeatedly said that national security and countering violent extremism is of the highest priority. Indeed, it is something that we have bipartisan agreement on. The minister in his earlier preamble made reference to $45 million in funding for countering violent extremism. Inherent in national security and considering national security as a high priority are countering violent extremism, CVE, and prevention of violent extremism, PVE. They are very important components of that, particularly when it comes to building community capability and the delivery of services and programs to support prevention and early intervention within the scope of countering violent extremism.

I want to move on to the Living Safe Together Grants Program, which was created by this government to build or enhance the capacity and skills of community organisations in countering violent extremism. I want to move on to the delivery of services through the provision of a service directory for families and peers who need help. These are people who in my previous line of work came to me seeking assistance for a person within their family or a friend who they believed was in the early stages of radicalisation. They were seeking assistance with early interventions, not so much full deradicalisation as removing the individual from radicalising influences, removing the radicalising opportunities from them and removing them from radicalising environments. That could be online but could be within the individual's social circle as well. The Living Safe Together Grants Program was created to build or enhance community capacity to be able to do that on the premise that there would then be a service directory for people in that situation who could then access those services in order to assist them and to assist the individual in question at the critical point when early intervention is capable of removing or diverting a young person away from the path of radicalisation.

The thing is, though, that none of those grants were awarded for the actual delivery of services. I will make that point again: none were for the actual delivery of services. Of the 41 organisations that were awarded grants through the Living Safe Together program, only 13 agreed to participate in the services directory—that is, 13 out of 41. And, as was made clear in estimates last week, the funding for this grants program was a one-off and it no longer exists. It was around $1.8 million worth of funding to community based organisations to develop their capacity to deliver services for early intervention in countering violent extremism on the understanding that they would then deliver those services by signing up to a services directory. Clearly, there is a breakdown between the rhetoric of this government in making countering violent extremism a priority and its actions. The fact is that the government is neither interested in nor capable of dealing with the practicalities of countering violent extremism in Australia. It is much more engrossed in looking tough for the nightly news.

So, Minister, here are my questions: What are the community-run services that are currently available to families or friends of someone who is at risk of being radicalised and requires early intervention? What funding is being provided to community based organisations and civil society to actually deliver CVE and PVE services in the community? The LST, the Living Safe Together grants program, was designed to build capacity to counter violent extremism. The grant is no longer in existence. (Time expired)

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

It is my great pleasure to rise and reflect on the budget commitments that our government is making in this portfolio, the Attorney-General's portfolio. I want to start my contribution by reflecting on the member for Moreton's contribution. I am disappointed that he sought to misrepresent my work as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in the inquiry we are running into family violence law reform. I say that first of all because there is a great spirit of bipartisanship in this committee. We have worked very well together and we continue to work well together, with the first public hearing yesterday in relation to the very significant challenges for those who are affected by family violence—those who do not feel properly protected, who are victims of family violence, and who get caught up in the family law system.

I want, for the record, to correct the member for Moreton's misrepresentation in relation to parenting management hearings. I remind him that anyone in the family court system is there because they are in dispute. The member for Moreton clearly does not understand that. The fact of the matter is that some disputes are capable of being resolved through mediation and at an early stage of proceedings. When that can happen, it is obviously very positive for families. But some disputes are heavily contested and may well proceed to an interim hearing and to a final hearing. I am very pleased that the Attorney-General has announced funding of $12.7 million to establish parenting management hearings in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. These hearings are designed to be fast, informal and less adversarial for resolving non-complex family law disputes between self-represented parties. In New South Wales, these hearings will initially take place at the Parramatta registry and they will be by way of a trial. Moving many non-complex matters into this system, we believe, should relieve wait times. Frankly, it is a very positive innovation introduced by the Attorney-General.

I would hope that in running this inquiry we, as a committee, will consider a number of other innovative means through which families can deal with their disputes, particularly families affected by family violence. I commend the Attorney-General for this investment, and we look forward to seeing how this particular trial rolls out. The aspirations, of course, are that we make sure—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

And I really do take issue with the member for Moreton's interjection. We obviously ensure that this parenting management system, which is a trial, is there to help families, something perhaps the member for Moreton has not shown a great deal of interest in, but it is something that we as a government are very interested in, and I take issue with the misrepresentation he has made.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

If the member for Moreton were interested in this issue he would not seek to misrepresent me and nor would he seek to interfere with the bipartisanship, and the strong bipartisanship, of the committee and the work we are doing to help families affected by family violence.

I also want to put to the minister the very significant work the Turnbull government is doing in relation to counter-terrorism measures. In just over two years we have invested an additional $1.5 billion to support and strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism efforts. We know that this has resonated very strongly and positively with the Australian community. In fact, I would like to ask the minister about the eight tranches of counter-terrorism and national security legislation that have been passed since 2014, because we recognise that the agency's ability to collect intelligence, to strengthen the control order regime, to reduce the arrest threshold for terrorism offences and to introduce a post-sentence preventative detention regime are all very important measures. I commend the government's work and I also commend the work of the Attorney-General in relation to convening a particular briefing that we are going to have with the director-general of ASIO in relation to some of the ongoing concerns with terrorism in our community. (Time expired)

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the Commonwealth has a tremendous history of adding to the administration of the Commonwealth, of making government better in this country. What we have had, failing to recognise that extraordinary history and contribution made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the government of the Commonwealth, is some recent outrageous attacks on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, who seems to think he is infallible and seems to have no understanding of the magnificent role that has been played by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for more than 40 years, since it was established by the Whitlam government, during which time it has enjoyed bipartisan support. I ask the Minister for Justice why the government has not defended the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the disgraceful attacks that have been made on it not just by right-wing commentators but by a cabinet minister in this government. I will sit down now to give the minister a chance to respond to that question, and I would like to know the answers to the questions posed by the member for Griffith about funding for the cross-examination of family violence victims by perpetrators initiative, and the questions asked by the member for Cowan.

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

In the time I have left I will try to deal with all the contributions that have been made since my last contribution. Very briefly to the member for Fisher, I thank him for his interest in national security and counter-terrorism matters. I appreciate that he acknowledges that everything this government has done to keep Australia safe, including the record investments we have made in our agencies, the very significant powers that we have granted them, including the eight tranches of legislation that the member for Corangamite has just referred to, have provided them with the wherewithal they need to deal with the way that the national security situation has evolved in Australia, which is very different than it was even just three years ago.

The member for Corangamite asked me about national security and family law reform. I have spoken a little bit about the very significant reforms that we are undertaking through the first comprehensive review into the family law system since the introduction of the Family Law Act 1976. We hope it will pave the way more fundamental long-term reform that ultimately better meets the needs of Australian families. I think it is fair to say that family law is a very difficult area and whatever we can do to improve the system will be good for all parties involved.

On the question raised by the shadow Attorney-General on the AAT, I think it is perfectly appropriate that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection would take issue with some of the decisions that have been made there. Our responsibility is to keep the Australian people safe. That is something this government is committed to above all other goals and we will continue to do what is necessary to achieve that.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 30