Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an honour to talk today about the most recent budget and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-19. In the last six weeks it's fair to say that I have travelled the length and breadth of this country talking to small and family business operators in their home patches about the recent budget. It is also fair to say that this fifth budget I've seen, I think, in my time here has been extremely well received—and, I would argue, the best received so far. The word at the coalface, on the front lines, is that people are happy with the overall planned stewardship of the Turnbull coalition government.

We often talk about the results at a macro level, such as the one million jobs that have been created in the past 4½ years since coming to government, 420,000-odd of those in the last 12 months, and 80 per cent of those full-time positions. What you don't hear a lot about is the comparison and contrast in terms of business confidence out there. It's fair to say there is a cautious optimism; in my travels, that is what I'm hearing from small and family businesses. That is reflected, I think, in the numbers. In the last financial year in this country, there has been a net increase of 65,000 in the number of small and family businesses operating—65,000 new businesses in the construction. You might be thinking, 'A million jobs—how has that happened; what does it actually look like at the coalface?' In the past 4½ years, in the construction sector alone, 37,400-odd small and family businesses have opened, employing an additional 200. That's 20 per cent of those one million jobs, in the construction sector alone. These are the coalface results.

Whether it's in Cairns, from talking with Warren Entsch up there and his small business operators; in Hinkler, with Keith Pitt and many of his local business operators; over in WA, with Christian Porter; or in regional South Australia, with Tony Pasin, there is a problem they're starting to have. Mark Coulton's electorate—I know his electorate is close to yours, Mr Deputy Speaker—is a classic example, with unemployment sitting at 2.3 or 2.4 per cent. The business operators in his area are saying loud and clear that they've got both unskilled and skilled worker shortages starting to emerge. These are problems for the region, but they are a demonstration, if you like, of the fact that there are businesses opening and employing people. That is happening on the front lines.

How does that compare with the stewardship of the previous, Labor government? In the last financial year of the Labor government, in 2012-13, there was a net decrease in the number of businesses across the board, irrespective of size, of 61,000—a net decrease of 61,000 businesses. There were 87,000 jobs created in those last two to three years under Labor, versus our one million in 4½ years.

This budget is not a new position; it's the latest in our economic plan. What are the operators of small and family businesses saying to me on the front lines? They want the tax cuts so they can reinvest in their businesses and employ more people. That's how these figures are achieved. They are also saying to me loudly and clearly that they are big fans of personal income tax cuts as well. Why? Because of the stimulus they will provide, with increased pay in people's pockets. Again, there is an ideological difference with Labor. Business operators get this, when you pitch it to them. Their profit is theirs. It's not ours. If we decrease their tax and allow them to keep more of their profit, that is not a handout. They actually get 'the dirts' if that is what is reflected—that, in some way, that is characterised by the Labor Party as a handout. These people work hard. They put their homes on the line. They back themselves. They employ people. Their staff are a quasi-part of the family. They also take umbrage at—hate—the fact that the Labor Party would have you believe that the thing business operators think of when they wake up in the morning is how to rob their staff. It's not true. Their staff are their most trusted and valuable asset. I get it, because I've done it. You're the same. That's what we're hearing on the front lines.

This is the latest budget in our economic plan. It is a clear plan to lower personal and private tax to keep the economy moving. They're the best conditions for business confidence that we've seen since the GFC, and it's no surprise.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a noticeable pattern with the Turnbull government's job programs, and success has nothing to do with it. There are loud announcements up-front, and mumbles and fudging about results later. The best examples revolves around the government's intern program, known as PaTH. It was announced in a blaze of glory in the 2016 budget. We were told that $840 million had been pledged over four years to help up to 120,000 young Australians. At the time, Minister Cash said the Youth Jobs PaTH was the core of the government's youth employment package.

Early on, we learnt that roughly 30,000 young Australians would be forced to do the mandatory part of PaTH, the 'Prepare' section, as it was known. They'd then be offered the chance to become interns. Apparently, up to 20,000 businesses would be signed up to take on an intern. We had a series of stage-managed announcements with industry associations, pledging to take on PaTH interns. In a June 2016 media release, Minister Cash said the government had 'received the backing of another major Australian industry group', the Australian Hotels Association, 'who today pledged to use the scheme to give at least 5,000 young Australians the opportunity to get into jobs and apprenticeships'. In that release, the public was told that just one agreement with the AHA would see 5,000 jobs created in accommodation hotels, resorts, pubs, bars and restaurants. These 20,000 businesses would be paid an up-front incentive to take on an intern, and a wage subsidy if they actually took the interns on. That was the hype.

Here is the reality that emerged in the course of 2017. The government boasted:

The results achieved to date demonstrate that PaTH is working—we've seen 6,654 individuals commence a training course—

that they're forced to commence—

1,015 internship placements begin and 7,539 Youth Bonus wage subsidy agreements signed.

But, six months into the program, only 1,000 young people had been placed as interns, at a rate of 200 a month, bearing in mind they needed to hit at least 2,500 per month to hit the yearly target. Concerns about job exploitation were realised. One young person was forced to work up to 58 hours in one week, despite the government pledging that no young person would be forced to work more than 50 hours a fortnight.

What did we learn at estimates, just recently? It was loudly announced that we'd see 30,000 interns a year under PaTH. In estimates, the true figure was 5,473. What they should have reached in two months took them 12 months to reach. It was loudly proclaimed we'd see 18,000 to 20,000 businesses sign up to help take on these interns. In estimates, the true figure revealed was 2,694, not 18,000. In terms of the training component—again, mandatory—30,000 a year should have gone through. In estimates, the true figure was 26,205. They couldn't even meet their target to get young unemployed people into the mandatory training component of PaTH. When this was announced in 2016 we were told boldly: PaTH would help 120,000 young people. Two years later at estimates, when asked if they'd reached that target of 120,000, the minister said, 'That was the upper end of what we were looking at.' We never had that fine print included in any Turnbull government media release announcing PaTH. You can understand why we're getting the qualifier now, because, at the current rate, the government might support 20,000 interns at the end of the program, not the 120,000 promised. Even if you accept their 50 per cent job-conversion rate, the best we'll see is 10,000 young people getting jobs under what is now a $974 million program—not $840 million, $974 million.

They might not be smart enough to get young Australians a job, but they're sneaky enough to fiddle with the figures to save their own jobs. When you test them on the results, they've worked out all sorts of ways to pump up the stats. Mandatory training? You're counted as a stat. If your business is paid a wage subsidy, that gets counted too. Mind you, these subsidies already existed well before PaTH came along. It's time to cut the hype and get some answers.

Is the woeful performance of yet another failing jobs program going to improve? Why is it that the Turnbull government said 30,000 Australians a year would participate as interns under PaTH and only 5,500 have? Why is it that the Turnbull government said 20,000 businesses would host interns and only 2,600 have? Are you going to be up-front about what's actually happening with the program? What concrete steps are going to be taken to fix another failing jobs program under the Turnbull government?

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

It's always a pleasure to rise in this chamber and speak about the importance of small business and the way that this government is supporting small business not only across my community but also the country. As I look across my community and meet regularly with small to medium business owners, I reflect on the fact that every one of them each and every day puts everything on the line to generate wealth for their family; however, they are also building businesses to create job opportunities for others in our community and help them build their wealth and family finances. Small business is such an important component of our economy because they are prepared to take those risks.

Generally, they will be the businesses that are being innovative and looking to change things and for better ways to do things. We know that, once you get big corporates and their big bureaucracies, their ability to change and adapt is much more difficult. But small businesses need to be nimble, flexible and adaptable to changing market conditions because they don't have the financial and other resources the big end of town has. Small to medium businesses always have limitations that the big end of town doesn't have. Their cost of capital is higher and the cost of regulation for small to medium business is always far higher than it is for big business because they have the resources to cope with and adapt to it.

This is why it is so important in my view that we, as a government, seek to support small business throughout our community to ensure they can grow and prosper. Each and every day, businesses like Swagman motorhomes, Lumini, Noonan race engineering or CGI manufacturing take the opportunity to provide services for Australians. Increasingly, they're looking to export and are taking advantage of the export opportunities created by this government through our free trade agreements. They're also able to take advantage of things like the instant asset write-off which makes it easier for them to manage their finances and accounts.

There are other things that we're doing. The Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation is here, and I know he and I regularly talk about the importance of small business and the things we're doing practically to help small business—whether it's cutting the amount of tax they have to pay or, importantly, as I touched on before, cutting the amount of red tape they have to deal with. We have succeeded in reducing some $6 billion worth of red tape out of the system, which is incredibly important to our small to medium businesses. That is something this government has achieved. We've also, as I touched on, implemented the free trade agreements. We've changed section 46 of the competition act to provide a fairer, more level playing field for small to medium-sized businesses. We've implemented an unfair-contract arrangement. The reason we're doing all of these things is to try to create an ecosystem that creates the encouragement and the opportunity for small businesses to grow and prosper, because they are the majority employer in this country.

We're also looking to work out how we can provide the opportunity for people who leave the workforce as employees to become business owners in their later years. Those opportunities ensure that people have the ability to continue to build wealth and contribute to this society as they change jobs. We all know now that staying in one job for your whole life is highly unlikely and that you're going to have a number of different jobs, so it is important that we create the opportunity for those who are of mature age. If they want to leave the workforce as an employee, they should have the opportunity to start their own business. My question to the minister is: how is the government encouraging those mature-age Australians to start a small business should they choose to do so?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Vulnerable workers' is a term that's bandied around a lot. In fact, there was a bill called the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. But what has the government done to really address this growing area? We have had ombudsman's report after ombudsman's report and we have had media story after media story exposing worker exploitation and the extent of it in this country. Just to name one, we had the Fair Work Ombudsman report Inquiry into the procurement of cleaners in Tasmanian supermarkets, which found:

… the rates of pay … being offered by sub-contractors to supermarket cleaners were in some cases up to $26 below the applicable hourly rate.

This is happening on your watch, Minister. What we want to know is: what are you actually doing to help increase the resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman to make sure that all of these issues are being investigated? While those cleaners' horrible experience of worker exploitation was exposed, what is the government doing to ensure that all supermarket cleaners are not being exploited in the same way? What is the government doing to ensure that big names like Spotless are not sub-subcontracting?

Here we have another example of worker exploitation—Myer's contract cleaners at Bourke Street Mall. I know quite a few people have probably visited the Myer shopping centre. The lowest paid workers in that particular establishment are the cleaners. Myer subcontracted to Spotless. Spotless then subcontracted to another subcontractor, and that subcontractor made those cleaners get ABNs. What is the government doing to ensure that those workers are not being forced to take out ABNs? This government spruiks a lot about the growth in small businesses. Just how many of those small businesses are cleaners or workers who've been forced to get ABNs to become their own 'small business'? It's not something to be proud of if, within your figures about the number of small businesses in this country, there are employees who have been forced to get ABNs: 'Take out an ABN or you don't get the job.' That is the reality for so many of these vulnerable workers, particularly in contract industries like cleaning.

The cleaning industry is a really good example to use. Eighty per cent of the cost of cleaning is labour. Therefore, if you can force your workers to take out an ABN and become their own 'small business', guess what? You save a lot of money, and you have the ability to undercut your competitors. We've heard boo from this government. We've not seen them actually stand up to companies like Spotless and Myer and say, 'What are you doing to address these issues?'

It is not just happening in cleaning, as I said. We continue to have huge problems when it comes to agriculture and our farming sector. Last week I had the opportunity to meet with some strawberry growers who directly employ their staff, and they talked about their frustration with strawberry growers in their region who deliberately underpay their workers and therefore can sell their products to Coles more cheaply.

Mr Laundy interjecting—

Yes, they have. I'll take the interjection from the minister. When these strawberry farmers ring the Fair Work Ombudsman, they get the busy signal. Then they hear: 'You can't make a complaint. The worker needs to make a complaint.' This is a worker who gets threatened with deportation if they raise the issues. And the minister says: 'Just give us a call. Bring these workers here.' This is a strawberry farmer who is saying: 'My competitor down the road is ripping people off. I tried to contact the government, and nothing happens.'

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order, please! The minister will get a chance to respond.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a lot to raise on this issue of worker exploitation. The questions that I have for the minister are not just about resources to the Fair Work Ombudsman. What is this government doing about labour hire? Yesterday we had the state Labor government in Victoria pass labour hire legislation to stop worker exploitation. What is this government going to do? Are you going to introduce labour hire legislation to stop worker exploitation at a federal level? What are you going to do as a government to complement what's been done in Victoria? Do you agree with what the Victorian government has done? When will this government get serious about cracking down on worker exploitation and addressing these issues?

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

I believe in giving people a second chance. From time to time, we all make mistakes. When someone makes a bad choice, when they regret that choice and ask for forgiveness, I hope that we'd all generally believe in giving that person the opportunity to redeem themselves. But, when that same person, or organisation, makes the same bad choice again and again and yet again, you know what? Our patience gets a little bit stretched. When those choices involve lawlessness and criminal activity, our patience should run dry very quickly. When an organisation racks up $15 million worth of fines, when its officials have committed 106 separate contraventions of the law and when it has 80 more officials still facing the courts, we can't tolerate any more. This is the situation that we find ourselves facing in the form of that most lawless of rogue unions, the CFMMEU—and those opposite think it's funny, because they know that they are lock, stock and barrel owned by the CFMMEU.

Would the minister, therefore, first please advise the House of what consequences for workers and ordinary taxpayers the government has identified that would flow from allowing the CFMMEU to continue along its path of lawlessness unchecked? It's been noticeable that the unions have been in the newspapers a lot recently, calling for various changes to the law. I suppose that they can see the weakness of this Leader of the Opposition as clearly as the member for Grayndler can, but it's surprising that the unions are so keen to change the law, when they show no interest whatsoever in obeying it.

Just last week we saw the latest manifestation of the CFMMEU's culture of criminality. The Federal Court fined the WA CFMMEU and its official Brad Upton a combined $51,300 for a threatening and abusive rant against employees at the Gorgon LNG plant in 2015. Mr Upton called the ordinary workers he claims to stand up for 'dogs', among a number of other unsavoury things. He threatened to display a list of non-union members on the site, implicitly encouraging retaliatory action against them. He also informed workers that Gorgon was a union site and that further union sites would be opening soon, at which non-union members would not be welcome. I'm sure those workers knew exactly what he meant.

Like the CFMMEU, Mr Upton has a long track record of this sort of behaviour. In October 2012, he was found by the Federal Court to have used 'racially tainted, obscene and offensive language' on a Bechtel site when the union's accommodations were not up to the standards he had apparently become accustomed to.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Those opposite can make fun of this. They can make a joke of this, but we actually think this is very, very serious. This continual lawlessness, which is being perpetrated by the CFMMEU on building sites right across the country, impacts not only on big businesses but also on mum-and-dad businesses. It is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars a week every time the union black-bans a site or a small business. It's an absolute disgrace. Minister, individuals like this cannot be allowed to continue to terrorise and abuse ordinary working Australians. Would the minister therefore please outline for the House what the government is doing to ensure that individual union officials are held to account for their unlawful actions? In the case of the CFMMEU, however, it is far from a few bad apples like Mr Upton who are the problem. The CFMMEU has proved time and time again that it is fundamentally, systematically, even gleefully supported by its parliamentary wing—lawlessness at an institutional level. Justice Geoffrey Flick said of it:

It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU.

Justice Rangiah stated that its conduct was 'deliberate, flagrant and systematic', while Justice Vasta suggested:

It is no understatement to describe the CFMEU as the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many of us in this place know, employment is a big issue for older Australians. A big cause for concern, in particular, is holding on to work and being able to get work again if they should find themselves in the unfortunate position of losing their job. People aged 55 years and over make up 25 per cent of the population but only 16 per cent of the workforce. Some of the stats show that you might get 74 per cent of Australians aged 55 to 59 in the labour force, but, by the time they reach the 60- to 64-year-old cohort, that drops to 56½ per cent, and only 12 per cent of those aged 65 and above are still in the labour force. So workforce participation is a big issue.

Also, people are finding, as they get older, that the amount of time taken to find work again is extraordinary. On the stats, we're led to believe that, in some cases, it takes up to 73 weeks for a person in an older age bracket to find work again. And part of the problem is that a lot of older workers believe they're being actively discriminated against on the basis of their age. This has been backed up by survey findings that have been released previously by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Some of the survey work indicated that 27 per cent of people over the age of 50 had recently experienced discrimination in the workplace, and one-third of the recent episodes of discrimination apparently occurred when applying for a job. So it's a big issue.

Last year, the federal government announced in their 2017-18 budget that they would put in place a career transition assistance program. We were told there'd be some trials undertaken. We were told at the time that the program itself would commence in 2020. Part of that program was to do things that you would imagine jobactive should be doing right now—assess the skills and capabilities of older workers, see what can be done to address any training or skills gaps and help with preparation of resumes or job interview skills. This is the stuff that should happen right now, but, apparently, a new scheme had to be put in place to deal with that. In this year's budget, we find out the funding has been brought forward. The trial sites that have been selected will be overrun by the program actually beginning before the trials even end. The two-year trial has been reduced to a one-year trial commencing in 2018 in five regions chosen by the minister, who will not disclose how they came to this decision. We don't know if they're targeting particular Liberal seats or if they're targeting unemployment. Who knows? We don't have the info. Each trial site had a two-year contract to run the trial. That has now been reduced. The department and government haven't worked out how to manage the fact they're cutting the trial time in half. The department made a two-year contract with these businesses but doesn't have a plan to manage this. And the government says this is good for business.

In addition, just three months into the reduced one-year trial, the government will then begin the procurement process for the national rollout, just a quarter of the way through an already reduced trial. How can the national rollout possibly be based on the findings of the trial when the trial has barely got off the ground? The answer is that it will not be. This is just another prop for another media release and another let-down for those who are in need of support. The program was brought forward from 2020 to 2019 because consultation told the government that there was a sense the program was needed now. What a surprise! Older people are wanting help to find jobs already, and we find out that the government has discovered it's needed now. It's an indicator of how out of touch the government is that it didn't realise older jobseekers have a unique challenge when searching for work. But it seems the government did realise older Australians needed help when looking for work, and they saw an opportunity for yet another hollow announcement dressed up as options for older Australians. Let's look at those options.

There is $19.3 million for a skills and training incentive, relying heavily on a skills checkpoint managed by another department. There has been no formal negotiation on how they'll work with the Department of Jobs and Innovation. The government doesn't know how the program will be measured. When asked how it would measure the successful uptake of future employment, the answer was, 'This will be a difficult measure.' If the government's programs for older jobseekers aren't measured on getting them jobs, what's going on? There's a $15.2 million Job Change initiative, another program with no success measures developed and no review set. The $17.7 million entrepreneurship facilitators program has been expanded without an evaluation as to whether it was a success. It is a program where there is no set number of places and again no success measures. The collaborative partnership initiative is another program with no set number of places and no success measures. The program has no review process established to evaluate whether it's actually helped the older Australians it promised to assist. There is the Regional Employment Trials Program, costing $18.4 million, set to be rolled out over 10 'disadvantaged regions', a phrase the government is not able to define when asked for a definition. It is another program that has been announced, but it is not clear where in Australia it will be targeted and it has no success measures and no set evaluation point.

The point is that the government is telling older Australians that it understands what they're facing in the job market and that it will help them. But the truth is that assigning millions of dollars to program titles without even understanding what success will look like isn't going to help those in need. Would the minister agree that, in the world of business, with which we are told he is very familiar, knowing which side of the ledger success sits on would be important and not knowing it would be ruinous? How can he justify that the government is willing to put so many millions of dollars into programs desperately needed by older Australians without having a measure of success? Why, when there are so many failing jobs programs already on the government's books, would they again promise so much and plan so little when it comes to older jobseekers? When is the government going to provide detail of the programs, like what we can actually expect to see, or is it that the government are afraid to put out more figures when the ones they have set out to date have been so completely underachieved?

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, there is a lot of territory to cover, so I will do my best to cover it as quickly as I can. To the member for Bendigo, my first response—if she did, and I take her at her word, send that strawberry business, as I think it was, to the Fair Work Ombudsman—is that I was in Perth last week on the phones, and there are four categories of calls and not one of them had an on-hold time of more than three minutes. I think the term was 'busy'; they got the busy signal. I don't know what that actually means, but my advice to her is to go back to that business and tell them to ring and dob in who it is they're talking about.

In terms of the Victorian bill and what we're doing about vulnerable workers, the vulnerable workers act—it's not a bill anymore; it's now an act; it's passed the Senate—

Ms Chesters interjecting—

I'll get to that in a minute, Member for Bendigo. The vulnerable workers act was an additional $20.1 million that was resourced to the Fair Work Ombudsman to attack this sort of behaviour—a job that is being done Australia-wide as we speak. In the Senate, those opposite actually voted against the act, they're so concerned about vulnerable workers! In terms of resourcing the Fair Work Ombudsman, in the opposition leader's time as the minister responsible for the Fair Work Ombudsman he cut resources. He cut their budget and their staff levels. There was no vulnerable workers act in his time. If those opposite are so concerned about it, why didn't they do something when they were in charge? We are doing something. We have done something—resourcing and empowering the Fair Work Ombudsman.

I am asked whether I support the Victorian legislation on labour hire. It will fail for exactly the reasons the member for Bendigo said—the sub-sub-subcontracting, the gangmaster behaviour. I'm investigating this right now. I'm a much bigger fan of the UK legislation in this space. We are looking at this right now. Why? Because gangmaster operatives will bypass both the Victorian and the Queensland legislation. It will fail for the exact reason that she has pointed out: it won't get the sub-sub-subcontractor. Where do I stand, and where does the Turnbull government stand, on people being underpaid and ripped off? I am personally offended by it and will do everything in my power to stop it. I can assure the member that I'm looking at this right now. In terms of labour hire as a general rule, the industry gets a dud rap. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of employers who operate in this country do so absolutely within the law. Are there rogues? Yes. Should we catch them? Yes. Should we nail them the wall? Absolutely. If we need to change legislation to do it, we should do so, and we're looking at it right now.

I was asked about Youth Jobs PaTH. The 'prepare' section, employability skills training, has already helped 21,000 people. This is a tough space. That space of long-term unemployed 15- to 24-year-olds is a tough space. Are we prepared to try things in it? Yes, we are. Why? Because we're not prepared to let them become long-term, often intergenerationally, welfare dependent people. The 'prepare' section, employability skills, has trained 21,473 people, and 7,029 of those, or 32.7 per cent, have commenced jobs off the back of that trial. That's that section of it. Internships have helped 2,245 young interns to build their work experience. The 'hire' or youth bonus component of it has led to 24,653 jobs.

I was asked about what we are doing about the CFMEU. Obviously the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission have a lot on their plates. The member for Fisher very eloquently ran through some of the most recent behaviour we have seen from them.

I was asked about what we are doing for older Australians. The member for Chifley asked about that. In the budget we announced $189.7 million for the More Choices for a Longer Life package, which has a raft of measures that are again aimed at older Australians and acknowledge the employment journey for some of them, as the latest statistics for kids leaving school today are that they'll have 16 different jobs in five different industries over that journey. We need to be cognisant of that fact. We're trying things. If it doesn't work we'll tailor it, but we won't stop trying things. Why? Because, whether it's the long-term unemployed or people losing their jobs after the age of 50 or 55, we have to do the right thing by them. Do we have to measure and report back? Yes, we do. We'll do that as quickly and efficiently as we possibly can.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Seasonal Worker Program is about aid. It's about giving workers in our Pacific region an opportunity to come to this country to help us in the agricultural space—to fill gaps in labour, particularly seasonal ones—and to earn some money under good working conditions and take it home. Unfortunately, the program, which is a Commonwealth employment program, has had a number of tragic deaths. A media report at the end of last year revealed that 13 people in the Seasonal Worker Program had tragically died while being here. Since then, there have been further deaths. This is a Commonwealth government program, and there has been report after report of worker exploitation, of workers not being paid or being paid as little as $8 or $6 an hour.

The first question has to be: how can this occur in a government employment program? What is the government doing in-country to ensure these workers (1) know what their rights are, and (2) are coming here and living in decent conditions? We know, through reports from the community, that many of these people live in squalid conditions, are underpaid and have dreadfully long working hours. This is a program that had so much potential, yet it has been plagued by constant exploitation, and it has been left up to the media and the unions to expose those problems. How has the government addressed all of these issues? Quite frankly, they have been very quiet on the issue.

Another area where the government have completely failed is the gig economy. Under the government's watch, we are now seeing people being paid as little as $5 or $6 an hour because of unfair employment conditions. The government talk so much about small business, but what are the government doing about unfair contracts for cafe and restaurant owners? Some of them have been forced by Uber Eats into contracts taking 35 per cent! If the government are so dead keen on supporting small business, just what are they doing to crack down on this kind of behaviour? The gig economy has promised so much opportunity. What we have seen through Deliveroo, Uber Eats, Uber and the gig economy is exploitation of the workers, and the Fair Work Ombudsman says, 'We are struggling to see how we can actually enforce rights here.' At the same time, we are seeing exploitation of small businesses, with cafe owners saying that they are being forced into unfair contracts, taking 35 per cent of the price. What are the government doing to address the growing problem that we have with the gig economy and how it is exploiting both workers and businesses?

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is one of the best countries in the world in which to live, work and raise a family, and Dunkley is one of the best places in Australia to do the same. However, we face global uncertainty and cannot take our prosperity and security for granted. Australia faces ongoing challenges, and we must work to keep our economy strong, to generate the jobs Australians need today and tomorrow, and to help hardworking Australian families get ahead. This is why the coalition government has a plan that is building a stronger economy by creating more and better-paid jobs; backing small business; boosting exports; delivering reliable and affordable electricity; building roads, rail and other infrastructure; and much more. I know the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation and indeed members like my colleague the member for Fisher are doing a terrific job across Australia and in their own electorates in this regard.

In Dunkley, 71,471 people were in the labour force on census night in 2016—with hospitals, supermarkets and grocery stores, as well as aged-care services, being the top industries of employment. But only 31 per cent of those residents work in Dunkley. So there is a huge potential for local jobs growth. This is why the coalition government is investing within Dunkley to create jobs and retain local employment. For example, the Frankston to Baxter rail extension, which we announced $225 million towards in the recent federal budget, will create 4,000 jobs in our local area, not to mention its ongoing positive impacts and further job growth.

On the back of that, I am particularly supporting the investment in the Dunkley health and education precinct, which will increase employment, education and innovation on the Mornington Peninsula. This project will link in with the Baxter rail extension, due to a new station that will link the university and the hospital via a metro station, resulting in a potential increase of over 20 per cent enrolment in Monash University's Peninsula campus, and linking the university and the hospital, with health care being the major employer in our region.

These projects also help to grow small businesses in Dunkley, of which there are about 16,000. They are businesses like Eliza Doolittles in Frankston, which is run by Natalie; MicMacs in Frankston, run by Christine; Langwarrin Service Centre in Langwarrin, run by Paul; and Temptation Corner party shop run by Armajit in Carrum Downs. These are the businesses we need to help.

So what is the coalition doing for small business? We are continuing to reduce red tape across the SME sector. We are reducing tax rates down to 25 per cent over time, and we are continuing the $20,000 instant asset write-off for businesses to buy crucial assets like fridges, storage and more. It is an initiative, I note, whose concept was originated in Dunkley, by our former small business minister, and my predecessor, the Hon. Bruce Billson. I note that we are continuing to support businesses over time through these measures. I want to ask my first question, which is: Minister, how is the government working to achieve employment solutions in the regions and to help small businesses, especially in Dunkley?

I further note that we are also investing $20 million to help SMEs form local and regional business hubs so entities can work together and access new export markets and global supply chains. I've noted previously in this place the entrepreneurship in centres in Frankston like the Frankston Foundry, the Garden, the Loft and other hubs for innovation and local entrepreneurship. I note that we are providing $17.7 million to support entrepreneurs, including with mentoring and support, with a focus on those aged over 45 years. I note the national media coverage that was given to a local business that I mentioned in parliament recently and that the minister for small business knows well, Passel, which has a very innovative delivery service that started in my electorate of Dunkley and is now going across Australia and across the world. We have a huge potential for not only for entrepreneurship but, in a way, we are fast becoming the Silicon Valley of our area in Melbourne.

We are continuing to invest in entrepreneurship, and if we continue to invest in giving people a go, giving people opportunities and allowing for aspiration, which those opposite continue to oppose, then we can continue to see jobs growth in my electorate and across the country. My final question is: what are we doing to help entrepreneurs to promote innovation, particularly in small businesses in my electorate and across the country?

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

Minister, we're currently seeing the lowest wage growth in more than 20 years, under your watch. We've got underemployment being a serious concern, and we sadly see employment growth slowing. There are now 714,000 people unemployed, which is nearly 20,000 more than when the Abbott-Turnbull wrecking ball swung into office. That is on your watch. We see a coalition government in its fifth year that's, basically, been failing hard-working Australian families. In fact, you've done everything to undermine working Australians while sucking up to the top end of town. You've overseen the cutting of penalty rates, and you would know, Minister, how that affects people, particularly in the retail sector. We've seen our lowest paid workers suffering. We'll be seeing penalty rates cut again on 1 July, and then again on 1 July 2019, yet your government has done nothing about it.

We've seen your government bring back the ABCC, making it more difficult and less safe for workers in the construction industry. We've have seen the consequences of the ABCC interfering with the union's legitimate role of assisting workers with safety on construction sites. Minister, I have three brothers who work in the construction industry and quite a few nephews also who work in the construction industry. My younger brother, Timothy, sadly had two of his friends killed right beside him at the Twin Towns site back in 1988, something that he almost never recovered from, physically or mentally. So I know the important work that unions do in keeping workers safe, I've been a union organiser myself, but not in a dangerous industry like the construction sector.

We know, and you know, Minister, that unions must be able to access worksites to inspect safety concerns that are legitimately raised with them by their members. They must be able to do that without interference from the ABCC, and without misinformation being provided by the ABCC. In Queensland we have seen situations where the CFMEU have been refused legitimate right of entry to worksites when their members have requested their assistance. For example, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project has a well-documented history of health and safety incidents—you can see the newspaper reports on it—including some very serious plant rollovers at a dangerous worksite. There have been 17 accidents in a period of 18 months. Workers on that Toowoomba rail crossing site have a right to be safe at work and to go home to their families each night. But accidents are happening and workers are being seriously injured, and they are fearful.

The ABCC, rather than making workplaces safer, seems to be only concerned about stopping unions, such as the CFMEU, from talking to their members. Bad advice from the ABCC is allowing rogue builders to hide behind the organisation and not address the legitimate safety concerns of workers. It's just another part of the coalition government's unfair and anti-worker ideological agenda. As a former employer, Minister, you know that bad or rogue employers undercut good bosses, including good builders, who do the right thing. In their desperation to get their unfair and anti-worker ABCC legislation through the parliament, the coalition did a deal with Senator Xenophon. The pay-off to Senator Xenophon was that the government would commission a review into subcontractor payments in the construction industry. The Murray review was completed late last year.

We know there is an urgent need for a nationally consistent approach to security-of-payment laws. Your government received the Murray report more than five months ago. You've had time to consider the recommendations, but we haven't even heard whether or not you, Minister, accept these recommendations. We hope that you will not be deserting the associated small businesses that miss out on these payments. That can destroy families and businesses. Pacific Highway subcontractors in New South Wales are owed $7.3 million because the head contractor engaged by the New South Wales Liberal government has gone into liquidation. This is the exact problem that the Murray review recommendations address.

Senator Xenophon and the other crossbenchers that supported his amendments to the ABCC legislation were promised, by Minister Cash, 'meaningful reform' to improve compliance with security-of-payment laws. The coalition government took their votes on the back of those promises. And now, with firm recommendations from the Murray review in your office, you are sitting on your hands. The Turnbull government only looks after the top end of town. Whether it's workers or subcontractors relying on payments from building companies, this Turnbull government has done nothing to protect their wages, to protect their payments or to protect their safety.

Minister, when is this government going to stand up for Australian workers by stopping cuts to penalty rates and making building sites safer? (Time expired)

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, that's a lot of territory to cover. To answer the member for Moreton's questions first, yes, we do have the Murray report. It has been released. It has been passed to the Building Ministers' Forum. In security payments, there is a duplication and we have federal and state considerations to make. I note that some states, like the member's home state of Queensland, have moved ahead with deemed bank accounts for the prime contractor. I have a personal view that this won't fix tier 2, tier 3, tier 4 or tier 5 subs. It doesn't address the problem, I know. Minister de Brenni pushed it back today, in a thinly veiled attempt to blame the former LNP government.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it won't work!

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It won't work is the real reason, as my colleague here can well attest to. The member for Bendigo quoted the Fair Work Ombudsman as saying, 'We are struggling to see how we can enforce rights in the gig economy.' Obviously, that's just made up. The Fair Work Ombudsman only last week commenced action against foodora, which is a delivery service. This is an area of the gig economy she was waxing lyrical about. It's a pity the member for Chifley's not here, because, in 2015, Ed Husic accused Prime Minister Turnbull of not being nimble and agile. He said:

If start-ups come up with ways to transport people in a better and cheaper way than before then it makes no sense whatsoever for us to be stuck in old world thinking that says you can only use a traditional way to get around …

He thought that we should adopt Uber for the Public Service. The opposition and the Transport Workers Union want to rail against the gig economy, and this is the frustrating thing. The gig economy will be detailed and worked out by the Fair Work Ombudsman and by the Fair Work Commission, as cases are brought to it.

Already, Uber has had a case brought against it in the Fair Work Commission which questioned the nature of the employment, which the member for Bendigo was waxing lyrical about. She demonstrated only one thing: her complete ignorance of Labor's own Fair Work Act, their own Fair Work Commission and their own Fair Work Ombudsman, which I now have the privilege of overseeing, that are doing exactly what it is they were set up to do—that is, define the ongoing as innovation occurs in the employment space.

I note the member for Moreton raised the ABCC in terms of actions, and, in fact, it's completely the opposite to what he stated. In fact, 40 per cent of the cases that the ABCC have on their books are against employers. It isn't the fact that they are out there, day in, day out, bashing unions, and unions only. Again, under the Fair Work Act, the right of entry to a construction site is very clearly defined, and if the union members comply with the act they should be let on. If they're not, they can raise their concerns with the ABCC or the Fair Work Commission. This is how the law is being enforced.

Whilst those opposite want to make thinly veiled attacks on the personal integrity of Fair Work commissioners, as high as the Chief Justice himself, who was put in place by the Labor Party, not by me, I am in the politically ironic position of standing up for the integrity of their laws, their appointments and their system as they take an axe to it. And the only reason they're taking an axe to it—let's be very clear here—is the union business model is broken. There is no value-offering there. That's why they're down to less than 10 per cent of the private sector in employment. 'Change the rules' is about one thing and one thing only: the exploitation of a weak Labor leader, in Bill Shorten, who is completely reliant on union support for his leadership. He has done secret deals with them to ensure that's he's safe so that the member for Grayndler doesn't take him out.

What's going to happen at the end of it? Think of something like industry-wide bargaining. That is seriously being contemplated. We have not seen that in this country since the 1970s, when the rates of industrial disputation ran at 400 times what they do today. These are nut-job left-wing union policies. Sally McManus says it one day and Brendan O'Connor parrots it the next, and within six months it finds its way into the official policy platform of the Labor Party.

We are talking about compulsory casual conversion. How does a business operate when it needs flexibility? When it doesn't know when its trade's coming or whether it's going to rain or shine, and it has to cut its costs to fit, how's it going to do it? It can't. I get on well with the member for Moreton; he's a good mate of mine. I would beg him to go and look inside, to dig for—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

that's the kiss of death, isn't it, Graham!—the actual facts of the matter. (Time expired)

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

I think we're all very pleased to hear that's there's some friendship across the aisle. In that spirit, I'll call the member for Moreton again.

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

Since we won't have time for a response, I'm actually going to say something a little bit different to the minister. This is just to give a slightly personal story. As I said, three members of my family work in the construction industry. I'm going to mention a family tragedy that occurred three weeks ago. This is about my nephew Joel Perrett, who works in the construction industry as a crane operator. Unfortunately, he reversed over his daughter, Eloise, and killed her. Joel and Chevorn—it's the worst thing that can happen to a parent, the worst time you could have. Poor little Eloise, who was not quite two years old, was killed.

The CFMMEU, particularly Michael Ravbar and Jade from the Queensland branch, were incredible—just so you know—as were his employers, I'd point out, Minister. I'm sorry I can't say the name of the company off the top of my head. The employers were brilliant, and the CFMMEU members. I know you hear horror stories; I just want to tell you another story where they stepped up and were incredibly supportive. They put the hat around at building sites all around Queensland to help out. Obviously, nothing will change the tragedy, and poor Eloise is gone. But, for Joel and Chevorn, the CFMMEU members stepped up, supported them and put the hat around, and I think their employers matched it—just so you know, Minister, that I'm giving both sides of the story, for my colleague from the Sunshine Coast. A good employer will always look after their workers, and that's why I'm particularly against any rogue employers who make it harder for a good employer to do their job, because a good employer always knows that investing in your employees is a good thing. Thank you, Minister.

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

The Federation Chamber will now consider the industry, innovation and science, and the resources and northern Australia segments of the Jobs and Innovation portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak about the budget for resources and northern Australia. The government is investing in a global positioning system technology that will create jobs and support Australian industry. It is investing over $261.8 million to develop satellite technology. Under this package, $160.9 million will deliver a satellite based augmentation system, or SBAS. This technology underpins GPS to improve the reliability and accuracy of positioning data from five metres to 10 centimetres across Australia and its maritime zone. This improved positioning will ensure safer navigation, for example, of ships into and out of Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay; enable real-time behavioural modelling for early disease detection for the livestock industry; and improve the safety of the aviation sector in remote and rural Australia.

The government will invest $64 million in the National Positioning Infrastructure Capability, NPIC, which will complement SBAS to improve GPS to an accuracy as precise as three centimetres in areas of Australia with access to mobile coverage. NPIC will establish a network of ground stations to create a coordinated, national infrastructure for positioning, navigation and timing data. The numerous applications will all have economy-wide benefits, quite obviously. Examples include location on smartphones; timing in energy and financial networks; logistics across transport systems; and self-steering machinery on farms, in mines and on construction sites.

A further $36.9 million is for Digital Earth Australia, a world-class technology which will provide Australian businesses greater access to reliable standardised satellite data that identifies physical changes to the entire Australian environment. This data can be used to develop new applications and information services for sectors throughout the economy, such as soil monitoring, coastal erosion, crop growth, water availability and, of course, water quality. DEA will make it more affordable for Australian businesses, researchers and individuals to access satellite data, which can then be used to develop new applications and information services for sectors right across the economy, right across the country.

The government will invest additional funds in 2018-19 for the completion of a detailed business case for a national facility to address Australia's radioactive waste management requirements. The continuation of site engineering investigations and significant community consultation will ensure that decisions on a preferred site can be progressed without delay.

The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, a $5 billion investment made in the 2016-17 budget by this government, continues to implement loan payments to encourage and complement private sector investment in economic infrastructure that, very importantly, benefits the future development of northern Australia. I also note that expenditure supporting northern Australia in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-19 continues to be discussed by a wide range of ministers at the same time. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister just mentioned the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, and I want to ask him a question about it. The NAIF was announced by the government more than three years ago. In fact, it was three years and 40 days ago that this government announced the NAIF. Not much has happened since. I've called it the most constipated organisation that this government has ever created. Finally we're starting to see some movement. We've had one announcement of a project in Western Australia, one in the Northern Territory and I see today that the government has just made an announcement of a project in Queensland, the Genex project in Kidston, west of Townsville. I welcome that. It's a good project. I've been calling on the government to fund this project now for almost 12 months. So I say it's about time that this project was funded. But, even with that, the NAIF has still now only funded three projects in three years. It could do a lot better than that.

Minister, I draw your attention to the fact that, whilst the NAIF has announced funding for three projects, it still hasn't allocated any funding to any of those projects. As a result, the NAIF still hasn't done what it's supposed to do, which is to help build infrastructure, to create jobs in northern Australia. It has, however, spent a lot of money on a lot of other things. It has spent about $1 million on executive salaries and hundreds of thousands of dollars on travel. It has spent millions of dollars on wages, for a lot of staff who don't even live in northern Australia. Most of the staff who work for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility live in Sydney or Melbourne.

Let me make it clear to the chamber: the Labor Party opposition wants the NAIF to succeed. It is a big and important opportunity that this parliament needs to get right—$5 billion of funding to help drive investment in infrastructure that's going to help the north grow and help to create jobs in the north, in places like Townsville, which the member for Herbert represents, and where, as she knows better than most, people are desperate for work. The NAIF can help to fix that, but it can't do that if it's not investing in projects to create the jobs. Three projects in three years is not good enough, and announcing three projects and not allocating funding to them is not good enough.

I want to draw the minister's attention to the NAIF's corporate plan, because it sets a benchmark of what the NAIF will achieve. It says that, by the end of this financial year, it will have completed transactions worth $300 million to $1 billion. That's the target—that the NAIF will have completed transactions to the value of $300 million to $1 billion. As I just said before, as at two weeks ago, when we asked this question in estimates, it still hasn't allocated a dollar to any project. The end of the financial year is coming. It's next Saturday. It's only 10 days away. So my question to the minister is directly on this. You've announced three projects. You haven't completed transactions on any of them, to the best of our knowledge. Will the NAIF complete the transactions on these three projects by next Saturday? Most particularly, will it complete the transaction on this Genex deal that's been announced today, as promised in the corporate plan, within 10 days time, by next Saturday?

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

My electorate of Fisher has benefited significantly from the coalition government's Stronger Communities Program. The program has been a huge success in delivering on the coalition's commitment to supporting social benefits in communities all over Australia. Just in rounds 2 and 3 in my electorate, the program has funded 45 separate community projects, with grants of between $2,600 and $20,000. As the minister well knows, sporting clubs can be a particularly valuable way of bringing the community together. Young people, parents, volunteers and older-life members—sporting clubs often attract local residents from all walks of life in a common cause.

For many people a sports club provides the heart of their social activities. As such, sporting clubs in Fisher have benefitted especially from previous rounds of the Stronger Communities Program. Caloundra Junior Rugby Union Club received $6,000 towards a PA system, while the Caloundra City Boxing received $5,000 support for new equipment. Ten thousand dollars went to Kawana Park Junior Australian Football Club for new undercover areas, and Caloundra Mallet Sports Club got $4,000 to renovate their clubhouse. Maleny District Sports and Recreation Club won a grant of $12,000 to improve their fencing, while Kawana Waters Swimming Club, Maleny Golf Club, Caloundra Cricket Club, Suncoast Hinterland BMX Club and Outrigger Caloundra Canoe Club have also benefitted from grants. Would the minister please outline for the House what benefits sporting clubs in Australia can expect to see from round 4 of the Stronger Communities Program?

Personally, one of the communities that has been most important in my own life is surf lifesaving, in particular the club where I'm a patrol captain, Alexandra Headland. Surf clubs engender the spirit of volunteerism. They provide young people with important life skills and make beaches safer for all of us. In Fisher, our surf clubs have also been beneficiaries of the Stronger Communities Program. Kawana Waters Surf Life Saving Club received $10,000 for a new IRB and an upgrade to their patrol shed, while Surf Life Saving Queensland in Mooloolaba got $5,000 for equipment for their little nippers challenged youth program. Alongside the surf clubs, our coast guard volunteers do a tremendous amount to keep our boaties safe. The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard in Caloundra have a new trailer for a search and rescue vessel as a result of the Stronger Communities Program. Would the minister please outline for the House how surf clubs, our local coastguards and other community organisations throughout Australia will be able to get involved and apply for a grant under round 4 of this program?

A strong community depends on its volunteers, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee, as you well know. It depends on the people who are willing to give up their time to help those less fortunate than themselves, to provide much needed facilities or to preserve a community's heritage. In Fisher, many of these groups have also received grants under the Stronger Communities Program. Caloundra Woodworking Club, which brings local seniors together to socialise and work with their hands, has received two grants under this program to replace an important lathe and refurbish its kitchen facilities. Our vital Rotary clubs in Alexandra Headland, Maleny and Caloundra got more than $30,000 worth of support in total for new storage, storage containers and a cover for a netball court. The CCSA Hall, a much loved local landmark in Caloundra, was provided with the $5,000 it needed to get curtains to keep the midsummer Queensland sun off the young dancers who use that space. Peachester Community Hall will be better able to preserve our local heritage with their new archive room, supported by a $15,000 grant, while, nearby, the Maleny Cultural & Historical Society received $2,600 towards the refurbishment of Lawley House. Celebrate Glasshouse Country upgraded their park facilities. Diggers Rest in Beerwah, which operates a 22-acre place of respite for former and currently serving members of the ADF, used its grant of $2,500 towards the construction of a children's playground. Minister, would you update the chamber about how round 4 of the Stronger Communities Program will work and benefit all Australians?

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the minister revolves around the fact that in this year's budget you have not funded one cent for vital infrastructure in Townsville. You have not committed one cent for long-term water security infrastructure. You have not committed one cent for energy infrastructure. You have not committed one cent for the Townsville Port Expansion Project. The people in my electorate can very clearly see that the Turnbull government is not committed to the electorate of Herbert. Townsville's unemployment crisis falls squarely on the LNP's shoulders.

Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, Townsville has become the capital in the nation for two things. We were the jobless capital and now we are the insolvency capital of the nation. Townsville's unemployment rate has almost doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. When Labor left federal government in 2013, Townsville's unemployment rate was lower than both the state and national averages. Now Townsville's unemployment rate is higher than the state average and almost double the national average. Under the previous Labor government, manufacturing in Townsville was soaring. When Labor left the federal government in 2013, more than 8,400 people were employed in the manufacturing industry. But, under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, manufacturing has nosedived, with job losses of over 3,000. There were 442 fewer construction industry business registrations last year compared with 2012, and 153 fewer retail business registrations in the same period. Yet, in this year's federal budget, Labor got nothing but cut after cut after cut.

Minister, allow me to explain what your lack of investment in infrastructure is doing to the people of Herbert. Allow me to explain the detrimental effects of your government's cuts to my community. And then, after I have asked my question, can you please tell me how you think completely ignoring my community is a good idea. Your decision not to fund vital long-term water infrastructure in my community will result in Townsville eventually being declared in drought again. With our dam less than 15 per cent full again, the community will be forced back to level 3 water restrictions again, costing the council in excess of $34,000 a day in pumping costs—again. Your decision not to fund energy infrastructure in Townsville will further drive up the cost of electricity bills, which have already doubled under the LNP. The continual skyrocketing of power bills will force local businesses to shut their doors, and workers, pensioners and families will struggle to pay their electricity bills. Your decision not to fund the port expansion project will result in dual-hull ships carrying our fuel to bypass Townsville Port and go directly to Brisbane. That fuel will then be trucked back to Townville, causing more maintenance on the Bruce Highway, but, more importantly, exponentially driving up the cost of fuel for Townsville residents. Your decision not to fund infrastructure will ensure that not one new infrastructure job will be created in our community, where, on your watch, unemployment has almost doubled. Townsville now has the fourth worst unemployment rate in regional Queensland.

Your $14.8 million in cuts to Townsville schools will ensure that around one in three teachers will lose their jobs. Your $9 million in cuts to Townsville health and hospital services will ensure that doctors, nurses and staff will lose their jobs. Your $36 million cuts to James Cook University and $38 million cuts to Central Queensland University will ensure that degrees are cancelled and jobs are lost, and students in North Queensland will not be able to access some higher education courses in Townsville. In fact, that is already happening with James Cook University, as they are being forced to cancel their creative arts degrees. Your cuts to aged care have ensured that, right now in my community, 323 people in North Queensland are sitting on a waiting list to access a home care package and won't be able to do so any time soon. Your cuts to the ABC will ensure that we lose our local ABC presence. Townsville ABC suffered under your last round of cuts, and we know we are going to suffer again. Your cuts to the National Partnership on Remote Housing will ensure that seven apprenticeships are lost on Palm Island. Your cuts to Project Booyah will ensure that teens at risk will not get the help they need.

You seem very happy with this long list of cuts for the people of Herbert, whilst at the same time you are very happy to fund an $80 billion tax handout to big business and the banks. My question to the minister is very simple: why are you refusing to fund Townsville's long-term water security infrastructure, why are you refusing to fund our energy infrastructure and why are you refusing to fund our vital port expansion project?

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

The $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is a game changer for northern Australia. The NAIF is partnering with the private sector and governments of northern jurisdictions to provide concessional loans to encourage and complement private sector investment in infrastructure that benefits northern Australia. I have to concede there have been some teething problems. However, to iron out these problems and to increase the flexibility of the NAIF and improve its potential to support projects in northern Australia, the government recently removed the debt cap, redefined eligibility of infrastructure proposals, removed the requirement to comprehensively test the market gap for finance and broadened the definition of 'economic infrastructure' in the investment mandate. These have all been very, very positively received in the market.

However, the biggest impediment to the NAIF funding is the Queensland Labor government. The Queensland government certainly has form in not wanting to engage with the federal government for the betterment of the state and its residents. They are hell-bent on ensuring that projects in Queensland, including in my electorate, never get off the ground. They're more interested, unfortunately, in playing politics. Essentially, they have made a conscious decision to put their own self-interest and that of their candidates ahead of every single Queenslander. All you have to do is have a look at their decisions to veto the Adani loan to win votes in the south-east corner during the state election campaign. The question that must be asked is: is the Queensland government actually engaged with the NAIF? The answer, unfortunately, is no.

There are currently about 61 Queensland projects in the NAIF pipeline, including the Nullinga Dam project that would provide water security for generations to come. Eight of these projects are in the due diligence stage. However, not a single Queensland government owned or controlled corporation has put forward a single project for consideration, and I think this is very disappointing. In fact, NAIF has identified 14 infrastructure project opportunities where there may be a potential for NAIF to consider co-funding assets procured by Queensland government owned corporations. NAIF has previously written to Queensland Deputy Premier and Treasurer Jackie Trad and previous state Treasurer Curtis Pitt regarding these opportunities. Unfortunately, neither has bothered to reply.

To date, no proponents of these 14 identified projects have formally requested NAIF finance or provided detailed business case and financial information. NAIF continues to express its interest in working with the Queensland government owned corporations and other relevant stakeholders. Put simply, the Queensland Labor government doesn't want to engage with NAIF. The question is: why doesn't it want to? I suggest to you that it is not because the government is flush with money and does not need financial assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, the state certainly has significant debt which is tipped to soar to about $83 billion in the next few years.

I do have a few questions I'd like to ask about projects in my area. I mentioned the Nullinga Dam, but there are others as well, including the dredging of the Cairns inlet. Could the minister advise the programs and funding that were being made available for water projects in the north? How much money has the coalition government provided for water feasibility studies? How many water feasibility studies are there? How many have commenced and how many have been completed? When are the remaining feasibility studies due to be completed? How will water security assist us in the north? And what will the building of the Rookwood Weir mean for the people of Central Queensland?

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

I start by pointing out that the minister's not here. I don't know how I'm going to get any answers to any of my questions. Are you going to do that? But it's typical of the lack of respect for northern Australia that the minister can't even be here. I also bring to the attention of the chamber the fact that it's been 285 days since the Prime Minister has set foot in the Northern Territory. Quite frankly, it should not have taken a scathing article in the NT News for him to communicate with the Far North of Australia. He got one of his staff to pen what can only be described as a pretty dry and impersonal piece, where he said he'll always back Territorians to the hilt. What a crock! I wish the member for Leichhardt was still here, because he knows about crocodiles and he knows a croc when he sees it. The article was titled 'Meet Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister for the South.' If that did not make them uncomfortable then the next day's front page certainly did, and I quote: 'Simply does not care'. The Prime Minister simply does not care about northern Australia, and deep down, in places they don't talk about at harbour-side cocktail parties, they know it's true. That's why it's a bit uncomfortable.

Please, I don't want to hear from those opposite about how the $260 million GST top-up to the NT government was evidence of caring. I mean, that's a crock! We're talking about giving with one hand and taking with the other; it's not extra money. This is after billions of dollars have been ripped away from the coffers of the Northern Territory. They're just some crumbs to placate Territorians, but let's be honest about the situation as it pans out for the Northern Territory. There has been around $70 million ripped out of our schools—not helpful—and $30 million ripped out of Charles Darwin University. That's not very agile. And there has been $16 million ripped out of our public hospitals. That's not smart; that's just dumb.

Minister, or the person standing in for one of the ministers in this portfolio, you don't need much of a bulldust radar to realise that the Turnbull government's not backing the Territory. What I think we need—we've had more evidence this morning with Minister McVeigh not even being here—is this government to show the people of the Northern Territory some respect.

Our economy is facing some headwinds, so what we need is federal government investment now, not when it's politically convenient for the Prime Minister to visit, and not when he's received a shellacking in the NT News, but now. Territory companies are telling me they're having to let people go. The City Deal is a great example where investment needs to occur. We need that City Deal signed now, because Territory businesses are closing their doors now. Those opposite can do something to help that situation. They can get off their collective dates and finalise the Darwin City Deal now. We've heard a lot about the NAIF, that up until recently has done naifing, but now we have just one project in each jurisdiction that's been funded. The funding for the Humpty Doo Barramundi Farm is good, but we need those projects within the NAIF expedited. There are very real, here and now implications for Territorians from the Turnbull government's neglect of the Territory. As I said, Territory businesses are closing their doors, now. Territorians are losing their jobs, now. Territorians are having to move south, now. Those opposite have the power to change that, yet you don't. That's my question, why? Why can't the City Deal be signed now? Territorians need this support now. So expedite the NAIF funding for Territory projects, reverse the damaging cuts to our education and health systems, and above all, start showing some respect for the Territory and the capital of the north, now.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My comments are directed to Minister McVeigh, but I thank the Minister for Small Business for being here today in his stead. While we can always do better, infrastructure spending in my electorate has been very pleasing. Since the last budget, we've seen the completion of the Albany tourist bureau redevelopment project, where there was a $997,000 contribution from the Commonwealth government. I was at the opening of the Manjimup wellness centre with over 250 people just the other week, where there was another $350,000 contribution from the Commonwealth government, leveraging about $1.5 million of investment.

The Yeerakine Lodge in Kondinin, a wonderful little facility caring for aged people in that area, has received $600,000 from the Commonwealth government, and that project is moving towards completion. The Pingelly recreation centre, which has received $3.5 million from the Commonwealth government, is a very unique project—a rec centre built completely out of wood; no steel whatsoever. It's going to be a remarkable piece of architecture, and I congratulate the Pingelly shire and the community on the work that they've done.

A particular favourite project of mine is the Nyabing community hub—I know they've pulled down the old hotel in Nyabing, which they will replace with a new licensed venue that will also have coffee shops, and offices for visiting specialists and businesspeople. That's a contribution from the Commonwealth government of $825,000, but the other 50 per cent has been contributed by funds raised by the community.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:46 to 11:57

The big infrastructure project across my electorate that's got me and the people of the northern goldfields very excited about is the Outback Way. This road links Laverton in the goldfields of Western Australia to Winton in western Queensland. It's 2,700 kilometres long. It's referred to as Australia's longest short cut. There are about 1,200 kilometres of bitumen and 1,600 kilometres that still need sealing. When that road's sealed it will link Perth and Cairns and will become a new inland freight route. It will also be very much used by tourists and the increasing numbers of grey nomads who spend the winter months on the road.

On top of the $38 million that the Commonwealth government invested in the Outback Way in the 2016 budget we've announced $160 million in the 2018 budget. I know that the shire president of Laverton, my dear friend Patrick Hill, is very excited about that. And they're doing their bit. They're laying blacktop at the rate of about $270,000 a kilometre, which is an extraordinary effort in a very remote region. They're doing a fantastic job of getting that road sealed as quickly as possible.

My electorate of O'Connor is predominantly a mining and agriculture one. The mining industry contributes over $11 billion to the economy, mainly based on gold but increasingly nickel, lithium and cobalt, the products that are riding the new battery-technology wave. It's been an incredibly rich area. We celebrated the 125th anniversary of the discovery of gold on the weekend, but we still need to explore for new resources. That's where the GPS technology that I'm about to ask the minister about comes into play. Automated vehicles, increasingly technological prospecting and surveying, and mapping rehabilitation are all very important issues for the mining industry, in relation to GPS. Agriculture, which is my industry, my first love, produces about $4.7 billion worth of product out of my electorate. They're mainly broadacre crops—wheat, barley and canola. As technology is improving, GPS technology is becoming absolutely crucial for the industry.

Minister, I have three questions for you. Firstly, in the recent budget, the government committed $260 million to developing satellite technology for GPS, or global positioning system, technology. Where is this money going to be spent? Can you please tell me more about the Satellite-Based Augmentation System and the National Positioning Infrastructure Capability and what their benefits are? Finally, can you please tell me how the $37 million that the government has committed to Digital Earth Australia will be spent?

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Townsville is the largest city in northern Australia. As such, we have a huge role to play in the development of northern Australia. That is why the lack of funding coming through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility—or, as we like to call it, the 'No Australia Infrastructure Facility'—has had a dreadful impact on our community in terms of infrastructure projects. Townsville has the largest Defence population in the nation; therefore, we have the largest population of veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families. We desperately need investment in infrastructure that will create jobs for veterans and ex-serving personnel as they transition from the services to civilian life. This is an incredibly challenging time for veterans and their families. The No. 1 priority that veterans talk to me about is the need for a job. It is also a massive issue for their partners and spouses and, in some cases, children who have left school. We need to see infrastructure funding coming into our community, to ensure jobs for these people who have given of their lives so selflessly to ensure that we can live in a country with the freedoms that we experience here.

We also have a desperate need to see ongoing funding into veterans' mental health and health services. Minister, it is a very interesting situation that we find. The budget saw a $40.7 million cut to veterans' dental and allied health services. Why has this occurred?

We also have seen savage cuts and the devastation of our TAFE system. This has created a huge problem for the building of the skills that we need as we move into the future. We have significant skill shortages in our community, across nearly all trades.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:03 to 12:15

TAFE is an essential component in the building of skills into the future for our young people and mature-aged people transitioning into jobs of the new economies.

One of the issues I would also like to raise with the minister is why we are cutting university funding to James Cook University to the tune of $36 million and Central Queensland University to the tune of $38 million when we know that only half the number of students are transitioning to university in regional centres. Cutting the funds to the universities in the electorate of Herbert will have a devastating impact on the young people in my community who wish to attend university.

The other issue of huge significance where we need to see significant funding is that of aged care. We are seeing medical wards and the subacute unit at the Townsville Hospital and Health Service overburdened with elderly people who should have access to residential aged-care beds or assistance in their home. That is simply not happening. It is incredibly distressing for those elderly citizens, their families and the communities that they belong to. It also means that we cannot bring people who need admission to hospital into medical wards, because the beds are taken by people who need a bed in a residential aged-care facility.

Finally, the infrastructure that we need in our community, which will also create jobs, is the NBN. It is an absolute disaster in my community. For example, in the suburb of Douglas, where a lot of university students live and where the university is located, the NBN is so poor students are moving away from that area to live in other parts of the city because they cannot get good quality internet access. So my question to the minister is: why won't this government invest in vital infrastructure projects in the electorate of Herbert?

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

It's my great pleasure to rise and ask the excellent minister a question in relation to his portfolio. As the member for Corangamite—I'm very pleased to say that I will continue to be the member for Corangamite after the redistribution boundaries were announced today, but I'll have more to say about that a little later in the afternoon—I'm absolutely delighted to rise and speak about the incredible way in which our government is backing small business and jobs.

Let's not forget that this Leader of the Opposition has declared a war on business. They were his words—a war on business. The 90 per cent of Australians who work in the private sector for a small, medium or large business know they have no friend in the Leader of the Opposition and in this disgraceful Labor Party, which has deserted business in droves. We now know that they are going to reverse some very important company tax deductions that we have delivered already to small business. Our aim is to drive company tax rates down to 25 per cent to make us competitive, to ensure we are not going to drive jobs offshore, to make us globally competitive, and to drive investment, jobs and opportunity, but what the Labor Party wants to do is drive those jobs offshore. The Labor Party is so unprincipled, so removed from the Labor Party of old, that it doesn't even have the courage to stand up for coalmine workers. That's what this Labor Party is all about now.

I'm incredibly pleased about our plan to cut taxes for small and medium-sized enterprises, and large companies, to 25 per cent and to increase the unincorporated business discount to 16 per cent. These policies include the instant asset tax write-off, where every single item can be written off to the tune of up to $20,000. That's made an enormous difference to business. I'm so proud of what we're doing in the Corangamite electorate and of the way in which our investments in small and medium-sized businesses are resonating. Look at some of the wonderful announcements we've made under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages—$20 million investing in 21 businesses. They include $5 million for LeMond Composites, which will be Australia's very first carbon fibre manufacturing facility. There are many other wonderful investments. In fact, last week I was at Austeng and declared open the Barton engine, which is being supported under the RJIP fund. That also has the potential to turn waste heat into electricity, with incredible applications. It's a very exciting innovation and a really good example of how we on the ground in Geelong are making a real difference. The Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund and recent manufacturing announcements show our support for really important businesses like Carbon Revolution and Boundary Bend Limited.

There are wonderful announcements in our budget. There is $50 million more for rail as we grow. As we are now the fastest-growing region in Australia, we desperately need that infrastructure. In total, $150 million has been announced by the Commonwealth for the rail duplication project in Southern Geelong. There's only a paltry $10 million from state Labor, which is really pathetic. As part of our growth, as part of our future, there are other wonderful investments, like $20 million in our new international terminal. This is why our economy is transitioning as it is and why there is such excitement. Victoria is about to receive its second international airport, at Avalon, and we are so proud.

Right across the economy we are making a huge difference, led by this minister, to small and medium-sized businesses. I ask the minister how the Australian government is encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to innovate and create jobs, including in my electorate of Corangamite, which has been going absolutely gangbusters since the Turnbull government was elected in 2013.

Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party, Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this process there is a lot of ground to cover. I've listened to a lot of people ask a lot of questions, so I'll attempt as best I can to cover a broad range here. The member for Blaxland asked if money for the Onslow Marine Support Base project would 'get out the door', I think his term was, by the end of the financial year. He claimed there had been no money out the door yet on that. I'm guessing that means 'spent'. The answer is: on 15 June, the first loan drawdown for $3.4 million was released as part of that $16.8 million.

In terms of NAIF, broadly, and questions relating to it, as of May 2018 NAIF had received 216 inquiries, of which 97 are currently active. There are 18 projects in the due diligence stage, encompassing a broad range of sectors, and they are spread across three different jurisdictions. The member for Herbert claimed that we have deserted 'the workers', I think her term was, of Herbert. Instead of turning up at Clive Palmer's press conferences and yelling abuse at him, we've taken a somewhat different approach. It's not big on theatrics but it's big on results. We have paid out $66.78 million to the 759 employees affected by the closure of Queensland Nickel under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act. We are pursuing those monies in court. I do note that a couple of weeks ago the Queensland Supreme Court made a freezing order in the amount of approximately $205 million against the assets of Mr Palmer. We welcome that announcement, and we'll let the case take its journey through the courts.

The member for Herbert claimed that infrastructure is not being supported in Townsville. Here's a summary of some expenditure—Bruce Highway, Townsville, northern access intersections upgrade, $57,600,000; the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program for Townsville City Council, which is an upgrade of three intersections and lanes on Ingham Road, some $5.9 million; under the Building Better Regions Fund, the Bwgcolman Retail and Business Precinct stage 2, $9.994 million; under the Bridges Renewal Program, Townsville City Council, Heatleys Parade bridge upgrade, 248 grand; the community development grant, between 2013 and 2016 election commitments, Illich sports park, $5 million; and the construction of a driver education and motor sport precinct, $5 million. If the member for Townsville wants to be a help, I would suggest she talks to her mates at the CFMEU in town and get them to cease blowing out the Townsville city stadium project, which we're now hearing could move from $250 million to $300 million—a some 30 per cent increase.

The answer to the member for Leichhardt's question about water infrastructure is that the government has invested $2.6 billion in water infrastructure. It comes in two main ways: $580 million through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund and $2 billion through the National Water Infrastructure Loan Facility Fund through northern Australia.

I note that the member for Solomon is here. He raised a question about a city deal—or lambasted the minister for not being here and then asked a question that wasn't in the minister's portfolio. I'm pleased to announce that in the most recent division I spoke to the minister responsible, Minister Fletcher. He has met with your Lord Mayor there, as late as last night. It is in what he hopes to be the later stages of due diligence. But I note the member for Herbert completely excluded from her—I do note the member for Solomon pursuing the city deal. He could maybe ask the member for Herbert what it's like to land one, because there's been one landed by Townsville through no hard work of hers.

Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, asked about the $261 million for the world-class satellite and positioning. The better GPS for regional Australia accounts for $160.9 million of that. He asked about the world class satellite imagery. There's going to be $36.9 million for Digital Earth Australia to provide satellite imaging, which is, as he said, a crucial game-breaker for regional and rural Australia.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's great to be able to speak in relation to this bill today, which encapsulates the budget as outlined by the Treasurer on budget night. The centrepiece and theme of this year's budget and the appropriation bill we're speaking about today, in essence, is about unleashing every individual, every small business, every company and, indeed, every Australian to aspire to be their very best and do more to, in the end, create prosperity for themselves, prosperity for our community and prosperity, ultimately, for our country.

The centrepiece of this bill is, of course, the Personal Income Tax Plan—much spoken about in this place over the last couple of weeks. In the end, this is a Personal Income Tax Plan consistent with our values that will make taxes lower—importantly lower—fairer and simpler. This seven-year plan will improve incentives to strive for success. Firstly, it will provide relief to over 10 million low- and middle-income earners. It's very important that the government ensure that the first beneficiaries of personal income taxes will be those low- and middle-income earners. Secondly, the government will also ensure that Australians are protected from the effects of bracket creep. Bracket creep, which is a technical term used far too often in this place, is in essence just an erosion of your salary and wages by ever-higher taxes. By tackling bracket creep, we ensure that those millions of Australians who are moving into ever-higher tax brackets ultimately get to keep more of their own money, ensuring that in essence and in effect they're not paying a higher rate of tax on the effective power of their dollar.

Thirdly, we want to simplify and flatten our entire personal income tax system. We have a very progressive tax system, a tax system where the top 23 per cent of taxpayers pay 65 per cent of all income tax. We've got a tax system where, in essence, 70 per cent of taxpayers carry almost the entire system. And, in our view, those individuals deserve some tax relief just as much as low- and middle-income earners do, too. So, whilst they're not eligible for that tax relief as early as those on low and middle incomes, we think that, in step 3 of the plan, by flattening the personal income tax system, we will be assisting them in a way that is tangible and in a way that in the end will fuel aspiration and entrepreneurialism and, again, ensure that people get to keep more of their own money. Much will be said about that. The Personal Income Tax Plan is the centrepiece of this appropriation bill. We think it's very important to ensure we meet the dual measures of providing that relief and fuelling further economic growth by improving confidence in the economy.

On the revenue side, we're better targeting the research and development tax incentive to ensure that it's fit for purpose, to ensure that it is there to provide genuine R&D activities in Australia with a tax concession. We have a package of measures to tackle the black economy, to expand the taxable payments reporting system, to ensure that we're limiting the amount of illicit tobacco from an excise perspective. We've got payment limits to ensure that the black economy is dampened to the greatest extent possible, and we've established a multiagency standing Black Economy Taskforce. There are a range of other tax integrity and compliance measures to address gaps in the tax rules, to ensure foreigners and multinational companies are paying an appropriate amount of tax, to promote fairness in the system and to ensure the ATO have the tools they need to enforce the integrity of our tax system.

We're also protecting Australians' super. There's a huge pool of money and we have taken a range of measures to ensure that individuals are not paying for insurance they don't need and to ensure that individuals are not paying fees on multiple accounts which are of no benefit to them. We are banning exit fees and reuniting small and inactive accounts. Those things are all part of this appropriation bill.

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

Over a year ago, Labor called on the government to act on the problem that's facing independent mechanics who aren't getting access to the software updates they need to fix modern cars. Modern cars are computers on wheels, with 20 to 50 onboard computers. Without access to those data, independent mechanics can't fix cars. Independent mechanics account for about four in five mechanics in Australia. In the course of last year, Labor's call for a mandatory code of conduct—not the ineffective voluntary code of conduct but a mandatory code—has been backed by independent mechanics, automotive clubs, insurance firms and consumer groups. A mandatory code is the sort of approach that's worked in the United States and the European Union. It recognises that, if you're somebody who is in a remote or regional area, you may have access only to independent mechanics.

I was recently on Bribie Island with Susan Lamb, Labor's terrific candidate for Longman, and we were talking to an independent mechanic who made the point that some of the older residents on Bribie Island are reluctant to drive their cars off Bribie Island. They're getting on in years and, while they're comfortable driving on the island, they don't want to drive on the mainland. And yet there is not a single authorised dealer on Bribie Island. That means that, if someone buys a modern car that requires software updates or reinitialisation codes, the manufacturers' current reluctance to share those data with independent mechanics means that that resident of Bribie Island is faced with either not getting their car fixed or else taking a drive off the island that they regard as risky.

Labor's policy is pro-choice, pro-consumer and pro-independent mechanics. It will support jobs and apprenticeships in the independent mechanics sector. No-one tells you what car to buy, and no-one should tell you where to get it fixed. But the government has failed to follow Labor's lead. It has an ACCC report that was handed down at the end of last year that lays down a pathway as to what can be done. But, while Labor is committed to a mandatory data-sharing code, all we have is giggles from the minister opposite. Frankly, giggles aren't good enough for the independent mechanics who are going to the wall. Giggles aren't good enough for the independent mechanics who are currently struggling to fix modern cars. They know that Labor will support them with a mandatory data-sharing code. We hope that the government will ultimately pick up this idea, as it has done with so many other good Labor ideas over the course of government, from the bond aggregator to closing superannuation loopholes. Once they've tried all the other options, sometimes the Liberals do the right thing.

Then we have the Liberals' approach to banking misconduct. Following the Storm Financial collapse in 2009, Labor's Bernie Ripoll convened a parliamentary joint committee inquiry into the role of the financial services sector, spending nearly a year examining the industry and producing an important report. But, instead of supporting the subsequent Future of Financial Advice reforms, the Liberals tried to thwart them in 2012 and tried to reverse them in 2013, with Senator Sinodinos attempting to sneak out a FOFA repeal in the shadows of Christmas 2013. In the 2014 budget, the Abbott government slashed $120 million from ASIC's budget—around 12 per cent of its budget and around 200 staff. We've seen the government supporting the old, risky model and trying such tricks as removing the best-interest test from the legislation. As Bernard Keane in Crikey put it:

At every stage, the Liberals have gone to the mat for the big banks and financial planners, prepared to remove regulations, cripple the regulator, attack their competitors — and prevent scrutiny via a royal commission.

The fact is: the Turnbull government only supported a banking royal commission after the banks called for it. It took the Australian Banking Association to call for a banking royal commission before the Turnbull government would support it. We've seen since then the scandals that have made clear that Labor was right to call for a royal commission. If we'd had one when Labor first called for it, then we would now be acting on the recommendations of that royal commission rather than being nearly two years late in dealing with the issue of banking misconduct.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Normally we get the dorothy dixers from this side of the chamber, but I will happily accept this one from the member for Fenner. I welcome his late conversion to the issue of access to information for independent repairers. As I said in a speech on 4 May, a number of weeks before the member for Fenner belatedly made a non-news announcement, the government has announced that we are progressing a package to ensure that there is mandatory access to information for independent repairers. Why is it important to put the politics aside? It's important because we know that, as a consumer, as an owner of a vehicle, if you have a mechanic or a repairer that you know and you trust—someone perhaps who has repaired your cars for a number of years, someone who you implicitly know is going to do a good job, treat you fairly and do the job in a way that you're happy with—you want to be able to continue having your cars and future vehicles (perhaps new vehicles that you purchase) serviced or repaired by that individual. We know the issue at present is that, particularly with technological advances in the automotive industry, often there are barriers to those independent repairers being able to repair those cars due to the lack of information that is now often provided by overseas manufacturers. So the government has been working very closely with the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, and it was at their conference on 4 May in front of many hundreds of individuals that I announced the government's view on this. We've had a working group working towards this mandatory scheme for some time.

I must say, when the member for Fenner made his announcement some weeks later, I was getting perplexed text messages from a number of the many hundreds of people that were in that audience saying: didn't the government announce this a number of weeks ago? Of course, they were correct. However, we very much welcome the member for Fenner's late conversion on this issue. I'm very pleased that, when the government progresses this package, he will enthusiastically support it—for that, I'm very grateful. This is going to be another initiative of this government that, sadly, the member for Fenner, while he was a member of a former government, was unable to address in six years. We're very pleased that we're on the same page on that.

Throughout the space of not only the independent repairers but automotive dealers, this government is working on a number of ways to ensure that Australians who are involved in sales or distribution—particularly overseas manufactured vehicles—Australians and businesses that employ Australians, and businesses who support the sale of those vehicles in Australia are treated fairly by overseas manufacturers. In the end, it's those businesses—those dealers, those repairers, those mechanics and those panelbeaters—who are the Australian small business owners who are paying taxes and employing Australians. They deserve to have a level playing field and to be able to service their customers in a way that's most advantageous for customers. That is consistent with this government's approach of putting consumers first and, of course, ensuring that our plan for a stronger economy, more economic growth and increased jobs and increased wages is supported in every single decision we make. Whether it is in the space that the member for Fenner raised in relation to independent repairers, small business taxes or personal income taxes, it is about: how do we ensure the strength of our economy? How do we ensure opportunities are created for young Australians to get ahead? In the end we know that, if we create that environment, Australians have the ingenuity, the entrepreneurialism, the capacity and, dare I say, the aspiration to do that. When they do, as a government, we have everything we need resources-wise to provide them with the services they've rightly come to expect—and not just to give them the services that they expect but to go above and beyond and provide even more to make our country the best possible place to live.

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

We've seen yesterday that Apple Australia is receiving $9 million in fines as a result of misleading consumers about their rights under Australian Consumer Law to get their products repaired. This is another slap-on-the-wrist penalty, following penalties in the Nurofen case which were noted by a number of experts and jurists to be inadequate.

When big business sees consumer penalties as a mere cost of doing business, they are not deterred from ripping off consumers. That's why Labor went to the 2016 election calling on the government to increase penalties and saying that a Labor government would increase penalties for ripping off consumers from $1.1 million to $10 million.

We were delighted again when the government photocopied our policies. It is always a good day for Australia when Liberals photocopy Labor policies, as they did in last year's budget. But, although they photocopied it, they forgot to hand it in, so we have a nominal commitment by the Turnbull government to raising the penalties for ripping off Australian consumers—from $1.1 million to $10 million—but the bill languishes in the House. Labor is ready to pass that bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018. The provisions in that bill that increase the penalties for ripping off consumers have bipartisan support. So you've got to ask what's holding them up. Why are the Liberals so quick to act when it comes to beating up on vulnerable social security recipients but so slow to act when it comes to the critical issue of getting right the penalties on the big end of town?

Labor wants to see the right penalties imposed on those who do the wrong thing. Indeed, we think that we ought to also increase the penalties for anticompetitive conduct. We went to the last election calling for a new penalty system for anticompetitive conduct based on 30 per cent of the annual sales of the relevant product or service multiplied by the number of years the infringement took place, capped to 10 per cent in annual turnover. The benefit of this raising of penalties would be that we could beef up the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's litigation budget so we could get them to chase down more wrongdoers and ensure that we have fairer markets. We would also amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to give a market studies power to the commission. The need for the government to act is absolutely urgent. The government needs to press the go button and get on with doing this.

Another critical issue that the government is failing to act on is the GST distribution report. The Productivity Commission handed its report on GST distribution to the government on 15 May. The government has to table the report in parliament 25 sitting days after receipt. There will be only 15 sitting days between receiving the report and the by-elections in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia that will occur during the winter break. So the question that Labor has for the Turnbull government is: will the Turnbull government release the report and assure all those in those states that they won't be worse off under a Turnbull government?

Tasmanians have a right to get an assurance that their fair share of the GST is safe. Without that assurance, $367 million of the state's revenue is at risk. The Prime Minister has been called on to make an unequivocal assurance that Tasmania's fair share of the GST is safe. The fact is that, if Tasmanians want to ensure that their state's share of the GST is safe, the only way of guaranteeing that is to vote for Justine Keay in Braddon. Justine is a strong defender of the interests of Tasmanians. Labor's policy doesn't change the GST formula.

The Prime Minister, when he visited Burnie, used weasel words and bleated all about the Liberal Party. Saul Eslake has warned that Tasmania could lose $367 million in just one year, based on the Prime Minister's previous comments. If Tasmanians have nothing to worry about, then the Prime Minister should release the report, commit to the principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation and guarantee Tasmania its fair share of GST.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to my wonderful Victorian colleague the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, who has been doing fantastic work with the Treasurer and, indeed, with the whole parliamentary team to return Australia to a surplus by 2020, for the first time since 2007. We have worked hard over six years, undoing the mess of six years of Labor in government, a party that last delivered a surplus when I was just five years old.

We on this side of the chamber are the responsible economic managers. Australians expect that from a coalition government. They expect that from the Treasury and Finance team in the cabinet of a coalition government, and we have indeed exceeded their expectations and given a solid and clear path back to surplus and then to paying down our debt. While we were fortunate not to be hit quite as hard as a number of other countries in the 2008 GFC, we would not have been able to weather the storm without the savings of the Howard government, demonstrating the vital importance of making savings during good times. A government that prioritises strong economic management is a government that shows respect for its citizens and residents, as the money the government spends is ultimately taxpayers' money. It also allows us to spend more on essential services and vital infrastructure, such as the Frankston to Baxter electrification and duplication in my electorate of Dunkley, for which we've contributed $225 million in the federal budget.

Many of the government's reforms in the 2018-19 budget are about handing control of people's hard earned money back to them, such as the personal income tax reform; reforms to lower tax, particularly for small businesses; and the measures we have introduced to protect my constituents' superannuation. I believe that Dunkley residents and indeed all Australians are entitled to the dignity and personal responsibility of being able to support themselves wherever possible, and our superannuation system is a big part of that.

I would like to ask the minister if he can address the chamber not only on what we are doing to return the budget to surplus but on what the benefits from that will be. I'd also ask the minister to address what are the opportunities under our superannuation system reforms, in terms of the coalition government giving constituents in my electorate and elsewhere in Australia the ability to pursue their own interests and manage their own money to a greater extent. Further, the reason I ask this question is that, given that we have a compulsory superannuation system in Australia, the government has an obligation to ensure that the superannuation system works to the benefit of Australians, including those in Dunkley. I'm proud to advocate for my constituents and to support their right to take their future into their own hands. Superannuation belongs to the individual and no-one else—not the government and not the superannuation funds. The action that the government has taken includes empowering the ATO to reunite people's lost or low and inactive accounts with their active superannuation accounts wherever possible, capping certain fees for low-balance accounts at three per cent annually and banning exit fees on all accounts. These reforms are all made with the objective of improving the superannuation regulatory system to protect Australians from excessive fees, unnecessary insurance premiums and the inefficiencies which result from inadvertently holding multiple accounts. This is especially the case where, in some cases, individuals are forced to hold multiple counts as a result of restrictions on superannuation choices, restrictions which we propose to lift. I would also hope and ask that all MPs support these measures to ensure my constituents in Dunkley have access to more of their hard earned money. My next question is: Minister, what are we doing to ensure that my constituents and constituents across Australia have the support to have additional autonomy over their own funds and to manage what is essentially their own money?

Lastly, I know that residents in Dunkley, be they in Frankston, Langwarrin, Skye, Mount Eliza, Seaford or elsewhere, appreciate being treated as responsible and capable individuals. I know these fair reforms and consumer protections that we are supporting will empower them to work towards their retirement with confidence. In addition to my previous question, I would ask the minister: is the minister aware of any alternative policy discussions that are predicted to hurt people in retirement? I note that it is our responsibility as a government to ensure that we govern and legislate in the best interests of Australians and I look forward to the minister's answer.

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

In May 2017 Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government would take significant action to tackle illegal phoenix activity. We said, in particular, that we would put in place a director identification number, dealing with the problem that, right now, it is tougher to open a bank account than to register as a company director. One of the consequences of this was brought home through media reports which noted that a member of this House was registered multiple times as a director. That, I assume, was inadvertent, but the fact that it could occur at all illustrates the problem in our current system. The government eventually—as in other issues I've highlighted—said that it would do the right thing; it said that it would put in place a director identification number. But while it said that belatedly in September of last year, it's been nearly a year now and we're yet to see real action. Indeed, the government hasn't even clarified whether its commitment to a director identification number requires a 100-point ID check, which is a fundamental aspect of the policy announced by Labor in May 2017. Extraordinarily, Minister Kelly O'Dwyer has even suggested that a director identification number might be based on the use of biometric data.

The government is clearly failing to do its homework, and while it keeps on missing deadlines to tackle illegal phoenix activities we see more and more damage being done to honest businesses, to workers and to taxpayers. How much does this cost? It's an interesting question to ask, because the Turnbull government currently uses figures from six years ago about the cost of dodgy directors. They're using an estimate from 2012 which put the cost of phoenix activity at $3 billion a year. In 2015, the government received updated costs from PwC about the cost of illegal phoenix activities. We've attempted to get that information in the public domain through freedom of information requests, but the freedom of information emails reveal correspondence saying the draft report—a 2015 report—'is not yet finalised and won't be ready to be published in the near future'. It is extraordinary that the government still fails to release information on the cost of illegal phoenix activity.

Let's remember who supports a director identification number. The Australian Labor Party, of course, as well as: the Australian Institute of Company Directors; the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman; the Productivity Commission; the Tax Justice Network; the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Master Builders Australia; the Australian Council of Trade Unions; the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association; the phoenix project, comprising experts from the University of Melbourne Law School and Monash University Business School; and the Australian Institute of Credit Management.

Australians need action—not announcements—on dodgy phoenix activity. I ask the minister whether or not Treasury has in fact drafted legislation to implement the director identification number, and, if they have, when are we going to see the exposure draft legislation to introduce the director identification number? Additional to that, when are we going to see estimates of the cost of illegal phoenix activity to the Australian economy? Is that report close to release? When will it be released?

We know that the vast majority of Australian businesses are honest businesses who hate nothing more than being burned when someone they're doing business with trashes the company, takes the assets out and deliberately puts the firm into liquidation, leaving employees, taxpayers, creditors and other businesses in the lurch. If this government were serious about cracking down on dodgy directors, we'd have exposure draft legislation tomorrow. This is a government that can get very tough with welfare recipients very quickly, but it is as slow as a wet week when it comes to dealing with dodgy phoenix directors. The government needs to get with Labor, which said in May last year we would act on dodgy phoenix directors. It's nearly a year since the government said it would follow suit.

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

The ideological dichotomy that exists in this building right now is probably at its greatest point in the time that I've been here—since September 2013. I, like many of my colleagues, came to this place to fight for smaller government. Why? Not because I'm enamoured with all things small—although my stature might say something about that!—but rather because I know small government means lower taxes.

I spoke about the ideological dichotomy. Those on the other side are not here to fight for small government. They're here enamoured with big government.

An opposition member: Good government!

And, by big government, I mean higher taxes. I'll take the interjection. My friend opposite says, 'Good government.' I'm not sure that the residents of his electorate would love the idea of good government representing big, fat taxes, but that seems to be their approach. And, when I say 'big, fat taxes', I mean—and I say to those opposite: you've have got a plan for more than $200 billion in additional taxes on the Australian economy. That's big and that's fat, and it's heavy, and what it means is it's hard for the Australian economy to grow. But, worse than raising taxes in that big, heavy and hard way, you've got a plan to spend money you haven't even earned yet. I appreciate you've got a long history of that, but I would have thought that, if you learnt anything through the mining tax debacle, you'd wait until you'd received the revenue before you spent it. What we know from the mining tax debacle is that those opposite managed to develop a system which delivered revenues which represented, effectively, a peanut of income, but they've spent, if you like, an elephant's meal of peanuts, and, obviously, we then end up in a situation where we have a shortfall.

Minister, I spent a lot of time playing cricket both in my younger years and as I grew older, and you might not be surprised to learn that I was a pretty good sledger. I often directed barbs at the opposition. They were often very negative and they were pretty pointed. But there were times when I'd have to rally my own team, and I would turn my comments to the positive. I would always remind my team that there's no reward without effort, and I would say it ball after ball, encouraging those slim, energetic fast bowlers to go a bit harder for me to get another wicket. If there's no reward without effort, by dint of that, the greatest reward should go to those who work the hardest. That was the inference for these young fast bowlers to draw: 'Work hard for me, boys, and work harder and harder because I want the rewards.' And the rewards in that game were wickets.

In this place, it's no different. We want to energise the Australian people. We want them rewarded for their hard work and their effort, and the best way, Minister, for us to do that is to take the personal income tax burden off them. I was very pleased to see, in the recent budget, that we're providing tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians and to reduce the cost pressures on households. It's a seven-year proposal for fairer, lower and simpler taxes. The plan will result in more working Australians paying lower tax, and, importantly, it will be enshrined in legislation—at least, that's our commitment. It has three parts. The first arm is tax relief for middle- and low-income earners now; the second arm, protecting from bracket creep what Australians earn; and the third arm, ensuring more Australians pay less tax by making personal taxes simpler. Under our proposal, Minister, 94 per cent of Australians will benefit and will pay no more than 32.5 cents in the dollar. This compares to 63 per cent if we don't make these changes. Minister, if it's about reward for effort, what can I say to those young men I played cricket with who are now in business about rewarding their effort?

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

In 2012, the coalition voted in the House and Senate against laws to close a multinational tax avoidance loophole. Last year, we saw that very same law being used to secure a $340 million judgement against Chevron. But, extraordinarily, we didn't see the Turnbull government saying: 'Mea culpa. We got it wrong in 2012. If we'd had our way back then, the budget would now be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off, net debt would be rising even faster than it is today'—hard to believe, given that net debt is rising faster than it did even in the global financial crisis. We saw none of that apology. Instead, we saw the government patting themselves on the back for the Chevron decision, patting themselves on the back for a court decision based on a law they had voted against.

Labor's record on closing multinational tax loopholes is an extraordinarily strong one. In government we tightened debt deduction loopholes, and we would do so even further under a Shorten government. We've said that we would move to a worldwide gearing ratio rather than the arm's length test and the arbitrary thin-cap thresholds, and that we would deliver more tax transparency by restoring the $100 million threshold for reporting to the public of total income, taxable income and tax paid. We said we'd appoint a community sector representative to the Board of Taxation, introduce public reporting of country-by-country reports, provide protection for whistleblowers who report on entities evading tax to the Australian Tax Office and introduce mandatory shareholder reporting of tax haven exposure, requiring firms to disclose to shareholders as a material tax risk if a company is doing business in a tax haven. We've said we'd require government tenderers to disclose their country of tax domicile if they're tendering for contracts worth more than $200,000.

The impact of tax havens on the Australian tax system was brought home by a recent paper from Gabriel Zucman and co-authors, which suggests that up to $16 billion could be flowing offshore from Australia to tax havens. The point the paper makes is that around 40 per cent of multinational tax profits are shifted to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions and that, when that shifting occurs, for every dollar of tax which is raised in such jurisdictions $5 is lost in jurisdictions with regular company tax rates. Labor would develop guidelines for tax haven investments by superannuation funds, introduce a publicly accessible registry of the beneficial ownership of Australian listed companies and require that the Australian Taxation Office's annual report provides information on the number and size of tax settlements.

Yet from the coalition we have simply mistruths about Labor's stance. We have repeatedly heard in question time the mistruth that Labor voted against the multinational anti-avoidance law. I can say this is categorically false. Labor voted against an amendment put together by the Greens and the Liberals that would have raised the tax transparency threshold and that took two-thirds of private companies out of the tax transparency net. We supported the multinational anti-avoidance law. I said as much in parliament and the votes reflect that, but what we didn't support was weakening our system of tax transparency.

Extraordinarily, on 23 August 2017, freedom of information documents reveal, the offices of the Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services requested the ATO media unit to urgently check a joint media release, allegedly about closing Labor's loopholes with a focus on the 'highlighted bit in particular'. I can table the documents if the House wishes. One of the highlighted claims was that Labor voted against the multinational anti-avoidance law. As I've said, this is absolutely false. The question is: is it normal for the government to request that the ATO fact-check partisan political claims? We know that the government has a track record of using the Public Service for its own partisan ends. We've seen the use of Treasury in order to come up with concocted claims about Labor's dividend imputation reform policy. (Time expired)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to address a few of the issues raised by my good friends the member for Dunkley and the member for Barker, and I'll also address, immediately, some of the comments from the member for Fenner. It's very interesting in this place to see when people have a bit of a guilty conscience. Clearly, the member for Fenner and the Labor Party have a very, very guilty conscience as it relates to multinational tax avoidance. We all remember that very extraordinary night and those extraordinary scenes in the parliament in 2015 when economic responsibility in supporting our multinational tax avoidance changes came from the Greens of all people, who supported the government's package, with only the Labor Party voting against it.

What have we seen since then? We have seen literally billions of additional dollars being caught within the Australian tax net as a result of those multinational anti-avoidance laws, the diverted profits tax and others, which are ensuring that every single company that does business in this country pays an appropriate share of tax. The Labor Party voted against it. It's on the record, it's on video, it's in Hansardit is clear to the world that they voted against these changes, which have seen billions of additional dollars caught in our Australian tax net.

The member for Dunkley is absolutely correct in his observations around our superannuation package. The government is empowering the ATO to reunite people's lost, low or inactive accounts with their active super accounts. We're capping certain fees to ensure that you don't have your balance eroded by never-ending fees and insurances. We're banning all exit fees on accounts, because we think it's your money and you should be able, if you choose, to transfer those amounts. We're also ensuring that insurance is fit for purpose. No longer will people, particularly young people, with small balances be paying for insurance they don't need. The member for Dunkley also referred to the retirees tax. It will be clear to all that Labor's retirees tax is absent from this appropriation bill, and we will fight them every day until the next election to make sure that hardworking Australians who have been law-abiding, who have paid taxes their whole life, who might have a modest amount of assets, including Australian shares which pay a franked dividend, are not going to have up to a quarter of their income taken away by the Labor Party.

The member for Barker referred to Labor's $220 billion of new taxes. It's very interesting. For two years we saw the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the member for Fenner running around the country talking about how they were going after these very, very nasty millionaires and billionaires and large multinational corporates—the Apples and Googles of the world—and they were very hairy-chested about it. Now what do we see? We see that the two largest measures of their $220 billion of additional taxes are not going after those supposed terrible rich people; they're going after the most vulnerable in our society. They're going after retirees. The biggest single contributor to their cash splash is a raid on the savings of retirees with their retirees tax. Further, they're going after small and family businesses with a range of additional taxes including, presumably—although it is very unclear—reversing our tax cuts for small and medium businesses. Instead of going after the so-called top end of town that we've heard about incessantly from these class warfare warriors, the two groups who, in the end, are going to fund Labor's uncontrolled spending around the country are retirees on low incomes, retirees and in many cases pensioners with a self-managed super fund—so pensioners and retirees—and also small family businesses. No longer will this faux class warfare campaign work when we know the people they're going after—the people who are funding the proposed reckless spending of those opposite—are people who are working hard, who are by no means wealthy, who need every dollar they can get and who shouldn't be the ones that the Labor Party go after just because they're an easy target, just because they don't have a strong voice. I say to the member for Barker: that is absent from this appropriation bill and we will fight the Labor Party each and every day until the next election on the retirees tax.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister claims that Labor raises most of its revenue from small businesses and retirees, but it's obvious that he's not aware of the plans that Labor has to ensure that the budget is in a better fiscal position than that managed by the government. The fundamental difference between Labor's approach to managing the budget and that of the government is that we're not offering an $80 billion tax handout to the big end of town. We're not offering a massive multinational tax cut to the likes of Australia's biggest businesses, including, I might add, Australia's big four banks—and don't we all know how wonderful those big four banks have been in Australia over the course of the last decade, how they've looked after their customers, how they've put their customers first on every occasion when it comes to the management of their businesses, and how they deserve a tax cut because they've worked so hard on behalf of the people of Australia! We all know that is a complete lie, because the evidence that's coming out of the royal commission at the moment completely uncovers just how unjust, sneaky and underhanded the banks have been in this country over the course of the last decade and how millions of Australians have been brought into schemes that weren't in their best interests and have lost money—in many cases millions of dollars and life savings—because of the actions of the banks. For 600 days Labor argued that we should hold a royal commission, and it was the Turnbull government that opposed that argument for a royal commission.

Because we're taking tough decisions around capital gains tax and negative gearing, because we are tackling the cash handouts that exist for self-managed super funds around dividend imputation cash payments—the most generous in the world; no other country provides a cash refund when you have no income and pay no tax. You know what? We'll give you $2½ million. There you go: you might not have any income or tax, but there's a $2½ million handout from the government. They want to come in here and talk about being irresponsible with the management of the budget. It's because Labor has taken those tough decisions that we're able to be in a position where we will pay down more debt and bring the budget back into surplus, but we won't cut funding for health or education, we'll continue to invest in our TAFE colleges and ensure that people can get a good education and, importantly, we'll tackle climate change.

In terms of the budget papers the government released the Black Economy Taskforce report parallel to this budget, which contains recommendations to target various activities used to avoid tax. One of those was the announcement in the 2018-19 budget about combating illicit tobacco. The government still hasn't been able to explain why the revenue in 2019-20 is $3.2 billion while the following years are less than 10 per cent of that figure. In other words, why is the revenue so front-loaded—$3.2 billion and then dropping to 10 per cent in the forward years? We know that, when you do increase tobacco excise, there is an effect on smoking but not to the extent that there is a 90 per cent reduction in one year.

Perhaps more curious is the point that was raised by UNSW Professor of Economics Richard Holden. Mr Holden noted in the budget analysis that taxing tobacco 12 weeks earlier upon entry into Australia rather than presently when it leaves the warehouse will boost tax receipts once and once only. I think most reasonable people would characterise the majority of the revenue as an accounting change. It's an accounting trick by this government to look like we're moving into a surplus earlier than we would otherwise.

What would be the incentive for such a trick? Let's have a look at budget paper No. 1—it's all revealed there where, amazingly, the government has projected a $2.2 billion surplus in the underlying cash balance. Deidre Chambers would be proud! What a coincidence that they happened to move this revenue all into the first year to ensure that that particular year's revenue is bolstered and they get to a surplus. My question to the minister is: would the 2019-20 budget be in projected surplus without the 12-week change in collecting tobacco excise?

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

It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on this consideration in detail and ask the assistant treasurer some very important questions about the very positive way in which the Turnbull government is managing the economy. In reference to the member for Kingsford Smith's contribution, let's not forget that Labor has declared a war on business. Ninety per cent of all Australians are employed by businesses across this country—small, medium and large. Half of all Australians are employed by large companies. That's why we are adamant that all Australian companies deserve a company tax cut down to 25 per cent. We are seeing from Labor the most reckless plan to destroy the Australian economy that we perhaps have ever seen in the country's history. Perhaps the biggest and best example of that is Labor's attack on retirees. The biggest single gouge is $57 billion—we now know they got their numbers wrong, out by $10 billion—$5 billion a year gouged from retirees and some pensioners, a grossly unfair tax on some of Australia's most vulnerable citizens. 900,000 of the most vulnerable Australians are under attack by Labor, including many in my electorate of Corangamite. These people are not high-income earners. They are in many cases grandparents, self-funded retirees, simply wanting to have certainty and control over their savings. In contrast, we're very proud of the way in which we have worked hard as a government to protect self-funded retirees and their life savings. This is an absolutely terrible policy. This is a shocking policy, which attacks the most vulnerable Australians.

We hear about the grand plan of Labor to run the economy. No-one in this country will ever forget the four surpluses which the member for Lilley announced which were never delivered. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years were the worst example of a Labor government managing the economy in recent history—four surpluses which were never delivered. How is Labor going to pay for this? It is more than $200 billion, not just attacking retirees—attacking small businesses, attacking homeowners. There is now concern and some very reliable reports which indicate that because of Labor's plan to abolish negative gearing house prices in regional Australia, including in my electorate, will go down by nine per cent. We're already seeing some adjustment in Melbourne and Sydney. They now have a plan to smash house prices. It's house prices, it's investment, it's small business, medium businesses, it's the war on business and of course it's our retirees.

This Labor opposition is the most dangerous opposition we have ever seen. It is summed up well and truly by the Leader of the Opposition's plan to declare a war on business. If we have a look at the implications of raising these taxes on hardworking Australians, if we have a look at the impact that this is going to have, we've already seen how retirees all across Australia are screaming out, saying, 'This is our hard-earned savings, this is our plan for the future, this is how we have determined to make sure that we have a secure life for the rest of our retirement, and all of those plans have been utterly destroyed if Labor were ever to be elected.' It is a horrendous attack on older Australians. So I propose the question to the assistant Treasurer: does the government have a different approach which supports retirees, and what are the risks of Labor's policies?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again it's clear that a member of the government has not read Labor's policies and doesn't comprehend what Labor is proposing. The member for Corangamite—who is no less than the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics as well—said that Labor is proposing to abolish negative gearing. That's not true at all. If you had read the policy, you would know that is not the case. What Labor is proposing is to cut back negative gearing, to restrict it in relation to new investment properties only. So anyone who is currently in the system who negative-gears will still be able to in the future. But we'll cut back for new investment properties, and that will take a bit of the heat out of the housing market. The member for Corangamite says that she thinks that house prices in her electorate will fall by over 10 per cent. She's got a different view to the minister for revenue, who thinks that house prices are going to go up as a result of Labor's policy. So, once again, there is utter confusion, chaos and division from this government, particularly on economics policy. One would think that the chair of the economics committee would know better and would have read Labor's policy before coming in and commenting on it.

They raise the issue of cash dividends for self-managed super funds. It's clear that they don't understand the policy history behind this as well, because when dividend imputation was originally introduced, by Paul Keating as the Treasurer back in the 1980s, the cash refund was never part of the policy. It was never part of the policy to give people a cash payment from the government at the end of the year when they had no income in that year and they had paid no tax. This was another great example of pork-barrelling that introduced by the Howard government in the early 2000s. When they introduced the cash refund for unused dividend imputation, it cost the budget about $600 million. Like many of the policies that were introduced by the Howard government, it was unfunded. It was unfunded, just like the 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax, which was unfunded in the budget when they introduced that.

Have a guess who's paying for all the profligacy of the Howard government in those years when we were running big budget surpluses because of the mining boom. We're paying for it now. The Australian public are paying for it now. This was another one of those policies that was introduced that was unfunded. It now costs the budget $6 billion, growing to $8 billion in future years. It's unsustainable.

If you're going to talk about properly managing a budget and ensuring that our government lives within its means, one area that you would look at is an area where no other government throughout the world provides a cash refund, a tax rebate if you like, and that's dividend imputation, but Australia continues to do so in years when we've got rising debt and we've had a big budget surplus. The responsible thing to do, and that is what Labor is doing in planning this, would be to cut back on that.

I want to raise some questions regarding taxation of the digital economy. Reading between the lines, it appears that the government is considering a digital-firm equalisation levy, or something similar to what's proposed in the European Union, with a six per cent withholding tax in India. Media reports suggest that the government is using the levy as a bargaining chip with crossbench senators, particularly as they seek to win support for their corporate tax giveaway to the banks and multinationals. The Treasury indicated on budget night that it would release a discussion paper on taxation in the digital economy. We're still waiting for that, and we have no idea when it will be released. We don't know if the paper canvasses options for digital, such as an equalisation levy, withholding taxes or turnover tax. We don't know the names, locations and dates of the Treasurer's meeting with US digital firms in the past 12 months, despite the fact that he was boasting that he met with Amazon in Seattle. We don't know how long Treasury has been considering and consulting with stakeholders on a digital tax or levy or which stakeholders they've met with in the last 12 months. We don't know what issues, such as loopholes or potential tax avoidance strategies, Treasury and the ATO have identified in the digital sector as a risk in this economy. While we know that the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and, particularly, the diverted profits tax were colloquially known as the Google tax, we don't know why the multinational anti-avoidance levy and the DPT are insufficient to collect a fair share of tax from digital firms. We know that in the last year the government and the ATO have modified their language. My simple question to the minister is: does the ATO or Treasury have concern that digital firms may use contrived arrangements to make deductions to avoid paying tax on extra sales booked in Australia? (Time expired)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kingsford Smith has asked a range of questions, and he genuinely asked the question: how did we get back to budget surplus early? He completely lost me when he then started to talk about how we need to be less like the Howard government and, presumably, more like the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government and their wonderful budget management. He lost me at that point.

I can tell the member for Kingsford Smith how you get back to budget surplus early. You take decisions that are prudent, that are in the interests of our economy, that seek to grow the economy and that seek to ensure that businesses and individuals invest more and can take on those extra hours, and that is exactly what this budget has done. So, no, to the member for Kingsford Smith. We don't want to be more like the budget management of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and, contrary to his advice of not trying to emulate the Howard government, like the Howard government we are committed to ensuring we get our budget back into surplus. We've done it early, or we are in the process of doing it early, and now we have to tackle the massive debt trap that Labor has left behind. We're going to do that assiduously. We're going to do that because the Australian people are entrepreneurial and, dare I say, aspirational, and they are the people who in the end are going to fuel the investment and the work to ensure that the prosperity is available for our country to ensure that the government can again live within our means within the context of providing all of the services that Australians rightly expect from government. And you can only do that with a strong economy where those people, those individuals and those businesses are supported.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 16:00

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your attendance here, Minister. As you well know, I represent the seat of Grey in our home state of South Australia, and we watch the expansion of the shipbuilding industry in Adelaide with great interest. You would be well aware that one of my communities, in particular Whyalla, has been to the edge and back in the last couple of years, it must be said. We are very pleased in Whyalla at the moment that we have a new owner of the steelworks, a new owner of the mines, a new owner of what was formerly Arrium Australia-wide, and Mr Sanjeev Gupta is showing an intent to invest in a number of products and projects in Australia. We're very keen to keep working with Mr Gupta on his expansion plans for the Whyalla steelworks. In fact, tomorrow morning I will be in Whyalla meeting with his people again.

One of the most important things for keeping the steel industry in Whyalla working in a profitable mode is to have the blast furnace full. Like many other pieces of fixed infrastructure, blast furnaces don't cost much less to run when they're running at half speed than they do when they're running at full speed. Having that blast furnace full is a very important factor in making Liberty OneSteel operations in Whyalla profitable. That is why I have been very pleased with a number of things the government has done. One of them was bringing forward the Adelaide-Tarcoola re-railing by approximately five years—something that would have to be done, something that will increase the productive capacity of that railway line, lifting axle loads by two tonnes, so eight tonnes a truck. This is a good investment: 80,000 tonnes of rail out of Whyalla. A further 14,000 tonnes has been ordered for the Inland Rail, and this is just the very first small order for that very large build, which will, once again, be coming Whyalla's way. This is the important factor about building up the order books, keeping the blast furnace full, making a profit on the ground. The government has worked hard, and certainly I've worked hard, to get a commitment from Adani, so when their project goes ahead in Queensland it will be using Whyalla steel, produced by people in my electorate, with iron ore coming out of the Middleback Range being made into steel in the Whyalla blast furnace.

These are good things, but in Whyalla and in the rest of the electorate we are very interested in what the prospects are for us to provide steel into the new shipbuilding program in South Australia. I understand there will be a large building of infrastructure there. Minister, my question to you is: could you give us a rundown, firstly, on how that shipbuilding program is going and, secondly, on how we are likely to be able to benefit from that by producing steel?

My second question is around the Naval Shipbuilding College, a $62 million investment. I, for one, was very pleased to hear that that would be going ahead. We will be looking for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people to work on this new project in South Australia. At the time the minister announced it there was a reference to regional pathways—how people right across Australia, including right across Grey, right across the Upper Spencer Gulf, in places like Whyalla, but also in Ceduna, Port Lincoln and Port Pirie, might be able to access that naval shipbuilding college and get the skills to work in this industry, which will be operating in South Australia and in Australia, to benefit for the very long term future.

So I'd be very pleased if you could inform us, firstly, how the establishment of the college is going; and, secondly, how establishing those regional pathways is going, bearing in mind that, as I'm sure you're aware, we've just had a $20 million Regional Jobs and Investment Package announced for the Upper Spencer Gulf, and one of the projects that gained funding of $1 million was the community owned tertiary education campus, or COTEC, that we have in Geraldton. We are in the embryonic stages of putting that project together, and we are taking a particular interest in how we might interact with the Naval Shipbuilding College.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a happy bipartisanship at the moment in Australian politics around seeking to build an Australian defence industry in this country. Certainly, I acknowledge the minister spends a lot of his time, as he should, spruiking this, and the government's achievements in seeking to build an Australian defence industry. One of the prisms through which one can look, in trying to foster an Australian defence industry, is the attributes of successful defence industry companies around the world and the extent to which they are replicated in any Australian companies today.

If you look at big defence industry companies like BAE Systems; companies out of Israel, such as Elbit Systems and Rafael; and companies out of Sweden, such as Saab, you see companies which are largely export based—not deriving the majority of their business from their home defence force, if you like—and which employ thousands of people. These are big companies. When you think about what companies in Australia meet that set of criteria, there's one that particularly stands out and is a remarkable Australian story. It's Austal. Austal employs thousands of people around the world. Most of what it does is based on exports, particularly to the US Navy. It's responsible for designing and building 27 ships for the US Navy, including the littoral combat ship and a number of troop transport carriers. It's also built ships for the Omani navy and, I think, the Maltese navy, although I stand to be corrected on that, as well as doing a lot of civil construction. Right now, it's building a very large civil ferry for Denmark.

Austal has, at its base in Henderson, a very significant design capability—more than 100 naval designers, which would be the most significant naval design capability in Australia today. But it has not done particularly well in terms of being able to win work from the government. To be fair, it has won a contract to design the Pacific patrol vessel, but, most recently, in relation to the offshore patrol vessels, it was overlooked in relation to contributing to the design of that platform, notwithstanding that that platform is perhaps the best opportunity that we have in Australia today to have an export-based naval construction business. It leaves Austal in something of a quandary, because they are able to design and build ships—and very significant ships—for navies around the world, including the United States Navy, yet, in terms of winning work on our own Defence Force, it has not achieved a lot of success.

The most significant decision that the government's about to make in relation to naval shipbuilding is the announcement of the designer in the frigate program. The designers who are left in the competition are three overseas companies: BAE Systems, Fincantieri and Navantia. In addition to the design, there will need to be a solution around the build of this vessel, which will need to be arrived at by the government during the remainder of this year.

A few weeks ago I called on the government to ensure that the builder working with whoever is the successful designer is a truly Australian company—a company which has its design capability here, which has its intellectual property here, which represents a projection of Australia. It's absolutely essential, if we are to build a defence industry in this country, that surface shipbuilding is at the heart of it and that we have Australian companies right at the centre of that work.

There has been failure in this respect since 2013 under this coalition government. You only need to look at the supply ship being sent to Spain. Former defence minister Johnston said, in respect of the ASC, that they couldn't be trusted to build a canoe. We need to see a decision by this government that provides a platform for an Australian company to participate in the building of ships, and this frigate decision is going to be fundamental. My question is: can the minister absolutely assure us all here that there will be a truly Australian company involved in that shipbuilding?

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

When my constituents ask me what I believe my most important tasks are as their member for Fisher, the three most critical ones that come to mind are: to help build a strong economy for our community, to secure the infrastructure and create the jobs that we need on the Sunshine Coast, and to play my part in ensuring that all Australians are protected by a strong and capable Defence Force.

Today I want to concentrate on the third of these important tasks—namely, the defence of Australia. I'm working hard to drive the Fisher Defence Industry Initiative and to encourage a high-technology manufacturing and defence industry hub in the southern and central parts of the Sunshine Coast. This initiative will not only help to ensure that our economy is robust and offers our young people the career opportunities they need but also encourage skilled people on the Sunshine Coast to innovate and create new products, which will increase our nation's defence capability.

I know that the Minister for Defence Industry shares those priorities for his own constituents and for our country. In pursuit of those twin objectives, he is delivering on a $200 billion investment by the Turnbull government in building our sovereign capability. As a core part of that investment strategy, the minister and his department are very actively engaging with small and medium sized businesses all over Australia. Would the minister please outline how Defence's engagement with SMEs is enabling the government to build sovereign capability and a strong Defence Force? The benefits of this investment for our defence are vital, but the benefits for local economies are every bit as important. Since winning a contract to supply wet decks for 14 Romeo Navy helicopters as well as a federal government commercialisation grant of a million dollars to develop their new lifesaving stretcher technology, Fisher business HeliMods has taken on new employees on the Sunshine Coast. These contracts have provided HeliMods with more work and the chance to develop a new commercial product and have brought the company and its dynamic founder, Will Shrapnel, increased local profile and greater international credibility to grow this business even further.

Last week I was grateful for the opportunity to represent the minister in announcing a further contract from the federal government for $2 million to a local business, Praesidium Global. This contract, which follows our investment with Praesidium of $1.3 million, will pay for the delivery of four more of the Caloundra company's MAPS, unmanned ground vehicles. These new vehicles will be extensively tested during a 12-month trial in Townsville and at Shoalwater Bay. If they prove equal to the trials, as I'm sure they will, these vehicles will provide our soldiers with a cutting-edge new technology to move heavy equipment, keep troops out of harm's way, recover injured service men and women, and deliver logistical support to the front line. Just as importantly for my community, this contract is already creating new high-tech manufacturing jobs for people in Fisher. In order to deliver these additional four units, Praesidium are intending to double their workforce to 20. However, if the trial is successful and Praesidium win a contract to supply many more of these vehicles, the implications for my community will be significant. Would the minister please outline how Defence's engagement with SMEs is enabling the government to help grow regional economies and create more jobs for more Australians?

The economic benefits of the government's defence industry investment go far beyond the value of the ADF's own procurement. I recently travelled to Washington to take part in the Sea-Air-Space expo, the largest maritime expo in the United States. I was there with HeliMods, working to promote the defence businesses we have in Fisher, and their products, to the many global prime contractors and US defence representatives taking part. HeliMods and the University of the Sunshine Coast also recently attended the Eurosatory exhibition in Paris.

There are already SMEs in Fisher which are part of my Fisher Defence Industry Initiative and which are exporting defence and high-tech manufacturing projects. Eniquest in Bells Creek export portable generators to the Singaporean military, while Caloundra SME APAC Infrastructure are exporting their portable telecommunications platform through a partnership with Boeing. So I ask the minister to outline how Defence's engagement with SMEs is enabling the government to help grow Australia's exports and promote our products overseas. (Time expired)

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently, the Australian National Audit Office released its report on the government's naval construction programs, and it made very sobering reading indeed. Across a range of findings, it raised serious concerns about the way in which the shipbuilding program is being undertaken. It said, for example, that workforce shortage was a risk that Defence was aware of but that the workforce plan due in February 2017 had not been completed by February 2018—an entire year's delay. It noted that the cost of the first phase of the shipbuilding college had blown out from $25 million to $63 million without any explanation and had no ongoing funding. Let's be clear: making sure that there is a workforce that has the appropriate skills for this project is going to be absolutely essential if the much-heralded shipbuilding enterprise that the government speaks of actually comes to fruition.

The report talked about the government's promise to retain 200 workers at Osborne by moving them onto the frigate, offshore patrol vessel and submarine programs. Defence has said it would not be funding those workers from the budgets for those programs. Exactly how that works is a question whose answer remains at large. The report went on to describe a Defence internal review warning about time-line compression in the Future Frigate Program:

extreme risk—

that cost and schedule over-run was likely, and that to proceed on the current schedule had the potential for severe reputational damage to Defence and the Government.

They are extraordinary words coming from the ANAO report. I would have thought that, for any minister, reading those words and hearing that there is an internal defence review warning that the program of government action involved extreme risk would be a moment when you would pause for thought and actually think about whether or not the direction being pursued was the right one. There are few reports that I have read which actually use that phrase. The review went on to offer two solutions to manage that risk; none were accepted, according to the ANAO report.

Other key findings of the report were as follows:

Defence has advised the Government of its assessment that the naval construction programs carry high to extreme risk. Key risks relate to the delivery of expected capability, program cost, ability to meet program schedules, and management of the industrial base. The Naval Shipbuilding Plan did not address the management of these risks in any detail.

That is comprehensive in terms of the review of basically the entirety of the government's naval construction program. In almost every respect, it raises serious questions about how that is proceeding and the way in which it is being managed, and particularly about the way the risk is being managed in terms of the costs of these projects, the time lines of the projects, whether or not the projects will experience an overrun and indeed, as mentioned with the shipbuilding college, whether or not there will be the appropriate workforce, with the appropriate skills, able to deliver on this government's promises—and in fact not just this government's promises but successive governments' commitments to building a surface ship fleet and a new generation of submarines for our Navy, which it most certainly needs. As I said earlier, these commitments very much enjoy bipartisan support. But with that bipartisan support comes, from the opposition, deep concern in reading this report about what it means and what is going on. That ultimately is my question to the minister: given all of these reports and assessments by the ANAO, what on earth is actually going on?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before some of these contributions get too long in the tooth, I might respond to my colleagues the member for Grey and the member for Fisher on the issues that they raised and then return to the member for Corio, since we do have a full hour to do this consideration in detail.

I thank the member for Grey for his contribution and his questions about the government's defence industry and defence projects. I was actually the minister for industry when the Adelaide to Tarcoola rail line was brought forward five years, ensuring that the steelworks at Whyalla had a $70 million to $75 million contract on their books, which really assisted them a great deal to stay open. I was also the minister who put extra tariffs on Taiwanese, South Korean and Chinese steel businesses that were deemed to be dumping steel in Australia, in order to protect and assist the Whyalla steelworks. I'm delighted that Sanjeev Gupta and Liberty OneSteel have taken over that steelworks. It means there is a real future for the Whyalla steelworks. I think Mr Gupta is going to invest very considerably in Whyalla, not just in the steelworks. His Liberty House Group, I think, will do quite a lot of really important energy production in that part of South Australia as well, which will assist the whole economy of that region.

The member for Grey asked about a couple of important issues for him, including about the steel that is going to be used in the naval shipbuilding projects. I can assure him that the steel for the Pacific patrol boats, the offshore patrol vessels and the future frigates can quite readily be provided by the Whyalla steelworks. They have provided steel before for this kind of activity and they will be able to take part in that contract. Of course, BlueScope Steel in Wollongong also has capabilities around steel production, and it too would want to be taking part, I'm sure, in the competition to provide steel for the Pacific patrol boats, offshore patrol vessels and future frigates.

With regard to the steel for the 12 submarines, which is much more complicated—it is a different kind of steel, because obviously it has to exist well below the surface of the water and therefore requires certain kinds of specifications—I can tell the member for Grey that Naval Group have entered into a contract with Bisalloy steel in Wollongong, to see if they can provide the very important and difficult steel for submarines. So we are doing everything in our capabilities to ensure that the steel in these ships is sourced in Australia.

None of that, of course, would have happened if the Labor government had remained in power. The last ship that would have been built in Australia would have been the air warfare destroyer HMAS Sydney. I was present at its commissioning by the Navy only a month or so ago. That would have been the last ship built in an Australian shipyard for the Navy. Happily, because of the government's naval shipbuilding project, we will be building 54 vessels: 21 for our Pacific neighbours, 12 offshore patrol vessels for the Navy, nine future frigates—we'll be deciding very soon who the successful tenderer will be—and the 12 submarines as well.

In terms of progress for Whyalla and for Wollongong, in terms of steel for the ships and potentially for the submarines, that is very much on track. The member for Grey also asked about the Naval Shipbuilding College. We have awarded the successful tender for the Naval Shipbuilding College to Huntington Ingalls Industries and Kellogg Brown & Root. They are the head of the consortium that is right now working to create the Naval Shipbuilding College. It is made up of TAFEs, like TAFE SA and South Metropolitan TAFE in Henderson in Perth, and universities like the University of New South Wales, RMIT University in Melbourne, Curtin University in Perth, the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and Flinders University. There's a large consortium that is providing the services. It's a hub-and-spoke approach. It is on schedule, and it will mean that the Naval Shipbuilding College, in its first iteration, will source students in those institutions, which will then become part of the naval ship building project.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not a speech from the minister if it's without his famed reference to the single-handed commissioning of ships by this government. It's as if the entire shipbuilding program began the day the minister was sworn in to his job as Minister for Defence Industry. There is something very impressive about the front that is shown by such a claim.

Of course, we all know that when it comes to defence procurement, we're talking about programs which are initiated over successive governments over many years. So the claim that the minister has just made, that there would be no ships built under a Labor government, is complete and total rubbish. Indeed, if you look at the two really big procurement projects which are on foot, the Future Submarine Program and the frigates, which are about to be announced, both of them predate not only this minister but this government, in terms of being initiated. If you look at this government's record, in terms of building ships in Australia, this is a government which made a decision to send the supply ship offshore to be built in Spain. The supply ship was intended to be built in Australia, had Labor been elected in 2013 and been able to continue what it was doing. It was actually that, as an example, which gave rise to the valley of death, in terms of shipbuilding, which has seen thousands of ship workers lose their jobs as a result of the policies of this government, such that Williamstown is no longer a place where ships are being built, nor is Newcastle, and hundreds, bordering on thousands, of jobs have been lost in Adelaide as well. This government does not actually have a particularly impressive record when it comes to the reality of putting in place the building of ships in Australia, but it should be noted that all of these programs have existed over successive governments and didn't begin after the last election. Indeed, the former defence minister in the coalition government, the original defence minister after 2013, Minister David Johnston—his claim to fame, as I mentioned earlier, was announcing that you could not trust ASC to build a canoe. What we saw during Minister Johnston's term as the minister was not only the building of the supply ship being given to Spain, but we saw—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I have an important question to ask you in respect of former Minister Johnston—but we also saw, during his time, an attempt to put the submarine build into free trade agreements with Japan, in an attempt to try and close them. There was a point when you were trying to actually have the submarines built in Japan. Given that is the record of former defence minister Johnston, it is remarkable that this minister has now sought to appoint former defence minister Johnston as this government's Defence Export Advocate. This is the man who actually said of our defence industry that you couldn't trust it to build a canoe and who did everything he could while he was the defence minister to have defence industries around the world build material for our Defence Force. He is now the government's hand-picked person to go out there and sell Australian defence industry. That is an astounding decision—astounding in its irony—that this government has made.

We asked a question about exactly what former Minister Johnston will be paid to do this work. To begin with we were told that he wouldn't be paid anything. But, of course, that turned out not to be right.

A government member interjecting—

We'll go and check the record for who actually said he wasn't going to be paid anything. When we pushed this question in Senate estimates, we were not given a specific answer—and that's my question of you now, Minister. The department did say that he's being paid anywhere between $2½ thousand to $4½ thousand a day, but we don't know the exact amount because that would breach commercial-in-confidence and get in the way of former Minister Johnston applying for other work. So, Minister, exactly how much is former Minister Johnston being paid to be Australia's Defence Export Advocate?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to be here in this chamber today because, at long last, after the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, we have a government that is providing leadership in the area of defence and we have a minister who is providing the leadership that we require in defence industry in this country. Of course, we all know that under the government's leadership we have a Defence white paper, a Defence Industry Capability Plan and a Defence Export Strategy. These three pillars, if you like, have established a very clear framework under which we now have, under the lead of the minister, the greatest and largest recapitalisation program in the history of the Australian Defence Force.

This is an enormous set of activities not just for our Defence Force but, of course, for the Australian economy—and thus the importance of this portfolio. Those pillars of the framework all lead to a strategic objective, which is to ensure we have the capability, the posture and the resilience to meet our defence needs as a nation moving into the future.

In order to deliver on that objective, I've had the privilege, together with my Team Queensland LNP colleagues, of coming to understand the Land 400 project in great detail, because Team Queensland put its shoulder to the wheel in support of a bid that would see the manufacturing of 211 combat reconnaissance vehicles in Queensland. That was a $5.2 billion project, and that will see this new fleet of CRVs roll out.

Deputy Speaker Buchholz, as you know, my background is in the commercial sphere, and where I see this Land 400 project delivering on the government strategy is in a few areas. Firstly, Rheinmetall, who are the government's preferred tenderers, plan to create a military vehicle centre of excellence that will look to design and manufacture combat vehicles well into the future. The company is also establishing a national R&D program, establishing links with CSIRO as well as universities to ensure that the best and brightest put their shoulders to the wheel to create new intellectual property. With intellectual property we've also seen, as part of the proposition of that company to become the preferred tenderer for Land 400 phase 2, the idea of transferring intellectual property from Germany to Australia, of seeing that intellectual property domiciled in Australia. We also see a pipeline of export worth $60 billion. That's just for that priming business. It doesn't account for the hundreds of small and medium businesses—not just throughout Queensland, it must be said, but right throughout Australia—who are going to be part of their supply chain.

This is an opportunity not just for the larger players—they are using Australian steel, Bisalloy—but also for small and medium businesses who have never played in the defence space. For me, the Land 400 phase 2 project is a case study that brings to life the strategy of this government, a strategy that says we need to have a sovereign capability, that we need to ensure that our businesses are owning the intellectual property, that we are investing in that moving forward and that the Australian defence industry will build its own capability to service the needs of our nation.

My question to the minister today is: with that in mind, will the minister inform the chamber of the benefits of the Land 400 project to Australian industry, and will he provide some insight into how that is a case study and example of the government's approach to defence industry?

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask the minister a question in his capacity of representing the Minister for Defence. As of 1 November last year the Department of Defence had 18,112 full-time-equivalent APS employees. Whilst the representation of women across the APS workforce, generally, is in excess of 50 per cent, those figures show that the representation of women in the workforce of the Department of Defence was then at 42.1 per cent. In executive positions—that is, EL1 and above—this data shows that women made up only one in four of those positions. Defence prides itself on being an employer of choice, but it is clear from those numbers and, indeed, numbers that you will see across the ADF, that the ability to attract women and promote them to senior positions within the Department of Defence and the ADF still has a long way to go.

The Australian Public Service Commission made the point that agencies must assess the gender balance of their leadership cohorts and make sure that they put in place tailored measures to address imbalances. On the data, it would appear that this is important work still to be done within the Department of Defence. While the Department of Defence continues to work towards improving women's workforce participation in the ADF, it is important to understand what barriers are still in place which are preventing women being employed within the department itself, but particularly progressing through to the senior ranks.

I'd be keen to hear from the minister about what actions the department is taking to encourage more women to join the Department of Defence and what actions are being taking to encourage the promotion of women within the Department of Defence to its most senior levels. In doing that, I want to ask: Is the minister aware of any discrimination on the basis of gender? Have there been any instances of discrimination in respect of employees who are pregnant? And what measures are in place to support women during maternity leave? It is important to know whether there have been any instances where women in the department have been unable to access maternity leave on the terms to which they are entitled.

I'm be keen to understand from the minister: exactly how many women are in leadership positions, as of today, at a level of EL1 and above? It is absolutely essential that in order to deal with the kind of cultural change that will enable ultimate gender balance within the Department of Defence and the ADF women occupy senior positions within the Department of Defence. I would appreciate if the minister was able to inform us exactly how many women are in leadership positions at EL1 and above.

I'd also ask the minister to advise us as to what Defence is doing to encourage women to join the department. What programs exist to encourage women to join the Department of Defence; and, as I said earlier, what measures are being taken to facilitate promotion up to executive levels? In addition to that, it would be important to hear from the minister about what steps the Department of Defence is taking in its ongoing endeavour to encourage more women to join the ADF itself. The ADF should be a reflection of our nation, and it will only be that when we have gender equality within it.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to the questions from my honourable friend the shadow minister, but I would like to first deal with the contributions from the members for Fisher and Fairfax, as they've been good enough to ask specific questions. I must say that the 'Team Queensland' approach to defence industry has been very refreshing. The members from Queensland have really embraced the opportunities that are presented by this the biggest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history—$200 billion over the next 10 years. However, the difference between this build-up and past build-ups is that we are investing so much of that money and those resources here in Australia, building Australian businesses, a sophisticated workshop—the advanced manufacturing that Australia can do. However, in many cases those who wanted to work in the defence industry were never given the opportunity because they weren't supported by our own government. This government has a very different attitude.

In the member for Fisher's electorate on the Sunshine Coast, I attended, as the Minister for Defence Industry, one of the first defence industry forums that has been held in the last couple of years in this government. I think about 170 businesses were present, and it got a tremendous reception from businesses in the Sunshine Coast and the media. If I remember rightly, there was a rather stunning front page in the Sunshine Coast Daily'Coast's $200 billion defence bonanza,' and that's just for the Sunshine Coast. If only that were possible!

In the member for Fisher's electorate, there are some outstanding examples of businesses that are competing for and winning contracts on their merits. He mentioned Praesidium Global, which has just won a new contract for $2 million for unmanned ground vehicles from the Department of Defence to support that particular business. They're undergoing a 12-month user evaluation, which could lead to even more work.

He mentioned HeliMods, which I visited on the Sunshine Coast—it's in Caloundra. In fact I saw Will Shrapnel recently in Paris at the Eurosatory trade expo where he was pushing HeliMods, as he was in Malaysia when I was there not that long ago. They have won a small contract for $154,000 to deliver wet decks for the Romeo helicopters, but small contracts, when they are delivered and delivered well, can lead to much greater contracts down the track. HeliMods employs 25 skilled people in Caloundra. I have great belief they will succeed, especially in exports. There is also Eniquest, which builds military-grade DC and AC power generators and auxiliary power units, which are used in our Bushmaster vehicles and have already been exported to our friends in Singapore. So the Sunshine Coast is a wellspring of these kinds of activities and I think it will be in the future.

If I can turn to the combat reconnaissance vehicles. The member for Fairfax was really the spear point in Team Queensland for promoting the Rheinmetall bid. Rheinmetall won the right to build 211 combat reconnaissance vehicles. Their competitor was BAE, which had chosen Victoria as their base. The decision was made entirely on the capability of the vehicles. But I should say this: at the beginning of that tender process, neither of the bidders were asked to have any Australian industry content; they were asked to provide value for money and their best product. Both came up with five per cent Australian industry content out of a $5.2 billion project. By the time we got to the end of the tender process, because of the change of government, because of the Turnbull government, that figure had moved to 55 per cent Australian industry content out of a $5.2 billion acquisition and 65 per cent out of the $15.7 billion, which is the sustainment and maintenance and life of the project. That could have been five per cent. Instead it was 55 per cent, and 70 per cent for the whole of the project. That is the difference that government policy makes, driving Australian businesses, Australian jobs. The capability that the Army wanted and needed has not been diminished at all, but we are driving the jobs and the advanced manufacturing that is spread right around Australia, not just in Queensland. Victoria is the other big winner from the CRV contract. Businesses like AME, AW Bell, CAS, Cablex, Supercat, Tectonica are all in Victoria. They will also benefit, as will the other states.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting that we are nearing the end of the hour, I would like to ask two questions in this block which are quite different in nature, so I will seek to separate them as I go along. The first is a question to the minister in his capacity as the Minister for Defence Industry and it relates to the answer he just gave in respect of the successful Rheinmetall tender for the Land 400 program. I'm not sure that people in Victoria would regard themselves as winners in respect of that. Ultimately, it leads to the observation that, particularly in respect of Land 400, there was a high degree of state-on-state competition, which struck me as being counterproductive from the point of view of the national interest. Indeed, that has been reflected in a range of other programs that have been tendered in recent years.

First and foremost—I'm sure the minister would agree; indeed, it was in his answer—the basis on which procurement should be done and tenders should be awarded is what serves the need of the ADF, the capability for Australia as a nation. It ought not to be based on state considerations. Yet there is intense competition between the states in respect of this. It is something that we read and see a lot of in relation to the United States, but it's a much bigger economy, a much bigger defence buy. It strikes me that we can't afford the luxury of having that kind of competition play out in Australia, where, as we got to in the situation with Land 400, there was a definite winner and a definite loser on a state basis. In effect it became a competition, in part at least, between the Victorian government and the Queensland government. So the question is: what is being done by the federal government to seek to reduce that, to calm those waters, if you like?

It's only through leadership from the federal government that we're going to see an end to that practice.

In a completely different vein and with a change of gears, I'd like to ask the minister a question in his role today representing the Minister for Defence. On 24 May, an article that was released as the result of an FOI application indicated that, within the ADF, there have been 265 reports of sexual misconduct in the last year, which is the highest level in five years. I ask this in a very sober way and don't seek to make any political gain out of it, because I would acknowledge that this has been a difficult issue that the ADF has faced over many years—indeed, the ADF has put in place a whole lot of measures to try and deal with this over the journey. But it is concerning that a graph, if you like, of bad behaviour, which had been trending in the right direction, has now had an uptick, as has been reported and as is borne out by that FOI request.

In those 265 reports of sexual misconduct in the last year, 50 included sexual assaults and 28 included aggravated sexual assaults where the perpetrator was violent, had a weapon or committed the act in front of others. Overwhelmingly, the men and women of our Defence forces behave entirely appropriately and represent our nation in the most superb and excellent way. I know you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, saw that firsthand as we experienced Exercise Talisman Sabre last year. I think, in a sense, all of those people who had their professionalism on show would want to know that these issues are being dealt with in the most thorough, transparent and, within reason, expeditious way possible. I'm sure the minister will provide a confirmation that the government obviously has a zero tolerance when it comes to sexual misconduct within the ADF. I would like to hear from the minister his sense of whether or not the cultural change which has been pursued within the ADF, with quite a degree of intent, as I said earlier, has gone to the extent necessary. Finally, does he have any explanation for this increase in cases of sexual misconduct? If not, can he take that on notice?

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

We in Australia take great pride in our military history. Words like Gallipoli, Pozieres, Long Tan and Kokoda do not simply refer to locations around the globe where Australian gallantry was at its most memorable. They refer to locations that are etched into the collective psyche of the nation. They are words that elicit emotion, memory and gratitude. It's not a unique thing for a nation to honour their servicemen. Australians certainly hold theirs dear. Not only has our military played a central role as a source of national pride, it has, for some time, been a significant source of wealth for individuals, families and their communities. As a Central Queenslander, I have seen firsthand the economic benefit a local community can reap from military operations. In my electorate of Capricornia, the Shoalwater Bay Training Area, probably the best training base in the country, plays host to Australian, Singaporean and US troops, all providing their share of economic stimulus. This influx each year helps local businesses to thrive, with businesses often having to employ extra workers for the busy period.

The story of the economic benefit of defence doesn't stop there. Developing Australia into a nation with not just a great military but a strong defence industry opens so many opportunities both for the nation and for each and every Australian. The government is investing $200 billion in defence capability across the decade to 2026-27, a significant proportion of which will be spent in Australia, creating jobs in Australian defence industry and growing the economy in a way that maximises our investment and opportunities for industry. The government's investment in defence capability delivers a more capable, technologically sophisticated, adaptable and responsive military that is more active and engaged in protecting and promoting Australia's strategic interests.

Australian industry is critical in developing and maintaining the Australian Defence Force. It is fundamental to our defence capability. The government is determined to build a closer, more strategic relationship with industry to deliver better capability outcomes for defence. The government recognises that the Australian Defence Force is effective because it is ably supported by a broad industry base, from infrastructure and estate management to information and communications technology and health services. Approximately 25 per cent—$49 billion of our investment over the decade—was to be spent on enabling capabilities. I look forward to the benefits of this investment being seen in my electorate of Capricornia and I thank the minister for the recent announcement that Queensland will be the home of Rheinmetall's Boxer, Australia's next combat reconnaissance vehicle. This will create around 1,450 jobs across the country, most if them in my home state of Queensland. Queenslanders have shown that they are not only competitive on the Rugby League field—they're looking forward to seeing New South Wales go down on Sunday—but also attract real job-creating industry projects.

This is clearly a government that cares about outcomes, especially employment outcomes, for everyday Aussies. Over one million jobs have been created since the coalition came to power. It is with pride that I stand here today to ask the minister how this coalition government will continue its mission to deliver jobs and growth and deliver a stronger, more capable military, one that we can continue to take great pride in and one that can continue to keep us as safe as ever. Can the minister update the chamber on the benefits to the local Capricornia economy of the government's defence industry investment?

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

I thank the member for Capricornia. Speakers in this debate have alternated between the parties, but the member for Corio has indicated that he will give way for the minister to sum up. I call the Minister for Defence Industry.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corio for giving me the opportunity to respond to some of his specific questions. I won't respond necessarily to his rhetoric—I don't want to embarrass the opposition any more than I already have—but he asked some serious questions and they deserve serious answers.

In terms of women in the Defence Force and the APS, I can tell him that, as at 1 March 2018, 10,190 of ADF members, or 17.5 per cent—up from 16.2 per cent in March 2017—are women, which is good news. So the number of women in the ADF has increased. In terms of the Australian Public Service and the Department of Defence, for the same period, 7,772, or 42.1 per cent—up from 41.6 per cent in March 2017—are women, which is a small increase of 143. I would make the general observation that I agree with him that there need to be a lot more women across defence industry.

The member for Corio and I have been at many conferences and events over the last couple of years where it's very apparent that the workforce behind the Defence Force is very top heavy with men. One of the important contributions we can all make is to keep encouraging women to take up roles in the Defence Force, the Public Service, which is not tracking too badly, and, importantly, the defence industry. One of the purposes of the 'Workforce Behind the Defence Force' campaign, which the government will conclude at the end of June, is to encourage women, and young people generally, to see a career in the defence industry as a worthwhile pursuit in which to use their talents and skills. There was a weighting towards supporting women, through the type of campaign we ran, in order to encourage them to believe that it should be part of their career planning.

The issue of sexual misconduct in the ADF is a very significant one that the member for Corio has raised. There have been stories recently about an increase in sexual misconduct in the ADF. It's a vexed issue for any government. It's not a partisan issue. In order to ensure that the member for Corio has a comprehensive response, I will take that question on notice and undertake to write to him and outline what the government has been doing, particularly in the Minister for Defence Personnel's and the Minister for Defence's part of the portfolio. I will undertake to respond to him with the assurance that it will be treated seriously.

Another question the member for Corio raised was about the offshore patrol vessels contract and Austal's role in it. As he would know, Austal teamed with Fassmer in that tender and provided a vessel that was not deemed to be superior to the Luerssen-Civmec-ASC tender. Even though that was the case, the government, in its NSC decision, in awarding the contract to Luerssen, ASC and Civmec asked that Austal be included, if possible, on commercial terms in the delivery of that contract. As it happens, despite the government's best intentions, that wasn't able to be brought about on commercial terms, and the parties have gone their own way.

Luerssen and Civmec have formed a consortium called AMSEG, the Australian Maritime Shipbuilding and Export Group—not exactly catchily named, but nevertheless it certainly conveys its role—and that will help with the ASC build of the first two offshore patrol vessels in Osborne and then the next 10 in Henderson. Of course, we will be working, as I am working very hard right now, to try and secure export contracts for the offshore patrol vessels project in order to extend that even further and support the workforce at Osborne, in particular, but also at Henderson.

The member for Corio asked about the Defence Export Advocate. I think David Johnston is an excellent choice as the Defence Export Advocate. He was my choice, of course, so I would say that. He's being paid as an eminent Australian because he is an eminent Australian, having spent two decades in the Senate as a cabinet minister and minister in two governments—the Howard government and the Abbott government. He knows the area extremely well, and I'm sure the member for Corio knows that. I can tell the member for Corio that there is a band in which he could be paid, and he elected to be paid at the lowest level possible. That only confirms my sensible choice and the fact that he is doing this job obviously for remuneration but also because he believes in the government's Defence Export Strategy.

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

The Federation Chamber will now consider the Veterans' Affairs segment of the Defence portfolio in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to consider in detail the Veterans' Affairs budget and note at the outset the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, is not here with us this evening. She's been unwell, and I wish her well in her recovery. It's important to note that the Veterans' Affairs portfolio does enjoy largely bipartisan support, and I recognise that the shadow minister, just like me, wants to make sure we're putting our veterans first and putting our veterans' families first.

In this year's budget, the government is continuing to invest in veterans and in their families to make sure we are providing the essential services they require. There's in the vicinity of $11.2 billion worth of expenditure committed to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. I would note we've secured around $100 million in additional funding in this year's budget to continue our work on the DVA reform agenda, upgrading our internal IT systems, and ensuring better and faster delivery of services to veterans and their families.

I'll talk briefly on a couple of key points from this year's budget before allowing more time for questions from both our side and those opposite. I would note that the transformation of DVA is ongoing, and we are continuing to see further investment to provide more timely and easier access to services for our veterans and their families. By the end of the next financial year, veterans will benefit from easier access to services through the online door MyService. There will also be expanded access to information to reach out to veterans who may not be aware of the DVA services and programs which do exist and of the improved income support systems put in place.

We'll see as a result of this year's budget the removal of the stepdown for incapacity payments. We're investing $10.8 million over the forward estimates to support former members of the ADF with incapacity payments at 100 per cent of their normal earnings while they stay as part of DVA-funded return to work rehabilitation plan.

Another reform announced in the budget relates to the Long Tan bursaries, which will see an extension of the eligibility criteria for a Long Tan bursary to include not only the children of the Vietnam veterans but also their grandchildren so that we continue to provide assistance to the descendants of Vietnam veterans.

In terms of mental health care, which is clearly a focus of this government, it's important to note that the budget recognises that, not just in the wider community but also in our the veteran community, there are concerns about how we provide for mental health support services. In fact, DVA provides up to $200 million a year to support our veterans with their mental health concerns. In this budget we've provided $2.2 million to expand eligibility for mental health treatment to those reservists with domestic or international disaster relief or border protection service, or those involved in a serious service-related training accident.

In terms of our veterans' mental health care, it's important to note there is a non-liability health care system in place, in the sense that veterans will receive free mental health care regardless of how their situation develops. It doesn't necessarily need to be related to their military service. A key focus, which has been the subject of great discussion between myself and the shadow minister, relates to the transition of veterans out of the ADF and into civilian life. It's important to note, and I do so at every opportunity, that the majority of people who leave the Australian Defence Force, on an annual basis somewhere in the order of 5,500 to 6,000, make a successful transition with very little need for immediate support, but others do need additional support, and we need to work with them very closely to make sure that transition is as easy as possible.

It's also critical that we assure the broader Australian public, the corporate sector and business community that hiring a veteran is good for your business. They have great leadership and teamwork skills developed over a period of time in the services. Many have learnt skills that are easily transferrable to civilian life. Explaining to the business and corporate sector and the broader public about the easy employability of veterans is something I'm determined to do in my time in the role. A feature of our work, in terms of transition, is the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program, which features the employment awards, which were held this year for the first time and were successful. We've seen an additional $8.3 million allocated to that program to further develop, promote and implement the program to support veterans as they transition to civilian life.

I'm conscious there'll be plenty of questions from those opposite and probably from this side, so I'll close with one last point about two very important inquiries that are underway at the moment. One is the Productivity Commission inquiry into the compensation and rehabilitation system for veterans. I encourage those who are interested in veterans issues to make a submission to that inquiry. This will be a comprehensive inquiry considering how the system works now, whether it is fit for purpose and how it should work into the future. The second bit of work is with regard to the Veterans' Advocacy and Support Services Scoping Study, which will be undertaken by Robert Cornall on behalf of the government.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the federal member representing the largest garrison city in Australia, I'm incredibly proud to represent current serving and ex-serving veterans and peacekeepers and their families. Our veterans fought to protect our country, and I have always stood in this place to fight for their best interests and needs. When I speak with our Defence community the No. 1 issue raised with me is the need for employment assistance at the point of transition. Currently, there is minimal assistance available for Defence personnel at the point of transition. There is limited to no recognition for currently held skills acquired during time served in the Defence Force. No-one provides gap training and no-one gets transitioning Defence personnel employment ready. This identified lack of assistance provided to transitioning veterans is shocking, and I'm very concerned as to how it has been allowed to continue for so long. This gap needs to be addressed and that is why I'm incredibly proud of Labor's comprehensive veterans employment program. Labor is always the party to deliver on education, training and apprenticeships and most importantly, jobs. It is what the Australian public has grown to trust that Labor will deliver, and that's exactly what we're doing for our veterans.

Earlier this year, Labor announced a comprehensive veterans employment program, committing $121 million towards veterans employment, which pales in comparison to the Turnbull government's $8 million commitment. Our policy is designed to address the significant rates of unemployment related to veterans transitioning from the ADF. Finding meaningful employment is important for many reasons. Employment doesn't just provide financial security; it also provides a structure, a sense of purpose and belonging, all important factors for those leaving the ADF and transitioning to civilian life. Our policy will assist veterans leaving the ADF and ensure that businesses are best placed to gain the many advantages of employing a veteran. Veterans have told me about their difficulties finding employment post their time in the ADF. These are highly skilled and valuable employees who would make a welcome addition to any work place, but their skills are lost in the transition from ADF to civilian life. We must do more to ensure that veterans are able to find meaningful and purposeful employment.

The government's response to this issue is to focus on delivering the Prime Minister's employment program, including providing additional funding to industry-led programs in this year's budget. With this in mind, can the minister please advise how many businesses have joined or are participating in the programs? How many veterans have received a job as a result of this program since it was launched? What is the retention rate of veterans who have been employed through these initiatives? Is the Department of Veterans' Affairs monitoring these programs? Have there been any KPIs established to measure success? If so, what are these KPIs? If not, how can we be sure that this program is delivering actual results for veterans?

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, like every other member in this place, I make sure that I attend every commemoration that I possibly can around my electorate commemorating those who have served our country. I think the way those days are revered is growing within the community and rightly so. We should put aside that time and spend it with our veterans, remembering what has gone before us.

But the way we support veterans on a daily basis is a far more meaningful measurement of our commitment to them. By and large, I find that my veteran community and my veterans organisations are pleased with the support they receive from the federal government—and I don't mean just in recent days but across a broad number of years. They're particularly pleased with the operations at DVA at the moment. These organisations are very important to the wellbeing of our veterans. They supply a safe haven, a place where our veterans can go and find people with similar issues, similar backgrounds and similar problems—a problem shared is a problem halved. Most veterans I've spoken to appreciate the government's efforts across the board, including fair indexation of military pensions, establishing a female veterans policy forum and providing more targeted assistance for homeless veterans.

There's been a concentrated effort to assist those struggling with mental health, and the recent budget measures ensure all veterans, including reservists, receive free mental health services. I've had a check, and there are around 1,000 veterans living in the Grey electorate at the moment. Some have their life completely in order and are living success stories—some of them are my friends—others, unfortunately, are not. They face the burden of dealing with the horrors of the past—a mental health burden. Some cases—and one I can remember not so long ago—result in the very worst outcome of all: suicide.

When we make decisions around the budget and allocate resources, we need to recognise what it is that we can possibly do to alleviate the stresses and strains in these peoples' lives. I often come into contact with DVA counsellors who tell me of their face-to-face contact with veterans and the challenges they face with mental health. I applaud anything that the government can do in this space. I implore my community to be understanding of these people, because sometimes, particularly when you are a politician where a lot of people bring their problems to you, it is easy to put people in a box and say, 'They're off with the fairies,' or whatever it might be. We have to be on our guard against that every single day. When we see someone down on their luck, and particularly if we're aware that their background is one of having served this nation, we need to pull out all stops, get our staff to work and contact all the organisations involved to make sure that we find help when they need it.

Minister, my questions are pretty simple. How is the government implementing new initiatives to respond to the mental health needs of our veteran community? Can you please tell us what the interest in the non-liability health care has been amongst the veteran community. I think the three criteria that have been issued is a very important move. For these people who have served us so well, it's not what you did and where you did it; it's that you were prepared to do it. Why you've become sick is irrelevant to the cause. Minister, could you inform the House on those issues.

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

I'm happy to have the opportunity to ask some questions of the minister about a particularly important issue, and that's to do with the health care that we provide to the people who have served our country. I imagine that those who have joined us in the Federation Chamber today are from the department. I just want to acknowledge the work of the people in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It's very important work that you have to do, and that also goes for the office in Darwin, which does exemplary work. The department is one part of our support to our veterans, but it's a very important part.

To the minister, my questions are around the Medicare freeze and some of the work that we might need to do there to make sure that our veterans are getting the care they need and are not falling through the gaps due to health professionals deciding not to take on DVA clients. Last year, the AMA flagged some concerns about the Medicare freeze—that it had an impact on DVA's fee schedule and that the indexation freeze was affecting not only psychological services but also specialists, including surgery, medicine, psychiatry and ophthalmology to name a few. Of those specialists who were surveyed by the AMA, almost 30 per cent were no longer committed to treating veterans. I've maintained a dialogue with friends of mine who are health professionals to encourage them to stick with it until we can improve the situation, regardless of the disadvantage they face in taking on DVA clients. The AMA survey also found that 44 per cent of respondents said they'll keep seeing veterans if the freeze continues—I congratulate that 44 per cent—with the remainder considering other ways to charge veterans or closing their books entirely, which is unfortunate.

This is obviously a larger issue in rural and regional areas, like my own electorate, where access to allied health specialists is already a problem and has become worse with the impact of the freeze. For example, an old commando mate of mine, when he moved away from Sydney to a regional area, was unable to find a provider willing to take him on as a DVA client. As admitted by the health professional in the regional area, this was a direct result of the gap between what they charge and DVA's fee schedule. Of course, this issue was highlighted during the recent Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans.

My questions, and I'm happy to provide them in writing, are: Can the minister advise what action has been taken to ensure that veterans are able to access allied health treatment? Is the minister or his department collecting evidence of veterans being turned away from services because of the Medicare freeze? Has the minister heard from any providers raising concerns about this gap? Has the minister written or communicated with the Minister for Health about the impact of the freeze? Has the minister made any representations on this issue to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to reverse the freeze to ensure veterans get the services they need? Is there any plan for any adjustments to be made to address this issue? Have there been any discussions about decoupling the DVA repatriation medical fee schedule from the Medicare rebate? Have any costings been completed with a view to increasing the amount paid by DVA to health service providers? Has the minister engaged with providers to discuss these issues? And, what actions is the minister taking to ensure that veterans are able to access what they are entitled to?

There are a number of questions there. I appreciate, again, the work of the department to really look at this issue seriously. We must provide for our veterans and ex-service personnel, whether they've served one day or many, so that we can get better outcomes.

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

Minister, could you please provide an update to the chamber of how the government is commemorating the 65th anniversary of the Korean War armistice? In addition, could you provide any further information relating to how the government has recognised those who served in the Korean War? By way of background for some of the work we've both been doing, in April 2014 I received a letter from the senior vice-president of the Korean War Veterans Association of New South Wales, Bob Morris OAM, who just happens to be a resident of Gilmore. He outlined some issues relating to the issuing of Korean War service medals. There have been many years of advocacy to our Department of Veterans' Affairs regarding the wearing of, in Bob's words, 'this significant award that was given to all servicemen who served in Korea under the United Nations from 25 June 1950 to 27 July 1953'. He added: 'A medal was issued by the South Korean government, which has since been accepted by Canada, America and New Zealand.' Bob and other veterans are very proud to have served Australia in their nation's commitment to preserving peace in our region. It was important for me to know some of their story, which I share here. It actually begins at the end of the war, with the armistice so gratefully celebrated by the South Koreans.

The armistice, ending three years of fighting on the Korean Peninsula, was signed on 27 July 1953. The present-day border between North and South Korea, marked by a four-kilometre-wide demilitarised zone, follows the line in which the warring armies—Chinese and North Korean in the north and the large United Nations force in the south—stood when fighting ended. The Korean War was a constant battle of advancing from the north and back to the South. The armistice, which took more than a year to negotiate, recognised the inability of either side to achieve a battlefield victory. While the fighting ended in 1953, the state of war between the two Koreas persists to this present day. All three of Australia's armed services took part in the Korean War. Approximately 17,000 Australian personnel served in Korea, including Army and RAAF nurses. Some 340 lost their lives, more than 1,200 were wounded and 30 were taken prisoner.

I began by referencing the advocacy of my Korean War veterans for their service recognition. As part of that story, in 2017 I reignited inquiries with the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP, on behalf of local veterans about the Korean War and the Republic of Korea War Service Medal. In December the minister approved the creation of the Korean War Armistice Consultative Committee. This was accepted and approved by His Excellency General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove on 6 March 2017. As a result, the medal may now be officially worn by eligible veterans in recognition of their service. In more recent discussions, this veterans community feel they have some suggestions that would enhance the recognition process, and we've contacted the minister on this matter.

On 27 July 2018 it will be the 65th anniversary of the Korean War armistice. This will be recognised as part of the Department of Veterans' Affairs Century of Service Domestic Program 2015-18. A national commemorative service will be held at the Australian National Korean War Memorial, on Anzac Parade, in Canberra on that day to mark this significant anniversary. The service has been developed in conjunction with the Korean War Armistice Consultative Committee. Veterans from the Korean War, along with Korean War widows and representatives of the ex-service organisations, will be joined at the service by senior members of the Australian parliament, the ADF and DVA. One of the important parts of this commemorative location is a boulder taken from a Korean battlefield. It is the focal point. A word in Korean script represents peace and independence. The battlefield boulder is set in a field of stainless steel poles that symbolise those who died. The obelisk commemorates those who died with no known grave. The inscription taken from the United Nations Memorial Cemetery at Pusan is a poignant link with the Australians who are buried there.

We acknowledge the efforts of all our Korean veterans but, in particular, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister of the efforts of Bob and Mavis Morris, Alice Burns and Rod Coupland, who have been tireless in their advocacy. In summary, Minister, what is the government doing for the Korean War veterans on 27 July this year and could you confirm the work the government has been doing for recognition of their service?

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the 2018-19 budget, there was a signalling of the establishment of a trial in the Department of Veterans' Affairs which alters the way veterans access allied health treatments, requiring individuals to return to their doctor every 12 weeks to seek a new referral. Veterans routinely raise with me concerns about their ability to access services, particularly in regional areas. With these issues and the impact of the Medicare freeze on DVA's fee schedule in mind, can the minister advise why DVA is trialling a change to the way allied health care is provided? Is the minister aware of any providers overservicing clients? If yes, what services and how much has this overservicing cost? Has DVA taken any actions to address issues of overservicing? Under these changes, can the minister ensure that veterans on long-term treatment plans will not experience a gap in continuity of care? Will any consideration be given to waiving this requirement for veterans on long-term treatment plans, particularly for complex issues such as post-traumatic stress? How will these changes be communicated to both GPs and the DVA clients? How will the minister ensure that veterans don't miss out on treatment they need through this new model?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Herbert, Grey, Gilmore and Solomon for their questions. I'll endeavour to get through as many as I can right now. In relation to any questions I don't get to, I do have department staff available who have been taking notes and will respond in writing. They've taken note of some of the concerns as well.

I agree from the outset with the member for Herbert that the transition period is a critical period for any of our ADF personnel as they move to civilian life. I reject the suggestion that no assistance is provided, but I do acknowledge there's more work to done in that regard. In terms of how many businesses are participating within the Veterans' Employment Program through the Prime Minister's initiative, I'll get back to the member for Herbert in more detail. It's important to note, though, that, while many members transition very successfully, for some it is more difficult, especially for those who've been medically discharged from the ADF.

I would note that there's an often-quoted figure that's been put forward in recent times that the unemployment rate amongst veterans is 30 per cent, which is not consistent with the latest data from the Defence transition team. In fact, the latest research on veterans' unemployment indicates that, in the first 10 months into civilian life, the unemployment rate is about eight per cent. That is still too high, I acknowledge, but it is nowhere near the 30 per cent figure which is often quoted.

I thank the member for Grey for his great interest and insights into how the mental health of veterans impacts on their transition into civilian life. In relation to his questions regarding mental health, we must acknowledge in this place that suicide remains the greatest cause of death of young males. Unfortunately, our ADF personnel and veterans are not immune from that. DVA now spends about $196 million per year on supporting the mental health of its clients. Funding for mental health treatment is demand driven, and that means it's not capped. It's important that we recognise that. For anyone who's listening today who may be struggling with their mental health, I simply encourage them to get in contact with the Veterans and Veterans Family Counselling Service. The service can be contacted 24 hours a day by ringing 1800 011 046. The Veterans and Veterans Family Counselling Service provides a great service. In relation to the specific question of the member for Grey regarding how many individuals have accessed the non-liability health care, in the last financial year the number was 3,732. We expect to see more people contact us for mental health care as people become more aware and as there is less stigma in relation to mental health and wellbeing in the general community.

Regarding access to allied health services, which was raised by the member for Solomon and also the member for Herbert, I want to ask anyone in the veteran community who's turned away from a health provider to please contact the department, and we'll make alternative arrangements for them. There is no question that, in some of our regional communities—and the member for Herbert comes from a regional area—access to health services, allied health services and professional specialists can be challenging. If anyone is turned away who needs help, we can help them make alternative arrangements. I give her that assurance, but we'll follow up more directly on any specific requests she has in that regard.

Finally, in the time I have allotted, I note the member for Gilmore's outstanding advocacy on behalf of the Korean veterans in her community—and I note the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs is here today and the work he did in providing for the wearing of the Republic of Korea War Service Medal. If she has any concerns in that regard, we'll continue to work to overcome any issues surrounding the eligibility to wear that medal. In terms of commemorative activity, I note that on 27 July, which will mark the 65th anniversary of the Korean War armistice, it is recognised by DVA and Century of Service domestic program for this period. A commemorative service will be held at the Australian Korean War Memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra and will mark this very significant anniversary.

I will conclude by simply saying one thing: we thank those Korean War veterans for their service. We thank all veterans and current serving personnel for their service. It is a unique contribution they make to our nation, and I will undertake to follow up on behalf of other members the questions they've raised this afternoon.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start, I commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel for the seamless way he's taken on an incredibly important job and, in particular, his implementation of veteran-centric reform. I acknowledge the very important work he's doing in that regard.

In the Social Services portfolio, the 2018-19 budget continues the government's commitment to providing a genuine safety net for those most in need while making it more sustainable by strengthening the integrity of the welfare system. As the Treasurer said in his budget speech, it is part of the government's guarantee to provide the essential services that Australians rely on like Medicare, hospitals, schools and caring for older Australians.

In this financial year, the Social Services portfolio is seeking $10 billion in funding to deliver on the government's policy priorities, programs and services that improve the lifetime and wellbeing of people and families in Australia. The Department of Social Services will also administer $115.3 billion—around one quarter of the total Australian government budget. The budget introduces a range of measures to support people with disability and vulnerable families, and to assist Indigenous and regional students to complete their education.

The government is providing a range of innovative measures to assist older Australians with more choice in retirement. The budget includes $258.6 million to support people of age pension age to achieve a better standard of living during their retirement. From 1 July 2019, there will be changes to the pension work bonus, the pension loan scheme and the means-test rules for pooled lifetime retirement income streams.

From 1 July 2019, the amount that social security pensioners can earn through work before it is assessed under the pension income test will increase by $50 a fortnight to $300 a fortnight. The maximum work bonus accrual amount will increase from $6,500 to $7,800. Additionally, for the first time, self-employed recipients will be able to access the work bonus. This increase will benefit about 81,500 social security pensioners and 850 allowance recipients each fortnight and will importantly improve our economy.

As the Council on the Ageing noted, the measure is important to fight ageism in the workforce, tap into the experience of older Australians and provide flexibility in retirement. In addition to this, from 1 July 2019 the pension loan scheme will be expanded with the available fortnightly loan plus pension amount increasing from 100 to 150 per cent of the maximum rate of the fortnightly age pension. This will provide an option for people of age-pension age with property to enjoy a higher standard of living. This change will benefit, for the first time, pensioners of age-pension age with property who currently receive the maximum rate and previously could not access the Pensions Loan Scheme. Self-funded retirees with property who currently cannot access the scheme will also benefit from this change and be able to apply for a loan.

The 2018-19 budget reaffirms the government's focus on the safety and wellbeing of communities, families, women and children in Australia, and people with disability. The government has committed an additional $11.5 million over 18 months to enhance the capacity of 1800RESPECT, the national domestic and family violence and sexual assault counselling information and support service. An addition $6.7 million will be provided for domestic violence response training to train around 7,400 front-line workers such as nurses, counsellors and disability and settlement service workers.

The budget also continues the government's commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and I welcome the presence of the assistant minister here today and commend her on the outstanding job she's doing. In the coming year, we will have an additional 750 staff added to the NDIS and full rollouts in New South Wales and South Australia. (Time expired)

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal-National government has a history of cutting the age pension and making life harder for pensioners. They have cut concessions, have done a deal with the Greens party to change the pension assets test, have tried three times to axe the energy supplement and want Australians to work until they're 70 years old.

The minister has also failed to stand up for part-pensioners by refusing to change the deeming rates of interest rates, therefore decreasing the returns pensioners get from their savings. Currently, a single pensioner's savings are deemed at 1.75 per cent on the first $50,200, and any amount over it is deemed at 3.25 per cent. Falling interest rates are impacting the standard of living of many part-pensioners. Interest rates have fallen from 2.25 per cent in February 2015 to 1.50 per cent today, yet the deeming rates have remained the same for more than a thousand days. The rates are supposed to reflect returns across a range of investment choices available in the market, but the Turnbull government is failing to act to lower them. This means that pensioners already squeezed by low interest rates are also being hurt by the Turnbull government's failure to adjust deeming rates. On top of this, people who get a pension from the United Kingdom still aren't getting their pensions fairly indexed, because the United Kingdom's government simply won't do the right thing.

Despite his opening statements on how they're helping pensioners, my series of questions clearly show that there is an awful amount of work that needs to be done by this government when it comes to pensioners. There are six questions. Over the forward estimates, how many pensioners will lose the pension entirely, and how many will have their pension cut as a result of the government's assets test changes? Secondly, if the minister won't provide this number over the forward estimates, why is he hiding it? Thirdly, how many pensioners will be worse off in Longman and Braddon because of the government's asset test changes? Fourthly, has the minister received advice about adjusting the deeming rates? Fifthly, why does the minister think it is fair for pensioners that he won't adjust the deeming rate, even though interest rates are at record lows? That is the key question. Finally, has the minister done anything to advocate for United Kingdom pensioners who are failing to get fair indexation on their pensions?

There is a pattern with the Turnbull government. There is a pattern when it comes to age pensioners, and there is a pattern when it comes to the most vulnerable people in our community, and it is not a good pattern. It seems that the answer is: 'People can just go and get a job.' Not everyone is capable of doing that, and I think the minister rightly understands that. I want to put on record that the Labor Party respects pensioners. It respects them because they have spent their entire lives working and paying taxes, and it is their right within the social security system of this country to be treated fairly at the end of their working life.

Somehow this government takes the position that it wants our seniors to work until they're 70! It's just ludicrous. How can someone who has worked in the construction industry, for example, or as a cleaner—someone who has had hard physical labour their whole life—be expected to work until they're 70? You wouldn't do it, and I'm not going to be doing it. There should not be an expectation that seniors have to work until their 70s. Pensioner concessions have been cut. The pension assets test is being changed, which will not benefit most pensioners. Appallingly, as I said, the government has tried three times to cut the clean energy supplement, which—with increasing utility prices, particularly electricity—is so crucial to so many people on low incomes. There is no denying that; it is clearly on the record. The agenda of this government is still to do that. The government is attacking people who have spent their entire lives giving to this country, who have spent their entire lives working and paying taxes, and who are finally moving into the age of the age pension. This is an attack on them. (Time expired)

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

My question goes to a very important policy of this government—that is, to make lives better by implementing a two-year trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart allowance and youth allowance for illicit substances like ice, ecstasy and marijuana. It is a compassionate policy. It is about making lives better. It is an issue that is close to my heart because of the experience that I've had firsthand in my own family about the intersection of illicit drugs and welfare in our community. It's about getting people with drug issues the services and treatment they need to beat their addiction and to get on a path to a productive life for themselves and their family.

Substance abuse stops jobseekers from undertaking job search and it stops them from working. If you are bombed out of your brain on drugs and booze you can't search for work and, if you get that interview, you won't get that job. Substance abuse impacts so many in the community and not just the person taking the drugs. Families and friends all experience the social and financial strains and the safety issues that come from that individual who is taking drugs.

The National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program provides concrete data to inform drug policy. This year the program estimated the weight of four of the illicit drugs tested for. More than 8.3 tonnes of methamphetamine, three tonnes of cocaine, 1.2 tonnes of MDMA and more than 700 kilos of heroin were consumed between August 2016 and August 2017. Our community has a big problem with drugs. A really important part of the drug-testing trial is a dedicated fund for the treatment of those people who are identified with drugs in their system. This is something that is often overlooked by those who are trying to defeat this important and compassionate policy.

An opposition member: That would be me.

Yes, that's you—absolutely it is. Ten million dollars will be provided to support those people that need the services, once they are identified with drugs in their system. This is in addition to the almost $685 million the government has already committed over four years to reduce the impact of drug and alcohol abuse on individuals, families and communities. That includes an investment of almost $300 million as part of the national ice strategy to improve treatment, education and prevention, to tackle the scourge of ice.

Some of our colleagues opposite speak about the drug-testing trial in isolation, without any mention of the support services that this trial will deliver. The $10 million is significant, but let's remember it's a trial. In my view, it is those support services that are being trialled as well. The drug tests and the support services are being trialled together, because we have to allocate more resources to those people in our community that need it.

I spoke about how I know about the intersection of welfare and drugs from my family experience. The minister is aware of the story in my family and in my life, when my parents took custody of my two nieces from a drug-fuelled, abusive environment. I've spoken in the House about my thoughts for my niece's mother, who was someone who took drugs and who, when I've reflected on what the government is trying to do, didn't have the important intervention in her life at a young age that may have—very likely would have—led to a different outcome than that we have today. It is an outcome where we have a large degree of hospitalisation of a very sick person—someone who wasn't able to raise their children, someone in a family who had the grandparents take on the additional responsibility.

People say to me: 'Well, if we are going to trial this for 5,000 welfare recipients, who in the past would go untested, wouldn't get that intervention, wouldn't have the opportunity to access those further support services, what difference could this make? Could it make a difference to a hundred people's lives? If it can, that's worth it.' So I'm very passionate about this trial. Can the minister update us on the additional services that will be provided alongside the compassionate trial of drug testing for 5,000 recipients of Newstart and youth allowance? Can the minister advise us on what additional support services will be provided that will also be trialled as part of this process?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister sitting right over there: could you confirm that it remains the policy of the Turnbull government to increase the pension age to 70 and that you're still trying to get this unfair change through in this budget? Minister, given you're new to the portfolio, and, clearly from question time, you're not quite on top of things, I'll just give you a bit of a sense of the history of this. I remind you that Prime Minister Abbott's 2014 horror budget increased the pension age to 70, meaning Australians born from 1 January 1966 will have to work until they're 70 before they can access an age pension. That means Australians currently in their 50s and late 40s who are starting to plan for their retirement now will have to deal with not being able to access the age pension until they're 70 years old. That's 52 years of an adult working life before being eligible for an age pension.

My own mum retired when she was 67. She'd worked all her life as a nurse, a bookkeeper and a single mum, and she died when she was 70. So, under your changes, Minister, someone like my mum would never have got a cent of pension. It's a devastating change for many Australians who have no chance of working that long, and we will speak up for them. Their bodies won't take it. I challenge you, or your out-of-touch, arrogant Prime Minister, to come to my electorate and tell a bricklayer they have to work until they're 70. My brother almost completed a brickies apprenticeship, but he realised near the end there was no way his body could take it as a career and he quit in his 30s. I have great admiration for people who can stick it out—but until they're 70? Minister, find a farmer in your electorate working in the sun and tell them they've got to work just a bit harder, that they have to stay out there on the farm doing that sort of physical work. Tell that to a nurse, or an aged-care worker. I met with a delegation of aged-care workers brought here by their union, United Voice, a few weeks ago. You could go and tell them the Prime Minister's lines from question time today. 'Sixty is the new 40,' we heard from the Prime Minister. 'Get a better job. If you don't want to be an aged-care worker in Braddon in Tasmania, just go and get a better job.' How snobbish and out of touch. We can't all be an investment banker, now, can we?

This unfair cut can be traced right back to the Abbott government's 2014 Commission of Audit, which recommended the pension age be increased to 70 by the year 2053. Shortly after getting that appalling report, the member for Warringah and then Treasurer Joe Hockey announced that they were ending 'the age of entitlement' and that we were a nation of 'lifters, not leaners'. So they announced their plan, your plan, to increase the pension eligibility age to 70 by 2035. This was a full 18 years before even that abhorrent Commission of Audit recommendation. It's a $3.6 billion cut between 2025 and 2029. That's $3.6 billion that comes from the pockets of ordinary Australians. It's another unfair cut from the Abbott-Turnbull government. The Prime Minister might like to pretend that he's got rid of the unfair cuts from the 2014 horror budget, but he certainly has not. He's hell-bent, and you're hell-bent, on tearing away Australia's social safety net, which we should be so proud we built up over generations. This would make it the oldest pension age in your much beloved Anglosphere that we hear so much about from the former Prime Minister—the UK, New Zealand, Canada, the USA. Only a bloke who worked all his life in an office could think that is a good idea.

My questions to you, Minister, are: can you confirm that the Turnbull government is no different from the Abbott government and that it remains government policy, in your budget documents right there in front of you, to increase the pension age to 70? Minister, could you finally tell us how many Australians currently in the workforce will be affected by this proposal to increase the pension eligibility age to 70? In this forum, in the consideration in detail of the budget—the one hour where you turn up and are supposed to answer questions—Australians deserve a simple, direct answer, not the waffle or spin, not the talking paper clip routine you do, the Microsoft Office assistant. I saw the cartoon, and it was very funny. Tell us the truth about this budget we're debating.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Encouraging more people to participate in the economic life of our country is critical. It's not just an ethical responsibility; it's an economic imperative. As our nation ages, which the previous speaker, the member for Bruce, was talking about, and as workforce growth contracts over the next two decades, our push to increase participation in the workforce will be a crucial ingredient in ensuring Australia's ongoing economic growth. The principal object of reform, therefore, should be to encourage and assist more and more people to contribute and participate positively.

Consider the trends. The number of people aged 65-plus is expected to increase from 3.4 million in 2016 to 6.5 million in 2040. Indeed, the fastest growing cohort is people aged 80-plus. While the number aged 18 or less will grow more slowly and decrease as a proportion of the population, overall dependency will increase. It's projected that the ratio of dependent people who are not of working age to those who are of working age will increase from 52 per cent in 2016 to 62.4 per cent in 2040. Even these figures underestimate the extent of total dependency. For example, most 15- to 18-year-olds are dependants. Another 1.5 million people are in receipt of unemployment benefits or the disability support pension.

So, if it is not addressed, the ageing of the Australian population will have profound impacts on our standard of living. Consider the cost of the pension to the budget if the numbers double. It's estimated that currently 71 per cent of people over 65 are in receipt of the pension, including 41 per cent at the full rate. While the pension age, as has been referred to, will gradually increase to 70 by 2040 as a consequence of previous legislative changes, the pension represents an increasing burden on the Commonwealth of Australia.

The profound and rapid change to employment itself compounds the urgency of raising participation. The changes are already occurring. Since 1986 the proportion of the workforce that is unskilled has fallen from 13.5 per cent to 9.9 per cent. The professional occupation share of total employment has increased from 15 per cent to 23.5 per cent, while the technicians and trade workers share of total employment has fallen from 18.4 per cent to just 14 per cent. These are profound changes to the composition of the Australian workforce over a relatively short period.

I come to the issue that I raised with the minister. In the 2014 budget, the Australian government directed funding to the implementation of an investment approach to participation, based on the successful New Zealand model. Targeted interventions can be designed to encourage a person onto a pathway of training, a job and prosperity rather than a trajectory to worklessness and welfare. The work in New Zealand has shown that if you make an investment up-front, based on actuarial calculations and determinations looking at various cohorts, you can have an entirely different trajectory for a young person. To take the cliched example that we hear from time to time of a young person aged 16 or 17 who leaves school at the earliest possible age, who has no skills and who may be employed in a part-time job or not employed for a period of time, the work in New Zealand has shown that that young person is much more likely to remain unemployed, to be unemployed at the age of 35 and to be unemployed for a long period of time. Whereas, if you can make the right intervention with that young person, give them the skills and the training, it's likely that they will get a job, remain in a job, be in a job at the age of 35, and can have a family and all the things that people aspire to in life and therefore be on a trajectory to prosperity and a better outcome for themselves and their families.

I know that in New Zealand they're looking at extending this to the way in which they approach housing issues and homelessness, and even to the way in which the prison population is dealt with in terms of giving them skills so that they don't end up in prison once again. This is a system which I've always believed is an advance on where we have been in Australia, and I'd ask the minister, if he could, to update me on the progress of the work that's been done in that regard.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is in the midst of a worsening housing affordability crisis, and the government is too out of touch to do anything about it. The Australian housing affordability crisis has been mounting for years now, with the pressure particularly on those who might be struggling financially and who are already the first to feel the pinch.

We know that homeownership rates for young Australians have collapsed to their lowest level in 30 years. Fewer than 40 per cent now own their own home, compared to 60 per cent a generation ago. My region in the growing south-west Sydney is home to a number of young families who are doing their best to find affordable housing in the Sydney housing market. Many sacrifice valuable time together to put a roof over their head. My area is a long way from the Sydney CBD, which is where most people go to work, and many local commuters spend well in excess of an hour travelling each way to and from work. With over 13 per cent of households with mortgages in Werriwa now experiencing housing stress, this being well above the national average, we see that even the once more affordable south-west Sydney is becoming out of reach.

Despite the obvious signs that the situation is approaching crisis point, the government's response appears to be high on rhetoric and low on solutions that will actually address housing affordability. Despite claiming that measures to address housing affordability were the centrepiece of their last budget, one year on the government's contradictory measures have delivered no relief for the locals in my area. I know this because I see it each day. Florence and Suresh, a couple who recently approached me, have been finding it extremely difficult in the private rental market between rising rent, cost-of-living pressures and a fixed wage. They have been on the waiting list for social housing for a staggering 17 years. The fact that they've had to wait for so long can only be seen as a failure. They've been very patient, but the stress and fatigue that this has placed on them means that they are now considering leaving our local area. People should be able to afford to live comfortably in our major cities. It's as simple as that. Yet those opposite, while acknowledging the concerns of others, don't seem to view action as a priority; instead they choose to window dress while the situation facing many of our Australians, like my constituents, becomes more and more dire.

The quality of housing is another matter. Much of Sydney's social housing has been allowed to decay into disrepair with the expectation of wide-scale renewal that never arrives. Another constituent I met with recently has mobility difficulties and lives in social housing on the eight floor of an apartment building. She experiences constant anxiety about what would happen if there was a fire, in which event she would be unable to use the lift. Her disabilities make it impossible for her to use the stairs. She's been placed on a priority housing list, but even that is years long, and she's been advised again and again there's simply not anything available that is appropriate to her needs. The simple fact is that there is more that has to be done.

The government has no housing minister, no national plan to tackle rising homelessness and, a full year after announcing the new National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, has yet to reach agreement with any of the states and territories. My question to the minister, through you, Chair, is: how many more affordable rental properties does Australia need in order to address the current shortage, and how many Australian households are experiencing rental stress?

How many additional affordable rental houses will the proposed National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation deliver?

I'd also like to ask some questions on another subject dear to the residents of my electorate: carers' respite funding. Can the minister confirm how much the government has allocated for short-term, emergency and planned respite for each year between 2017-18 and 2020-21? Is it correct that total funding over that time frame for short-term and emergency respite is around $89.4 million? Given the fact that in the financial year 2015-16 the government allocated $60.298 million in funding for short-term and emergency respite, the logical conclusion is that fewer carers are now available to access this crucial service. Can the minister confirm that this is a cut and explain why he has reduced the yearly amount of funding the government provides for emergency carer respite?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start with the question that was asked by the member for Tangney. Once again, I express to him my absolute and utter respect for the way that he deals with this portfolio area. He brings with it a life experience that means he's heartfelt, sincere and really focused not on ideology but on wanting to get outcomes on the ground. I absolutely commend him for that.

The government's drug-testing trial, which we hope to get through the parliament in the coming months, would see people randomly drug tested—5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance, other, over two years in the three trial sites of Canterbury-Bankstown in New South Wales, Logan in Queensland and Mandurah in Western Australia. Importantly, he went to the area that it's not solely about drug testing—it's also about the wrap-around services that come with that, so we have a proper approach to help those people who are, sadly, afflicted with drug dependence.

The treatment funds will comprise $1 million for case management services to help people who return more than one positive test result during the trial access the services and treatment identified in their treatment plan; $3 million in funding to boost drug-treatment capacity in the three trial sites and respond to any additional treatment demands; and approximately $6 million for accredited treatment support for individuals identified through the trial, in the event that state or Commonwealth funded services are not able to be accessed in a timely manner. I thank him very much for his interest in this area.

I would like to mention the issues around housing and homelessness. As the parliament knows, the Australian government has taken this issue incredibly seriously. That's why, in addition to the approximate $4.4 billion provided in Commonwealth rent assistance, the government announced a comprehensive housing affordability plan as part of the 2017-18 budget. The government's plan improves housing outcomes for Australians by unlocking supply, creating the right incentives and improving outcomes for those most in need. This includes the establishment of a new $1.5 billion-a-year National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, to commence on 1 July 2018; the First Home Super Saver Scheme, to help Australians buy their first home; the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility; the $9.6 million National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, which will help unlock new housing supply, including social housing; $6 million to support the Homes for Homes initiative, which aims to raise funds for social and affordable housing; and $10 million over 10 years to develop social-impact investments that help young people at risk of homelessness.

I would now like to address the issue that the former minister raised with me, and I thank him for his question. Obviously, the government's investment approach is incredibly important and is getting results. The government released the priority investment approach 2016 valuation report, which estimated the future lifetime cost of welfare payments for all Australians to be $4.5 trillion as at 30 June 2016, compared to the baseline valuation report estimation of $4.8 trillion as at 30 June 2015. As we can see, as a result of the government's policy, the lifetime cost of our welfare system has been reduced by $28 billion due to the approach that we've taken, which is obviously significant for the Australian people.

I mention that, when it comes to pensions, under this government, pensions for singles have risen by approximately $100—by $99.20 per fortnight. Pensions for couples have risen by nearly $150—by $149.40 per fortnight.

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

The National Disability Insurance Scheme is the biggest social reform since Medicare. It's something that the disability community fought for years to realise. But there are serious problems with the rollout that need to be fixed urgently. The latest quarterly report shows a big jump in complaints: 4,146 complaints were made in the most recent quarter, with more than 17,300 complaints made since the scheme commenced. Progress against the bilateral estimates also continues to worsen. Since the scheme started, 78 per cent of the bilateral estimates have been met, down from 83 per cent in June 2017. The rate of unscheduled planned reviews also remains far too high, at 28 per cent, indicating people are not getting the right supports included in their plans.

I said in a speech nearly two years ago that, in my electorate of Bass, demand was 1,300, growing to approximately 2,900 participants under the full scheme, and that the workforce would need to grow significantly to meet demand. Left to a Turnbull Liberal government, real gaps in management and service provision have emerged, and people with disabilities are losing out. At the last census, one in four Tasmanians, or about 148,000 people, were identified as dealing with a disability. That's the highest proportion in Australia. About 3,500 Tasmanians have so far signed up to the NDIS, and 10,600 will be in the NDIS when it's fully rolled out by July 2019.

It's now very clear that the NDIA doesn't have enough staff to roll out the scheme on time. If we are going to sort out the problems with poor-quality NDIS plans, the staffing cap on the NDIA needs to be lifted. This is reinforced by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's findings, which have prompted 20 recommendations for the agency overseeing the NDIS. The agency admitted to the Ombudsman in February that it had more than 8,000 reviews on hand and was receiving around 620 new review requests each and every week. People in my electorate have experienced delays and dramas with the transitional arrangements with the NDIS. The Turnbull government must also take action on workforce and market development. We know that one in five new jobs over the next few years will be in the disability sector.

Underutilisation of NDIS plans is a growing source of concern. A high proportion of plans, 55 per cent, have a utilisation rate of between zero and 50 per cent. This means that far too many people with disability that are already in the NDIS aren't getting the services and supports the NDIS plans say they need. Even worse, around 15 per cent, or 3,254 plans, have not been activated at all in the most recently reported quarter. We need a comprehensive workforce development and training plan so that the workforce is ready to provide the support services that people with disability need as the NDIS continues to roll out across Australia.

There are far too many examples of people not getting the services they need in their NDIS plans. We receive regular reports that staff are under pressure, participants are getting poor-quality planning outcomes and the IT system is unreliable. I have the following questions for the minister. Last year in their report into NDIS costs, the Productivity Commission made the following recommendation:

The Australian Government should remove the cap on staff employed directly by the National Disability Insurance Agency.

Will the government accept this recommendation and lift the cap on the NDIA to end the delays and improve capacity within the agency?

Many providers are also reporting that they'll need to cease delivering services in the NDIS due to the NDIA's pricing decisions and serious cashflow issues that are caused by delays in receiving payment from the NDIA. Who does the minister think is primarily responsible for supporting the sector and workers to be ready for the expansion of the NDIS—is it the role of the minister and the DSS, the NDIA or the states? Given that one of the central tenets of the NDIS is control and choice for people with disability, what is the minister doing to ensure there are service providers available to participants to exercise that choice and that quality long-standing services and dedicated workers in the sector are being retained at this crucial time of growth in services and demand?

Can the minister confirm that the categorisation of autism under the scheme is at his discretion? Is the minister able to provide more recent figures than those the agency published in their quarterly report last month? If so, could the minister please provide an update on the current number of scheme participants? And how does this compare to the bilateral target, the current utilisation and activation rates for plans? How much of the sector development fund has been spent? And does the government have any plans beyond the relatively limited scope of the NDIS Jobs and Market Fund?

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

Minister, we have so much good news to share about the rollout of the NDIS. But sometimes we forget the good news and are overtaken by the need to resolve the complex cases that take a little time to stitch together a good delivery of services. We know the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a world-first scheme to provide support to people with a disability. It will change the way people with a disability, their families and disability providers work together. In fact, it is highly envied by other nations, even in developed nations with healthy economies.

Gilmore is a region where part of the electorate was introduced to the scheme in 2016, and the other part only began to transition in 2017. Initially, I have to say, there were reservations with this belated rollout schedule and, in addition, many of my parents of children with a disability and those adults established already within the state system were equally concerned. However, it has been in some ways a blessing, as we've learned a great deal in the process. People, in general, are more aware and compassionate about the needs of those with a disability, and that can only be a good thing.

Delivering this groundbreaking reform to improve outcomes for Australians with significant disabilities and permanent disabilities will inevitably involve challenges. The scale of the rollout is huge. It's a bigger nation-building project than the Snowy River hydro scheme and the Defence investment in our new shipbuilding program. Clearly, the NDIS is improving the wellbeing of people with a disability. The insurance approach allows pressures on the scheme to be identified early and to have strategies to respond to these pressures. The specific strategies to address these pressures include: the introduction of the Early Childhood Early Intervention gateway, which aims to support children within the mainstream services; the introduction of typical support packages to establish support for participants with specific characteristics; increased risk based quality assurance at access and plan approval; increased staff training; and the redesign of the participant pathway to provide a stronger focus on participant outcomes and goals and sustainability.

Currently, the best estimate of the longer term cost of a well-managed NDIS is $22 billion a year at full scheme, which we are able to fund through our revenue streams. There have been several positive stories with NDIS, particularly when the minister and staff can assist in this process. Sometimes it can be difficult for families. My office was assisted to help Robin Robertson and her two-year-old son Jack in transitioning from the care of state Helping Children with Autism to the NDIS. Robin said, 'The vision I have for my son Jack is that he will be able to fully participate in life and have successful relationships.' And further: 'At two years and nine months, Jack has a crucial window of learning ahead of him. The importance of building new pathways in his brain over the next few years will determine his ability to successfully manage in the world as an adult.'

Lynne Walker of Nowra is another constituent that we have assisted. Lynne's son Gavin was automatically eligible for the NDIS, but her other son Damon was not. Both were diagnosed with autism from a young age and received the same treatment previously. We were able to resolve this, and Damon was successful in receiving an NDIS package.

In December 2017, Robyn Fitzgerald submitted a review of her son Brad. Brad's package was nearly one-third of the funding he was receiving prior to the NDIS. He'd already depleted his funding despite halving the hours of care he receives. This matter was referred to the NDIS by our office, and we received the following:

Robyn was called by the NDIA on Friday. She asked for a phone conversation with someone who could help her explaining what was needed. Robyn had that phone conversation today at interchange with a staff member … She received a phone call on the way home letting her know that the plan would be emailed to her tomorrow and would begin now for a period of 12 months.

Finally, I received this letter from Fiona Stewart of Milton, after helping with her son, Robert:

Dear Mrs Sudmalis,

I'm writing to thank you for your assistance in resolving a long running delay in the progress on my son, Robert's NDIS eligibility … With the help of the team in the minister's office Robert came out of the process feeling that he'd had the chance to express himself well and discuss his support need in a positive environment. We have now received his plan and are very satisfied that it will meet his medium-term needs while he is able to remain in our home. We have since commenced dialogue with local service providers regarding independent living options.

Minister, can you detail and describe the overall success of the NDIS rollout as it is happening all over Australia, without specific reference to the problems which are of course incurred when there's such a big rollout program? They need to be put together, and we need to make sure that we recognise the good whilst we also address the ones that are causing grief for families.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no doubt in anyone's mind, I would think, that it is incredibly difficult to live on Newstart. The rate of Newstart is so low that it's acting as a barrier to people actually finding work. Businesses, unions and experts have all agreed on this. Indeed, the Business Council of Australia—representing the establishment, if you like, the biggest of corporate Australia—has clearly said that the rate of Newstart is too low. Most people in the parliament, I think, agree—whether publicly or privately, at the least. The member for Chisholm, however, has said publicly '$40 a day is fine, you can live on that, but there are far too many Australians who can't get a job.'

We hear a lot from the government that they have created a million jobs—the million jobs!

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They don't tell us, of course, that since 2013, half of those million jobs were actually given to people on temporary work visas. We don't hear much about that. Minister, we don't hear much about the 1.1 million Australians that are underemployed, that want more work, that need to work more hours and that can't get those hours. We don't hear the inconvenient truth that there are 40,000 more people in the unemployment queue than when your government were elected. That million jobs figure is apparently a smoke and mirrors thing to distract from what's really going on. Buried in those figures, Minister, there are 470,000 Australians that are long-term unemployed. They've been on Newstart for 12 months. It's totally unacceptable.

Newstart, of course, is meant to be a temporary payment; you're not meant to live on it lifelong. But when you're on that kind of money long term, real damage sets in. What do you think a decent government would do? You could be honest that it's too low and say: 'We're going to review the system. We're fiscally constrained; it's tough, but we acknowledge it's a problem and we'll have a look at it.' That's Labor policy. At the very least you could do nothing, Minister. You could say quietly, 'We're not going to look at this at the moment.' But the government's policy is to not even do nothing. They're so arrogant and out of touch that they're still pursuing a cut to Newstart of $8.80 per fortnight, by axing the energy supplement. Let's be very clear, Minister, on why you haven't managed to do this yet. It's because Labor has fought hard for the last two years to protect vulnerable Australians from Newstart cuts. That is the only reason this hasn't happened yet. So it's time for the government, through this budget, to drop your unfair cut to Australians on Newstart. The former Prime Minister wanted to make young people wait for six months before getting any income support, but Labor defeated that cut because Labor believes in a society that protects and invests in people, and not in demonising Australians who need our social security safety net.

I'm going to put clear and specific questions to the minister. You did fail to answer any of my questions last time. I'll give you one out of 10. You didn't mention the pension age of 70. You did say the word 'pension', so we'll word associate and give you one mark out of 10 for that! But I'm going to be optimistic, Minister, even hopeful, that you might answer—a moment of redemption. I did say to the minister in a speech previously that we have something in common; it was a moment of empathy again. We are both scared of the member for Jagajaga!

I'm scared of her—I've known her for 22 years—and you're scared of her—we see it in question time. She's sick today; she's not here, so you can relax. You can settle in, and you can tell the truth. Nothing bad is going to happen. There's no reason to be scared.

My questions, Minister: What is the maximum rate of the energy supplement that someone on Newstart could receive today? What is the current fortnightly maximum payment for a single person with no dependants on Newstart, including the energy supplement? What will be the fortnightly maximum payment for a single person on Newstart if the government's plan to remove the energy supplement for new applicants is successful? How much less will a new applicant receive per fortnight? Isn't it the case that by axing the energy supplement the Turnbull government is essentially cutting Newstart to the most vulnerable? That's a yes/no question. It's pretty much multiple-choice. You've got a 50 per cent chance of getting that one right. We know you're not fully across the detail yet. And how many people on Newstart will see their energy supplement cut?

We have had a bit of this in Senate estimates. You're not there, so maybe we'll get something better from you, Minister, but it tends to go sideways. I know your talking point over there will say somewhere: 'Newstart hasn't changed,' but that is waffle. What we need are answers that talk about the cash that goes into peoples' pockets, because in the real world when you're living hand to mouth—I've doorknocked swathes of my electorate—$10 is a lot of money to people living hand to mouth, and taking $4.40 off people per week is material over the year. You have an opportunity for here for redemption, Minister. You could show that this forum is not as meaningless as question time and actually answer the questions.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the people in my electorate who are older, who are over 65. They've contributed so much to this country. One of the things I'd like to do, Minister, is thank those people for their contribution to Australia, because the great country that we have, which we all benefit from living in and sharing now, has been left to us because of the actions, the lives and the contributions that they've made.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you member for Goldstein.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Goldstein was warned about banging desks earlier today.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The age pension is the backbone of the lives of many retired Australians not just in my electorate but right around Australia. It's a safety net, and it's a guaranteed hand-up for those who have spent their lives contributing to our nation and to our work force. Young fellows like me in their mid-40s—I'm still there—have superannuation if we're working. Even if we've got the minimum contribution of 9½ per cent, when we get to retirement age of 67—which Labor raised it to, by the way—we'll have money from superannuation that we can use. You know what? That's actually the pension age, but even if we retired when we were 63, we could use our superannuation. We could draw down on that and use it for five, six, seven or eight years. The further that goes, the greater job that we're doing for the taxpayer, which is really important.

It has been difficult for pensioners to receive an income from employment and not have their pension reduced. Many pensioners in my electorate have extensive experience in a wide range of fields and can still make a valuable contribution to the workforce—because of their experience there's a lot that they can offer—but asset testing and income deductions don't always make it worthwhile. When you see job applications online today, employers are looking for experience. They'd do well to hire older Australians, because statistics show that they have fewer sick days, and they've also got a lot to contribute and to pass on to younger Australians whom they can mentor. Many people with decades of experience can ensure the workforce remains sustainable, and they can pass on career and life lessons to younger generations. So it's important that we, as a government, continue to encourage older Australians to stay engaged in the workforce for as long as they choose to, and many people in my electorate do choose to do that. The way to do this is to have an age-pension scheme that works in practice, not just on paper. Everyday Australians want to be supported, valued and free to make their own decisions. As a federal government, we need to make sure Australians have more choice in retirement and give people the flexibility to design a retirement that suits them, not one that just fits within a heap of rules.

If you look at the opposition's plans for retirement for pensioners, it's clear the Leader of the Opposition is incredibly out of touch with the Australian community. Labor always make sure they appear to be saying the right thing, but the devil is in the detail. Labor's poorly designed retirement tax will hurt pensioners not just in Petrie but in Longman and Braddon—probably in the minister's seat as well. It will punish well-prepared, organised and self-reliant Australians who've worked hard to support themselves and are actually contributing by helping their dollar go a bit further. Instead, what Labor want to do is tax them—no surprise there.

Australians are living longer, which means we're working longer. The feedback from my electorate is that it's not easy to just stop working at 63 or 67—or whenever it is you want to retire or when you can retire—when you still feel like you can continue to contribute. The fact is a lot of older Australians really want to keep working. You'll find that, when they do retire, they're often busier than ever. Have they said that to you?

A Labor government would place grandparents in the firing line, particularly lower income retirees. No matter what side of politics we come from, we should all unite to appreciate retirees and thank them for their lifelong contributions. Minister, could you address how this year's budget protects pensioners but also encourages them to remain and engage in the workforce.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll spare you the pensioner energy supplement and, while the member for Ryan is in the chamber—you're the senior cabinet minister overseeing the NDIS; congratulations, great Labor reform—I want to ask you a specific question and I hope for a real answer. I'll be serious. Could take this one on notice. I have written to the member for Ryan about it. I'm still hopeful for an answer. She's usually very good, despite what you did to her—that is, the Liberal Party. I spoke in parliament on 21 May, but I still haven't had a response.

I'm speaking on behalf of Caddie Whitehead and her son, Xabian. Xabian has severe cerebral palsy. He is under six. He attends the Cerebral Palsy Education Centre in my electorate—one of the best centres in Australia. It's a flagship program that operates in a transdisciplinary setting: they have an occupational therapist, a physio and speech pathologist in the same class, and families. So part of the benefit of this program—I've visited it myself—is that parents and carers learn from other families. It's been brilliant and going for over 20 years. It's been evaluated numerous times and is studied nationally and internationally, but it is under threat and about to close—that's not an exaggeration; I've met with the chair of the board and the CEO—because of the NDIS pricing structure.

The default pricing structure for this kind of group program requires a two-to-one funding ratio of staff to recipient, but three to one is required for this program. The model that you're still currently operating is a one-size-fits-all model. I think this is a terrible situation. They're fundraising. They've another fundraising dinner on Saturday night. It's bandaids and sticky tape, but they said they cannot keep sustaining this and they've been hoping to have the issue resolved for 12 months.

It is a ridiculous false economy in that this early intervention improves lives and saves money down the track. The member for Ryan's nodding; I think we agree on this. Minister, can you please intervene and fix this? The rigid pricing structure isn't working. I would be very happy to host you or the member for Ryan and visit the class.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bruce for that question. I'll talk to the assistant minister, and we will get back to you. The government will have more to say on pricing in the coming days—that is imminent.

I ask the member for Bruce if he could pass on my best wishes to the member for Jagajaga, and I hope that she gets better soon. Please, I would like no-one to get the impression that I don't in any way have a very good working relationship with her. I find her absolutely professional in the way she goes about her job. I would like to put to rest any idea of intimidation or anything like that, and I wish her well.

I thank the member for Petrie for his question. He is absolutely right that this year's budget was all about benefitting pensioners and, in particular, about the pension work bonus, which gives greater flexibility for our pensioners to do additional work. For a single pensioner it means an extra $50 a fortnight, so they can now earn up to $300 a fortnight, which is incredibly important. The Treasurer was very keen about making sure there's flexibility, so they don't have to earn it over 52 weeks of the year but can earn it in a period. Basically, they can boost their retirement income by up to $17,800. That is really important, and I thank him for the interest he has in this issue and also for his strong advocacy for pensioners. He knows how important it is that we are respectful of pensioners and retirees. He's absolutely right. The idea that you would hit retirees and by extension some pensioners with a tax of $5 billion a year beggars belief for us on this side. We cannot comprehend how any government could do that. It will impact his electorate; it will impact mine. As a matter of fact, the constituents of every member of parliament will be impacted by this.

Can I go to some previous questions which I didn't get around to answering. One was to do with the indexation of UK pensions, which has been a longstanding issue of concern for the Australian government. So that the shadow minister for human services is aware, I've been advised that in the margins of CHOGM the Prime Minister raised the UK policy on pension indexation directly with the UK Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Theresa May MP. This is an issue which both sides of government have raised over many years, and we will continue to do so at the highest level because it's incredibly important. On deeming rates, we will continue to monitor returns from financial investments and the appropriateness of deeming rates. When it comes to rebalancing the pension, can I just advise the shadow minister that 90 per cent of pensioners are either better off or have had no change to their pension under this measure. When it comes to raising the pension age, I really do think the best way to answer this question is to quote from a media release which was put out by the member for Lilley and the member for Jagajaga in 2009 where they said:

Increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians.

I put that quote on the record because I think it's an incredibly important one in this debate. Can I say to the member for Gilmore, when it comes to the NDIS she's absolutely right that this is an incredibly important reform. It's transformational. Already we're seeing 160,000 participants in the scheme, 40,000 of whom have never received services before from the Commonwealth or state governments. Over the coming months 750 additional staff will be brought on board as the rollout continues to ramp up.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:34