Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today.

I take note of all answers to questions to ministers in question time today as a special request from the National Party, so I look forward to their contribution to this debate. I hope that they will not shy away from the opportunity that I will provide when I focus on the questions to Senator Cormann and his answers regarding this year's budget.

As was canvassed clearly in question time today, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, promised—perhaps not in writing but he did promise—that this budget would not come at the expense of the family budget. So let us look very clearly at where the arrangements in this budget are coming from. The focus on families and, in particular, on mothers is astounding. I was shocked to hear Mr Hockey admit that, on Mother's Day, he had failed to ring his mother, but when I saw the budget I understood how ill informed and insubstantial his understanding of some very important issues is, because this budget locks in the family tax benefit cuts to single-income families, where a family on $65,000 a year can lose $6,000. But, on top of that, there is a bonus. It is not like the John Howard family bonuses, or baby bonuses. Instead we have a different bonus in this budget: we have savage new cuts to parental leave arrangements that will impact on 80,000 mothers.

When you look at the design of what is in the budget, you understand that the only person in this place that comprehended the Productivity Commission report recommending the arrangements for paid parental leave is Senator Arthur Sinodinos. He understood the design of the system and the plan. He would not get up and suggest that these mothers were rorting or double-dipping. It is extraordinarily insulting. Let me run through the detail of why. What the Productivity Commission recommended was that we set up a publicly funded scheme to provide for 18 weeks paid parental leave, because here in Australia we could work towards an objective of mothers taking 26 weeks, or six months, to care for their child, and a fair proportion of Australian mothers had access to other leave arrangements as well.

I wonder what this government—now that Senator Brandis is here, he will be interested to hear this—will now say to the international community. We were able to say we had a publicly funded scheme designed to support mothers to take six months leave, but we will no longer be able to say that. What we have now, according to this proposal, is a scheme based on a bare bones period of 18 weeks. But we also have a fairly unworkable scheme. I look forward to seeing the design, how this government proposes these arrangements will work industrially, because I cannot fathom how they will even be able to make that work.

Senator Cormann tells us today that we, the Labor Party, focus on politics over substance. Well, where is the substance in this budget, seriously? I see no detail about how they can make a workable scheme to deny these 80,000 mothers access to paid parental leave arrangements to allow them to spend that six months. I see no comprehension other than the government's attempt to back down and say, 'Oh, we'll negotiate about family tax benefit B cuts.' And what do we see from the National Party? 'Oh, um, we'll take this out of the budget context and, um, oh, gosh, we'll deal with it in the tax white paper.' Well, I am sorry, but families who are looking at losing their family tax benefit B—$6,000 a year—are worried about this now. Senator Canavan might talk about two tax-free thresholds and other options in the tax white paper, but he needs to deliver a result on this now, before these single-income families lose $6,000 a year. This is what cannot wait. And this is what Senator Cormann is able to avoid because, in the coalition, the National Party has gone silent.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator, your time expired sometime ago. I am sorry I was somewhat distracted.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly was not going to seek leave to have Senator Collins's time extended, but she did get an extension! I rise to take note of answers to all questions. I feel sorry for Senator Gallagher. She is new to the place and she got thrown over the cliff without a parachute in a big way today.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, she didn't.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She certainly did. I do not know who was feeding her the questions from the Labor Party's team that goes through the questions, but Senator Brandis was excellent in his answer, saying: 'No cuts there, sorry. You're in the wrong street. You're in the wrong address.' Anyway, we are not here to talk about that. No doubt Senator Gallagher will learn. Next time a question comes to her, hopefully she will not be set up again. How embarrassing were the answers to the questions to Senator Brandis?

Senator Collins mentioned paid parental leave. I have said all my life that life is about families. I will give an example. My daughter, Rebecca, works in the public sector. She had a little girl last September, my gorgeous little granddaughter, Ella. Becky was paid 18 weeks minimum pay from the Paid Parental Leave scheme. She also got 14 weeks full-time pay from her employer, a government department. Here is a problem. We get complaints from the private sector that, when they go to employ people, young women especially are saying, 'No; I want to get a job in the public sector, because you get double paid parental leave.' So it is a negative to the private sector, where they cannot get these employees. I have had businesses ring me, saying, 'We want to put on three young ladies in particular jobs, but they don't want to work for us because they only get the 18 weeks Paid Parental Leave scheme, whereas in the public sector they get a double scheme.' So I think it is time that the system was corrected here to make it fair. The system we have brought forward is fair. It balances up those in the private sector who wish to employ people with those in the public sector who wish to employ people. I do not think my daughter, Rebecca, will be too impressed with it if God blesses them with another baby—but time will tell on that.

We are talking about the budget. There have been a lot of questions, as would be expected, since Tuesday night's great budget announced by the Treasurer, Joe Hockey. It is a great budget for regional and rural Australia and for small business. A lot of businesses have told me how quiet sales, especially in retail, have been. The incentive is now there for businesses, especially those in rural areas, where we are celebrating such great commodity prices. Cattle prices are at record highs after the disgraceful treatment of the beef industry by those opposite, who banned live exports and caused so much damage to the beef industry. To see prices of $2.70 to $2.80 for steers and prices of $3.30 live weight for young weaners is tremendous. Not only are prices high in the beef industry the sheep industry, the lamb industry and the mutton industry are getting prices of $140, $150, $160 even up to $200 for lambs. Combine that with good sorghum prices and the record chickpea prices—and the last week in the wool market—and we are seeing people on the land actually making money, because of the hard work of people such as Andrew Robb on the free trade agreements and Barnaby Joyce with his tremendous work in building more markets overseas.

People who are having a good financial year will face a tax bill. It is always good to pay tax because it means you are making money, especially if you are on the land. Now they have incentive to go and spend some of that money. It might be for a new generator, a new computer for the house, perhaps a new chainsaw or an ATV, as we call them, four-wheel motorbikes—they are a dangerous item, too, I might add; there are too many accidents and deaths caused by them each year. These people can take it straight off their tax. That means those businesses in country communities who are selling those products will have a surge in their business. There are two million small businesses in Australia. They are the country's biggest employer, with almost five million people. If we can get them to employ another million people over the next five, six or seven years, that will be great for employment and for growth in those small businesses.

During question time, those opposite criticised our budget. It showed that they do not understand small business, that they do not understand rural Australia and that they do not realise that every big business actually started as a small business. That is why I think we had done such a really good job with this year's budget.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers provided by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. The budget delivered on Tuesday is an unfair budget. Despite that, the Treasurer wants Australians to 'have a go'. The Prime Minister said, 'We, the coalition government, are not going to repair our budget this year at the expense of your family budget.' Guess what? We now have higher taxes, more spending, a larger deficit and more debt, with greater projected unemployment. At the same time, the budget locks in the unfairness of last year's budget, which included an $80 billion cut to hospitals and schools, locks in the cuts to family payments and locks in degrees costing in excess of $100,000.

That Treasurer deeply offends the young mothers of Australia who rely on payments, who he describes as rorters or double-dippers. He is cutting up to $6,000 of their family payments a year. Mr Tony Abbott's second budget locks in his unfair cuts to family payments while imposing savage cuts to paid parental leave. Despite promising that the budget would not come at the expense of the family budget, Mr Abbott still wants to cut family tax benefit B for families when their youngest child turns six. He still wants to freeze family tax benefit rates. The Prime Minister wants to rip a further $967.7 million from paid parental leave, in a new cut that will push around 80,000 mothers off paid parental leave, leaving them up to $11½ thousand worse off. This will also mean that they will be able to spend less time with their babies in the early years of their baby's life. Is that how we treat the young mothers and new mothers of Australia? It was good to hear Mr Turnbull say, 'It is very important that the government respect and show due empathy for families and mothers.' But Mr Abbott does not care about that. He wants to abolish the large-family supplement and the low-income supplement.

Right now, we have a government that has cut millions from the health and hospital budget. I am deeply concerned for my constituents back home in the Northern Territory, in particular the families of the Palmerston region. I have been raising concerns about the need for Palmerston Regional Hospital, which is to be built in one of the fastest growing places in Australia, not just the Northern Territory, with more residents now than Alice Springs. Construction on the Palmerston hospital is supposed to start this month, but it is so far behind schedule, even though the Country Liberal government says it is on track. It has failed to meet every single deadline. Where is it? Earlier this week, the Northern Territory government awarded a tender for water mains. That is laughable—I am starting to wonder whether it is going to be a hospital or a water park. The Northern Territory government blames the federal government and the feds are blaming the Northern Territory government. This budget was supposed to deliver $35 million to the Northern Territory government in its agreement for the construction of the hospital, but it has not. I repeat: there is no construction; we see no bricks.

Last year's budget papers show that the federal government gave the Northern Territory government $20 million. It did the same this year, but the question needs to be asked: what has the Northern Territory government done with that money? There is no construction and no new development. In this budget there is no money committed to the Palmerston Regional Hospital at all, nothing.

The federal government has failed the families of Palmerston. The Northern Territory government has failed the people of Palmerston and the Darwin region. They both need to explain themselves.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by rebutting some of the misrepresentations that Senator Peris made in her contribution. Let me be very clear: in this budget school and hospital funding continue to increase each and every year. Total school funding increases by 28 per cent, or $4.1 billion, over the next four years. I directly rebut her comments in relation to hospital funding. Total hospital funding increases by 25 per cent, or $3.8 billion, over the next four years. That comes on top of growth of 12 per cent in this year alone.

I will also rebut the issues that have been raised in relation to paid parental leave. Over recent months, the government has consulted very widely on this issue and listened to the priorities that families have as to how we can best support them and help them to balance that very important work and family life. Families have told us that right now the best thing that we as a government can do to support them is to deliver a childcare system that is not only affordable but also flexible and more accessible. That is why in this budget we have delivered the jobs for families package with $3.5 billion extra in child care.

But those opposite do not seem to understand that when you do spend in one area, you have to save in another. That was something that was totally alien to them when they were in government. One only has to look at the debt and deficit mess that they left us to understand that those opposite have no idea about the fundamentals of economy. They try to pretend that the debt and deficit disaster legacy that they left us with just did not happen. It really has nothing to do with them! The trajectory that we were on of $123 billion in cumulative deficits and the debt trajectory of $667 billion had absolutely nothing to do with them! For six years they reigned supreme on one of the worst economic times in this country, but they have absolutely nothing to do with it! It has everything to do with everything else, but nothing to do with them!

This evening, I am looking forward to hearing Bill Shorten give us an explanation as to why it has absolutely nothing to do with him. I think he is going to come up with some fantasy to try to explain his way out of it. I remind those listening that Labor's legacy to us was not just the debt and deficit legacy that I mentioned but also more than 50,000 illegal arrivals and the world's biggest carbon tax. In relation to Mr Shorten, I also remind the Senate that Labor turned $50 billion in the bank into projected net debt well over $200 billion. That is the fastest deterioration in debt in dollar terms and as a share of GDP in modern Australia.

He leads a Labor Party that really has not changed and really has not reformed itself. It continues to stand for higher taxes, including a carbon tax; bigger debts and deficits; and open borders. That is what your six years of chaos gave us and that is what you continue to stand for. Remember the Julia Gillard memorial halls? Remember the $900 that went to people who were dead? I understand that even went to the odd pet as well.

Senator Cash interjecting—

That is right, Senator Cash! There was waste and mismanagement. They delivered higher taxes. There were record boat arrivals that came at $12 billion cost, which Senator Cash has repeatedly told us about, there was debt and deficit damage as far as the eye can see.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say at the outset that the previous speaker for the government, when she talks about the tax record of the Abbott government, obviously has not been reading what the former Treasurer, Mr Costello, said about the fact that the Abbott government believes that their taxes are lower, simpler and fairer. He thinks it is a morbid joke. I can actually tell the previous senator who spoke that that is exactly what the community is thinking. We have got 17 new taxes under this budget. It was actually quite interesting in the previous contribution that they could not use the five minutes to actually say why their budget was good. She maybe gave it two minutes, tops; there was three minutes of furphies all over the place. She did not talk about the fact that the Abbott government has failed their test: spending is up, taxes are up, the deficit is up and unemployment is up. That is the record that they have. They should own it.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Talk about what you left! Respond to what I said!

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have interjecting again because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts and they do not want to hear the fact that at the core of this budget is the unfairness that was in their last budget. That last budget was totally repudiated by the Australian community. In Tasmania, I know what the previous budget was going to do to pensioners had those pensioners fearful. You had pensioners fearful of what the government was doing. I am sure other senators in this chamber know that.

Here we have at the core of this budget, again, the unfairness that was rampant in the last one. They are dressing it up, but it is still there. There are still cuts to health and education. They remain. The previous speaker said there were increases. We know that they had already cut $80 billion to health and education. There is a new $2 billion cut in this budget to health. There are still cuts to family payments. There are still $100,000 degrees on the table. This budget is a rehash of the unfair measures that we saw in the last budget. Mr Abbott has not changed. We know that this is more a budget about saving his skin, saving his job, than a budget for the Australian people. It is a budget that has failed the future test, and it is a budget that has failed the fairness test.

In his contribution Senator Williams talked in part about paid parental leave—80,000 mothers worse off. He never mentioned the number. He talked about the fact that he believes—in fact, his contribution really beggars belief—that women were taking positions in the public sector to be able to access an extra paid parental scheme. I find that just amazing—that he thinks there are enough jobs out there for people to be picking and choosing. I tell you what, under this government, job security in the public sector just is not there, after what they have done.

Their budget is short-sighted. There is nothing in it for Australia's future. We know that Mr Abbott was fighting for his own political survival, and we know that the inherent unfairness of the previous budget is there. As has already been stated in other contributions, there were the other $80 billion cuts to hospitals and schools. We know that the higher education policies are still there. We know that there are cuts to family payments. And we know that even on Mr Hockey's own numbers he has doubled the deficit in one year. That is on Mr Hockey's own numbers. This government should be ashamed of bringing down a budget that is for Mr Abbott's future and not Australia's.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this motion to take note of all answers given today, and I wish to take note of the answer given by the senator representing the Prime Minster, Senator Brandis, to a question without notice I asked today relating to a secret or confidential royal commission report examining organised crime, union and/or political corruption.

Before I move into the detail of my speech I would like to acknowledge and thank my Independent crossbench colleague Senator Madigan, who kindly allowed me to take his scheduled question without notice. I consulted with Senator Madigan about the question I asked of Senator Abetz. He immediately realised the importance and urgency of my question's subject matter. Senator Madigan selflessly gave up his rostered question without notice so that I could try to force an explanation from the government about an extraordinary matter. Yesterday, after finding out about the existence of an explosive confidential or secret report written by Royal Commissioner Heydon, who looked at organised crime, union and/or political corruption, I wrote to the former justice and asked him if he could share that report with me and the other crossbench senators. Put simply, this report, judging by its brief description in last December's royal commission interim report, must be one of the most important and explosive documents ever written in recent Australian political history. It is not every day that a very experienced and respected judicial officer, in justification for making a document confidential, writes:

It is necessary for that volume to be confidential in order to protect the physical well-being of those witnesses and their families. This is unfortunate, because the confidential volume reveals grave threats to the power and authority of the Australian state.

I will repeat that key phrase again, just to give the listener time to think properly about the extraordinary nature of the royal commissioner's comment: 'because the confidential volume reveals grave threats to the power and authority of the Australian state'.

Implicit in these words is a warning, and from an important, informed judicial officer, that somehow the good government of Australia—indeed, the very authority of Australian government—is under threat by an unknown hostile entity. And even thought the Prime Minister's representatives in this house of parliament, Senator Brandis, continued today with his tricky, sly and evasive replies to my straightforward questions, we know from media transcripts of the ABC's 7.30 that there is a strong link between the threats to power and authority of the Australian state and the Abbott government's—and I will use Senator Abetz's own words—'Registered Organisations Commission legislation and the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission'.

Now, every senator in this place knows that one of the biggest and most important decisions we will have to make in the near future is whether to vote for the controversial government's laws that take away building workers' basic civil rights—the right to an assumption of innocence, the right to silence et cetera—so that we can address the widespread lawlessness and possible influence of organised crime in Australia's building and construction industry. Any responsible person would assume that if a government had a report that contained findings of a royal commission that were relevant to the legislation at hand then the government would bend over backwards to make sure that every senator, especially Independent crossbench senators, were made aware of the information in that confidential report. But what we had confirmed today is that this government has deliberately covered up that confidential report. Even more concerning is the fact that there is not just one secret report but two secret government reports containing potentially explosive, damning information about corruption and organised crime affecting Australia's building and construction industry.

The second report I refer to is the Hadgkiss report, which a letter from Royal Commissioner Heydon that I have just received today confirms was also covered up by the former Liberal state government. Royal Commissioner Heydon writes to me: 'In April 2014 commission staff contacted the Victorian government to request a copy of the Hadgkiss report. The Victorian government declined to provide one.' So, in summary, we have two explosive secret reports into alleged union corruption and links to organised crime have been covered up by two Liberal governments. It is likely that the reputations of both major political parties, Labor and Liberal, may be harmed if these reports were ever made public or viewed by independent parliamentarians.

In closing, the government must come clean. We can protect witnesses by de-identifying those secret documents. It is a simple process with precedence in this Senate. Crossbench senators must be allowed to view these documents before they cast their vote.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

Question agreed to.